What people seem to miss is that senator’s are affected the same security as POTUS while in the capital building. They all have protective service details and are guarded with ROE of deadly force is not only authorised it is mandatory should the primary under protection be in danger. There was a barricaded doorway behind which were PSD protected clients that was the last line of defence and a clear barrier to entry breaching that barrier was not only a felony it also was a direct act of aggression towards the primary. If POTUS was behind that door with his SS protective team would you have expected them not to shoot the first person through the breach with a angry mob on the other side of the door?
Answer that question directly if POTUS at the time Donald had been behind that barricaded door and a mob of shouting angry people was on the other side would you have expected his SS detail to not fire on the first person who battered their way through a barricaded and barred door. Every PSD team in the world would have and should have reacted the same way you fire on the first person through the breach to stop the momentum of the crowd period.
I have done PSD duty as the PSO for the U.S. Military and Fed Gov I would have opened up with automatic weapons fire on the first person to breach my inner and last cordon while actively protecting my primary from a mob threat as I would have expected any member of my PSD team to do the same. There is a reason the officer was not charged he did the text book response to an active threat in a barricaded situation and a high value primary. That’s the facts while unpleasant for some to admit it doesn’t change the rules and laws while protecting high value personnel during a declared riot or other period of active civil unrest.
If what you have written was true, we would have already heard it 100 times.
I take that you’ve never considered such tactics against unarmed American citizens just might be unconstitutional, immoral and wrong?
Byrd didn’t have his “principal” behind him - everybody he was “protecting” was gone. He fired without warning and killed an unarmed, small woman veteran.
People like you would have fit in well with the SS Deaths Head bunch - nobody questioned orders with them, either.
“
Thank you for your perspective. I especially love the jargon that you use. It brings back memories of some of the planning we participated in with SWAT teams that we were going to be assisting taking down drug houses.
I guess that we watched different video of the same event. The video that I watched showed uniformed officers on both sides of the “barricade”, and the mob did not appear to be “angry” or threatening. And the “barricade” appeared to be in no danger of imminent breach other than people could probably have just walked around it with the invite of other capitol police that were standing amongst them. I personally have worked in the middle of actual angry mobs along with the police. Somehow the police managed not shoot anyone, even though at times I was punched, my helmet knocked off, I was spit on and yelled at.
“I would have opened up with automatic weapons fire on the first person to breach my inner and last cordon while actively protecting my primary from a mob threat.”
My feeling here is that you have added details that have been embellished by your own imagination. I am sorry that you were never actually were able to participate in a situation that you seem to have fantasized about. Since you likely are a white guy, you probably would be describing an actual situation like that during a time when the wardens allowed you to have internet access.
None of this would have happened if the Capitol Hill officers who were standing in front of that set of doors, had stopped the individuals who were breaking the windows. The four of them stood there, and let the perps get away with it. Obviously, they were told to not engage, or restrain the individuals doing the damage. On film, they are shown, allowing two individuals, one with a pole, and one with a helmet, to step up to them, reach over them, and smash the windows behind them. That's not normal behavior from trained cops. That's behavior from cops who are told to "stand down" and not do anything. So why were they there in front of that door, if they weren't going to do anything? As soon as those cops left the area, Ashli Babbit is seen climbing up the window, and then shot. And how convenient, that another group of cops, this time, ones in full armor, were coming up the stairs just in time to carry her away.
If members of Congress were shuffled off into that wing behind those doors for protection, there should have been a massive number of armored officers protecting the doors and the landing, not four officers in regular uniforms standing there, letting individuals violently break windows. That wasn't proper security protection. Having worked in uniform for 25 years, and having dealt with crowd control, restraining individuals, weapons training, use of force, and chemical agents, what I saw happen on that video, was bizarre and not normal behavior or action on the part of sworn police officers. I find it very strange that they huddled a bunch of elected officials behind a set of doors that could be easily breached, without providing a proper security detail to prevent anyone from entering or doing damage to those doors. That should have been the first area that a protective force should have been placed, both behind the doors, and in front. Why it wasn't done is beyond me.
Thank you for your service and your perspective. What you said makes a lot more sense than what the pro-rioters on here say.