Board 8 > America is under attack.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik7 posted...

I am expecting a Biden presidency. Not an Obama 2.0 presidency.

Being Obama 2.0 has always been what Biden has sold himself on.
Pointing out that there is an obvious disconnect between the way the BLM protests were handled and LITERALLY opening the gates to let rioters in is only controversial for someone who believes pointing out the existence of racism at all is what causes racism.
Things don't disappear when you can't see them.

---

Corrik7 posted...

President sowing racial discord in a time of chaos is ridiculous. I am expecting better from it regarding this. Obama sowed so much racial discord during his presidency it is ridiculous. I am expecting a Biden presidency. Not an Obama 2.0 presidency.

How is it sowing racial discord unless youre a white person who is offended by what Bidens saying?
---

Hbthebattle posted...

Being Obama 2.0 has always been what Biden has sold himself on.
Pointing out that there is an obvious disconnect between the way the BLM protests were handled and LITERALLY opening the gates to let rioters in is only controversial for someone who believes pointing out the existence of racism at all is what causes racism.
Things don't disappear when you can't see them.

Pretty sure he said outright this wouldn't be an Obama third term.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Again, the message here is

https://twitter.com/wichkid/status/1346990204071108610?s=21

The police response to yesterday was bad, but do you think even the one shooting was justified? Do you think it would have been better policing to paint the steps red with their blood? Because it wouldnt be.

This is very on point.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

How is it sowing racial discord unless youre a white person who is offended by what Bidens saying?

He literally brought up race into it. You condemn the people involved. They are terrorists. They deserve to be arrested and prosecuted to the extent of the law. There was no reason to insert a trigger point of race into it. Just entirely stupid.

But, hopefully Biden doesn't continue to do this.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Obama sowed so much racial discord during his presidency

/tiduslaugh.mp3

---

Corrik7 posted...

Pretty sure he said outright this wouldn't be an Obama third term.

---

Yes the shooting was justified and they would have been justified to have shot more. There was terrorists storming the Capitol. You have zero reason to assume they are not their to harm innocents.

---

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/biden-says-presidency-wont-be-a-third-obama-term-video-2020-11

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yes the shooting was justified and they would have been justified to have shot more. There was terrorists storming the Capitol. You have zero reason to assume they are not their to harm innocents.

And. They. Didn't.

Consider WHY that might be.

---

Corrik7 posted...

He literally brought up race into it.

Pretty sure race was already a big component of it

Its very telling to me that you frame attempts at acknowledging systemic racism in America as pandering to African Americans, like you dont believe the lived experiences of BLM protesters are real
---

Inviso posted...

And. They. Didn't.

Consider WHY that might be.

Cuz they failed to do their job properly. Just like they failed to be prepared. Just like the president failed to have the national guard come. They failed.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yes the shooting was justified and they would have been justified to have shot more. There was terrorists storming the Capitol. You have zero reason to assume they are not their to harm innocents.

No
---

The innocents were evacuated by that point anyway
---

Corrik, why do you think the one officer took a selfie with a terrorist?

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Pretty sure race was already a big component of it

Its very telling to me that you frame attempts at acknowledging systemic racism in America as pandering to African Americans, like you dont believe the lived experiences of BLM protesters are real

No I don't believe the vast majority of situations where a person who in criminal activity with possibility of endangering the public or failing to adhere to police demands with a deadly weapon are being appropriately painted by many in these protests. There are fucked up scenarios that need to be protested but sometimes they get lost in the wind due to the protests in justified situations.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik, why do you think the one officer took a selfie with a terrorist?

Because he failed to do his job and agreed with their treasonous act. Should be fired and arrested for sure.

---

Corrik7 posted...

they failed to do their job properly. Just like they failed to be prepared. Just like the president failed to have the national guard come. They failed.

consider WHY that might be

---

Corrik7 posted...

Cuz they failed to do their job properly. Just like they failed to be prepared. Just like the president failed to have the national guard come. They failed.

WHY did they fail? C'mon Corrik, you're smart enough to constantly find verbal loopholes to drag out arguments, you're smart enough to know that they didn't just "fail". Hell, they've managed to call in suited-up national guardsmen to protect THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL when the opposition in Black Lives Matter. Yet they couldn't foresee THIS coming? I mean, even if they thought "This is just going to be a peaceful protest", we've had four years of right wingers getting into protest clashes with left wing counter protestors. But still, no preparation whatsoever. Just let it happen.

---

Inviso posted...

