| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#72
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Friend of Herring's?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote: All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand let alone prosecuted or convicted. Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your defense of this womans behavior? I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to shoot looters. === In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts are in doubt. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html Shame on you, Wayne. The phrase was "... imminent commission of a forcible felony". That word 'imminent' keeps rearing it's ugly head. There is another poster here who tends to quote only the parts he likes. I hope your commission was just a mistake. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
|
#73
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 09:01:17 -0500, John wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote: All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand let alone prosecuted or convicted. Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your defense of this womans behavior? I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to shoot looters. === In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts are in doubt. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html Shame on you, Wayne. The phrase was "... imminent commission of a forcible felony". That word 'imminent' keeps rearing it's ugly head. There is another poster here who tends to quote only the parts he likes. I hope your commission was just a mistake. === I think you meant omission rather than commission, and I feel no need for shame whatsoever. That said, here is the exact wording of the statute that I referenced: (b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. I'm not a lawyer, and I try to avoid playing one on the internet, but I see nothing that conflicts with our previous discussion. To me "imminent" means something that is likely about to happen. "Forcible Felony" is also fairly clear and includes a broad range of activities from assault to armed tresspass. Certainly assault on a federal law enforcement officer falls into that category. Do you disagree? |
|
#74
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 15:03:18 -0500, Wayne B
wrote: On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 09:01:17 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote: All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand let alone prosecuted or convicted. Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your defense of this womans behavior? I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to shoot looters. === In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts are in doubt. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html Shame on you, Wayne. The phrase was "... imminent commission of a forcible felony". That word 'imminent' keeps rearing it's ugly head. There is another poster here who tends to quote only the parts he likes. I hope your commission was just a mistake. === I think you meant omission rather than commission, and I feel no need for shame whatsoever. That said, here is the exact wording of the statute that I referenced: (b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. I'm not a lawyer, and I try to avoid playing one on the internet, but I see nothing that conflicts with our previous discussion. To me "imminent" means something that is likely about to happen. "Forcible Felony" is also fairly clear and includes a broad range of activities from assault to armed tresspass. Certainly assault on a federal law enforcement officer falls into that category. Do you disagree? Yup, 'omission' is the correct word. If the assault was 'imminent', then I agree to the use of deadly force. In the case under discussion, there was no imminent expectation of death or great bodily harm. The f'ing woman was only halfway through the window with a barricade in front of her. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
|
#75
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill 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 on Capitol 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 had followed 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 shooting protesters, 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 halls looking 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 women stuck in 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. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together. The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side of the door. === Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened." Her logic in such things was always irrefutable. I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand let alone prosecuted or convicted. Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your defense of this womans behavior? I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to shoot looters. === In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts are in doubt. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in lawyer tax to exert that right. BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an "Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel, there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing unregistered bullets. |
|
#76
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On 1/17/21 5:45 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill 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 on Capitol 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 had followed 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 shooting protesters, 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 halls looking 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 women stuck in 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. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together. The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side of the door. === Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened." Her logic in such things was always irrefutable. I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand let alone prosecuted or convicted. Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your defense of this womans behavior? I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to shoot looters. === In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts are in doubt. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in lawyer tax to exert that right. BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an "Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel, there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing unregistered bullets. I doubt if that applies to federal buildings and federal cops, or even District cops. -- Bozo Binned: Herring, Bert Robbins, JackGoff 452471atgmail.com, Just-AN-Asshole, Tim, AMDX, and Gunboy Alex, aka the Gang of Dull, Witless, Insult-Tossing Trumpsters. If you are on this list, I don't see most of your posts and I don't read any of them. |
|
#77
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 19:08:36 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 1/17/21 5:45 PM, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill 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 on Capitol 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 had followed 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 shooting protesters, 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 halls looking 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 women stuck in 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. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together. The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side of the door. === Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened." Her logic in such things was always irrefutable. I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand let alone prosecuted or convicted. Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your defense of this womans behavior? I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to shoot looters. === In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts are in doubt. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in lawyer tax to exert that right. BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an "Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel, there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing unregistered bullets. I doubt if that applies to federal buildings and federal cops, or even District cops. BLM has burned cities to demonstrate that cops have no more right to shoot people than the average citizen and in a jurisdiction like DC, that right is very limited. For those of you who say it was justified because they were protecting Nancy's empty office, I have to point out it didn't work. If anything, seeing an unarmed woman killed made those people more enraged when they entered that office. It is also telling that only one cop believed the use of deadly force was justified. The others held their fire. |
|
#78
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 17:45:47 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze 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 on Capitol 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 had followed 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 shooting protesters, 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 halls looking 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 women stuck in 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. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together. The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side of the door. === Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened." Her logic in such things was always irrefutable. I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand let alone prosecuted or convicted. Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your defense of this womans behavior? I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to shoot looters. === In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts are in doubt. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in lawyer tax to exert that right. === Zimmermann was a questionable case in my opinion. He was not exactly a poster boy for responsible gun ownership, and in my opinion, probably provoked the assault by Trayvon Martin. I think he was lucky to have been acquitted but was glad to see "stand your ground" ultimately upheld in court. BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an "Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel, there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing unregistered bullets. |
|
#79
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:55:26 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 19:08:36 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/17/21 5:45 PM, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze 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 on Capitol 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 had followed 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 shooting protesters, 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 halls looking 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 women stuck in 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. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together. The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side of the door. === Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened." Her logic in such things was always irrefutable. I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand let alone prosecuted or convicted. Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your defense of this womans behavior? I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to shoot looters. === In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts are in doubt. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in lawyer tax to exert that right. BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an "Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel, there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing unregistered bullets. I doubt if that applies to federal buildings and federal cops, or even District cops. BLM has burned cities to demonstrate that cops have no more right to shoot people than the average citizen and in a jurisdiction like DC, that right is very limited. For those of you who say it was justified because they were protecting Nancy's empty office, I have to point out it didn't work. If anything, seeing an unarmed woman killed made those people more enraged when they entered that office. It is also telling that only one cop believed the use of deadly force was justified. The others held their fire. Well, obviously, according to the logic of Wayne and Harry, all those other cops were wrong! -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
|
#80
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:15:18 -0500, Wayne B
wrote: On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 17:45:47 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze 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 on Capitol 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 had followed 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 shooting protesters, 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 halls looking 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 women stuck in 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. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together. The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side of the door. === Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened." Her logic in such things was always irrefutable. I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand let alone prosecuted or convicted. Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your defense of this womans behavior? I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to shoot looters. === In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts are in doubt. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in lawyer tax to exert that right. === Zimmermann was a questionable case in my opinion. He was not exactly a poster boy for responsible gun ownership, and in my opinion, probably provoked the assault by Trayvon Martin. I think he was lucky to have been acquitted but was glad to see "stand your ground" ultimately upheld in court. BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an "Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel, there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing unregistered bullets. Wayne, this line, "...probably provoked the assault..." sounds like it came right from CNN! -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| A friend of Herring and Just-An-Ass? | General | |||
| From my friend... | General | |||
| A Friend of Herring's... | General | |||
| Friend of Herring | General | |||
| Man's best friend. A little OT... | General | |||
![Bill[_12_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
