The Insurrection Lie II: False Reports ...Continue To Unravel.

[Gondwanaland]

And, as I'm getting tired of explaining, that is not proof that he was not struck by a fire extinguisher, since it might not cause physical trauma. (Yes, that would mean he was not killed by the fire extinguisher, but the question at hand is whether anyone lied in saying that he was struck by one.)

And since you have two different news outlets reporting that multiple sources in the police department said that Sicknick was struck by a fire extinguisher, the most likely explanation seems to be that he was actually struck by one, even if he wasn't killed by being struck by one.

Granted, the next most likely would be that someone made it up so that he could be said to have died in the line of duty, but it doesn't seem like they would have needed to be so specific. And if you're going to accuse someone of lying, I think you would need more than that.

I didnt accuse anyone of lying. Maybe use your noggin.

there is no evidence that he was hit by a fire extinguisher. The investigators have abandoned that line of inquiry. Zero. Zip. Nada. No evidence. Get over it.

[Cow Poke]

Fairness to the police officers, more than a hundred of whom were injured defending the Capitol.

You're really not making any sense --- this officer was lionized above all of the others for political purposes.

I don't think it would be fair for the standard to be, "We'll only consider you to have died in the line of duty if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

Do you have ANY IDEA WHATSOVER that standards that are routinely used to give such advanced honor to an officer, or even a soldier?

If we accidentally get it wrong, it means little to us as a society, whereas it means a lot to the officer's family.

It's a kick in the teeth to every other officer who did their job well, whether or not they sustained injuries, and this smacks of "everybody gets a trophy" mentality.

The Democrats USED this individual to advance their lies and their sham impeachment.

[Stoic]

1 being far more likely (especially people who live in America and who largely eat the SAD)

2 has zero evidence supporting it. Actually negative evidence as it appears the ME didnt find such injury.

his diet, or genetics, are likely what killed hin.

Given that he was 42 years old, in the absence of evidence that he had any risk factors for stroke, I would think that injury would be more likely. If nothing else, inhaling pepper spray can cause an increase in blood pressure that can lead to a stroke, and Sicknick told his brother that he had been hit by bear spray.

[Cow Poke]

Given that he was 42 years old, in the absence of evidence that he had any risk factors for stroke, I would think that injury would be more likely.

Why, exactly, would you think that? "I think", "I would like to think", "I assume"..... how bout looking at actual facts?

If nothing else, inhaling pepper spray can cause an increase in blood pressure that can lead to a stroke, and Sicknick told his brother that he had been hit by bear spray.

Do you have any idea how long after the incident he died?

From our good buddies at that right wing conservative snopes.

No further details about the circumstances of Sicknick’s death have been forthcoming from official sources, as of this writing. On Jan. 7, Capitol Police issued a news release stating Sicknick “was injured while physically engaging with protesters, and passed away at 9:30 p.m. the following day “due to injuries sustained while on-duty.”

Note - the Capitol Police issued the news release - From 2 PM one day to 9:3O PM the following day... can you do the math?

[Stoic]

I didnt accuse anyone of lying. Maybe use your noggin.

I didn't say you accused anyone of lying. But this thread was started with the claim that it was a lie to say that Sicknick died because he was hit with a fire extinguisher, or that he died in the line of duty. I've been given enough reason to question whether he was hit with a fire extinguisher, or that he died in the line of duty, but not really enough to say that anyone lied about it.

[Cow Poke]

I didn't say you accused anyone of lying. But this thread was started with the claim that it was a lie to say that Sicknick died because he was hit with a fire extinguisher, or that he died in the line of duty.

Absolutely false. That was one component which has been addressed quite a bit, but it wasn't why the thread was started.

I've been given enough reason to question whether he was hit with a fire extinguisher, or that he died in the line of duty, but not really enough to say that anyone lied about it.

How do you type with your eyes closed?

[Cow Poke]

... but not really enough to say that anyone lied about it.

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the hours’ long attack.

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC ANCHOR: They beat a Capitol Police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.

ANDERSON COOPER: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the fight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He died at the age of 42 after he was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.

[Stoic]

Why, exactly, would you think that? "I think", "I would like to think", "I assume"..... how bout looking at actual facts?



Do you have any idea how long after the incident he died?

From our good buddies at that right wing conservative snopes.

No further details about the circumstances of Sicknick’s death have been forthcoming from official sources, as of this writing. On Jan. 7, Capitol Police issued a news release stating Sicknick “was injured while physically engaging with protesters, and passed away at 9:30 p.m. the following day “due to injuries sustained while on-duty.”

Note - the Capitol Police issued the news release - From 2 PM one day to 9:3O PM the following day... can you do the math?

Thanks to your questions, I did a little digging.

Source: https://psob.bja.ojp.gov/psobact34

(k) Death by heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture; presumption
As determined by the Bureau, a heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture suffered by a public safety officer shall be presumed to constitute a personal injury within the meaning of subsection (a), sustained in the line of duty by the officer and directly and proximately resulting in death, if—
(1) the public safety officer, while on duty—
(A) engages in a situation involving nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical law enforcement, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous material response, emergency medical services, prison security, disaster relief, or other emergency response activity; or
(B) participates in a training exercise involving nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity;
(2) the heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture commences—
(A) while the officer is engaged or participating as described in paragraph (1);
(B) while the officer remains on that duty after being engaged or participating as described in paragraph (1); or
(C) not later than 24 hours after the officer is engaged or participating as described in paragraph (1); and
(3) the heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture directly and proximately results in the death of the public safety officer, unless competent medical evidence establishes that the heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture was unrelated to the engagement or participation or was directly and proximately caused by something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular-disease risk factors.

