Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The President told MAGA to do it MAGA said they were going to do it MAGA filmed themselves doing it Afterwards, MAGA bragged about it Clearly, it was ANTIFA’s fault

So they're finally following the CDC guidelines for the pandemic?

One is an ugly, decrepit wasteland ruled by an assortment of villains hoping to impose their will on peace-loving people everywhere who otherwise just want to be left alone to tend to their gardens.

24 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Actually, I believe it is in a court of law.  Maybe somebody else can confirm.

Without the riot, he might be alive today.  

Without walking to the grocery store, Random Joe might not have a heart attack later that day. No court is going to say that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Insein said:
2 hours ago, The Dude said:

The riot is still responsible for his death.

No. It isn't.

Neither of you can back up your claim with any certainty.   The cause of death is unknown.   If he had a stroke, it may have been unrelated to the riots but it also may have been induced by the stress.   If he died from a reaction to pepper spray, there's probably a direct causal link.  At this point, all we know for sure is that the fire extinguisher narrative was completely false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Insein said:

Without walking to the grocery store, Random Joe might not have a heart attack later that day. No court is going to say that.

If random Joe was walking to the grocery store and there was gunfight on the street and he was caught in the middle and had a heart attack, the cause of death would certainly be looked at and not just tossed aside like you seem to want to do

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, the rover said:
2 hours ago, Insein said:
3 hours ago, The Dude said:

The riot is still responsible for his death.

No. It isn't.

Neither of you can back up your claim with any certainty.   The cause of death is unknown.   If he had a stroke, it may have been unrelated to the riots but it also may have been induced by the stress.   If he died from a reaction to pepper spray, there's probably a direct causal link.  At this point, all we know for sure is that the fire extinguisher narrative was completely false.

As @Doug B indicated in a different thread, the only part about the fire extinguisher narrative that has been debunked is that the officer did not die from blunt force trauma. I don't think any official reports have confirmed that he was never hit by a fire extinguisher, and as far as I know, the NY Times has not retracted their reporting about that claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

If random Joe was walking to the grocery store and there was gunfight on the street and he was caught in the middle and had a heart attack, the cause of death would certainly be looked at and not just tossed aside like you seem to want to do

Would they if he died 36 hours later?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

As @Doug B indicated in a different thread, the only part about the fire extinguisher narrative that has been debunked is that the officer did not die from blunt force trauma. I don't think any official reports have confirmed that he was never hit by a fire extinguisher, and as far as I know, the NY Times has not retracted their reporting about that claim.

The officers family said he was not hit by anything let alone a fire extinguisher. I would think they could tell if he was hit by something. I would think the officer himself who told his brother he was fine would have mentioned something in his texts when he went home that day. What motive do they have to lie? 

Edited by Insein
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Insein said:
6 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

As @Doug B indicated in a different thread, the only part about the fire extinguisher narrative that has been debunked is that the officer did not die from blunt force trauma. I don't think any official reports have confirmed that he was never hit by a fire extinguisher, and as far as I know, the NY Times has not retracted their reporting about that claim.

The officers family said he was not hit by anything let alone a fire extinguisher. I would think they could tell if he was hit by something. I would think the officer himself who told his brother he was fine would have mentioned something in his texts when he went home that day. What motive do they have to lie? 

Wait, where did the officer's family state that he was not hit by anything? The only quote I've seen is from his mother, which stated that "he wasn't hit on the head". Please provide links for your claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Wait, where did the officer's family state that he was not hit by anything? The only quote I've seen is from his mother, which stated that "he wasn't hit on the head". Please provide links for your claims.

This is the problem when media lies. People that buy wholeheartedly into the lie can't accept that it's wrong despite the obvious staring them in the face. 

"She said, ‘He wasn’t hit on the head no. We think he had a stroke, but we don’t know anything for sure.

‘We’d love to know what happened.'"

That sure sounds like he wasn't hit with anything. Especially when she states she thinks it was a stroke. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Insein said:
9 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Wait, where did the officer's family state that he was not hit by anything? The only quote I've seen is from his mother, which stated that "he wasn't hit on the head". Please provide links for your claims.

