On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:27:47 -0500, John wrote:

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 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.

===

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!

===

Maybe "sounds like" but it wasn't. You'll notice that my statement
was prefaced by "in my opinion." If your opinion is otherwise that's
fine with me.

You've been sounding a bit confrontational lately John. Anything
bothering you?

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:26:31 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:27:47 -0500, John wrote:

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 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.

===

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!

===

Maybe "sounds like" but it wasn't. You'll notice that my statement
was prefaced by "in my opinion." If your opinion is otherwise that's
fine with me.

You've been sounding a bit confrontational lately John. Anything
bothering you?

I stand corrected. I should have said, "Your opinion that (he) probably provoked
the assault..." sounds like it came right from CNN.

Confrontational? Because I disagree with much of the leftist bull**** you and
Harry are pushing?

--

Freedom Isn't Free!

On Monday, 18 January 2021 at 16:03:51 UTC-4, John H wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:26:31 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:27:47 -0500, John wrote:

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 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.

===

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!

===

Maybe "sounds like" but it wasn't. You'll notice that my statement
was prefaced by "in my opinion." If your opinion is otherwise that's
fine with me.

You've been sounding a bit confrontational lately John. Anything
bothering you?
I stand corrected. I should have said, "Your opinion that (he) probably provoked
the assault..." sounds like it came right from CNN.

Confrontational? Because I disagree with much of the leftist bull**** you and
Harry are pushing?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Try it sometime...it would be a good example for your sycophants.

On 1/18/21 2:26 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:27:47 -0500, John wrote:

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 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.

===

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!

===

Maybe "sounds like" but it wasn't. You'll notice that my statement
was prefaced by "in my opinion." If your opinion is otherwise that's
fine with me.

You've been sounding a bit confrontational lately John. Anything
bothering you?


John's political saviour, Trump, lost the House, the Senate, and the
White House.

--
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.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:12:10 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

On Monday, 18 January 2021 at 16:03:51 UTC-4, John H wrote:

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!

===

Maybe "sounds like" but it wasn't. You'll notice that my statement
was prefaced by "in my opinion." If your opinion is otherwise that's
fine with me.

You've been sounding a bit confrontational lately John. Anything
bothering you?
I stand corrected. I should have said, "Your opinion that (he) probably provoked
the assault..." sounds like it came right from CNN.

Confrontational? Because I disagree with much of the leftist bull**** you and
Harry are pushing?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Try it sometime...it would be a good example for your sycophants.

So glad to see you learned a new word. Here's a bumper sticker you might want
for that SUV truck of yours:

https://fscomps.fotosearch.com/compc..._k31087909.jpg
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:56:41 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/18/21 2:26 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:27:47 -0500, John wrote:

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 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.

===

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!

===

Maybe "sounds like" but it wasn't. You'll notice that my statement
was prefaced by "in my opinion." If your opinion is otherwise that's
fine with me.

You've been sounding a bit confrontational lately John. Anything
bothering you?


John's political saviour, Trump, lost the House, the Senate, and the
White House.

Have to admit, pondering what will probably happen to the country is a bit
depressing. Another 8000 illegal immigrant wannabees on the way, I hear.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:03:51 -0500, John wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:26:31 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:27:47 -0500, John wrote:

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 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.

===

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!

===

Maybe "sounds like" but it wasn't. You'll notice that my statement
was prefaced by "in my opinion." If your opinion is otherwise that's
fine with me.

You've been sounding a bit confrontational lately John. Anything
bothering you?

I stand corrected. I should have said, "Your opinion that (he) probably provoked
the assault..." sounds like it came right from CNN.

Confrontational? Because I disagree with much of the leftist bull**** you and
Harry are pushing?

===

I don't consider myself the slightest bit leftist but this is one of
those rare times that Harry and I agree on some things. It's
important to realize that being anti-Trump doest not equate to left or
right political leanings. I'm against Trump because he's a scum bag,
lying scoundrel - and that was before he tried to steal the election
and overthrow the constitution.

On 1/18/21 4:14 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:03:51 -0500, John wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:26:31 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:27:47 -0500, John wrote:

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 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.

===

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!

===

Maybe "sounds like" but it wasn't. You'll notice that my statement
was prefaced by "in my opinion." If your opinion is otherwise that's
fine with me.

You've been sounding a bit confrontational lately John. Anything
bothering you?

I stand corrected. I should have said, "Your opinion that (he) probably provoked
the assault..." sounds like it came right from CNN.

Confrontational? Because I disagree with much of the leftist bull**** you and
Harry are pushing?

===

I don't consider myself the slightest bit leftist but this is one of
those rare times that Harry and I agree on some things. It's
important to realize that being anti-Trump doest not equate to left or
right political leanings. I'm against Trump because he's a scum bag,
lying scoundrel - and that was before he tried to steal the election
and overthrow the constitution.


I would call Biden a left of center moderate.

--
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.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:14:37 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:03:51 -0500, John wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:26:31 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:27:47 -0500, John wrote:

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 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.

===

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!

===

Maybe "sounds like" but it wasn't. You'll notice that my statement
was prefaced by "in my opinion." If your opinion is otherwise that's
fine with me.

You've been sounding a bit confrontational lately John. Anything
bothering you?

I stand corrected. I should have said, "Your opinion that (he) probably provoked
the assault..." sounds like it came right from CNN.

Confrontational? Because I disagree with much of the leftist bull**** you and
Harry are pushing?

===

I don't consider myself the slightest bit leftist but this is one of
those rare times that Harry and I agree on some things. It's
important to realize that being anti-Trump doest not equate to left or
right political leanings. I'm against Trump because he's a scum bag,
lying scoundrel - and that was before he tried to steal the election
and overthrow the constitution.

I have no problem at all with your being against Trump. But you've been spouting
the leftist crap like CNN (and Harry).
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:34:21 -0500, John wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:14:37 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:03:51 -0500, John wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:26:31 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:27:47 -0500, John wrote:

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 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.

===

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!

===

Maybe "sounds like" but it wasn't. You'll notice that my statement
was prefaced by "in my opinion." If your opinion is otherwise that's
fine with me.

You've been sounding a bit confrontational lately John. Anything
bothering you?

I stand corrected. I should have said, "Your opinion that (he) probably provoked
the assault..." sounds like it came right from CNN.

Confrontational? Because I disagree with much of the leftist bull**** you and
Harry are pushing?

===

I don't consider myself the slightest bit leftist but this is one of
those rare times that Harry and I agree on some things. It's
important to realize that being anti-Trump doest not equate to left or
right political leanings. I'm against Trump because he's a scum bag,
lying scoundrel - and that was before he tried to steal the election
and overthrow the constitution.

I have no problem at all with your being against Trump. But you've been spouting
the leftist crap like CNN (and Harry).

===

OK, I'll play.

Please cite an example or two of leftist crap that I have spouted.