8
8
0
Crime
Violence
Election 2020
Congress
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 3
5
5
0
2
2
0
Th entry of protestors turned rioter into the capitol buildings is indefensible.
But once again, you don't do a good job of vetting your posts. The chief medical examiner, Francisco Diaz, said Monday that an autopsy of Capitol Police Officer Sicknick found no evidence the 42-year-old suffered an allergic reaction to chemical irritants. Diaz ruled the Sicknick, 42, died from "acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis." He wasn't killed by the rioters.
But once again, you don't do a good job of vetting your posts. The chief medical examiner, Francisco Diaz, said Monday that an autopsy of Capitol Police Officer Sicknick found no evidence the 42-year-old suffered an allergic reaction to chemical irritants. Diaz ruled the Sicknick, 42, died from "acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis." He wasn't killed by the rioters.
(2)
(0)
CW3 Dick McManus
What about the cop who had his eye damaged or the cop who lost part of his finger? Threating congress people should be the crime these rioters are guilty of in addition to the other crimes.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
CW3 Dick McManus - As I said, "The entry of protestors turned rioter into the capitol buildings is indefensible."
I am referring to the specific line GOP Cop Killers. It is inaccurate, as are your characterizations of the other injuries. The two officers who complained of injuries to their eyes did not suffer permanent injury. One had mace sprayed in her eye. The other suffered from contusions (a black-eye) from a rioter grabbing his face. The loss of the "tip of the finger" did not result in the loss of bone matter, it isn't a major injury. I've suffered the same.
Make no mistake, I'm not excusing the assault, nor am I unduly minimizing the injuries. But if your point requires inflammatory language, exaggeration or misrepresentation, you must not have faith in your point. There is plenty of damnable truth about the acts of the rioters. The inflammatory language, exaggeration and misrepresentation only makes it easier for those who want to defend the riots as hysteria on your part. Let's not hand the apologists reason to paint us as liars.
I am referring to the specific line GOP Cop Killers. It is inaccurate, as are your characterizations of the other injuries. The two officers who complained of injuries to their eyes did not suffer permanent injury. One had mace sprayed in her eye. The other suffered from contusions (a black-eye) from a rioter grabbing his face. The loss of the "tip of the finger" did not result in the loss of bone matter, it isn't a major injury. I've suffered the same.
Make no mistake, I'm not excusing the assault, nor am I unduly minimizing the injuries. But if your point requires inflammatory language, exaggeration or misrepresentation, you must not have faith in your point. There is plenty of damnable truth about the acts of the rioters. The inflammatory language, exaggeration and misrepresentation only makes it easier for those who want to defend the riots as hysteria on your part. Let's not hand the apologists reason to paint us as liars.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Still looking for Sicknick's killer? You swore he was clobbered over the head with a fire extinguisher. Glad you found another emotional, non-factual based site to pull garbage from. Even his family has said he was not killed by rioters.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
CW3 Dick McManus - What does this have to do with the capital riots? There is no causal link. Your continued link of resolution that are not germane to the discussion at hand damage your credibility.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - Where in what I said was I "defending" the insurrectionists? Or put another way - rabidly damning the insurrectionists with absolutely no proof? Again? SMH.
I do not understand your motivation. You have clearly NOT jumped all over defending the police in all the riots - yes RIOTS! - for the last year plus. But for this riot you are like a rabid dog. I don't get it.
I do not understand your motivation. You have clearly NOT jumped all over defending the police in all the riots - yes RIOTS! - for the last year plus. But for this riot you are like a rabid dog. I don't get it.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SSgt (Join to see) - there is a difference in a riot and attempting to overthrow the results of an election by force. I'm sorry that you don't see that, and I'm sorry that you are ignoring the video evidence that we all watched on TV as it was happening.
And the reason that I'm on this like a rabid dog? When I enlisted I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I took that oath when I became a commissioned officer. I took that oath when I became a sworn police officer, and again when I switched departments. I took that oath when I became a lawyer and an officer of the court.
I take it seriously.
The insurrectionists are domestic enemies of the Constitution. The rioters are not.
Is that clear enough for you?
And the reason that I'm on this like a rabid dog? When I enlisted I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I took that oath when I became a commissioned officer. I took that oath when I became a sworn police officer, and again when I switched departments. I took that oath when I became a lawyer and an officer of the court.
I take it seriously.
The insurrectionists are domestic enemies of the Constitution. The rioters are not.
Is that clear enough for you?
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Constitutional preamble. Nice, isn't it. Please let this poorly educated ludite know how Riots promote:
* establish justice
* domestic tranquility
* general welfare
You see - the politicians and AGs have decided to NOT charge the majority of these people who violated our laws. Over $3 BILLION in insurance claims and you can probably double or triple that for the total damages done. People, cops, federal agents injured and/or killed. City, County & Federal Property destroyed.
I too have taken the oath to defend our Constitution, renewed with every time I re-upped. I responded to the OP. But since you cannot seem to respond to the question I will repeat it: Where in what I said was I "defending" the insurrectionists?
Constitutional preamble. Nice, isn't it. Please let this poorly educated ludite know how Riots promote:
* establish justice
* domestic tranquility
* general welfare
You see - the politicians and AGs have decided to NOT charge the majority of these people who violated our laws. Over $3 BILLION in insurance claims and you can probably double or triple that for the total damages done. People, cops, federal agents injured and/or killed. City, County & Federal Property destroyed.
I too have taken the oath to defend our Constitution, renewed with every time I re-upped. I responded to the OP. But since you cannot seem to respond to the question I will repeat it: Where in what I said was I "defending" the insurrectionists?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google