This is the problem when media lies. People that buy wholeheartedly into the lie can't accept that it's wrong despite the obvious staring them in the face. 

"She said, ‘He wasn’t hit on the head no. We think he had a stroke, but we don’t know anything for sure.

‘We’d love to know what happened.'"

That sure sounds like he wasn't hit with anything. Especially when she states she thinks it was a stroke. 

Please stop fabricating claims, or at least mention the fact that you are embellishing someone's quote with your own interpretation of what they meant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Insein said:

"She said, ‘He wasn’t hit on the head no. We think he had a stroke, but we don’t know anything for sure.

‘We’d love to know what happened.'"

That sure sounds like he wasn't hit with anything. Especially when she states she thinks it was a stroke. 

"Ma'am ... were you an eyewitness to the events at hand? Could he have been hit with an object on another part of his body?"

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Please stop fabricating claims, or at least mention the fact that you are embellishing someone's quote with your own interpretation of what they meant.

So I'm fabricating claims but the media specifically said he was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher is not a fabrication that needs to be disproven.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Doug B said:

"Ma'am ... were you an eyewitness to the events at hand? Could he have been hit with an object on another part of his body?"

When asked specifically was her son struck in the head. Her answer was no he was not struck in the head. The second part was never brought up. As sea duck would say, please stop fabricating claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Insein said:

So I'm fabricating claims but the media specifically said he was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher is not a fabrication that needs to be disproven.

The media didn’t fabricate that claim.  We have been over this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The media didn’t fabricate that claim.  We have been over this.

They fabricated the story or they regurgitated a lie that was presented to them. Not much difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Insein said:

They fabricated the story or they regurgitated a lie that was presented to them. Not much difference.

The reported a story told to them by more than one law enforcement official.

To say there is not much difference between that and fabricating a story is not logical.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Insein said:

So I'm fabricating claims but the media specifically said he was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher is not a fabrication that needs to be disproven.

That is the high standard for the New York Times that liberals expect.  If it supports the narrative, no need to have actual proof.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The reported a story told to them by more than one law enforcement official.

To say there is not much difference between that and fabricating a story is not logical.

They are either lying about the sources they used or accepted a lie from an official that they will most likely use again. I don't see the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Insein said:

They are either lying about the sources they used or accepted a lie from an official that they will most likely use again. I don't see the difference.

There is literally nothing out there to suggest that those two options are true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

There is literally nothing out there to suggest that those two options are true.

The story they presented di not happen. That is definitely something. The burden of proof is being placed on the reader to prove something false didn't happen. That's not how journalism works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Insein said:

The story they presented di not happen. That is definitely something. The burden of proof is being placed on the reader to prove something false didn't happen. That's not how journalism works.

They have already stated that.  Sometimes they get bad information.  That doesn’t mean they lied or fabricated something.  Thats the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Insein said:

They are either lying about the sources they used or accepted a lie from an official that they will most likely use again. I don't see the difference.

Here is the video footage of the fire extinguisher incident.  Looks like it bounced off the helmet of the officer and it did not even phase him.  The media is taking bits and pieces and filling it in with a whole bunch of fabrication and people defend that type of reporting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Insein said:
35 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Of course they would

Come on man.

:shrug:

A young healthy guy all of a sudden dies from heart attack or stroke or aneurysm and it turns up that just a day ago he was involved in some out of the ordinary stressful/dangerous situation, of course they would investigate whether that incident had anything to do with it

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The reported a story told to them by more than one law enforcement official.

To say there is not much difference between that and fabricating a story is not logical.

what are the names of the law enforcement officials or we they anonymous law enforcement officials?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

:shrug:

A young healthy guy all of a sudden dies from heart attack or stroke or aneurysm and it turns up that just a day ago he was involved in some out of the ordinary stressful/dangerous situation, of course they would investigate whether that incident had anything to do with it

So if your boss scolds you and you die of a heart attack later, will the boss be charged with murder?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The reported a story told to them by more than one law enforcement official.

