Now We Need To Revisit Lt. Michael Byrd

Jarod said:
Miles away? Regardless, Pence was hiding just down the hall, and a mob was breaking into the area, the shot stopped them cold.

Funny how people defend cops for crushing a on a single guys neck while he is telling them he cant breath. But, attack when an angry mob is advancing toward the VP and after warnings they shoot the person breaching the door between them.
Click to expand...
Definitely not there. Nobody there was chanting "hang Mike Pence", that's you making more stuff up. It begins to make me think that you don't believe that the actual events are enough to take seriously. You should stick to the facts, jack. Stop trying to fluff those up, when you do that you give folks traction in their argument against you. If you are in court trying to prove someone's guilt and you use made up evidence, when the other side tears that apart it makes the jury think you've made up more than just the parts you "fluffed".

Just quit it, stick to the actual events. These people were not saying anything like that. Talk about how they used hard hats to break the window to get into that room. Show that there were people still in there that needed protection from a mob. Don't say that they were saying something they were not, or try to give them "plans" when they were in the middle of mobthink and there was no central plan happening.

What happened that day is enough, you do not need to fictionalize portions of it in the hopes you can make it "seem worse".
 
Damocles said:
Definitely not there. Nobody there was chanting "hang Mike Pence", that's you making more stuff up. It begins to make me think that you don't believe that the actual events are enough to take seriously. You should stick to the facts, jack. Stop trying to fluff those up, when you do that you give folks traction in their argument against you. If you are in court trying to prove someone's guilt and you use made up evidence, when the other side tears that apart it makes the jury think you've made up more than just the parts you "fluffed".

Just quit it, stick to the actual events. These people were not saying anything like that. Talk about how they used hard hats to break the window to get into that room. Show that there were people still in there that needed protection from a mob. Don't say that they were saying something they were not, or try to give them "plans" when they were in the middle of mobthink and there was no central plan happening.

What happened that day is enough, you do not need to fictionalize portions of it in the hopes you can make it "seem worse".
Click to expand...
The mob chanted, Hang Mike Pence, and the security officers very likely knew that. There is a reason the general public is not allowed insecurred access to the VP.

Try breaking a security perimeter protecting a VP, if you are with an angry mob already trespassing, you are very likely to be shot.
 
Jarod said:
The mob chanted, Hang Mike Pence, and the security officers very likely knew that. There is a reason the general public is not allowed insecurred access to the VP.

Try breaking a security perimeter protecting a VP, if you are with an angry mob already trespassing, you are very likely to be shot.
Click to expand...
You are again pretending knowledge and making stuff up rather than sticking to the facts. There is no evidence that they "likely knew" anything of the sort, and when you try to "fluff" and romanticize it you give traction to the argument of your opponent. I can't believe that you have ever had success in a job where you actually must argue cases.

If you present things that are not in evidence, it simply makes you look like you do not have evidence. Stop doing that.

There is enough evidence to show that it was a mob, and that they were breaking into the chamber. Attributing chants to people that were not chanting things, or thoughts to the other side doesn't "help" your case, it just tells your opponent you are not sure the evidence that you do have isn't enough, so you fictionalize.
 
Damocles said:
You are again pretending knowledge and making stuff up rather than sticking to the facts. There is no evidence that they "likely knew" anything of the sort, and when you try to "fluff" and romanticize it you give traction to the argument of your opponent. I can't believe that you have ever had success in a job where you actually must argue cases.

If you present things that are not in evidence, it simply makes you look like you do not have evidence. Stop doing that.

There is enough evidence to show that it was a mob, and that they were breaking into the chamber. Attributing chants to people that were not chanting things, or thoughts to the other side doesn't "help" your case, it just tells your opponent you are not sure the evidence that you do have isn't enough, so you fictionalize.
Click to expand...
You do not think they were informed about what was going on?

Regardless of the chanting, it was a mob, and they were, after warnings breaking into a secure area wherein the VP was hiding. They were seconds away from him.

There is nothing "in evidence" in a chat room. Silly. Did you not see the video? It was a mob in that stair way. Are you blind to reality?

What do you believe was going to happen when they found Mike Pence?
 
For the record, I think the Capital Police should have nonlethal weapons (rubber bullets for instance) to use against mobs so that they can stop them before it gets to that point.

I think they were ill prepared for that event, and we should figure out why and change that so that if something like this ever happens again they are better prepared with nonlethal options.
 
Damocles said:
For the record, I think the Capital Police should have nonlethal weapons (rubber bullets for instance) to use against mobs so that they can stop them before it gets to that point.

