• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Yup, which is purely political and impeachment is not supposed to be political.
di_05812.jpg
 

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
This 2nd impeachment is a political play and that is it.
They voted to impeach POTUS while surrounded by National Guard who are there to protect them from POTUS’s supporters. Think about that for a second.

I see it as a shot across the bow that McConnell can now use to keep POTUS on the straight & narrow for another few days. Call off the dogs or he calls the Senate back overnight and January is the first month ever with three presidents. He’s a smooth operator.

Also...accountability. There has to be some.
 
Last edited:

hlg6016

A/C Wings Here
After watching the video in the second embedded hyperlink. I'm wondering from a law enforcement perspective how "clean" the shooting was. I heard a perpetrator(s?) say repeatedly "he has a gun!" or "there's a gun!", but as of yet there hadn't been any bloodshed or other shootings. So I'm wondering what the ROE equivalent was and if there were other de-escalation steps that could've been taken. How come no warning shots? No tear gas to disperse the unruly crowd? It appeared that the representatives had already been removed, so was he covering the evacuation or withdrawl? The crowd moved out fairly quickly after the shot was fired, so I'm wondering why a warning shot wasn't a viable COA to try and prevent any bloodshed.

I understand that tensions were high, but after other high-profile police shootings recently there has been quite the coverage of whether or not the shooting was justified. I haven't really seen anything like that, much less the President-elect publicly question why the officer didn't try to shoot her in the leg. Is it because of the rather heinous nature of the victim's alleged crime? (And yes, I am saying alleged because this is still America and people are still presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.)
We are all familiar with the red line? She violated the red line and paid the price. The Secret Service does not play around when it comes to asset protection.
 

SlickAg

Registered User
pilot
We are all familiar with the red line? She violated the red line and paid the price. The Secret Service does not play around when it comes to asset protection.
She was shot by a Capitol Police officer. And I understand your analogy, but there was no literal red line, and I feel like there’s just a lot of shoulder shrugging instead of objective analysis. I understand some people might take into account the victim’s crime when they pass their judgement, but considering the recent blowback following police shootings of unarmed people, I wish there was more out there about this.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
[instagram link]

The comments are, not surprisingly, absolute ??.
?

There were a few that I was already thinking and there were a few more that I hadn't thought of.

This comment is as authentic as they come. I swear, when it comes to written communication, the Army must have a class where they train their people to make spelling and grammar mistakes/adding apostrophes where they don't belong/mixing up words that sound the same but mean different things. :p

28938
 

SlickAg

Registered User
pilot
Welp, that didn’t take long at all. Congress is talking about forming a commission to look at “media disinformation”...

“It’s one thing to have differentiating opinions, but it’s another thing entirely to just say things that are false, so that’s something that we’re looking into.”


In other news, buyer’s remorse due to stock price going down?

 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
?

There were a few that I was already thinking and there were a few more that I hadn't thought of.

This comment is as authentic as they come. I swear, when it comes to written communication, the Army must have a class where they train their people to make spelling and grammar mistakes/adding apostrophes where they don't belong/mixing up words that sound the same but mean different things. :p

View attachment 28938
Whatcha sayin here?
28939
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
They voted to impeach POTUS while surrounded by National Guard who are there to protect them from POTUS’s supporters. Think about that for a second.
Yup, that made for some righteous TV didn’t it? Nice background for Nancy’s political show. I’m sure she appreciated it.

The NG doesn’t need to be camped out in the Capitol. Especially since they know that most of the protesters and rioters are no longer in the area. They could be based nearby with plenty of time to respond if something came up - as long as the people in charge weren’t worried about the optics like they were last week when the refused to deploy them ahead of the riot.

This is just Nancy once again trying to fulfill her 4 year quest to oust Trump even if it’s the last day before his term ends. She’ll do anything to “win”. She’s as much of an asshole and egomaniac as Trump.
 
Last edited:

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
She was shot by a Capitol Police officer. And I understand your analogy, but there was no literal red line, and I feel like there’s just a lot of shoulder shrugging instead of objective analysis. I understand some people might take into account the victim’s crime when they pass their judgement, but considering the recent blowback following police shootings of unarmed people, I wish there was more out there about this.
I have no idea what the ROE is, nor do I have a need to know, but I am kind of surprised more weren't shot, frankly. I have a really hard time imagining intruders getting boots on ground inside the White House without getting lit up.
Nancy’s politics.
What about McConnell's?
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
What about McConnell's?
What about them? Is he trying to force someone out of office prematurely without a completes investigation?

I already said he’s playing politics too but his play is in response to the hand dealt him. He’s not the initiator. Not the same level if bullshit as Nancy’s.

But Mitch is blunting Nancy’s win by refusing to hold the Senate trial before the inauguration. I’m sure that had her cackling and muttering to herself like the crazy person she is.
 
Last edited:

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
After watching the video in the second embedded hyperlink. I'm wondering from a law enforcement perspective how "clean" the shooting was. I heard a perpetrator(s?) say repeatedly "he has a gun!" or "there's a gun!", but as of yet there hadn't been any bloodshed or other shootings. So I'm wondering what the ROE equivalent was and if there were other de-escalation steps that could've been taken. How come no warning shots? No tear gas to disperse the unruly crowd? It appeared that the representatives had already been removed, so was he covering the evacuation or withdrawl? The crowd moved out fairly quickly after the shot was fired, so I'm wondering why a warning shot wasn't a viable COA to try and prevent any bloodshed.

