Why do liberals think the police shooting Philando Castile is unjust, but think the police shooting Ashli Babbitt was fine?

[NolanVoyd]

That is not a death penalty offense. She did not threaten the physical safety of that officer and she was not armed with a weapon.

.

The officer was tasked with defending members of congress. That person posed an obvious and immediate threat to those members. The officer did his job.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Context matters more, and you abandon the context of the actual event when you entertain, even as a hypothesis, that the poorly organized, erratically armed rioters had any chance of pulling off a “coup.”

We covered this already. The context is that they were trying to prevent the seating of the legitimately elected president.

That context demonstrates beyond any doubt that it was an insurrection.

An insurrection need not be successful, or even have a good chance of success to be an insurection

You are simply misunderstanding what the word means.

 

[Ouroboros]

Some sources that stated Sicknick's death as established fact before there had been an autopsy.

From a local DC station:


CNN seems to have scrubbed Youtube of any records of their correspondents reporting the fire extinguisher verdict as fact, but happily Fox has preserved records of their bad journalism. And before you can say "fake news," if Fox were falsifying those allegations, CNN would have had justification for a massive libel lawsuit they could have pressed against Fox-- if such records did not exist, that is.

CNN's top anchors go all week avoiding Brian Sicknick after findings reveal officer died from stroke

CNN's most prominent and most-watched anchors went the entire week without addressing the latest developments surrounding the death of the late Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.

www.foxnews.com

Others will be presented when I have more time.

 

[Ouroboros]

We covered this already. The context is that they were trying to prevent the seating of the legitimately elected president.

That context demonstrates beyond any doubt that it was an insurrection.

An insurrection need not be successful, or even have a good chance of success to be an insurection

You are simply misunderstanding what the word means.

Your context is not even close to the way that the word is used.

You do know that after 400 rioters have been arrested, none have been charged with insurrection or sedition. There's a reason for that.

In 2010, prosecutors charged members of a Christian militant group called the Hutaree with seditious conspiracy before a judge dismissed the charges. Federal prosecutors were successful in using the law against Puerto Rican separatists in the 1930s.
The view on sedition reflects the cautious, some say risk-averse, era at the Justice Department under Garland. Officials say he is methodical in making decisions, careful to read memos from prosecutors and peppering them with questions.
"And do we have the evidence for that?" is among the questions he often asks in meetings with officials, who have learned to come prepared for follow-up questions.
Garland refused to say on Tuesday whether sedition charges are still on the table. "We follow the facts, where they go, and then we apply the law. And we will do that in each case as it happens, and when we're ready, we'll do what's appropriate," he told reporters when pressed on the issue. "All I can say is we have a panoply of federal laws that cover behavior. And we're going to pick the ones that are appropriate for the facts."
The seditious conspiracy law makes it a federal crime to conspire to use force to overthrow the US government or to try to prevent the execution of a federal law. Some legal experts say a hurdle for prosecutors would be showing that some of the activity by defendants isn't protected by the First Amendment.

You can call the riot an insurrection all you like, but the courts are clearly sticking with the more easily defined crimes of carrying arms, assault and obstruction. You say words have meanings; why don't the formal charges against the rioters matter as much as your informal definition?

 

[Ouroboros]

Part 2:

I couldn't sum up the contextual case against using insurrection re: Jan 6 than this author, who is, you may note, extremely critical of President Trump's role in the riot:

No matter how many times Democrats call it one, the Capitol riot was not close to being an insurrection.

Insurrection is analogous to treason, for which the federal penal code directs that an offender “shall suffer death” as the preferred sentence. Treason implicates the traitorous citizen who “levies war against” the United States; but, contrary to insurrection, treason is mainly focused on the threat of foreign enemies, and thus on Americans who betray their allegiance by “adhering” to those enemies or otherwise give them “aid and comfort.”

Unlike treason, insurrection is not defined by the Constitution; and while Congress has expressly criminalized it, “insurrection” is not defined in the relevant statute, Section 2383 of the penal code. Nevertheless, we know what it is, not just in common speech but as a matter of law.

