The Trump Card...

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Not every parent. Only Trump supporters or parents that don’t support CRT in their school will face scrutiny.

You misspelled "that support and make threats and intimidation - including threats of physical violence and/or death threats - directed at public school officials".

Keep pushing the (false) narrative that you are and I will gladly post some of the footage of these unhinged lunatics and domestic terrorist wannabe's making those threats at public meetings.

I'm sure it will be very entertaining and fun.

:tearsofjoy:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Well, lookie here. Looks like someone got the “easy” treatment.

Byrd initially declined to speak to investigators the day shooting occurred ... until he had retained counsel.

Once he retained counsel, I would assume counsel advised him not to provide an interview ... which, as it turns out, was good advice.

But the real nuggets to come out of your posting that link is that:

1. Two officers - in addition to Lt. Byrd - reported that commands were being issued to (aka screamed at) the rioter terrorists to "Stay Back ... Get Back" ... along with some fairly salty language.

2. (At least) one of the officers above issued such commands himself:

Screen Shot 2022-01-12 at 03.07.03.png

3. All three officers had their guns drawn and pointed at the rioter terrorists. (And there may have been other officers beyond those three - it's a big a file even with all the redactions and I still have lots to go through)

Ms. Babbitt - in a blinding moment of Trumper Dipstick Brilliance™ - decided to ignore both the commands from multiple officers AND the guns drawn and pointed in her direction:

Screen Shot 2022-01-12 at 03.01.05.png

4. A fourth officer - who apparently was just outside the Speaker's Lobby Doors where the rioter terrorists were (IOW: close to Babbitt) - described Babbitt (along with Zac Alam ?) as being "violent".

Thanks for posting the link to the article !

:clapping-happy:

I'll be sure and update you with any additional factoids I mine out of it.

:tearsofjoy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Consider how this "investigation" was conducted as opposed to this one in MN that involved an officer shooting an unarmed, non-threatening woman.

In Ashli's case she was armed - the mob was her deadly weapon.

He was convicted of manslaughter and the city of Minneapolis had to settle a $20M civil suit.

And rightly so:

"His (manslaughter) conviction was just," Freeman said in a statement. "The case has been remanded to the trial court for sentencing and we will seek the maximum sentence possible."

The chief justice said the court and prosecutors agree that "Noor's decision to shoot a deadly weapon simply because he was startled was disproportionate and unreasonable."

"Noor's conduct is especially troubling given the trust that citizens should be able to place in our peace officers," Gildea wrote. "But the tragic circumstances of this case do not change the fact that Noor's conduct was directed with particularity toward Ruszczyk."

The most hilarious thing about this post of yours that I'm replying to is that it appears as though you're trying compare (or even worse: equate) the shooting of an unarmed 911 caller who went outside to greet police that were responding to her call ... and a rioting insurrectionist, who had breached our nation's Capitol, ignored law enforcement officer commands to get back and still proceeded to advance in spite of having multiple guns pointed in her direction ... AND had a violent mob at her back.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Once again, I shake my head in amazement that the events of Jan 6 can be explained away the way they are.

It's a just a pretext ... to try rationalize and normalize it ... so when it happens again some other folks (conceivably) won't be quite as horrified and repulsed by it.

Folks that do that don't really see anything wrong with what happened (other than it didn't succeed) ... despite much lip service to the contrary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
It's a just a pretext ... to try rationalize and normalize it ... so when it happens again some other folks (conceivably) won't be quite as horrified and repulsed by it.

Folks that do that don't really see anything wrong with what happened (other than it didn't succeed) ... despite much lip service to the contrary.
I guess that's what amazes me.

How people can be so taken in by such nonsense is mind boggling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

coalminer

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
I guess that's what amazes me.

How people can be so taken in by such nonsense is mind boggling.
Its amazing what you can get people to do when you make them believe that their "freedom" is being taken away from them.

There is only one person responsible for her death, Trump himself, a sore loser who couldnt accept the fact he lost the election and was willing to do whatever he could to stay in power, inciting his followers to do his dirty work for him. I feel bad for the people who were arrested and have had their lives changed forever, but this is why you have to think before you act.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Consider how this "investigation" was conducted as opposed to this one in MN that involved an officer shooting an unarmed, non-threatening woman. He was convicted of manslaughter and the city of Minneapolis had to settle a $20M civil suit.

"Noor was also convicted of second-degree manslaughter in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond on July 15, 2017, and that verdict still stands...
If he's hit with a four-year manslaughter term, the former officer should be eligible for release after doing two-thirds of that time and walk free by late this year, Noor's appellate lawyer Peter Wold said.
Noor has been behind bars since he was
convicted on April 30, 2019."

Interesting difference with the “investigation”.
Both officers had hair triggers that didn’t observe any weapons in the hands of the victims before shooting them.
The Minnesota decision was correct. You could change the name of the officer from Noor to Byrd in the Justice’s statement and it would still be accurate.
FE1571D6-A522-494E-9128-529B3CB7F687.jpeg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Interesting difference with the “investigation”.

You didn't read the FOIA'd docs from Judicial Watch did you ?

You just relied on Sperry's misinformational narrative.

Both officers had hair triggers

Clearly not - Byrd and other officers issued repeated warnings to "Get Back ... Stay Back" before a shot was fired.

Despite that, one FOOL WOMAN - who we now know was prone to violent outbursts in addition to lunatic conspiracy theories - decided to ignore those warnings - as well as a number of officers who had guns pointed in her general direction ... and instead advanced into an area she had been warned against entering.

that didn’t observe any weapons in the hands of the victims before shooting them.

:tearsofjoy:

Well, when you are dealing with backpack-carrying terrorists - a class of people who are known in some instances to engage in tactics like suicide bombing - one does not casually invite them nearer ... so you can give them a polite, tender pat-down ... after they have repeatedly ignored your orders to immediately retreat and stay back.

Especially if they are part of a larger, violent mob.

The Minnesota decision was correct.

Yes it was.

You could change the name of the officer from Noor to Byrd in the Justice’s statement and it would still be accurate.

The circumstances aren't even remotely similar ... so, no ... you really couldn't.

:tearsofjoy:
 

danthewolf00

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Byrd clearly needs to go back to gun training because he was aiming for her head/neck instead of a chest shot....or he is going for a true head kill....
My pistol training is to shoot at the chest which is a big target.....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
More non
Byrd clearly needs to go back to gun training because he was aiming for her head/neck instead of a chest shot....or he is going for a true head kill....
My pistol training is to shoot at the chest which is a big target.....
More nonsense from the peanut gallery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Byrd clearly needs to go back to gun training because he was aiming for her head/neck instead of a chest shot....or he is going for a true head kill....

No.

The shot entered her chest around her left shoulder area from the left side, towards the front I believe, below the clavicle bone:

human-clavicle-sebastian-kaulitzkiscience-photo-library.jpg

And then traversed through her chest, penetrating (at least one of) her lung(s) ... tearing up some veins and arteries along the way IIRC.

Would have to go back and read the ME report again to be sure, but I think that's a pretty accurate description of what it said.

Not all that far off from COM, given the positioning.

My pistol training is to shoot at the chest which is a big target.....

Only if the target is squarely facing you.

If the person you're aiming for is positioned at an oblique angle, the chest becomes a much smaller target than if they are squarely facing you.
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Meanwhile, in other breaking news, Muttly's favorite pillow salesman and (allegedly former) crackhead seems to have further departed from the reality that most sane folks share:


We awaiting further updates to see if there are any expansion plans in the offing ... to expand "GITMO !!!" to hold all 300+ million offenders.

:tearsofjoy:
 
Last edited:
Top