Stark contrast

"Now, when given the chance, turns out they're full of it as the ball of morality is in the democrat court, and trump supporters are "peacefully protesting" as seen above."
- Not fake news - this happend.

"an unarmed woman."
Who was assaulting the capitol where VP Pence and VP-Elect Harris were residing. Security was breached, she had the chance to... I don't know... not break the law?

You're also comparing one riot, to multiple riots over an entire season. If you want to start comparing data collections, I can show that the Right-Wing extremists are far more violent.

The real quandary is what would the left have done if the woman shot by the police was black. How many buildings would have been burned down by the left because of an unarmed black woman was shot by the police? Because she was white the left thinks she deserves it.

"If they don't want to be shot they shouldn't be breaking the law." - Anti- BLM commentary.
"If she didn't want to be shot, she shouldn't have been breaking the law." Anti-Capitol riot commentary.

So either, in both instances, they do deserve it, or they don't. Which is it? I'm having a hard time keeping track.

There is a real big huge "it depends" here. First off if you are breaking the law then you run the risk of the police shooting you regardless of who you are. That is just a given. That risk increases if you exhibit certain behaviors. That risk skyrockets if you have a weapon.

However, police departments have been take huge steps to avoid having to shoot people to stop them from hurting themselves, other people and/or the police officers.

So the real question is "if you don't want to get tasered, pepper sprayed, punched in the face, tackled to the ground or shot then you then you shouldn't be breaking the law".

My question is why, in a room of other protestors, was she singled out? Why weren't there more shootings? Did she do something to cause the police to react so violently? Were these cops armed with any non-lethal weapons?

No innocent person deserves to die. If the person is guilty of a crime then depending on the crime they do not deserve to die. If the crime is murder and they appear to be trying to kill a cop or someone else then they deserve to be shot by any type of weapon that will prevent any future murders.

Breaking into the Capitol hardly merits the death penalty. So that brings me back to the question of what, besides breaking the law, did she do to cause an officer to shoot and kill her? I haven't read or seen anything on the news that indicated that she was acting erratically but i could have missed it. If she was she still didn't deserve it but neither does the cop deserved to be blamed for shooting her. If she wasn't out of line then why did the cop use lethal force? Either the cop was a Democrat who thinks conservative are no better than pond scum or they were bad or they didn't possess any non-lethal weapons.

First, the video doesn't have a clear shot of what she was doing at the time she was shot.
Second, she's there at the scene of the crime actively participating by simply being there.
Third, it was the Secret Service who shot her. They are given license to kill with extreme prejudice.
Fourth, we don't know what that officer had in his line of sights. People were crammed together in that hallway. A sudden duck would easily mean that she got shot instead. Or if someone reeled back for another ram attack against the barricade.
If you don't want to be shot, don't be at a place that is trying to barricade people who are chanting "Hang Mike Pence." in the building where he is currently housed. That's just plain and simple common sense. Secret Service only open fire if they perceive a threat to the President, the Vice President, or their elect counterparts.

I agree. Those people had no business crashing into the White House. I thought it was the capitol police that shot her, not the secret service. Regardless shooting into a crowd is very irresponsible and I would think it would go against basic firearm training. You are always supposed to be aware of your surroundings in case you do not hit your target. That is just basic NRA training for civilians and law enforcement. Only point your firearm at something you plan on destroying. If you are just shooting into a crowd that is irresponsible. You are not pointing your firearm at a specific target and you are not paying attention to any innocent people who might be in the background.

I do not think the death penalty for crashing the White House is acceptable. By the same token I do not support crashing the White House for any reason. Even if the Democrats cheated their way into the White House.

Does this look like capitol police? These guys were in the capitol building because Pence and Harris were there.

"I do not think the death penalty for crashing the White House is acceptable. By the same token I do not support crashing the White House for any reason."
>> You may not like it, but if they perceive a danger to the President or Vice President they are authorize to shoot without permission. They would have to explain later if questions were warranted. For example, if there wasn't a riot and they literally shot someone in a peaceful crowd. He'd have to explain how he knew that person was going to harm the President/Vice/elect. But she was not in a peaceful place, and we have no video evidence to prove that she even was innocent in the first place. What we do have is that she was guilty by association in being there. That much is irrefutable.

I wasn't arguing the point of who it was who shot the woman. I was just saying that I thought it was the police. Apparently I am wrong. That is okay because I didn't pay enough attention to the news story.