An insurrection is a violent domestic uprising that entails levying war against the United States or opposing the government’s authority by force. Federal law regards conspiracies to do these things as sedition in a penal statute (Section 2384) that has been invoked in connection with serious terrorist attacks. (I used it in 1995 to prosecute a jihadist cell that bombed the World Trade Center and plotted to bomb New York City landmarks.) Insurrection is the carrying out of an uprising. It is noteworthy that, for all the politicized prattling about insurrection, none of the hundreds of rioters thus far arrested has been charged with the federal crimes of insurrection and sedition.

The salient element of an insurrection is that the use of force against American authority is so daunting that it cannot be contained by peacetime policing. Thus does the Constitution (in Article I, Section 8) empower Congress to “provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . suppress Insurrections.” One of the first congresses, in 1792, invoked this power in authorizing the president to call forth the militia in cases of insurrection and invasion. President Washington relied on this authority to, for example, put down the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania in 1794. In 1807, President Jefferson signed the Insurrection Act, which enabled the president not only to call forth the militia but to “employ . . . such part of the land or naval force of the United States” judged necessary to suppress an insurrection. After the Civil War started, Congress undertook to oppose the rebel states by “an act to suppress insurrection and rebellion,” which President Lincoln duly incorporated into an 1862 proclamation, warning the seceding states and their sympathizers to desist. It was in reference to the Civil War that, in 1868, the 14th Amendment banned from federal office those who “shall have engaged in insurrection” against the United States.

The January 6 rioters did not wage war against the United States. Not only were they dispersed within a few hours; the aforementioned Senate report indicates that the tumult would have been ended even more quickly — and perhaps not even have started in the first place — if the relevant law-enforcement agencies had deployed an adequate number of properly trained police officers. In fact, the only person killed in the mêlée was Ashli Babbitt, a pro-Trump rioter shot by an unidentified security guard as she and others tried to burst through doors leading to the Speaker’s Lobby, which provides access to the House chamber.

 

[Lursa]

Why would I admit being “suckered”

Because you were and you posted it earlier in our conversation. You believed it when your fake news published it.

when
you’re the one being led by the nose by Mad Lib media?

Prove it.

The response is perfectly coherent to anyone paying attention. You accused me of being paranoid, which you could not prove,and I responded with a take on the phrase, “you’re not paranoid if you have real enemies.” How does anyone not know this?

LOL first you couldnt quote where you claimed I wrote 'every single person in the mob was dangerous,' and now you've created another lie.

Please quote where I accused you of being paranoid. Where did I even use that word? Post it or it's just another lie you're using to pretend you havent failed completely, again, in this conversation.

You can keep making up crap to hide behind...I dont mind...each time you fail AGAIN to even support the lies. How much fail would you like to post in one thread?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Your context is not even close to the way that the word is used.

You do know that after 400 rioters have been arrested, none have been charged with insurrection or sedition. There's a reason for that.




You can call the riot an insurrection all you like, but the courts are clearly sticking with the more easily defined crimes of carrying arms, assault and obstruction. You say words have meanings; why don't the formal charges against the rioters matter as much as your informal definition?

Donald was convicted by Congress of "Inciting an Insurrection"....

Article Of Impeachment Cites Trump's 'Incitement' Of Capitol Insurrection

The article of impeachment references Trump's repeated false claims of widespread voter fraud, as well as comments during a rally ahead of the riot. Read the full text of the resolution.

www.npr.org

 

[Ouroboros]

Because you were and you posted it earlier in our conversation. You believed it when your fake news published it.



Prove it.

LOL first you couldnt quote where you claimed I wrote 'every single person in the mob was dangerous,' and now you've created another lie.

Please quote where I accused you of being paranoid. Where did I even use that word? Post it or it's just another lie you're using to pretend you havent failed completely, again, in this conversation.

You can keep making up crap to hide behind...I dont mind...each time you fail AGAIN to even support the lies. How much fail would you like to post in one thread?