I think they were ill prepared for that event, and we should figure out why and change that so that if something like this ever happens again they are better prepared with nonlethal options.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that.

That is not what happened.
 
Jarod said:
You do not think they were informed about what was going on?

Regardless of the chanting, it was a mob, and they were, after warnings breaking into a secure area wherein the VP was hiding. They were seconds away from him.

There is nothing "in evidence" in a chat room. Silly. Did you not see the video? It was a mob in that stair way. Are you blind to reality?

What do you believe was going to happen when they found Mike Pence?
Click to expand...
I think they may have been, but saying "likely" and using it as evidence is the issue you have. What we see is enough evidence to prove that what happened wasn't "murder", IMHO. However, when you fictionalize and assume you give traction to the folks saying that you are hiding something.

Stop making stuff up and stick to what happened, you will find better success. I don't think they would find Mike Pence, I think he was not in that chamber. And I don't think they had a "plan" nor were they after anyone specific. They were a mob, and in mobthink.
 
Damocles said:
I think they may have been, but saying "likely" and using it as evidence is the issue you have. What we see is enough evidence to prove that what happened wasn't "murder", IMHO. However, when you fictionalize and assume you give traction to the folks saying that you are hiding something.

Stop making stuff up and stick to what happened, you will find better success. I don't think they would find Mike Pence, I think he was not in that chamber. And I don't think they had a "plan" nor were they after anyone specific. They were a mob, and in mobthink.
Click to expand...
I think you are flyspecking to defend the idiocy of the Trumpper claims of murder.
 
Jarod said:
I think you are flyspecking to defend the idiocy of the Trumpper claims of murder.
Click to expand...
Right, because I said that I don't think it is in the very post you claimed this.... The actual same one you quoted.

You are incapable of an adult conversation. You don't even take the time to read what someone says. I suspect most people do not like conversations with you because you start arguing before they finished speaking.
 
Damocles said:
Right, because I said that I don't think it is in the very post you claimed this.... The actual same one you quoted.

You are incapable of an adult conversation. You don't even take the time to read what someone says. I suspect most people do not like conversations with you because you start arguing before they finished speaking.
Click to expand...
You are trying to have something to say to defend your people. Clear as day.

I never see you flyspecking their idiot claims.
 
Jarod said:
You are trying to have something to say to defend your people. Clear as day.

I never see you flyspecking their idiot claims.
Click to expand...
You don't like that I call out your fiction, stick to facts, and still conclude that the cop didn't "murder" Ashli. I don't know why, but it is likely because you are embarrassed by your own fictional accounts. That you do understand that it helps the other side negate your argument, but want to continue because you think it makes leftists like you more.

I think you have to suck at your job, I hope you are not a prosecutor, because using fiction to bolster your case actually does the opposite..
 
Jarod said:
We all knew that. @Damocles just needed to say something.
Click to expand...
JPP is a business. Controversy results in more posts and, therefore is good for business. While I think he believes most of the MAGA BS he's pushing, I think he pushes it harder to generate posts which is good for business. :thup:

This can be seen in who and what he responds to. :)
 
Dutch Uncle said:
JPP is a business. Controversy results in more posts and, therefore is good for business. While I think he believes most of the MAGA BS he's pushing, I think he pushes it harder to generate posts which is good for business. :thup:

This can be seen in who and what he responds to. :)
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree, I doubt he breaks even.
 
Jarod said:
Not sure I agree, I doubt he breaks even.
Click to expand...
That's all one needs to do for a hobby. :)

I weld as a hobby, among other things. Buying the materials costs money but if I can sell it and make even a little bit of money to pay for the initial out-of-pocket costs and buy new or better materials, I'm happy.

My wife's ex is a carpenter making cradles, chairs, little cabinets and stuff. He's very good but has filled a bedroom with all of his creations. My wife advised him to sell it off but he won't accept anything but top dollar. My view is the opposite. A hobby is not a job. As long as it pays for itself, I'm good.
 
AProudLefty said:
See those broken doors and windows? What do you think they were attempting to do? And do you think it was peaceful?

Violent rioting in this case had no reason to happen.
Click to expand...

But the far more violent rioting done in the name of St. Floyd the immaculate was fine.

See, that's the thing lefty - you fully support and promote violence, as long as it's perpetrated by your party. democrat brown shirts raped, pillaged, burned, and looted for months, with full support from those like you. 39 cops murdered, a trillion dollars in damages - but no problem, it was for the party.

A 3 hour protest over a rigged election though - THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top