TexasCHLforum.com

Has anyone pointed out to any of the media or Democratic leaders that this is a perfect example of a logical fallacy called post hoc, a short form of the Latin phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Personally, I think they are well aware of this and are knowingly lying and trying to create an incorrect belief in the minds of the public who are not aware of this fallacy. I could be wrong, but it will take a lot of arguing to convince me of it.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:20 am https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ficer-dies

Intriguing coincidence

There is an old military philosophy that I think is true. If something bad happens once, it is just bad luck. If the same thing happens a second time, it is a coincidence. If it happens a third time, it is enemy action.

The US national suicide rate is around 13.4 per 100,000 people. The suicide rate for US police offices is around 17/100,000. There are about 2300 Capitol Police officers. Four suicides in 7 months can be annualized to about 6.85. That makes the Capitol Police suicide rate about 297 per 100,000 people. This cannot be a coincidence.

Further confusing this issue is the fact that for the third officer publicly reported to have committed suicide, the news articles are all saying his method of suicide was unknown. Some articles at first said the doctors did not know how he died. If you don't know how he died, how you you know it was suicide? And then the fourth officer who was publicly reported to have committed suicide was kept a secret for almost a month. Why?

Someone is killing people and lying to the public about it. I doubt any of these were suicides any more than the officer died from being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the riot.

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:15 pm https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/04/26 ... s-1065704/

Parents of Ashli Babbit will file civil charges over violation of her constitutional rights.

Am I the only one who thinks the office had his finger on the trigger and had a negligent discharge? Or was it just murder?

I hope they win. When the shooting occurred, I said to hold off on judging the officer. There are different rules of engagement for them, especially if they are protecting certain VIPs or areas that are designated as vital to national security. It would not surprise me that Pelosi's office was so designated or she was if she was still in there.

As time went by and they tried to hide the shooting, refused to name the officer, and refused to say how it was justified, I came to the conclusion that the officer must have been wrong and there was a coverup going on. Ms. Babbit certainly deserved better than that.

powerboatr wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:05 pm is it me or WHY is no one asking the real question about security. Why did capitol police open the hardened lock from inside doors to the capitol and lead protesters, visitors etc, in through the doors along with the protestors camera crews. And why were capitol police taking selfies with the so called insurgents INSIDE the capitol building? i watched it live in cspan and the police clearly OPENED the doors and let people in. one even motioned to have them follow him.

The media was asking that question in the first couple days. They implied that the Capitol Police were in on it ans supporting the conservatives (and this might be true). I believe that they stopped asking it because it truly ruins their narrative that Trump incited and insurrection. After all, if the police knew ahead of time, how could Trump have incited it with his speech that same day? Their narrative conveniently ignores that the riot started before Trump finished speaking and that the FBI had given the Capitol Police intelligence warnings about it three days ahead of time, but who cares about facts.

It also destroys most of the criminal cases because they now have a defense of permission so they did not unlawfully enter a secured area. So, no one wants to ask questions that help Trump or his supporters.

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:47 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/loca ... itol-riot/

4 th Houston arrest. Actually did some bad things. Lock him up.

Not in face tattoo thread, well because, it’s a neck tattoo.

Not sure but it looks like it says “Momma Tried”

I realize I am profiling, but he doesn't strike me as a Trump supporter or conservative. But the FBI says there is no evidence of any members of Antifa participating in the riot. Since we all know the FBI is always right, I guess my profiling is wrong.

Paladin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:19 pmNobody got shot in 2018:
Capitol Hill police said 128 people were arrested for "unlawfully demonstrating" outside of senators' offices and in the main rotunda of the Russell Senate Building.

Nor was the 2018 protest falsely labeled an "insurrection"

I fully agree about the false labeling of this as an insurrection, especially if they did not label CHAZ declaring independence as an insurrection.

My point was that entering the offices might be different from protesting in the rotunda. I don't know that it is or isn't declared an area vital to national security. I am pointing out that it might have been declared so, which would change the rules on deadly force. The other possibility that I saw raised in a police forum, especially since it appeared to be a plain clothes officer, was that Pelosi was still in the office at that time and the shooting was done by a bodyguard to protect his principal. I don't think she was actually there, in which case this doesn't apply, but it is possible she had not been evacuated at that point.

When I watched the video, it was clear to me that the window had been completely broken out of the frame and that Babbitt was climbing in. I can see her falling backwards from the window frame, as opposed to from a standing position outside it. That makes a difference in the justification for the shooting and it may be enough to justify it. We need to know more about the rules the officer was operating under to be sure. One good question to ask is if the Garner decision applies in this case and, if not, why not?

Garner is one of those cases that everyone understands the basics of, like Miranda and Escobido, but the fine points are missed sometimes. The basic ruling was that police could not shoot fleeing felons any more. The fine points of it are that they can shoot an unarmed fleeing felon if there is a greater potential harm to society in letting them escape than in using excessive force and shooting. The classic example is if you found and tried to arrest the Son of Sam killer during the middle of his spree and he tried to escape. You can prove he is very likely to kill again. You would be allowed to shoot to stop him to protect his future victim(s).

I think that in this case, Garner would apply in general, but might not if there was classified material in Pelosi's office that might have been obtained and used to harm the nation.

Paladin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:34 am

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:02 am https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/c ... stigators/

Capitol officer who murdered unarmed Ashley Babbitt should not be charged say investigators.

I'm genuinely curious to know their legal theory behind that. Must be one of those Clinton exceptions to all the rules?

There are long standing rules of engagement on the use of deadly force to protect areas or property deemed vital to national security. When i was guarding missiles in Germany, our rules included stopping people ten feet before they got to our fence-line and shooting anyone who touched or tried to breech the fence.

In the videos I saw, Babbitt was attempting to climb in to the restricted area through the broken window. It would not surprise me to find that the offices of the Speaker, and several other offices in the Capitol contain classified material that has been deemed vital to national security, justifying the shooting. You and I may not agree on how vital the material or area is, but I would be willing to bet that it was deemed that before the shooting occurred.

I do agree that the standard rules for law enforcement would not apply to someone attempting entry to an area so deemed.