To say there is not much difference between that and fabricating a story is not logical.

Link?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Here is the video footage of the fire extinguisher incident.  Looks like it bounced off the helmet of the officer and it did not even phase him.  The media is taking bits and pieces and filling it in with a whole bunch of fabrication and people defend that type of reporting.  

Yes. Add in that it was not the same officer that died and we get to here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

:shrug:

A young healthy guy all of a sudden dies from heart attack or stroke or aneurysm and it turns up that just a day ago he was involved in some out of the ordinary stressful/dangerous situation, of course they would investigate whether that incident had anything to do with it

If you think police would investigate a guy that died from any other kind of cause a day later away from a criminal incident then you are living in a dream world. Even if it was an officer they would most likely write that off as natural causes and call it a day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Insein said:

If you think police would investigate a guy that died from any other kind of cause a day later away from a criminal incident then you are living in a dream world. Even if it was an officer they would most likely write that off as natural causes and call it a day. 

Happens on the civil side every day.   Lawyers want to establish causation to determine liability exposure.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, the rover said:

Happens on the civil side every day.   Lawyers want to establish causation to determine liability exposure.  

Insurance claim related is a different tale. They're trying to make sure they don't owe anything and even then they only do it if someone files a claim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Insein said:

Insurance claim related is a different tale. They're trying to make sure they don't owe anything and even then they only do it if someone files a claim. 

Doesn't work like that.  If I have a client that died a day after a traumatic incident, I'm going to determine whether I can show causation.   And I will talk to the police about it, and they will investigate it.  An insurance company won't affirmatively investigate unless someone reports a potential claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, shadrap said:

what are the names of the law enforcement officials or we they anonymous law enforcement officials?

Are you insinuating they don't exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Are you insinuating they don't exist?

just asked a question which I don't know the answer & thought you would.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Yea, great comparison here jon.

Actually it is because of how ridiculous it would be to charge someone with causing stress.  I suppose you could try a civil case, but to make it criminal just does not happen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, shadrap said:

just asked a question which I don't know the answer & thought you would.

I dont believe they were named other than law enforcement officials.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I dont believe they were named other than law enforcement officials.

your right.  I just checked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Lol...that is a legal theory by one person that it is possible.  A court has not accepted that theory.  And to suggest that it could apply to a cop whose job it is to deal with crime, you can throw that theory out the window as completely ridiculous.  You should have spent 30 more seconds to read and think about it. 

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Insein said:

Without walking to the grocery store, Random Joe might not have a heart attack later that day. No court is going to say that.

your analogy doesn’t work
 

When defendants decide to commit a felonious act, they are also subjecting themselves to the possibility of being charged with first-degree murder. How? The felony murder doctrine allows for prosecutors to charge defendants with first-degree murder if someone dies during the commission of a felony. To offer more clarity on the subject, it is best to look at real case examples and the reoccurring themes that arise within the felony murder doctrine.


https://www.crimlawpractitioner.org/post/2016/03/22/burglaries-heart-attacks-and-murder

 

Edited by The Dude
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Dude said:

When defendants decide to commit a felonious act, they are also subjecting themselves to the possibility of being charged with first-degree murder. How? The felony murder doctrine allows for prosecutors to charge defendants with first-degree murder if someone dies during the commission of a felony. To offer more clarity on the subject, it is best to look at real case examples and the reoccurring themes that arise within the felony murder doctrine.


https://www.crimlawpractitioner.org/post/2016/03/22/burglaries-heart-attacks-and-murder

 

The key distinction being "during the commission of a felony." If someone who was there dies a day later at a completely different place it would be impossible to prove the death was related if nothing specific was done by the defendant to said person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Insein said:

The key distinction being "during the commission of a felony." If someone who was there dies a day later at a completely different place it would be impossible to prove the death was related if nothing specific was done by the defendant to said person.

Uh, no.

The federal statute doesn't say "during the commission of a felony" -- it says "effect the death of any human being". (see here).

And it doesn't just apply to felonies; it can also apply to something as basic as a burglary.