WHY did they fail? C'mon Corrik, you're smart enough to constantly find verbal loopholes to drag out arguments, you're smart enough to know that they didn't just "fail". Hell, they've managed to call in suited-up national guardsmen to protect THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL when the opposition in Black Lives Matter. Yet they couldn't foresee THIS coming? I mean, even if they thought "This is just going to be a peaceful protest", we've had four years of right wingers getting into protest clashes with left wing counter protestors. But still, no preparation whatsoever. Just let it happen.

We still are awaiting how this happened. I don't know why the police were inadequately armed and prepared. I'd assume a top down decision of incompetence or political fuckery.

---

Corrik7 posted...

possibility of endangering the public

You dont. Shoot. People. For. This.

You shoot people for ACTIVELY endangering the public. Not thought crimes.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

You dont. Shoot. People. For. This.

You shoot people for ACTIVELY endangering the public. Not thought crimes.

If you have reasonable and justifiable suspicion to believe they are a threat to society, you act. You don't wait til lives are being lost to do so.

Can you imagine not picking up terrorists who plan to bomb public centers because they haven't done it yet? Lmfao.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Can you imagine not picking up terrorists who plan to bomb public centers because they haven't done it yet? Lmfao.

Pretty sure thats already a crime just to plan it, and Im not saying dont arrest her. Im saying the situation did not suggest that lethal force was necessary.
---

Corrik7 posted...

If you have reasonable and justifiable suspicion to believe they are a threat to society, you act. You don't wait til lives are being lost to do so.

Can you imagine not picking up terrorists who plan to bomb public centers because they haven't done it yet? Lmfao.

Corrik, looking at the way you just framed your own example. "Can you imagine not picking up terrorists?" Not "Can you imagine not shooting terrorists?" That's a Freudian slip of the highest degree, because even you realize deep down in your brain that a person should perhaps not be executed without a trial for a crime they MIGHT commit.

---

Corrik you keep dodging the response as to why they didn't do any of these things.

(it's because the terrorists were white)

Jakyl25 posted...

Pretty sure thats already a crime just to plan it, and Im not saying dont arrest her. Im saying the situation did not suggest that lethal force was necessary.

You try to arrest them. If you can't make the arrest due to escape and/or violence is imminent you act. You don't wait.

For all that secret service agent knew, she was about to shoot and he had reason to believe she was a threat of violence due to being a literal terrorist storming the Capitol.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Obama sowed so much racial discord during his presidency it is ridiculous.

lol wut


---

Inviso posted...

Corrik, looking at the way you just framed your own example. "Can you imagine not picking up terrorists?" Not "Can you imagine not shooting terrorists?" That's a Freudian slip of the highest degree, because even you realize deep down in your brain that a person should perhaps not be executed without a trial for a crime they MIGHT commit.

No. Jump to conclusions mat for you on that one.

---

Corrik7 posted...

For all that secret service agent knew, she was about to shoot and he had reason to believe she was a threat of violence due to being a literal terrorist storming the Capitol.

Was she even armed?
---

corrik in 1963: "man, why is dr. king making everything about race? it's so dumb. he should just condemn bad people."

---

in terms of justifying the shooting...

in hindsight, it would've been better if he showed restraint there.
but i can't really fault him for shooting her.

going in with the info we know, she was not armed and was just physically there. she was not a threat with lethal force and therefore not a threat who should have had lethal force applied against her. if she ain't using live ammo, he shouldn't either. now, did he know that? no. there's a mob, you're being stormed, you don't know what's going on, a random ass head shows up 8 feet in the air through a window, so you fired your gun. completely understandable but probably shouldn't happen.

now she's a martyr and he may have made things significantly worse. entirely depends how her death is taken, whether it's more her fault or his.


---

Wanglicious posted...

if she ain't using live ammo, he shouldn't either.

Can we keep this as a general rule?

Wanglicious posted...

now she's a martyr and he may have made things significantly worse. entirely depends how her death is taken, whether it's more her fault or his.

Go ahead and check out #MAGAMartyr
---

Leafeon13N posted...

Corrik you keep dodging the response as to why they didn't do any of these things.

(it's because the terrorists were white)

He's been purposely ignoring this the entire time. That's why he's not worth the effort.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Was she even armed?

She is an active terrorist storming the Capitol. You don't wait to ask if she is armed. You assume a terrorist is a threat.