Yes the secret service does have the right to shoot a threat to the president or vice-president. But you said they were shooting into a crowd. That means they were not focusing on the direct threat. That is wrong even if the have the right. If they felt that the entire crowd was a threat then they should have been shooting everyone but they didn't.

She probably was protesting with the crowd, I just think subduing the situation could have been handled differently than randomly shooting into a crowd.

There were a lot of people who were angry with Pence because he would not step up and try to stop the electoral college. The problem is it was just too late. Even though there was more than ample proof of voter fraud, no one in either party even cared. They wanted Trump out. The Dems hated him because that is what Dems do. But the Republicans hated him also because he did not toe the party line.

I didn't care for Trump all that much but he was a better president than I thought he would be. I didn't vote for him in 2016. He spent money just like Obama and Obama was the worst. I never agreed with Trump's tariffs because tariffs act just like taxes. They both cause a negative effect on the economy. I did not like that Trump used an executive order to outlaw bump stocks. The president does not have the power or the right under the Constitution to create law. Obama opened that door and now every president is going to increase their power until we have a dictator, probably with Harris (after she invokes the 25th amendment and throws him out of office) because she is a Socialist.

There were a few other things that Trump did that I didn't like but there were a lot of things he did to really help this nation. We needed someone like him to pull us out of the economic quagmire that Obama left us in. However, the biggest reason for the economic boom was not because of Trump but because Hillary lost. The nation breathed a huge sigh of relief and businesses began investing and expanding again. That caused the unemployment rate to plummet. Instead just over half the country living on some type of government assistance under Obama, everyone got a job. Jobs were plentiful again. That is all going to end now that Biden is president.

The whole issue is that this was a mob. They were all chanting "Hang Mike Pence!"

Would you rather him shoot one time into the mob, or keep firing until they scatter? (it doesn't look like he shot randomly, but if you shoot, you have many targets in your line of fire that is always moving.) There was a lot of motion and one could easily miss due to sudden movements, bumps, etc. because of the nature of a mob trying to break down a door. Regardless, she was in ear shot of "He has a gun!" Also within eyesight as judging from where she fell (At the door) she had a chance to get down or push back against the crowd behind her. This didn't happen.

So should he shoot until his magazine is empty? Or should he shoot once to try to show that given his job, he is dead serious (No pun intended.)
Given that people stopped trying at that point (I think) I think his method worked. Would you have been more mad if he emptied his magazine?

Yes, Trump supporters showed up at the capital to protest.

An unarmed woman that crawled through a window and got shot by DC police despite being unarmed and stopping as soon as she saw them. Watch the videos. there are multiple from multiple angles.

Trump supporters aren't Right-Wing extremists, that's a false equivalency.

"If they're unarmed and don't want to be shot they shouldn't be breaking the law." - Anti- BLM commentary.
"If she was unarmed and didn't want to be shot, she shouldn't have been breaking the law." Anti-Capitol riot commentary.

So either, in both instances, they do deserve it, or they don't. Which is it? I'm having a hard time keeping track.

And 2 incendiary devices (Probably pipe bombs)

Source?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9123607/Pipe-bomb-left-outside-Republican-National-Committee-headquarters-near-Capitol.html

They were within their rights to shoot that women. She and thousands of other people had infiltrated the CAPITAL HILL!! They ransacked offices and literally TOOK podiums like they were trophies! AND THEY REPLACE THE AMERICAN FLAG WITH A MAGA ONE!!

Nope. Capital Hill is open to visitors and is owned by the people of America. They didn't ransack offices, they posed for photos. They moved podiums around. The flag one is the most egregious. The moved the flag from where it was to another location. Once again leftists spreading fake news.

"They didn't ransack the offices".
Are you sure about that?

https://youtu.be/ScYghG0QZXc

One sec let me get all the links to prove you’re wrong

Ready to admit the truth? I can wait.

You sick idiot.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/usriots/video-2328788/Video-Sen-Jeff-Merkley-shows-ransacked-office-Capitol-Hill-riots.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOIFBKB4mIE

https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2021/01/07/jimmy-fallon-jimmy-kimmel-stephen-colbert-james-corden-seth-meyers-capitol-breach-orig.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/

There weren't a million people there. That's bullshit.

He died of natural causes not injuries.

Its funny, there are literally no photos of the crowd that I can find, even on duckduckgo.

So no one was there? Mmmmkay.