billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 26, 2022 20:37:31 GMT -5
. If they don’t think they are US citizens they can get the fuck out. We can drop them off on some unclaimed sandbar or tropical atoll and they can stand around and talk about how they’ve copy righted themselves and they don’t have to follow anyone else’s laws or pay any taxes. Whatever. But they need to stop being pains in the asses for those of us who do claim US citizenship. They think they are 'special', above our laws. They don't drive motor vehicles. They 'travel' in motor vehicles. Only vehicles used for business drive and need driver's licenses, vehicle registration, license plates and vehicle insurance. As they are 'traveling' in their private property motor vehicles and not doing business in their private property motor vehicles, they need no documentation. Just stay on your private property roads and we are good.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2022 5:17:22 GMT -5
. If they don’t think they are US citizens they can get the fuck out. We can drop them off on some unclaimed sandbar or tropical atoll and they can stand around and talk about how they’ve copy righted themselves and they don’t have to follow anyone else’s laws or pay any taxes. Whatever. But they need to stop being pains in the asses for those of us who do claim US citizenship. They think they are 'special', above our laws. They don't drive motor vehicles. They 'travel' in motor vehicles. Only vehicles used for business drive and need driver's licenses, vehicle registration, license plates and vehicle insurance. As they are 'traveling' in their private property motor vehicles and not doing business in their private property motor vehicles, they need no documentation. i am not sure special is the right word. they think they are more clever than 235 years of government. i would describe the movement as utterly narcissistic legal theory. it won't play well in court. never has. never will.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,987
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 27, 2022 9:04:56 GMT -5
. If they don’t think they are US citizens they can get the fuck out. We can drop them off on some unclaimed sandbar or tropical atoll and they can stand around and talk about how they’ve copy righted themselves and they don’t have to follow anyone else’s laws or pay any taxes. Whatever. But they need to stop being pains in the asses for those of us who do claim US citizenship. They think they are 'special', above our laws. They don't drive motor vehicles. They 'travel' in motor vehicles. Only vehicles used for business drive and need driver's licenses, vehicle registration, license plates and vehicle insurance. As they are 'traveling' in their private property motor vehicles and not doing business in their private property motor vehicles, they need no documentation. Well, that’s a terrifying thought. All these jerks on the highways in uninsured, unlicensed cars, I’m assuming driving without bothering to pass a test to prove they can drive, maybe letting the kids take turns, because why not. No one is the boss of them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2022 9:45:08 GMT -5
They think they are 'special', above our laws. They don't drive motor vehicles. They 'travel' in motor vehicles. Only vehicles used for business drive and need driver's licenses, vehicle registration, license plates and vehicle insurance. As they are 'traveling' in their private property motor vehicles and not doing business in their private property motor vehicles, they need no documentation. Well, that’s a terrifying thought. All these jerks on the highways in uninsured, unlicensed cars, I’m assuming driving without bothering to pass a test to prove they can drive, maybe letting the kids take turns, because why not. No one is the boss of them. that is true of all of us, until we get caught breaking the rules.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,372
|
Post by swamp on Dec 27, 2022 11:47:16 GMT -5
They think they are 'special', above our laws. They don't drive motor vehicles. They 'travel' in motor vehicles. Only vehicles used for business drive and need driver's licenses, vehicle registration, license plates and vehicle insurance. As they are 'traveling' in their private property motor vehicles and not doing business in their private property motor vehicles, they need no documentation. i am not sure special is the right word. they think they are more clever than 235 years of government. i would describe the movement as utterly narcissistic legal theory. it won't play well in court. never has. never will. My favorite: The flag in the court room has yellow fringe on it, therefore, it is not an official flag, and therefore, it's not a real court room.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,470
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 28, 2022 18:52:43 GMT -5
If their body did something illegal - why do they think their trademark is getting charged?