I couldn't find the link yesterday, but because I knew you wanted it so ardently, here it is, the link which demonstrates that the media jumped into the "death by fire extinguisher" with both feet for most of January. Note that absolutely none of the newshounds are the least bit restrained regarding the FACT of how the officer died.



However did you manage to forget this bit of history, I wonder? Well, the good folks at Fox keep track of those things, so clearly you're in no position to accuse others of following "fake news" too closely. (And no, I don't care about your precise wording, any more than the precise way you accused me of paranoia.)

 

[Lursa]

I couldn't find the link yesterday, but because I knew you wanted it so ardently, here it is, the link which demonstrates that the media jumped into the "death by fire extinguisher" with both feet for most of January. Note that absolutely none of the newshounds are the least bit restrained regarding the FACT of how the officer died.



However did you manage to forget this bit of history, I wonder? Well, the good folks at Fox keep track of those things, so clearly you're in no position to accuse others of following "fake news" too closely. (And no, I don't care about your precise wording, any more than the precise way you accused me of paranoia.)

I noticed that almost all of those who made a statement that he was killed with a fire extinguisher were not CNN or left-leaning media. The only ones from CNN were not dated, and I only noticed 2. If they made that statement on 1/7, it was an error they immediately fixed. Unlike right-leaning media outlets which you admit, ran with the story.

Apparently CNN made a brief mistake and then spent the rest of the time fixing it...as your video also shows.

 

[Ouroboros]

Donald was convicted by Congress of "Inciting an Insurrection"....

Article Of Impeachment Cites Trump's 'Incitement' Of Capitol Insurrection

The article of impeachment references Trump's repeated false claims of widespread voter fraud, as well as comments during a rally ahead of the riot. Read the full text of the resolution.

www.npr.org

Impeachment is not conviction. Now, if the current commission finds something new with which to implicate him, that will be a different story. But the story's not done yet.

 

[Quag]

Impeachment is not conviction. Now, if the current commission finds something new with which to implicate him, that will be a different story. But the story's not done yet.

So we can ignore Clinton's impeachment then
Unfortunately for the traitor Trump, McConnell admitted he was guilty but refused to convict for purely partisan political reasons

 

[Ouroboros]

I noticed that almost all of those who made a statement that he was killed with a fire extinguisher were not CNN or left-leaning media. The only ones from CNN were not dated, and I only noticed 2. If they made that statement on 1/7, it was an error they immediately fixed. Unlike right-leaning media outlets which you admit, ran with the story.

Apparently CNN made a brief mistake and then spent the rest of the time fixing it...as your video also shows.

Just because the Fox piece showed only 2 clips, that doesn't mean that CNN only made the false statement twice. Anyone who's seen 24-hour news knows that whenever the media settles on a story, they repeat it numerous times during any given day. The text story to which I linked earlier asserts that Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper made these statements multiple times, and that CNN just dropped the subject once they could not longer use the false story to drum up Trump-hatred.

Now, if you're determined to disbelieve everything FOX says, there's no evidence that anyone could cite to convince you otherwise. No one, not even Fox, is going to provide you with the kind of excruciatingly detailed evidence you claim to require. (I say "claim" because even if you had documents showing how many times CNN ran the false story, you would find some other reason to disregard the matter.) But now I've shown that you have no authority to rail at anyone else subscribing to "fake news," because you're willing to tolerate it from anyone on your perceived side.

 

[Ouroboros]

So we can ignore Clinton's impeachment then
Unfortunately for the traitor Trump, McConnell admitted he was guilty but refused to convict for purely partisan political reasons

Clinton's impeachment-without-conviction has the same legal significance as that of Trump.

The biggest difference is that whereas Clinton's opponents found a modicum of physical evidence-- whatever you choose to make of that evidence-- while as yet no one has found physical evidence proving that Trump conspired to overthrow the government.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Impeachment is not conviction. Now, if the current commission finds something new with which to implicate him, that will be a different story. But the story's not done yet.

Donald was impeached by Congress for Inciting an Insurrection. He was impeached by Congress but acquitted by the Senate. Donald is the only president in history to be impeached twice.

