Search results

If I get something wrong it doesn't mean I'm lying anymore than you are when you're wrong, dipshit.

What about this one. The Sai Varshith Kandula incident (2023) A man drove a U-Haul truck into a security fence near the White House. He was found to have a Nazi flag and told investigators he wanted to kill the president.

Notice how I didn't call you a liar for getting something wrong.

Nope The Omar Gonzalez incident (2014) A U.S. Army veteran jumped the White House fence, ran across the lawn, and entered the front door, making it to the East Room before being apprehended by security. The incident prompted the resignation of the Secret Service Director and spurred a security...

I could have been mistaken how far they got but don't call me a liar you bootlicking twerp.

There were 3 on one side and 2 on the other. The 2, on Babbit's side left a few minutes before the shooting.

We had that exact situation happen during the Floyd Riots. The president was escorted to a bunker. The Secret Service didn't shoot anyone.

Most of these people were invited in. You don't understand what imminent means under the law. It means this very second. There were two cops on Babbitt's side of the door who left the area. Why didn't those two cops do anything? The doors were NOT compromised. That's why she crawled through a...

A personal residence is not the same as a public building.

No, but if you want to justify killing an unarmed woman then that's your right but not a legal one. However, instead of feelings and FAFO stuff that has nothing to do with the legal system I'm going by the law. As I showed above with Turley's legal opinion that there's no way anyway can...

Or the more likely reason was that they were actually waiting until something that was an actual threat. The only one who shot was the one guy who had a reckless track record.

There were a lot more than 3 officers there. Try a few hundred. Yes, some were chanting harm. I would have been too if I would have been standing there protesting peacefully and getting rubber bullets/flash grenades for my. trouble. They had plenty opportunity to harm while inside but didn't.

You may have a point but that's not a legal answer. Here's legal expert Jonathan Turley's issue on what bothered him on the Babbitt case investigations: "Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds...

They might have if there was a significant threat. One petite woman climbing through a window didn't seem to get their attention.

If they were such a danger why did the cops let them in? Why did only one cop shoot? There were two cops on the other side with the protestors close to Babbitt. They left a few minutes before she was shot. If there was such a danger why did they leave? The evidence doesn't back up what you're...

If that's true why did no other cop shoot?

That's a legitimate reason to shoot someone? Even if she's an idiot she shouldn't have been shot.

You get real. There was a barrier that nobody had traversed. She was shot while unarmed. One woman crawled through a window and was shot by one cop. There were other cops behind Byrd. Why didn't anyone else shoot if anyone was in imminent danger? As I said if the barrier (doors) had fallen they...

The barricade was holding and not broken down. She was the only one going through a window. Byrd had a ton of Backup behind him. He wasn't in danger nor was anybody else. I could understand the shooting if the doors were breached. You fire at will then.

All that needed to be done was that he quit hiding like a coward, get up, drag her out of that window, and take her to jail.