January 6th Bipartisan Commission

I want to make sure you understand what I said/meant: The shooting of a person (be it man or woman, whatever color) trying to get around a barricaded door while carrying a backpack, just yards from the entrance to the U.S. House (or Senate, or White House) is justified, in my opinion. She could have been carrying a bomb in the backpack for all they knew. I'm pleased both Capitol Police and the Department of Justice came to the same conclusion.

Now, as for the uniformed officers standing behind her and doing nothing (after moving out of the way of the door), I have a lot of questions. But maybe that's just me.

Rick wrote:

Wayne Harrison wrote:
As to the scenario you dreamed up in your head and the conclusion you reached as a result, I can't speak to that. It didn't happen. But, I am pretty sure if these had been BLM protesters who breached the Capitol and one was fatally shot trying to go over a barricade while carrying a backpack, you'd be arguing a completely different argument.

See what you did there Wayne? You attempted to change the point I was making and you assumed to know what I would have thought.

Never once have I ever said that an unarmed person should be shot in any situation. You however did say that shooting an unarmed woman was justified. MY POINT was that the MEDIA and others would have been calling for this guys head if he was white and the unarmed woman was black. Everything is about skin color on the left and you know that.

[/b]

NO, it is about actions/words and intent....

Unfortunately, in today's world, a person carrying a backpack, breaching a law enforcement barrier, cannot be considered "unarmed."

homeagain wrote:

Rick wrote:

Wayne Harrison wrote:
As to the scenario you dreamed up in your head and the conclusion you reached as a result, I can't speak to that. It didn't happen. But, I am pretty sure if these had been BLM protesters who breached the Capitol and one was fatally shot trying to go over a barricade while carrying a backpack, you'd be arguing a completely different argument.

See what you did there Wayne? You attempted to change the point I was making and you assumed to know what I would have thought.

Never once have I ever said that an unarmed person should be shot in any situation. You however did say that shooting an unarmed woman was justified. MY POINT was that the MEDIA and others would have been calling for this guys head if he was white and the unarmed woman was black. Everything is about skin color on the left and you know that.

[/b]

NO, it is about actions/words and intent....

You must not watch the news very often then. There are far more white people killed by cops every year than black people but the media grabs on to the stories that fit the "this is a racist country" narrative. This whole new woke movement revolves around skin color and our VP was even picked because of her gender and color... you can't tell me she was picked because Democrat voters wanted her more than all the others... she just checked the identity boxes

Wayne Harrison wrote: Unfortunately, in today's world, a person carrying a backpack, breaching a law enforcement barrier, cannot be considered "unarmed."

Interesting.. do you have a source that confirms your claim that backpacks should be considered deadly weapons by police officers? I seem to recall that the guy who grabbed the taser from the cop, turned and shot at him, was considered to be unarmed because it was not a lethal weapon.

As far as the backpack goes, are you hinting that it could have been full of explosives and she may have blown herself up along with everyone around her? If I was a cop, I'd be looking at what was in her hands and not worry about what was on her back unless it was a rifle.

Sometimes I think you grasp at too many unlikely straws in order to make your point instead of looking at these events with open and honest eyes. I've done it myself so I do understand.

Can you provide a quote where I said that backpacks should be considered deadly weapons by police officers?

Backpacks are not allowed in Federal Buildings, including Congress, unless they are thoroughly screened first. I'm betting hers, or any others, went through the screening process.

Before entering the Capitol Visitor Center, all visitors are screened by a magnetometer and all items that are permitted inside the building are screened by an x-ray device. The following items are strictly prohibited:

Liquid, including water
Food or beverages of any kind, including fruit and unopened packaged food
Aerosol containers
Non-aerosol spray (prescriptions for medical needs are permitted)
Any pointed object (i.e., knitting needles, letter openers, etc. Note: pens and pencils are permitted.)
Any bag larger than 18" wide x 14" high x 8.5" deep
Electric stun guns, martial arts weapons or devices
Guns, replica guns, ammunition, and fireworks
Knives of any size
Mace and pepper spray
Razors and box cutters

The mob that invaded the Capitol Building had a lot of those items, and used them against police (judging from the photos and the arrests).

www.senate.gov/visiting/common/generic/new/safety_security.htm

Wayne Harrison wrote: Can you provide a quote where I said that backpacks should be considered deadly weapons by police officers?

Backpacks are not allowed in Federal Buildings, including Congress, unless they are thoroughly screened first. I'm betting hers, or any others, went through the screening process.

Wayne Harrison wrote: Unfortunately, in today's world, a person carrying a backpack, breaching a law enforcement barrier, cannot be considered "unarmed."

Your scenario is not relevant since I doubt a woman would be shot if she ran through a metal detector while wearing a backpack. Now if she had a gun in her hand, I would think that would be a situation where putting her down would actually make sense. It all comes down to the officer fearing for his or her life. At the very least there should be an investigation and possible trial where the officer is required to convince a jury that he was justified in killing her because she posed a threat to his life or the lives of others.

We will never see that trail or any of the evidence because the unarmed woman does not fit the narrative being spread by this administration and the media that covers for it.

Rick wrote: Your scenario is not relevant since I doubt a woman would be shot if she ran through a metal detector while wearing a backpack. Now if she had a gun in her hand, I would think that would be a situation where putting her down would actually make sense. It all comes down to the officer fearing for his or her life. At the very least there should be an investigation and possible trial where the officer is required to convince a jury that he was justified in killing her because she posed a threat to his life or the lives of others.

We will never see that trail or any of the evidence because the unarmed woman does not fit the narrative being spread by this administration and the media that covers for it.

There has been an investigation and the officer was cleared.

WHICH has been posted many times....the facts r NOT wanted, the agenda MUST remain till there is another election....I have hit my head against the wall so many times I have a permanent headache. The compromise,meeting of the minds,opening the door of understanding, creating a bridge,extending a hand
is DEAD.,GONE,DISAPPEARED,DOES NOT COMPUTE...

koobookie wrote:
There has been an investigation and the officer was cleared.

So how come this incident gets a secret "investigation" behind closed doors, but a street cop that kills a career criminal who resists arrest must be in every paper and on every news network daily until the trial is over?

Do you have a link to this investigation that has conclusive evidence that the secret officer did nothing wrong? If nobody even knows who this person is, how is that really a transparent investigation?