Trump impeached for 'inciting' US Capitol riot in historic second charge

Donald Trump becomes the first president in US history to be charged with misconduct in office twice.

www.google.com

 

[Lursa]

Just because the Fox piece showed only 2 clips, that doesn't mean that CNN only made the false statement twice. Anyone who's seen 24-hour news knows that whenever the media settles on a story, they repeat it numerous times during any given day. The text story to which I linked earlier asserts that Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper made these statements multiple times, and that CNN just dropped the subject once they could not longer use the false story to drum up Trump-hatred.

Now, if you're determined to disbelieve everything FOX says, there's no evidence that anyone could cite to convince you otherwise. No one, not even Fox, is going to provide you with the kind of excruciatingly detailed evidence you claim to require. (I say "claim" because even if you had documents showing how many times CNN ran the false story, you would find some other reason to disregard the matter.) But now I've shown that you have no authority to rail at anyone else subscribing to "fake news," because you're willing to tolerate it from anyone on your perceived side.

Well if you cant prove your claim you cant. I was following CNN AND Fox closely, mostly CNN, after 1/6. During 1/6.

I never wrote I disbelieve FOX, dont make stuff up. My point was that they sucker in people like you that believe everything they publish. When I watch or read FOX, I verify it elsewhere. For the most part, I do the same with CNN. And I always click the links to real data from CNN....FOX's record on that is questionable at best. And they've promoted failed agendas re: masks and the vaccine so of course I dont trust them on face value. That would be stupid.

 

[Quag]

Clinton's impeachment-without-conviction has the same legal significance as that of Trump.

The biggest difference is that whereas Clinton's opponents found a modicum of physical evidence-- whatever you choose to make of that evidence-- while as yet no one has found physical evidence proving that Trump conspired to overthrow the government.

The biggest difference is some republican voted to convict Trump and even their Republican leader admitted the traitor was guilty

 

[Ouroboros]

Well if you cant prove your claim you cant. I was following CNN AND Fox closely, mostly CNN, after 1/6. During 1/6.

I never wrote I disbelieve FOX, dont make stuff up. My point was that they sucker in people like you that believe everything they publish. When I watch or read FOX, I verify it elsewhere. For the most part, I do the same with CNN. And I always click the links to real data from CNN....FOX's record on that is questionable at best. And they've promoted failed agendas re: masks and the vaccine so of course I dont trust them on face value. That would be stupid.

I already proved my case. Your only refutation is that supposedly CNN ran the false story only briefly, which is something you cannot prove. You claimed that you never or hardly ever heard pundits making the fire-extinguisher, I said I remembered the news people making that claim repeatedly until the NYT retracted their badly researched assertion. I provided proof, if not as extensive as you would require (assuming that anyone could ever satisfy your demands), and you're still just supporting your claim based on your anecdotal memories. Mine are just as good as yours any day.

Your overall opinion of Fox News is irrelevant; by making your knee-jerk assertion that I was just mindlessly following Fox, you've implied that Fox is fake news and that I listen to them exclusively. That's a deflection from the fact that you can't defend CNN for having spread its own brand of fake news.

I should note that this side-issue, the false attribution of Sicknick's death, is mainly significant to this thread in showing how easy it is for Mad Libs to distort history and then to make some minor retraction that people don't notice. Back in the eighties and nineties conservatives used to make just as many distortions, but the Mad Libs imitated their foursquare devotion to ideology over history. This has forced conservatives into the position of being more devoted to sussing out the ideological absurdities of their opponents. I've seen Fox bloviate over issues that I don't think significant, but I don't see them falsifying issues the way the liberal media does.

 

[Ouroboros]

Donald was impeached by Congress for Inciting an Insurrection. He was impeached by Congress but acquitted by the Senate. Donald is the only president in history to be impeached twice.

Trump impeached for 'inciting' US Capitol riot in historic second charge

Donald Trump becomes the first president in US history to be charged with misconduct in office twice.

www.google.com

Being impeached twice merely means that the Left became obsessed with the improper use of impeachment.

