On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 18:00:21 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

Wayne B Wrote in message:r
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 05:57:54 -0500 (EST), justan Wrote in message:r On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), wrote:Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four
federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct onCapitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said
Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then hadfollowed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search
warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shootingprotesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who
crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the hallslooking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. § 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the
Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed womenstuckin a window?The first is I imminent danger. None here.The second. Where was the offense against a person?Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"part.You might want to drop in on Wayne and see how he's doing. He doesn't seem to be as rational as he used to be.===I'm available for rationality testing with the offer of an adultbeverage or two. :-)

Might be that could happen. We enjoyed the last visit.

===

Any time.