You failed to include that Byrd was on the other side of a barricaded door so couldn't give aid. Other officers arrived at almost the same time on that other side of the door and did provide aid and took control of the area. The seating area in the Speaker's lobby is how far from the entrance to the Speaker's lobby?
It doesn't matter. He could have remained on scene as a presence to prevent any more rioters from trying what Babbitt did. He left and it fell on line-officers mixed in with rioters to deal with the situation. Byrd fled the scene.
Would you care to provide any evidence in support of this claim? Or are you able to make wild accusations without any evidence simply because you are white?
A reprint from post #365
OMFG. At least a half dozen armed officers with long guns were on the other side of the barricaded door. On the one hand you are arguing that Byrd is incompetent and then on the other arguing that he is so competent that he, as one man with a handgun, is better able to control a mob than 6 officers in riot gear and AR-15s.
Clearly, they saw the rioters as far less of a threat than Byrd did since the rioters didn't attempt to overpower any of them now did they?
ROFLMAO...
No. Clearly, most of the rioters fled after the gun shot and with the arrival of the other officers.
All of those have to do with his work as an officer. Firing on a vehicle fleeing is another violation of federal use of force guidelines. Conduct unbecoming is a direct violation of his work ethics. Losing your service arm is generally a firing offense particularly when you already have previous misconduct on your record. The fourth one shows he continued to fuck up even after the shooting incident. How the fuck do you fail shotgun training? That goes something like:
3 instances in 21 years. How many officers go 21 years with only 3? Chauvin had 17 in 20 years.
Your argument is he should have been fired long before Jan 6, 2021 for something he did after Jan 6t, 2021. It seems you don't realize how idiotic that makes your argument.
Missing records adds nothing to your credibility.
Random words. No apparent coherency.
When's the trial if what you claim is true?
I'm not the one that stated that. That was in the article I cited. Take it up with them.
Complex question fallacy. Your statement is irrelevant.
That's interesting. The only study I see shows over 50% of officers with 11 years of service have had at least one complaint of excessive force. Do you have a source for your claim? That the majority have had no complaints or disciplinary action of any kind? The study doesn't include any disciplinary action for other infractions but it would be impossible for those to be negative in nature.
You are making claims that aren't supported. He has had 3 instances in 21 years which doesn't appear to be that different from half of officers.
You are the one that is trying to use the missing records to show him as being a bad officer.
He could not have moved into the hallway, there were folks there beating on the windows with those hard hats. You "assume" all sorts of stuff, but that doesn't change the reality. Folks he was there to protect were hunkered down in that very room.
Since you know that, tell us who conducted the investigation.
Not only was there a crowd out there. The doors were barricaded with furniture. He would have had to move the chairs blocking the doors, unlock the doors and then open them. T.A. is demanding that he act in a manner that would have been foolish if not impossible.
The problem with a lot of police errors is the training or lack of. But in the end training can never actually match the real world experience where training can go out the window with the rush of adrenaline.
Translation: I'm full of shit and refuse to answer your question about a trial since no charges will ever be filed.