My husband has dealt with these nut jobs, and I know they make zero sense. It makes him crazy.
|
|
azucena
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 13:23:14 GMT -5
Posts: 5,358
|
Post by azucena on Dec 28, 2022 20:17:07 GMT -5
Some of them buy life insurance and sign contracts like it in red/blue pen which they say make them not liable. You can't make this stuff up.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,470
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 1, 2023 17:49:44 GMT -5
Some of them buy life insurance and sign contracts like it in red/blue pen which they say make them not liable. You can't make this stuff up. Obviously, someone CAN (and did) make this stuff up.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2023 12:33:08 GMT -5
Some of them buy life insurance and sign contracts like it in red/blue pen which they say make them not liable. You can't make this stuff up. right. THEY can. you can't.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 19, 2023 16:25:41 GMT -5
Judge concludes Jan. 6 rioter who broke into Capitol was acting on "Trump's instructions"A federal judge said on Tuesday that a woman who stormed the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection "followed then-President Trump's instructions" when she broke the law. Danean MacAndrew traveled from California to Washington, D.C. to join Trump's rally, and later filmed herself storming the Capitol with fellow Trump supporters. After a three-day bench trial, she was found guilty of charges including violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote in a 18-page opinion that shortly before Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally began on Jan. 6, MacAndrew tweeted at him "that she too felt that '[t]raps had been set' in the '#RiggedElection' of 2020." The former president then urged his supporters to literally stop the voting process by marching on the Capitol. "Defendant marched to the Capitol where, she testified, she understood that only Congress had the power to fix the election's outcome and that Congress was likely in session while she was around and in the Capitol," Kollar-Kotelly wrote. "Every step of the way, from the western boundary of Capitol grounds, to the West Lawn, to the Upper West Terrace, to the interior of the Capitol itself, she saw sign after sign that her presence was unlawful," Kollar-Kotelly said. "Nevertheless, heeding the call of former President Trump, she continued onwards to 'stop the steal.'" Kollar-Kotelly then explained the verdict in the case: "Having followed then-President Trump's instructions, which were in line with her stated desires, the Court therefore finds that Defendant intended her presence to be disruptive to Congressional business." The ruling aligns with the final report from the House Jan. 6 select committee, which alleged that Trump engaged in a "multi-part conspiracy to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 Presidential election." While Trump has maintained his innocence, claiming that the allegations are nothing more than a political witch hunt, other Jan. 6 defendants have also accused him of giving them "presidential orders" to attack the Capitol. Even former Vice President Mike Pence told ABC News that Trump "decided to be part of the problem" on Jan. 6. In a statement to Axios, Trump spokesperson Liz Harrington refuted the conclusions made by both Kollar-Kotelly and the House committee. Harrington claimed that Trump "urged the crowd to 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard' on Jan. 6, a fact, just like the Unselect Committee, this biased judge deliberately omitted." "The violations of due process and unfair treatment of political prisoners by the U.S. government during this saga will forever be a stain on our country," Harrington added. In another case against Jan. 6 defendant Alexander Sheppard last month, U.S. District Judge John Bates indicated that Trump's instructions to "fight like hell" during the rally could have been a sign to supporters that he wanted them to "do something more" than protest. Bates shut down Sheppard's attempt to use the "public authority" defense because "President Trump neither stated nor implied that entering the restricted area of the Capitol grounds and the Capitol building or impeding the certification of the electoral vote was lawful." However, he did acknowledge that supporters may have been influenced to participate in an insurrection. "But, although his express words only mention walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, one might conclude that the context implies that he was urging protestors to do something more — perhaps to enter the Capitol building and stop the certification," Bates wrote. Bates's ruling cited the House panel's report, arguing that phrases used by the committee, such as "fight like hell," could "signal to protesters that entering the Capitol and stopping the certification would be unlawful." His conclusion was that "even if protesters believed they were following orders, they were not misled about the legality of their actions and thus fall outside the scope of any public authority defense" which is consistent with the Select Committee's findings. Bates was clear that there was "simply no indication" that Trump informed the crowd that storming the Capitol would be legal, but rather "his speech simply suggests that it would be an act of 'boldness' to 'stop the steal.'" Various other Jan. 6 defendants have tried to employ the public authority defense, but this strategy has proved to be unsuccessful at trial. Dustin Thompson, who was convicted on all counts, told the jury that he was seeking Trump's "approval" and that he believed he was "following presidential orders." The Justice Department argued in the Sheppard filing this month that it was "objectively unreasonable to conclude that President Trump or any other Executive Branch official could authorize citizens to engage in violent or assaultive conduct toward law enforcement officers and interfere with the Electoral College proceedings that were being conducted." However, civil lawsuits seeking to hold Trump accountable for the insurrection could move forward in court according to federal judge Amit Mehta, who wrote in a 112-page opinion that he could realistically be held accountable for the incident. Mehta argued that Trump's statements before the riot "is the essence of civil conspiracy," because he spoke of working "towards a common goal" of marching to the Capitol. "The President's January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action," Mehta said. Mehta also wrote that three lawsuits against Trump filed by Democratic members of the House and police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 could move to the evidence-gathering phase and possibly make it to trial. "To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent," Mehta wrote. "After all, the President's actions here do not relate to his duties of faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign affairs, commanding the armed forces, or managing the Executive Branch," Mehta added. "They entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term. These are unofficial acts, so the separation-of-powers concerns that justify the President's broad immunity are not present here." Mehta's opinion could halt the protections of the presidency and the First Amendment due to the "one-of-a-kind" nature of the case, allowing a new opportunity to subpoena Trump that would shine a light on where presidential immunity ends. As of now, there are no public markers that the criminal investigation into Jan. 6 has reached the former president, but Friday's decision could set the stage for possible civil trials months or years from now in which Trump would be a defendant. "Today is a major victory for the rule of law, and demonstrates just how important the courts are for ensuring accountability," said Joseph Sellers, who represents a group of Democratic members of Congress that alleged civil conspiracy against Trump in court. The NAACP joined him in applauding the ruling. Matthew Kaiser, a lawyer for Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said it was a "great ruling," and a representative for the Jan. 6 police officers, Patrick Malone, called Mehta's ruling "a victory for democracy." "It's good to see that no one is above the law. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions," said Capitol Police Officer James Blassingame Jr. in a statement. Mehta added that the lawsuit could show that Trump coordinated with far-right groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, who are also named in the lawsuit and have been charged with conspiracy. He noted that Trump told the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by" before the election, and that he likely knew of the violent actions they planned. "It is reasonable to infer that the President knew that these were militia groups and that they were prepared to partake in violence for him," Mehta said. "The President thus plausibly would have known that a call for violence would be carried out by militia groups and other supporters." Other Trump allies, including his son Donald Trump Jr., were successful in having their civil cases dismissed. "The allegations against Trump Jr. are insufficient to make him a co-conspirator in a plan to disrupt Congress from performing its duties," Mehta wrote. Mehta made it clear that Trump Jr.'s situation was much different than his father's – who failed to tell his supporters to stand down and stop the violence at the Capitol. "When the President said to the crowd at the end of his remarks, 'We fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,' moments before instructing them to march to the Capitol, the President's speech plausibly crossed the line into unprotected territory," Mehta wrote. Judge concludes Jan. 6 rioter who broke into Capitol was acting on "Trump's instructions"
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,987
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 19, 2023 20:07:43 GMT -5
Judge concludes Jan. 6 rioter who broke into Capitol was acting on "Trump's instructions"A federal judge said on Tuesday that a woman who stormed the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection "followed then-President Trump's instructions" when she broke the law. Danean MacAndrew traveled from California to Washington, D.C. to join Trump's rally, and later filmed herself storming the Capitol with fellow Trump supporters. After a three-day bench trial, she was found guilty of charges including violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote in a 18-page opinion that shortly before Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally began on Jan. 6, MacAndrew tweeted at him "that she too felt that '[t]raps had been set' in the '#RiggedElection' of 2020." The former president then urged his supporters to literally stop the voting process by marching on the Capitol. "Defendant marched to the Capitol where, she testified, she understood that only Congress had the power to fix the election's outcome and that Congress was likely in session while she was around and in the Capitol," Kollar-Kotelly wrote. "Every step of the way, from the western boundary of Capitol grounds, to the West Lawn, to the Upper West Terrace, to the interior of the Capitol itself, she saw sign after sign that her presence