Now, that doesn't mean that any of the rioters will be charged with murder. There are several legal obstacles that make such a case difficult to prosecute (there's a good article on it here if you're interested).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Dude said:

Its hilarious how somebody vehemently defends a point with multiple posts and then the posts dry up when facts are introduced

It's hilarious how the initial absurd statement "the riot killed him" is based on a lie and has no evidence to back it up but continues to be defended as if it was true.

Not sure what facts were introduced. Here's the whole portion that was pulled.

"or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree."

So first of all, this is specifically related to First degree murder which this wouldn't be even if he was killed that day at the hands of rioters. But let's say this was just a lower murder charge, not sure where that has been proven in this case. Had he been beaten with a fire extinguisher or any other kind of object and then passed away later, there's an obvious case to be made. No evidence of being hit by anything and then suffering a stroke a day later establishes no cause or link to the "riot killed him."

Edited by Insein
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Insein said:
2 hours ago, The Dude said:

Its hilarious how somebody vehemently defends a point with multiple posts and then the posts dry up when facts are introduced

It's hilarious how the initial absurd statement "the riot killed him" is based on a lie and has no evidence to back it up but continues to be defended as if it was true.

You're jumping to conclusions here, in addition to conflating two different aspects of the story.

The initial statement was that Sicknick was injured while engaging with protesters at the Capitol, and subsequently died of his injuries. That statement did not mention a fire extinguisher.

A subsequent story in the NY Times stated that the circumstances surrounding Sicknick's death were not immediately clear, but also reported that two law enforcement sources had stated that he was struck by a fire extinguisher. It's important to note, however, that even the initial NY Times story did not state that Sicknick died from the alleged fire extinguisher attack, nor did it report that he had been hit in the head.

After that, several media outlets ran wild with the story, lazily combining or omitting various aspects of the story.

As far as I know, none of the above assertions have been fully retracted. The only pieces of new information, IIRC, are that A) he did not die from blunt force trauma, and B) one family member stated that he was not hit in the head.

At any rate, I don't see very many people here who continue to insist that Sicknick was struck in the head by a fire extinguisher.

Regardless, there's nothing wrong with defending the police statements. If you're the kind of person who normally aligns with the law & order/Blue Lives Matter crowd, then you should be giving the police the benefit of the doubt here, IMO.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

You're jumping to conclusions here, in addition to conflating two different aspects of the story.

The initial statement was that Sicknick was injured while engaging with protesters at the Capitol, and subsequently died of his injuries. That statement did not mention a fire extinguisher.

A subsequent story in the NY Times stated that the circumstances surrounding Sicknick's death were not immediately clear, but also reported that two law enforcement sources had stated that he was struck by a fire extinguisher. It's important to note, however, that even the initial NY Times story did not state that Sicknick died from the alleged fire extinguisher attack, nor did it report that he had been hit in the head.

After that, several media outlets ran wild with the story, lazily combining or omitting various aspects of the story.

As far as I know, none of the above assertions have been fully retracted. The only pieces of new information, IIRC, are that A) he did not die from blunt force trauma, and B) one family member stated that he was not hit in the head.

At any rate, I don't see very many people here who continue to insist that Sicknick was struck in the head by a fire extinguisher.

Regardless, there's nothing wrong with defending the police statements. If you're the kind of person who normally aligns with the law & order/Blue Lives Matter crowd, then you should be giving the police the benefit of the doubt here, IMO.

I don't align with the police or any government entity. I also am less likely to believe their word over a regular person's because a person may be biased but the government has agendas. 

Edited by Insein
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Insein said:

I don't align with the police or any government entity. I also am less likely to believe their word over a regular person's because a person may be biased but the government has agendas. 

1) what's the difference between "bias" and "agenda"?

2) Government entities are made up of people, they don't make statements without humans writing them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Z Machine said:

1) what's the difference between "bias" and "agenda"?

2) Government entities are made up of people, they don't make statements without humans writing them. 

1) How much money is in it for you?

2) I dunno, have you seen Matt Gaetz Twitter feed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...