---

Well hey, you know how they had to evacuate Raffensperger because the armed militia was surrounding the Georgia Capitol? They did actually make arrests that night! Not the militia though, only the people elsewhere protesting the shooting in the back of a black man by a police officer.

---

Corrik7 posted...

No. Jump to conclusions mat for you on that one.

It's your words, Corrik. Jakyl talks about how you shouldn't shoot someone because they MIGHT become a threat, and the FIRST example that you thought to respond with was "What if you didn't arrest (sic) a terrorist just because they hadn't bombed anything yet?" The first example that popped into your head was specifically NOT one in which someone had to die for a crime they hadn't committed. That's how Freudian slips work, when the thing you're really thinking just slips out and overrides what you're trying to say.

---

#magamartyr was the first thing i saw when i checked gootecks's twitter, unfortunately.

---

Wanglicious posted...

now she's a martyr and he may have made things significantly worse. entirely depends how her death is taken, whether it's more her fault or his.

She should have just complied. The shooter had reasonable belief that this crowd may have posed a danger to his life.

Corrik7 posted...

She is an active terrorist storming the Capitol. You don't wait to ask if she is armed. You assume a terrorist is a threat.

Lethal force is not the only response to a threat
---

Corrik, you're opening up a very slippery slope.

Say, for example, that you had a good cop. He's with his partner and they've pulled over a black man. The black man is complying with their demands and keeping his hands on the steering wheel, but the partner is just getting more and more agitated and has removed his sidearm from its holster. Now, in this scenario, the good cop is calm and able to see that the black driver is not a threat, but his partner is rapidly escalating the situation. By your logic that it is acceptable for the police to shoot and kill a person who is posing an immediate threat to public safety (without having harmed anyone yet), would the good cop be justified in shooting and killing his partner in order to protect the black driver from potential harm? Note, I say cop because we all know that the rules don't apply to civilians, and if a civvie killed a cop, that civvie would receive life imprisonment if LUCKY.

At what point does "fear for the safety of the public" become irrational enough that a shooting is no longer justified?

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Can we keep this as a general rule?

Go ahead and check out #MAGAMartyr

i mean that's the rule gun owners nationally are held to. okay, a little wider than that - unless your life's at risk, don't fire - but at this range we're basically talking guns. changes if it's melee range (21 foot rule) or explosives but that's not the conversation here.

and figures there's a hashtag for it. -_-

Leafeon13N posted...

She should have just complied. The shooter had reasonable belief that this crowd may have posed a danger to his life.

i don't have any objections to this with regards to criminal charges.


---

BTW Im defending this womans right to be alive today despite all indication being that she was an anti-masker piece of shit
---

Corrik7 posted...

She is an active terrorist storming the Capitol. You don't wait to ask if she is armed. You assume a terrorist is a threat.

a potential threat means you are willing to shoot, it does not mean you have to shoot.
if they become a threat to you or another person's life/well being, then you shoot. but until that's a verified fact, you're making judgment calls and should hold back. like if you see them pull out a gun okay fair, you can reasonably infer the threat exists. but if they don't then... you don't. you go for the arrest.

---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Secret Service and a good number of DC/Capital police are literally above the law and can shoot anyone they want if they deem someone a threat to national security. There is zero chance that guy gets in any trouble whatsoever, because pretty much everyone armed in that building has a license to kill.

Not arguing legality, like Im under no pretense that it will even be investigated. More speaking morally
---

Jakyl25 posted...

BTW Im defending this womans right to be alive today despite all indication being that she was an anti-masker piece of shit

I understand where youre coming from, but Im willing to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt here in this very specific situation. The Capitol Police went above and beyond in terms of exercising restraint in engaging the mob, to the point where many are arguing that they failed at performing their jobs. They repeatedly retreated and attempted to verbally engage the mob, as they attempted to do their job and protect the lives of high value targets who had been repeatedly demonized by political rhetoric over the past several years. Lets not also forget that they were severely outnumbered and had a reasonable fear of being overwhelmed.

I completely agree that, as a country, we need to encourage the police to use deescalation to try to avoid situations where lives are ended unnecessarily. However, I believe that the police cleared that bar in this circumstance. Repeatedly.

---

Oh God whether to post these texts with my uncle or not. For the love of God... Lol

---

My uncle is calling me antifa repeatedly because he said this woman was murdered and they would never murder a black lady at a protest. I'm at a loss for words. Then when I explain justification for shooting acrosd the board regardless of race, he calls me antifa again and accused college of brainwashing me lmfao

---

Its like the exact opposite argument youre having here
---