was unlawful," Kollar-Kotelly said. "Nevertheless, heeding the call of former President Trump, she continued onwards to 'stop the steal.'" Kollar-Kotelly then explained the verdict in the case: "Having followed then-President Trump's instructions, which were in line with her stated desires, the Court therefore finds that Defendant intended her presence to be disruptive to Congressional business." The ruling aligns with the final report from the House Jan. 6 select committee, which alleged that Trump engaged in a "multi-part conspiracy to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 Presidential election." While Trump has maintained his innocence, claiming that the allegations are nothing more than a political witch hunt, other Jan. 6 defendants have also accused him of giving them "presidential orders" to attack the Capitol. Even former Vice President Mike Pence told ABC News that Trump "decided to be part of the problem" on Jan. 6. In a statement to Axios, Trump spokesperson Liz Harrington refuted the conclusions made by both Kollar-Kotelly and the House committee. Harrington claimed that Trump "urged the crowd to 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard' on Jan. 6, a fact, just like the Unselect Committee, this biased judge deliberately omitted." "The violations of due process and unfair treatment of political prisoners by the U.S. government during this saga will forever be a stain on our country," Harrington added. In another case against Jan. 6 defendant Alexander Sheppard last month, U.S. District Judge John Bates indicated that Trump's instructions to "fight like hell" during the rally could have been a sign to supporters that he wanted them to "do something more" than protest. Bates shut down Sheppard's attempt to use the "public authority" defense because "President Trump neither stated nor implied that entering the restricted area of the Capitol grounds and the Capitol building or impeding the certification of the electoral vote was lawful." However, he did acknowledge that supporters may have been influenced to participate in an insurrection. "But, although his express words only mention walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, one might conclude that the context implies that he was urging protestors to do something more — perhaps to enter the Capitol building and stop the certification," Bates wrote. Bates's ruling cited the House panel's report, arguing that phrases used by the committee, such as "fight like hell," could "signal to protesters that entering the Capitol and stopping the certification would be unlawful." His conclusion was that "even if protesters believed they were following orders, they were not misled about the legality of their actions and thus fall outside the scope of any public authority defense" which is consistent with the Select Committee's findings. Bates was clear that there was "simply no indication" that Trump informed the crowd that storming the Capitol would be legal, but rather "his speech simply suggests that it would be an act of 'boldness' to 'stop the steal.'" Various other Jan. 6 defendants have tried to employ the public authority defense, but this strategy has proved to be unsuccessful at trial. Dustin Thompson, who was convicted on all counts, told the jury that he was seeking Trump's "approval" and that he believed he was "following presidential orders." The Justice Department argued in the Sheppard filing this month that it was "objectively unreasonable to conclude that President Trump or any other Executive Branch official could authorize citizens to engage in violent or assaultive conduct toward law enforcement officers and interfere with the Electoral College proceedings that were being conducted." However, civil lawsuits seeking to hold Trump accountable for the insurrection could move forward in court according to federal judge Amit Mehta, who wrote in a 112-page opinion that he could realistically be held accountable for the incident. Mehta argued that Trump's statements before the riot "is the essence of civil conspiracy," because he spoke of working "towards a common goal" of marching to the Capitol. "The President's January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action," Mehta said. Mehta also wrote that three lawsuits against Trump filed by Democratic members of the House and police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 could move to the evidence-gathering phase and possibly make it to trial. "To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent," Mehta wrote. "After all, the President's actions here do not relate to his duties of faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign affairs, commanding the armed forces, or managing the Executive Branch," Mehta added. "They entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term. These are unofficial acts, so the separation-of-powers concerns that justify the President's broad immunity are not present here." Mehta's opinion could halt the protections of the presidency and the First Amendment due to the "one-of-a-kind" nature of the case, allowing a new opportunity to subpoena Trump that would shine a light on where presidential immunity ends. As of now, there are no public markers that the criminal investigation into Jan. 6 has reached the former president, but Friday's decision could set the stage for possible civil trials months or years from now in which Trump would be a defendant. "Today is a major victory for the rule of law, and demonstrates just how important the courts are for ensuring accountability," said Joseph Sellers, who represents a group of Democratic members of Congress that alleged civil conspiracy against Trump in court. The NAACP joined him in applauding the ruling. Matthew Kaiser, a lawyer for Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said it was a "great ruling," and a representative for the Jan. 6 police officers, Patrick Malone, called Mehta's ruling "a victory for democracy." "It's good to see that no one is above the law. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions," said Capitol Police Officer James Blassingame Jr. in a statement. Mehta added that the lawsuit could show that Trump coordinated with far-right groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, who are also named in the lawsuit and have been charged with conspiracy. He noted that Trump told the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by" before the election, and that he likely knew of the violent actions they planned. "It is reasonable to infer that the President knew that these were militia groups and that they were prepared to partake in violence for him," Mehta said. "The President thus plausibly would have known that a call for violence would be carried out by militia groups and other supporters." Other Trump allies, including his son Donald Trump Jr., were successful in having their civil cases dismissed. "The allegations against Trump Jr. are insufficient to make him a co-conspirator in a plan to disrupt Congress from performing its duties," Mehta wrote. Mehta made it clear that Trump Jr.'s situation was much different than his father's – who failed to tell his supporters to stand down and stop the violence at the Capitol. "When the President said to the crowd at the end of his remarks, 'We fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,' moments before instructing them to march to the Capitol, the President's speech plausibly crossed the line into unprotected territory," Mehta wrote. Judge concludes Jan. 6 rioter who broke into Capitol was acting on "Trump's instructions" Cue the Jaws music. Circling Trump.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 20, 2023 18:16:11 GMT -5
it really does feel like they are braiding the rope, doesn't it?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 20, 2023 18:30:13 GMT -5
it really does feel like they are braiding the rope, doesn't it? One can only hope.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,063
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jan 21, 2023 9:36:42 GMT -5
Judge concludes Jan. 6 rioter who broke into Capitol was acting on "Trump's instructions"... In a statement to Axios, Trump spokesperson Liz Harrington refuted the conclusions made by both Kollar-Kotelly and the House committee. Harrington claimed that Trump "urged the crowd to 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard' on Jan. 6, a fact, just like the Unselect Committee, this biased judge deliberately omitted." "The violations of due process and unfair treatment of political prisoners by the U.S. government during this saga will forever be a stain on our country," Harrington added. ... Lots of interesting points against Trump in the article, but the above part stuck out to me. Trump/spokespeople seem to think they can argue it both ways. Nope. They are clearly saying that the insurrectionists didn't listen to Trump's "peacefully and patriotically" part (if that ever happened) and went rogue - and thus deserve their sentences, and in the next breath the insurrectionists are political prisoners being treated unfairly. No - can't logically be both.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,438
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jan 21, 2023 9:52:27 GMT -5
Logic and Trump(and his followers) should never be used in the same sentence
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,063
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jan 21, 2023 10:19:14 GMT -5
Logic and Trump(and his followers) should never be used in the same sentence Yeah, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Right collectively don't understand Logic and logical arguments. I remember a time years ago when my DS2 at age 15 was trying to logically convince DS5 age 3 of something, and DS5 was arguing back. Back and forth it went, good-naturedly on the older son's part, but younger never got the point. Finally I pointed out to DS2 "You are arguing with a three-year-old. He can't understand logic, yet. Exercise in futility." DS2 looked at me sheepishly, and capitulated.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2023 11:31:18 GMT -5
Jan. 6 rioter who assaulted Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick sentenced to over 6 years in jailAccording to the plea agreements, Tanios bought two cans of bear spray in preparation for his trip with Khater to Washington on January 6. During the Capitol attack, when the two men arrived near a line of police officers by the steps of the Capitol, Khater said to Tanios, “Give me that bear s**t,” according to the plea.
Khater took a white can of bear spray from Tanios’s backpack, walked up to the line of officers and, as rioters started pulling on the bike rack barrier separating them and the police, Khater sprayed multiple officers – including Sicknick – who had to retreat from the line. Minimal but at least something.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 28, 2023 12:12:00 GMT -5
Jan. 6 rioter who assaulted Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick sentenced to over 6 years in jailAccording to the plea agreements, Tanios bought two cans of bear spray in preparation for his trip with Khater to Washington on January 6. During the Capitol attack, when the two men arrived near a line of police officers by the steps of the Capitol, Khater said to Tanios, “Give me that bear s**t,” according to the plea.
