| | | For example, suppose she had a gun, knife, or club in her hand. That would have enabled the shooter to presume he knew the intent and probably be on solid ground in the shooting
You still don't get the notion of the cop shooting at the mob, not at the individual who happened to be the leading edge of the mob. It was the mob, not Ashli Babbitt, that needed to be stopped.
But the crowd advancing in the Capitol, while a crime, is not a combat zone.
You also don't seem to get the criticality of the location--that there was nothing between the mob and Members of Congress but that door the mob was in the process of breaching. Have you considered how that cop could have stopped the mob had it breached that door? One cop between the mob and the protectees? Do you not recognize the notion of a red line? Or maybe you dispute the notion that the mob even needed to be stopped before it reached the Members? Or maybe you think the mob should have been allowed to do whatever mayhem in the inner sanctum?
The riot at the Capitol was people doing what they do after an election is stolen.
The action at the Capitol was driven by seditious persons trying to stop Congress from doing its Constitutional duty to accept and recognize the votes of the electors and thereby overturn the election. It was the last hope after the lawsuits and intimidation and pressure for loyalty over oath critically and repeatedly failed. The mob was a witting or unwitting tool in what was the last gasp of an attempted coup. That some of the participants may have been deceived into believing that their actions were righteous rather than treasonous doesn't alter the potential impact of their actions. The best that deceit might do would be to mitigate the legal consequences (intent) when the Rule of Law caught up to them.
Re "stolen," I though I read you elsewhere to have backed off the notion that there was major election fraud and to focus, instead, on the processes and visibility not being to your liking, perhaps changing them going forward. Perhaps I misunderstood but I'm surprised to see you still talking "stolen." |
|