 

[Ouroboros]

The biggest difference is some republican voted to convict Trump and even their Republican leader admitted the traitor was guilty

No response to my point that the nineties GOP actually had physical evidence of Clinton's offense?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Being impeached twice merely means that the Left became obsessed with the improper use of impeachment.

Wrong. It means the United States Congress impeached a criminal president for Inciting an Insurrection. You see, Donald's base are a bunch of dimwitted uneducated cosplay miscreants, so stupid that they'll believe anything he tells them. I know it sounds rediculous, but this is what these back woods Jethro's are like. Funny huh....

 

[Lursa]

I already proved my case. Your only refutation is that supposedly CNN ran the false story only briefly, which is something you cannot prove. You claimed that you never or hardly ever heard pundits making the fire-extinguisher, I said I remembered the news people making that claim repeatedly until the NYT retracted their badly researched assertion. I provided proof, if not as extensive as you would require (assuming that anyone could ever satisfy your demands), and you're still just supporting your claim based on your anecdotal memories. Mine are just as good as yours any day.

Your overall opinion of Fox News is irrelevant; by making your knee-jerk assertion that I was just mindlessly following Fox, you've implied that Fox is fake news and that I listen to them exclusively. That's a deflection from the fact that you can't defend CNN for having spread its own brand of fake news.

I should note that this side-issue, the false attribution of Sicknick's death, is mainly significant to this thread in showing how easy it is for Mad Libs to distort history and then to make some minor retraction that people don't notice. Back in the eighties and nineties conservatives used to make just as many distortions, but the Mad Libs imitated their foursquare devotion to ideology over history. This has forced conservatives into the position of being more devoted to sussing out the ideological absurdities of their opponents. I've seen Fox bloviate over issues that I don't think significant, but I don't see them falsifying issues the way the liberal media does.

What case? You made a comment and it's clear you let the right-wing media lead you around by the nose. You completely failed on the discussion at hand...the danger of the mob. And all this about the media is just a diversion from you bobbing and weaving around that and falsely accusing me of saying 'every person in the mob was dangerous.'

Look how much you just posted to defend yourself? LOL "Me thinketh thou does protest too much"

 

[Ouroboros]

Wrong. It means the United States Congress impeached a criminal president for Inciting an Insurrection. You see, Donald's base are a bunch of dimwitted uneducated cosplay miscreants, so stupid that they'll believe anything he tells them. I know it sounds rediculous, but this is what these back woods Jethro's are like. Funny huh....

In Mad Lib dreams.

Months ago I remember some Libs here exulting that Trump was about to be tried and jailed for some economic offenses.
Nothing happened there either, and that’s because the Left’s desperation to find a smoking gun makes them disregard things like evidence. Whatever the sins of “stop the steal,” that farrago should be seen as a response to an unending stream of Democratic dirty tricks (of which Russiagate was the most egregious).

 

[Ouroboros]

What case? You made a comment and it's clear you let the right-wing media lead you around by the nose. You completely failed on the discussion at hand...the danger of the mob. And all this about the media is just a diversion from you bobbing and weaving around that and falsely accusing me of saying 'every person in the mob was dangerous.'

Look how much you just posted to defend yourself? LOL "Me thinketh thou does protest too much"

I still care less about whatever confused opinion you hold on the rioters than on the fact that you falsely tried to extend that opinion to me as part of a lame rhetorical strategy.

On a forum like this, there’s no such thing as protesting too much. That’s the whole attraction of the site: the sometimes dubious thrill of arguing with strangers on matters on which no one ever agrees (except the members of one’s own choir).

 

[Quag]

No response to my point that the nineties GOP actually had physical evidence of Clinton's offense?

We have proof of Trumps guilt which is why Mitch stated that he was guilty
No response from you on that

 

[Quag]

I still care less about whatever confused opinion you hold on the rioters than on the fact that you falsely tried to extend that opinion to me as part of a lame rhetorical strategy.

On a forum like this, there’s no such thing as protesting too much. That’s the whole attraction of the site: the sometimes dubious thrill of arguing with strangers on matters on which no one ever agrees (except the members of one’s own choir).

Why do you hate America so much?