Khater took a white can of bear spray from Tanios’s backpack, walked up to the line of officers and, as rioters started pulling on the bike rack barrier separating them and the police, Khater sprayed multiple officers – including Sicknick – who had to retreat from the line. Minimal but at least something. Either they will never do it again, or if they do it again, they will make deadly sure they are never caught.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2023 12:17:51 GMT -5
Jan. 6 rioter who assaulted Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick sentenced to over 6 years in jailAccording to the plea agreements, Tanios bought two cans of bear spray in preparation for his trip with Khater to Washington on January 6. During the Capitol attack, when the two men arrived near a line of police officers by the steps of the Capitol, Khater said to Tanios, “Give me that bear s**t,” according to the plea.
Khater took a white can of bear spray from Tanios’s backpack, walked up to the line of officers and, as rioters started pulling on the bike rack barrier separating them and the police, Khater sprayed multiple officers – including Sicknick – who had to retreat from the line. Minimal but at least something. Either they will never do it again, or if they do it again, they will make deadly sure they are never caught. I think all sides will be using deadly force next time.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,120
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jan 28, 2023 12:28:36 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,847
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 28, 2023 13:12:15 GMT -5
Jan. 6 rioter who assaulted Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick sentenced to over 6 years in jailAccording to the plea agreements, Tanios bought two cans of bear spray in preparation for his trip with Khater to Washington on January 6. During the Capitol attack, when the two men arrived near a line of police officers by the steps of the Capitol, Khater said to Tanios, “Give me that bear s**t,” according to the plea.
Khater took a white can of bear spray from Tanios’s backpack, walked up to the line of officers and, as rioters started pulling on the bike rack barrier separating them and the police, Khater sprayed multiple officers – including Sicknick – who had to retreat from the line. Minimal but at least something. Some people have no care when it affects someone else. Too bad part of the punishment is not being sprayed in the face to find out what it feels like. www.newsweek.com/bear-spray-toxic-capitol-riot-officer-1576563#:~:text=BearSmart%20says%20bear%20spray%20will%20affect%20humans%20in,the%20nose%20will%20run%20profusely%2C%20coughing%20will%20result.%22 Bear spray can also harm humans. The Alaska Department for Fish and Game (ADFG) says bear spray can leave the canister at speeds of over 70 miles per hour and can cause permanent damage to people's eyes.
BearSmart says bear spray will affect humans in a similar way to how it affects bears. It states: "A person contaminated with bear spray will experience the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose and lungs to swell and be irritated. The eyes will involuntarily close and tear, the nose will run profusely, coughing will result."
The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) says affected individuals can rinse their eyes and skin slowly and gently with cold water if they are exposed to bear spray, while ice packs may help reduce inflammation.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,511
|
Post by tbop77 on Feb 3, 2023 7:24:08 GMT -5
When asked if he agreed with the sentiment shared by Greene, who has formed a key alliance with the House speaker in recent weeks, McCarthy dismissed the idea, adding "I think the police officer [Byrd] did his job." In a social-media post, Trump has criticized McCarthy for the comments and also launched a series of attacks against Byrd. "I totally disagree with the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, in that the Police Officer 'Thug,' who has had a very checkered past to begin with, was not just 'doing his job' when he shot and killed Great Patriot Ashli Babbitt at point blank range," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Despite trying to keep him anonymous, shielded, and protected, this MISFIT proudly showed up on NBC Fake Nightly News 'bragging' about the killing. He was not a hero but a COWARD, who wanted to show how tough he was. ASHLI BABBITT WAS MURDERED!!!" www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-furious-with-kevin-mccarthy-over-ashli-babbitt-remarks/ar-AA174lDO?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d1adf0825cf54683bb0f6f1e7cabda70uh-oh, Kevin screwed up and spoke the truth!
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,438
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Feb 3, 2023 8:19:06 GMT -5
He really is a piece of s!!!
