Loose continuation of "J6" thread.

How do you think the officer should have responded to prevent entrance (either by Babbitt or others) into that area (beyond the barricaded doors)?

I ask because I see a lot of comments about the force used, but I am not sure what alternatives were available (I have no idea what resources the officers on the other side of the door had).

Also, what do you think of those people breaking the windows and doors in the Capitol?

I'm curious because it reminded me of the Floyd riots.....except then you could actually burn down buildings and just get a small fine the Democrats would pay in your stead.

 

Not a Lipscomb fan but it doesn't seem like a good idea to trust the government.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.". Ronald Reagan

 

I did read your post.

I can't say what each person believed. Those non-MAGA people were carrying Trump signs (and flags). But I agree that they were not making America great again.

I already said that I believe most were there to protest, but that there were also bad actors (people that were pro-Trump but breaking the law, beating police officers, carrying weapons).



What do you believe the officers should have done about the non-MAGA people breaking the windows and doors of the Capitol?

 

We also have to remember people drew lines at different places.

Some who were breaking windows and doors were concerned about others also beating police officers.


What is strange is that you could torch a building protesting Floyd and that was a minor thing.....but if you walked on the Capitol lawn on Jan 6 the FBI would hunt you down and arrest you.

That does not excuse criminal behavior (what @RipponRedeaux believes was done by the non-MAGA rioters) but it does call into question the integrity of the FBI and DOJ.

 

One problem today is our nation as a whole has changed. Our politicians reflect, rather than dictate, that change.

The conservativism of the past was not transferred to following generations in a meaningful way. It exists in minority.

Think about the American people, the younger generations.

My father had one credit card he used for business and paid off every month.

Today most people have credit cards not for money management but to buy things they cannot afford.

When I was young I was taught to always have at least 2 months pay set aside for emergencies.

Today much of our younger working citizens live from hand to mouth - check to check.

College students get student loans they will spend decades paying back - often loans for degrees they will never earn, or in under employable fields of study.

Young students are offered credit cards that far exceed their income.


How can we expect citizens to support fiscal conservatism in government when they are not fiscally conservative with their own money?


So we end up frustrated with the government. We blame the politicians....BUT they ultimately reflect the nation and a gap in values.

 

It set a double standard, I agree.

Burn down a building in a leftist riot you get a $500 fine which a Democrat origination will pay for you.

Dare to set foot on the Capitol steps on Jan 6 and the FBI will spend years hunting you down and arrest you.


I have no problem with peaceful protests. I don't like most of them these days (I disagree with the protestors position). But that's free speech.

Even civil disobedience can have its place in protest (although result in arrest).


My issue is with violent protests - burning down restaurants and buildings, destroying property, breaking out windows, beating police officers, busting down doors, threatening people......that kind of thing.


My argument would be that crimes largely overlooked during Floyd protests do not change the actual standard (it may contribute to, but does not excuse, crimes during Jan 6).


The people who beat the officers should be arrested and jailed. The people who broke Capitol windows and doors should be arrested and jailed (and pay for damages). The people who burned down buildings and damaged vehicles in protest of Floyd's death should be arrested and jailed.

BUT those people who were actually peacefully protesting, who did not commit a crime, should not be lumped into the group who did. Today we see this happening. Why is the FBI still trying to hunt down people from Jan 6 who committed no violence?

 

You still have not presented what you would have done were you the officer on the other side of those barricaded doors.

In your opinion, what should that officer have done to prevent the people from entering that lobby?

Also, you mentioned that Lt. Byrd had a history of mental illness and should have been dismissed from the Capitol police long before Jan 6.

I agree that police officers should undergo psychiatric evaluations (they do in SC). And I agree that mental illness is grounds to me medically released from actively being an officer in the field (not necessarily terminated, but moved to a different type of position).

What evidence do you have that Lt. Byrd had a history of mental illness?


I ask because you have been offering subjective statements but not actually engaging the issue or facts. That makes your posts appear more emotional than substantial.

 

I did view the video showing Babbitt put her hand on the guys backpack, and I saw where she attacked the guy wearing glasses. I listened to the guy say Babbitt was trying to keep people from entering the Senate Lobby.

But I also watched the two videos taken by the oro-Trump protesters outside the door that occurred afterwards when she was entering through the window in the left door (her head ducked in, left leg already in).


This is the department policy:

"an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury,”


Now, Lt. Byrd is on the other side of the barricaded charged with protecting Capitol officials (and his fellow officers).

He has a radio and heard about the mob outside, that they had attacked police officers.

The guy on the other side of the door has just told the three officers that the mob has injured officers outside and the mob is coming to the Senate Lobby (and that those officers need to leave or they will be beaten by the mob, which that protestor didn't want).

The three officers left and the rioters on the other side of the door started smashing the window on the right (and the wood from the door was also breaking).


Now....you are the officer.

One of those people outside the door climbs up and starts stepping in the broken window on the left door.


What do you do?


Also, what evidence do you have that Lt. Byrd had a history of mental illness?

 

Funny....one of my wife's coworkers was trying to join the PD and failed the psych. But they think he is a real psycho.


I guess my question is about Lt. Byrd. @RipponRedeaux indicated he had a history of mental illness and shouldn't even have been on the force in Jan 6.

This is the first I have heard of it.


My experience with law enforcement is that most (that I have known) are good people. But I have known a few that were there because they carved authority. I have found the same time be true with the military. There are always bad apples.

But that's anywhere I guess. So I also believe that in terms of the protestors. I do not believe most there went to beat police officers or damage government buildings. But there were bad apples in the bunch (is it a "bunch" of apples....or bushel?).



I think that we should consider the options available to Lt. Boyd before we condemn his actions.

I don't know what they were (did he have a taser?).


My criticism is not towards Lt. Boyd but towards an undermanned force. The Capitol had been closed, there was a crowd gathering, and by the time Babbitt started stepping through the window officers outside had already been attacked and beaten.

The priority, IMHO, should have been shifted towards those outside that barricade. Deal with those destroying property later. I doubt the majority would be breaking windows...at worst they'd just be trespassing. Get the people away from government officials then deal with the rest later.