To address the three questions highlighted:
  • From everything I've seen and discussed with law enforcement 'warning shots' aren't usually a thing.
  • It appears none of the officers had tear gas and were not prepared to utilize it as they did not have masks of their own. As for other non-lethal means like a taser it does not appear any of the plain clothes officers had them.
  • While the Representatives who are shown in the video appear to have left the Speaker's Lobby, which is what that room where they were in the video is called, it is not readily apparent that they were safe yet from video as they could have been in an adjacent room with no barriers between them and the mob. There were also a significant number of Representatives that sheltered in place in the gallery of the House chamber for quite some time during the seige, that is evident in the many photos of the chamber during the incident and why the Capitol Police barricaded the main entrance to the House chamber and had their guns drawn to hold back the mob there. The Speaker's Lobby is to the rear of the chamber and also has entrances to the chamber, those do not appear to have been closed or barricaded at the time of the shooting and would have provided access to the House chamber and the Representatives in the gallery who may have been still sheltering there. In short, the door the woman was breaching appears to be the last real barrier between the mob and the back/rear entrances to the House chamber and possibly some people still sheltering there. This was different from the Senate where the members who were in the chamber had been evacuated and the mob was able to get in, not so in the House chamber.
The 'main' entrance to the House chamber that is directly opposite the House dais where the Speaker presides over the House while in session, it appears that all the entrances on that side of the chamber and the sides were secure.

28941

The Speaker's Lobby is the long room located behind the dais and which appears to have at least 4 entrances directly to the main floor of the House chamber, since they were apparently evacuating the members through those doors they do not appear to have been secured by teh time the mob reached the Speaker's Lobby:

28942


It is pretty evident to me that police were not able to completely evacuate the House chamber for some time, barricading and guarding the entrances they could while trying to evacuate the Representatives who were in the chamber that was made more difficult by the much larger number of Representatives than Senators and by the large number of Representatives that were sheltering in place in the gallery. Given the fact the officers at the scene appear to have a limited number of non-lethal means to ensure the safety of the folks they were guarding it appears at first blush to me to be a justified use of force.

I understand that tensions were high, but after other high-profile police shootings recently there has been quite the coverage of whether or not the shooting was justified. I haven't really seen anything like that, much less the President-elect publicly question why the officer didn't try to shoot her in the leg. Is it because of the rather heinous nature of the victim's alleged crime? (And yes, I am saying alleged because this is still America and people are still presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.)

In most other shootings it was often a singular event, while this was part of a much larger one. There is also ample video evidence showing the shooting that coupled with the violent nature of the mob has likely tempered the usual criticism of a police shooting.
 
Last edited:

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
What about them? Is he trying to force someone out of office prematurely without a completes investigation?

I already said he’s playing politics too but his play is in response to the hand dealt him. He’s not the initiator. Not the same level if bullshit as Nancy’s.
You think McConnell's signaling that he is pleased with impeachment and open to conviction, prior to impeachment proceedings, had no impact on anything? This, the day before the vote...big time signaling.

"Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him"

Further, you think POTUS explicitly denouncing violent protests (finally) was coincidental with McConnell now holding conviction over his head? He has the ability to call the Senate back tomorrow. Or not.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
If I were one of the officers I know I’d want a very thorough briefing and understanding of the ROE. I’m also hoping that this isn’t the NG equivalent of taking Seaman Timmy out of his normal NOSC duty and handing him a rifle and telling him to be brave. I know that the Army is different, but I don’t know if most of those soldiers are MPs or even from the combat arms. Being a reservist myself, I just have a different perspective now when they talk about “calling up the National Guard”; if they told NOSC Washington, D.C. folks to break out the M9s and M16s and guard a section of that barricade, I have a pretty good idea what they would have in terms of training for that scenario. The last thing anyone wants is another Kent State situation where poorly trained and equipped troops are in way above their heads.

That being said, I have the utmost faith that these soldiers will rise to the occasion and represent their nation very well.

The National Guard are only one component of the security operation for the Inauguration, with the myriad police and law enforcement agencies in the DC area, from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police to the Secret Service (who is in charge of security for the Inauguration itself), coupled with local, state and federal police reinforcements being the primary means of keeping law and order. That is pretty standard for Inaugurations, with the state and local police forces deputized as US Marshals for the duration to make it all kosher.
 
Last edited:

Hair Warrior

Well-Known Member
Contributor
She was shot by a Capitol Police officer. And I understand your analogy, but there was no literal red line, and I feel like there’s just a lot of shoulder shrugging instead of objective analysis. I understand some people might take into account the victim’s crime when they pass their judgement, but considering the recent blowback following police shootings of unarmed people, I wish there was more out there about this.
The rioters got a lot farther inside the building than they should have. The Pentagon has had an attempted unlawful entry in the past decade, and that person was shot outside. The Capitol Police could have shot any rioters attempting unlawful entry at an external entry. The fact that they allowed themselves to be pushed far to an interior doorway shows some good restraint on their part.
 
Top