• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Armed ‘quick reaction force’ was waiting for order to storm Capitol, Justice Dept. says

roguenuke said:
Only one person got close enough to cause a real threat.

How many of those within the riots that have been going on all summer, much of last year, and even part of this year have been shot by police? Pretty sure there are a lot more protestors in those groups and officers dealing with those situations.
Click to expand...
I thought that there was a violent insurrection going on to overthrow the United States of America... turns out only one person was a real threat?
 
joko104 said:
Own your desire that you want political opposition summarily executed. I certainly won't forget and have well recognized the International corporate-fascism, which now controls the Democratic Party, is the most murderous danger to the USA - just like the Democratic Party remains the greatest enemy this country has ever had and has killed more Americans than any other enemy ever has.
Click to expand...


What a bunch of pablum

Reactionary right winger have been peddling that tripe since before Lyndon LaRouche!
 
Mr Person said:
“I knew they had guns — we had been seizing guns all day,” he said. “And the only reason I could think of that they weren’t shooting us was they were waiting for us to shoot first.”


Yup. It was horrible enough for that to happen in America, but the people who did it wanted it to be a ****load worse. As in, an actual coup, where Biden's win doesn't get certified because of their insurrection and Trump ends up getting installed because this buys enough time for his other schemes to work.
Click to expand...

... Except that that narrative is shot to shit by reality. The capitol police were the only ones to shoot that day, and there was no return fire, so that stupid narrative falls apart.
 
j brown's body said:
"As the Capitol was overrun on Jan. 6, armed supporters of President Donald Trump were waiting across the Potomac in Virginia for orders to bring guns into the fray, a prosecutor said Wednesday in federal court. ... In a court filing this week, he noted, prosecutors obtained cellphone and video evidence from the day before the riot showing that Harrelson asked someone about the quick reaction force. He then went to a Comfort Inn in the Ballston area of Arlington for about an hour before driving into D.C., prosecutors said. The day after the riot, surveillance video from the hotel shows him moving “what appears to be at least one rifle case down a hallway and towards the elevator,” according to the court records.

“We believe that at least one quick reaction force location was here and that Mr. Harrelson and others had stashed a large amount of weapons there,” Nestler said. “People affiliated with this group were in Ballston, monitoring what was happening at the Capitol and prepared to come into D.C. and ferry these weapons into the ground team that Kenneth Harrelson was running at a moment’s notice, if anyone said the word.”

... Judge Amit Mehta called the evidence among the “most troubling and most disconcerting” he has seen in nearly a dozen cases related to Oath Keepers. It is “the strongest evidence that the government has presented that there was a quick reaction force outside the District of Columbia, the location of the quick reaction force and that members of this conspiracy provided weapons to this quick reaction force,” he said. Harrelson, he added, “clearly is prepared to have weapons at the ready for violent conduct. ...D.C. police Officer Daniel Hodges said in a January interview that one reason he did not draw his weapon during the riot was that police understood the crowd to be armed. “I knew they had guns — we had been seizing guns all day,” he said. “And the only reason I could think of that they weren’t shooting us was they were waiting for us to shoot first.”

Link

Trump: "We love you!"

Hope we can find out what other political leaders love them.
Click to expand...

Much like the idiotic "they were waiting for us to shoot" narrative that was disproven by what actually happened, this stupid narrative is also spiked by reality. You people honestly think there is any credence whatsoever to a story that clearly never happened?

You folks are literally talking about prosecuting what amounts to thought crime because NOBODY "across the potomac" received orders to storm DC, nobody around the Capitol shot at police officers. Literally none of this shit happened.

You claim the police didn't draw their weapons because the crowd was armed, and yet the police shot and killed a woman and NOBODY fired on the police. Reality doesn't match your narrative.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
... Except that that narrative is shot to shit by reality. The capitol police were the only ones to shoot that day, and there was no return fire, so that stupid narrative falls apart.
Click to expand...

It may turn out to be more than a 'narrative'. If the authorities can demonstrate that these goons stockpiled weapons and conspired and coordinated with an intent to use those weapons to commit crimes, then it will be a prosecution.
 
roguenuke said:
There was a threat, that was stopped by quick thinking and a single shot. Takes a while to make it through the Capitol, especially while you have a resistance from officers that you are outnumbering to try to push your way past because you don't belong.

How much of a threat are those who have been rioting in various cities this past year?
Click to expand...
I don't know; haven't seen many riotors of any stripe shot by police. Seems like only this one officer had trouble.
 
mrjurrs said:
I was going to tap like, but I don'y like it. I do agree with you.
Click to expand...

If you haven’t read it, you should.

I read it in 2017. It seemed likely then, and far more likely now.
 
Sounds like a tale being spun and the MSM is helping with it.
The DOJ has in the past made claims that could not be substantiated.
Even to the point of being scolded by a federal judge.

Judge 'surprised' by ex-top prosecutor's speculation to media about Capitol riot sedition charges​

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Judge 'surprised' by ex-top prosecutor's speculation to media about Capitol riot sedition charges

A federal judge criticized the Justice Department in a rare rebuke after DOJ officials speculated in the media about possible sedition charges against members of the Oath Keepers tied to the Capitol riot of Jan. 6.
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
uptower said:
It may turn out to be more than a 'narrative'. If the authorities can demonstrate that these goons stockpiled weapons and conspired and coordinated with an intent to use those weapons to commit crimes, then it will be a prosecution.
Click to expand...