© Copyright Original Source

I don't think there is any doubt that Sicknick engaged in a situation involving nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical law enforcement, his stroke commenced not later than 24 hours afterwards, and his stroke directly and proximately resulted in his death. So unless competent medical evidence establishes that the stroke was directly or proximately caused by something else other than the mere presence of cardiovascular-disease risk factors, it is fair to say that Sicknick died as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.

Having him lay in state may have been a bit over the top, but that's a separate question.

[Cow Poke]

Thanks to your questions, I did a little digging.

Source: https://psob.bja.ojp.gov/psobact34

(k) Death by heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture; presumption
As determined by the Bureau, a heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture suffered by a public safety officer shall be presumed to constitute a personal injury within the meaning of subsection (a), sustained in the line of duty by the officer and directly and proximately resulting in death, if—
(1) the public safety officer, while on duty—
(A) engages in a situation involving nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical law enforcement, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous material response, emergency medical services, prison security, disaster relief, or other emergency response activity; or
(B) participates in a training exercise involving nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity;
(2) the heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture commences—
(A) while the officer is engaged or participating as described in paragraph (1);
(B) while the officer remains on that duty after being engaged or participating as described in paragraph (1); or
(C) not later than 24 hours after the officer is engaged or participating as described in paragraph (1); and
(3) the heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture directly and proximately results in the death of the public safety officer, unless competent medical evidence establishes that the heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture was unrelated to the engagement or participation or was directly and proximately caused by something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular-disease risk factors.

© Copyright Original Source

So far, so good, but I can tell you're about to delve off into nonsense....

I don't think there is any doubt that Sicknick engaged in a situation involving nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical law enforcement, his stroke commenced not later than 24 hours afterwards, and his stroke directly and proximately resulted in his death.

I think you need to reword that.

So unless competent medical evidence establishes that the stroke was directly or proximately caused by something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular-disease risk factors, it is fair to say that Sicknick died as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.

And, where did you get your medical license? For all you know, he may have been having sex or playing basketball or ..... sheeesh, the things you will "assume" to try to make a case.

Having him lay in state may have been a bit over the top, but that's a separate question.

No, not "a bit over the top" - absolutely asinine! The Democrats blew this out of proportion as part of they're hysteria campaign to rush to impeachment because this poor officer was "bludgeoned to death" with a fire extinguisher. Something without any basis in fact.

Why are you working so hard to believe the lies?

[Stoic]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the hours’ long attack.

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC ANCHOR: They beat a Capitol Police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.

ANDERSON COOPER: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the fight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He died at the age of 42 after he was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.

IF they knew when they made the statements that Sicknick was not killed by being hit with a fire extinguisher, then they were lying.

So the natural question is, when did they make the statements?

[Cow Poke]

IF they knew when they made the statements that Sicknick was not killed by being hit with a fire extinguisher, then they were lying.

So the natural question is, when did they make the statements?

We're making progress! So, why is this important? Because it became a big chunk of the Democrats' phony Impeachment II sham.

Here's the text of the briefing used for the prosecution -- full.pdf (nyt.com)

killed police 01.jpg
killed police 02.jpg
killed police 03.jpg
killed police 04.jpg

[Stoic]

I think you need to reword that.

Perhaps you could say what part of it you doubt.

And, where did you get your medical license? For all you know, he may have been having sex or playing basketball or ..... sheeesh, the things you will "assume" to try to make a case.

The press release from the Capitol Police said that he returned to his Division Office after the riot, where he collapsed.

Do you think he was having sex or playing basketball at his Division Office? I think some evidence for that would be required.

Why are you working so hard to believe the lies?

It seems to me that you are working pretty hard to maintain the claim that someone was lying.

[Cow Poke]

So the natural question is, when did they make the statements?

No - a BETTER question is WHY did they make such statements? Are they that incredibly bad journalists that don't check facts before making such serious allegations?

Are they too biased to do some simple FACT CHECKING? (on that, I would say a resounding "you bet your bippy")

[Stoic]

We're making progress! So, why is this important? Because it became a big chunk of the Democrats' phony Impeachment II sham.

Here's the text of the briefing used for the prosecution -- full.pdf (nyt.com)

killed police 01.jpg
killed police 02.jpg
killed police 03.jpg
killed police 04.jpg

And the question remains, did anyone who reported that the insurrectionists killed Sicknick by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher know that that wasn't true?

[Cow Poke]

And the question remains, did anyone who reported that the insurrectionists killed Sicknick by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher know that that wasn't true?

So, in your world, it's perfectly acceptable for Journalists - and politicians - to declare something as fact simply because they don't know for sure it's not fact?

Think how DUMB that is ..... "yes, Congressman Jones raped that poor young woman..... um... at least we don't know that he DIDN'T, but that's the talk around the water cooler".

Seriously --- are you a grown adult? Not being facetious at all --- you reason like a child.