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,847
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 3, 2023 8:27:34 GMT -5
Ashli Babbitt was a deluded opportunist who didn't think through the possible outcomes of her crimes. Sadly Trump has thought about the outcome of his crimes and hopes his money and lawyers continue to protect him from any notable consequences.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,847
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 3, 2023 8:40:47 GMT -5
MTG, continuing her streak of being wrong about everything- www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-says-ashli-babbitt-trying-stop-jan-6-rioters-1773804Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has said deceased Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt was trying to stop other January 6 protesters from breaking into the Speaker's Lobby.
The Republican then retweeted that post and included a video which purports to show Babbitt attempting to stop alleged rioter Zachary Alam, who is accused of breaking the window into the Speaker's Lobby, which Babbitt later climbed through.
Maybe Ashley just wanted to be first and tried to slow down the competition. Given she climbed through the window instead of blocking it shows how deluded MTG is.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,414
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 3, 2023 9:39:06 GMT -5
They should have shot more of them IMO. I don't normally come to that conclusion but in that situation it should have been shoot to kill just as it is if someone targets the president.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 3, 2023 10:21:13 GMT -5
Every single person who entered the building should have been shot. I'd execute them now without a second thought, along with all those who stoked the insurrection or helped promulgate Trump's lies whether in the media, the courts, or the Congress. If the death penalty is appropriate for treason, what could be more treasonous than attempting a violent overthrow of American democracy and our system of government? At the very least they should be stripped of their citizenship.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,987
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 3, 2023 10:22:36 GMT -5
MTG, continuing her streak of being wrong about everything- www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-says-ashli-babbitt-trying-stop-jan-6-rioters-1773804Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has said deceased Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt was trying to stop other January 6 protesters from breaking into the Speaker's Lobby.
The Republican then retweeted that post and included a video which purports to show Babbitt attempting to stop alleged rioter Zachary Alam, who is accused of breaking the window into the Speaker's Lobby, which Babbitt later climbed through.
Maybe Ashley just wanted to be first and tried to slow down the competition. Given she climbed through the window instead of blocking it shows how deluded MTG is. Yeah you only have to watch the video to see that very clearly there were multiple armed men brandishing their weapons immediately on the other side of the door Babbitt was trying to break through. (Doors with glass panes so you could clearly see everything on the far side). Several people in the crowd of insurgents called out loudly that there were guns. Then you could hear glass breaking and see Babbitt trying to push her way through one of the window opening. She was not, in any way, trying to stop the rioters. She was the head of the riotous crowd trying to jam their way in. Funny how black men sitting in parked cars at fast food restaurants ‘deserve’ getting shot but this aggressive invader is a hero. Nebulous far right logic.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 3, 2023 10:59:08 GMT -5
Every single person who entered the building should have been shot. I'd execute them now without a second thought, along with all those who stoked the insurrection or helped promulgate Trump's lies whether in the media, the courts, or the Congress. If the death penalty is appropriate for treason, what could be more treasonous than attempting a violent overthrow of American democracy and our system of government? At the very least they should be stripped of their citizenship. I think either would result in a very dangerous increase in radicalization of the general population.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 3, 2023 11:02:21 GMT -5
Says the guy with a blatant criminal past to begin with. Donald Trump Furious With Kevin McCarthy Over Ashli Babbitt Remarks
Donald Trump has lashed out at Kevin McCarthy after the House speaker rejected the suggestion that January 6 rioter Ashli Babbitt was "murdered." In a social-media post, Trump has criticized McCarthy for the comments and also launched a series of attacks against Byrd. "I totally disagree with the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, in that the Police Officer 'Thug,' who has had a very checkered past to begin with, was not just 'doing his job' when he shot and killed Great Patriot Ashli Babbitt at point blank range," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Despite trying to keep him anonymous, shielded, and protected, this MISFIT proudly showed up on NBC Fake Nightly News 'bragging' about the killing. He was not a hero but a COWARD, who wanted to show how tough he was. ASHLI BABBITT WAS MURDERED!!!" Donald Trump Furious With Kevin McCarthy Over Ashli Babbitt Remarks
|
|