Their has to be a criminal act, otherwise you are prosecuting a thought crime. You are arguing the intent to storm the capitol on January 6th after the fact and they clearly didn't do what they were accused of "planning". In fact, based on that argument, they were awaiting incitement to insurrection that never came... which is also rather narrative destroying.
 
jmotivator said:
Their has to be a criminal act, otherwise you are prosecuting a thought crime. You are arguing the intent to storm the capitol on January 6th after the fact and they clearly didn't do what they were accused of "planning". In fact, based on that argument, they were awaiting incitement to insurrection that never came... which is also rather narrative destroying.
Click to expand...
RICO act baby. A conspiracy involves planning and preparation and coordination with others. They get gangsters on it all the time. It's more than just 'wishing' to commit a crime or I'd be arrested for wanting to slap Hannity in the face. They appear to have gone with a plan and equipment and an intent to wage armed insurrection. If prosecutors can prove that, it's no longer a 'narrative'.
 
Metric Mouse said:
I don't know; haven't seen many riotors of any stripe shot by police. Seems like only this one officer had trouble.
Click to expand...
Seems like only that one was put in a position to need to shoot a member of any mob.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I thought that there was a violent insurrection going on to overthrow the United States of America... turns out only one person was a real threat?
Click to expand...
Circumstances of any incident determine what sort of threat someone constitutes and the level of response that can and/or will be necessary to stop it during that particular event.
 
roguenuke said:
Circumstances of any incident determine what sort of threat someone constitutes and the level of response that can and/or will be necessary to stop it during that particular event.
Click to expand...
That sounds nice and official and all but it has nothing to do with what I actually said:

I thought that there was a violent insurrection going on to overthrow the United States of America... turns out only one person was a real threat?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
uptower said:
RICO act baby. A conspiracy involves planning and preparation and coordination with others. They get gangsters on it all the time. It's more than just 'wishing' to commit a crime or I'd be arrested for wanting to slap Hannity in the face. They appear to have gone with a plan and equipment and an intent to wage armed insurrection. If prosecutors can prove that, it's no longer a 'narrative'.
Click to expand...
 
roguenuke said:
It has everything to do with it. You can ignore as much as you want though.
Click to expand...
Sure. Let's go with your argument then... what you are arguing is that the violent mob trying to overthrow the United States did not merit lethal force and they eventually walked away but this one small woman was such an imminent threat that she was shot and killed. Your argument sounds so much better. LOL
 
Bodhisattva said:
Sure. Let's go with your argument then... what you are arguing is that the violent mob trying to overthrow the United States did not merit lethal force and they eventually walked away but this one small woman was such an imminent threat that she was shot and killed. Your argument sounds so much better. LOL
Click to expand...
That one person (neither her size nor sex had any bearing on what made her a threat) was the first of a mob breaking into a barricaded area where they actually would have access to members of Congress and staff who were hiding inside that barricade. Just as if she would have broken into someone's house with a mob she would be a threat. There is every possibility that the family would see this as "wait til we have no other choice rather than what the law allows" so they hide within a barricaded room. But the mob continues to follow them and work on breaking into that barricaded room. So the first person through that barricade gets shot and killed. The rest of the mob stops and the police have also arrived. Look, one person killed despite the threat the rest may have posed had other factors not existed. There could have been other people in the house who simply made it outside before the mob could get to them.
 
roguenuke said:
That one person (neither her size nor sex had any bearing on what made her a threat) was the first of a mob breaking into a barricaded area where they actually would have access to members of Congress and staff who were hiding inside that barricade. Just as if she would have broken into someone's house with a mob she would be a threat. There is every possibility that the family would see this as "wait til we have no other choice rather than what the law allows" so they hide within a barricaded room. But the mob continues to follow them and work on breaking into that barricaded room. So the first person through that barricade gets shot and killed. The rest of the mob stops and the police have also arrived. Look, one person killed despite the threat the rest may have posed had other factors not existed. There could have been other people in the house who simply made it outside before the mob could get to them.
Click to expand...
Just adding that the LEO took his oath seriously and was defending those he was tasked to protect and defend. That the one who was killed did not take her oath to defend the Constitution was the price she paid in trying to gain entrance to the House chamber. A tragedy for both.
 
roguenuke said:
That one person (neither her size nor sex had any bearing on what made her a threat) was the first of a mob breaking into a barricaded area where they actually would have access to members of Congress and staff who were hiding inside that barricade. Just as if she would have broken into someone's house with a mob she would be a threat. There is every possibility that the family would see this as "wait til we have no other choice rather than what the law allows" so they hide within a barricaded room. But the mob continues to follow them and work on breaking into that barricaded room. So the first person through that barricade gets shot and killed. The rest of the mob stops and the police have also arrived. Look, one person killed despite the threat the rest may have posed had other factors not existed. There could have been other people in the house who simply made it outside before the mob could get to them.
Click to expand...
So now it is:

May have
Could have
Every possibility
 
Parrish said:
Just adding that the LEO took his oath seriously and was defending those he was tasked to protect and defend. That the one who was killed did not take her oath to defend the Constitution was the price she paid in trying to gain entrance to the House chamber. A tragedy for both.
Click to expand...
Or he felt he finally had a situation where he could kill a person and get away with it...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Or he felt he finally had a situation where he could kill a person and get away with it...
Click to expand...
There is no evidence to support this conclusion, at all. He killed a person who was part of a mob that was a threat to those he was protecting.
 
Parrish said:
WTH is wrong with you?
Click to expand...
Me? You are talking about how he got to shoot and kill a person and that is taking his oath seriously...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom