Yeah. It was so clear cut...muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
House Removes Kevin McCarthy as Speaker
30,542 Views |
359 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Redbrickbear
A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window, there were reports of injured cops and smoke grenades. She had on a pack-back, as well.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
If the guy did mace, I have no problem. If he used his baton, no problem. If he used his gun, no problem. He was the guy on the line between the mob and Congress, it was his job to protect them. He did his best in a bad situation. She doesn't climb through window, she is alive today.
Remember the pipe bombs discovered the night before? And reports of concealed weapons by people at the Trump rally who wouldn't go through metal detectors?FLBear5630 said:People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window, there were reports of injured cops and smoke grenades. She had on a pack-back, as well.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
If the guy did mace, I have no problem. If he used his baton, no problem. If he used his gun, no problem. He was the guy on the line between the mob and Congress, it was his job to protect them. He did his best in a bad situation. She doesn't climb through window, she is alive today.
Osodecentx said:Remember the pipe bombs discovered the night before?FLBear5630 said:People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window, there were reports of injured cops and smoke grenades. She had on a pack-back, as well.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
If the guy did mace, I have no problem. If he used his baton, no problem. If he used his gun, no problem. He was the guy on the line between the mob and Congress, it was his job to protect them. He did his best in a bad situation. She doesn't climb through window, she is alive today.
Yea and interestingly enough we have never heard anything else about this from the FBI
Why is that?
The Media also does not seem to care about asking questions in regards to that event.
In fact there is only one group that still seems to care about the pipe bomb... a few conservative Representatives like Tomas Massie and Jim Jordan....interesting.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/republicans-release-new-information-january-6-pipe-bomb-investigation
FLBear5630 said:People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window,Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
And what do you think little Ashli Babbitt and the other MAGA knuckle heads were gonna do if they got into the Chamber? Kill everyone? Behead people like some Hamas terrorists?
I mean I can see some overly emotional insane liberal girl in Brooklyn or Austin who believes in "MAGA conservatives are literal Nazis!" dreaming up some scenario of unhinged violence...but its fantasy.
We have seen protestors in Hong Kong and Brazil take control of their respective government buildings for a time...and not mass bloodshed takes place....with in a few hours they get moved out.
On Jan. 6th protestors entered the Senate Chamber and did nothing but walk around and take pictures. The very same protestors in the main areas of Capitol did not even wreak the place or tear down statues (something BLM rioters did do during the Summer)
None of these Chambers (owned by the people) should have been defended by deadly force anyway.
Congress should have evacuated the building once things got out of control and simply gone and met at another Federal building in the city to continue their business.
The Capitol is not a "Scared Temple of our Democracy"....its just a Federal government building that does not even appear in the Constitution and was not even a serious seat of government until the Jeff Davis decided to make the place nice...
"Davis's most lasting legacy as a nation-builder, both figuratively and literally, was as a prime mover in the mammoth project to expand the United States Capitol from a small, cramped, statehouse-like building into a sprawling, magisterial seat of government"
FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Of course you can second guess it. In fact, when you end up with someone dead, you should second guess it. I suspect that the officer himself has second guessed it a lot.
What do you think they were going to do?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window,Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
And what do you think little Ashli Babbitt and the other MAGA knuckle heads were gonna do if they got into the Chamber? Kill everyone? Behead people like some Hamas terrorists?
They said they wanted to keep Trump in office along with hanging Pence
What do you think that mob was going to do? Sit down and have a discussion over policy? Go in and take a seat and watch from the Gallery?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window,Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
And what do you think little Ashli Babbitt and the other MAGA knuckle heads were gonna do if they got into the Chamber? Kill everyone? Behead people like some Hamas terrorists?
I mean I can see some overly emotional insane liberal girl in Brooklyn or Austin who believes in "MAGA conservatives are literal Nazis!" dreaming up some scenario of unhinged violence...but its fantasy.
We have seen protestors in Hong Kong and Brazil take control of their respective government buildings for a time...and not mass bloodshed takes place....with in a few hours they get moved out.
On Jan. 6th protestors entered the Senate Chamber and did nothing but walk around and take pictures. The very same protestors in the main areas of Capitol did not even wreak the place or tear down statues (something BLM rioters did do during the Summer)
None of these Chambers (owned by the people) should have been defended by deadly force anyway.
Congress should have evacuated the building once things got out of control and simply gone and met at another Federal building in the city to continue their business.
The Capitol is not a "Scared Temple of our Democracy"....its just a Federal government building that does not even appear in the Constitution and was not even a serious seat of government until the Jeff Davis decided to make the place nice...
"Davis's most lasting legacy as a nation-builder, both figuratively and literally, was as a prime mover in the mammoth project to expand the United States Capitol from a small, cramped, statehouse-like building into a sprawling, magisterial seat of government"
Yeah, it was all so controlled and peaceful. Why does the Secret Service have weapons drawn? Those guys are just fat cops right? No experience in measuring crowd intent or people's mannerisms. Check that out, peaceful, right? The last one is what the cop saw, he can tell how small and peaceful. You guys will keep defending this? This is the US and how people should act at the Capitol? There are a ton more. It was not one little girl in a hall that was just shot by a 2775 pound cop...
FLBear5630 said:What do you think that mob was going to do? Sit down and have a discussion over policy? Go in and take a seat and watch from the Gallery?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window,Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
And what do you think little Ashli Babbitt and the other MAGA knuckle heads were gonna do if they got into the Chamber? Kill everyone? Behead people like some Hamas terrorists?
I mean I can see some overly emotional insane liberal girl in Brooklyn or Austin who believes in "MAGA conservatives are literal Nazis!" dreaming up some scenario of unhinged violence...but its fantasy.
We have seen protestors in Hong Kong and Brazil take control of their respective government buildings for a time...and not mass bloodshed takes place....with in a few hours they get moved out.
On Jan. 6th protestors entered the Senate Chamber and did nothing but walk around and take pictures. The very same protestors in the main areas of Capitol did not even wreak the place or tear down statues (something BLM rioters did do during the Summer)
None of these Chambers (owned by the people) should have been defended by deadly force anyway.
Congress should have evacuated the building once things got out of control and simply gone and met at another Federal building in the city to continue their business.
The Capitol is not a "Scared Temple of our Democracy"....its just a Federal government building that does not even appear in the Constitution and was not even a serious seat of government until the Jeff Davis decided to make the place nice...
"Davis's most lasting legacy as a nation-builder, both figuratively and literally, was as a prime mover in the mammoth project to expand the United States Capitol from a small, cramped, statehouse-like building into a sprawling, magisterial seat of government"
Yeah, it was all so controlled and peaceful. Why does the Secret Service have weapons drawn? Those guys are just fat cops right? No experience in measuring crowd intent or people's mannerisms. Check that out, peaceful, right? The last one is what the cop saw, he can tell how small and peaceful. You guys will keep defending this? This is the US and how people should act at the Capitol? There are a ton more. It was not one little girl in a hall that was just shot by a 2775 pound cop...
My points sand.
Its a crowd of protestors/mob/whatever entering a Public building paid for by taxpayers.
Evacuate the building and meet somewhere else until police can clear the building on later at a safer time.
Don't shoot unarmed women to death.
Congress is not even required to meet at the Capitol building as per the Constitution... it can meet at the Arlington IHOP if it wants. At one point it met at Nassau Hall on Princeton University's campus
[Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States...The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Section 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not..
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers...
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments..
Section 5.
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
If you believe that January 6th was a perfectly legal and peaceful action, I got nothing for you.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:What do you think that mob was going to do? Sit down and have a discussion over policy? Go in and take a seat and watch from the Gallery?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window,Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
And what do you think little Ashli Babbitt and the other MAGA knuckle heads were gonna do if they got into the Chamber? Kill everyone? Behead people like some Hamas terrorists?
I mean I can see some overly emotional insane liberal girl in Brooklyn or Austin who believes in "MAGA conservatives are literal Nazis!" dreaming up some scenario of unhinged violence...but its fantasy.
We have seen protestors in Hong Kong and Brazil take control of their respective government buildings for a time...and not mass bloodshed takes place....with in a few hours they get moved out.
On Jan. 6th protestors entered the Senate Chamber and did nothing but walk around and take pictures. The very same protestors in the main areas of Capitol did not even wreak the place or tear down statues (something BLM rioters did do during the Summer)
None of these Chambers (owned by the people) should have been defended by deadly force anyway.
Congress should have evacuated the building once things got out of control and simply gone and met at another Federal building in the city to continue their business.
The Capitol is not a "Scared Temple of our Democracy"....its just a Federal government building that does not even appear in the Constitution and was not even a serious seat of government until the Jeff Davis decided to make the place nice...
"Davis's most lasting legacy as a nation-builder, both figuratively and literally, was as a prime mover in the mammoth project to expand the United States Capitol from a small, cramped, statehouse-like building into a sprawling, magisterial seat of government"
Yeah, it was all so controlled and peaceful. Why does the Secret Service have weapons drawn? Those guys are just fat cops right? No experience in measuring crowd intent or people's mannerisms. Check that out, peaceful, right? The last one is what the cop saw, he can tell how small and peaceful. You guys will keep defending this? This is the US and how people should act at the Capitol? There are a ton more. It was not one little girl in a hall that was just shot by a 2775 pound cop...
My points sand.
Its a crowd of protestors/mob/whatever entering a Public building paid for by taxpayers.
Evacuate the building and meet somewhere else until police can clear the building on later at a safer time.
Don't shoot unarmed women to death.
Congress is not even required to meet at the Capitol building as per the Constitution... it can meet at the Arlington IHOP if it wants. At one point it met at Nassau Hall on Princeton University's campus
[Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States...The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Section 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not..
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers...
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments..
Section 5.
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
If you watched that on TV and thought it was OK. Nothing left to say.
No qualifiers, no "but they did..." or any other BS. You thought the people that went into Congress, took over the Chambers/Congressional Offices, and forced Congress to evacuate was what this Nation is about.
We cannot have a meaningful conversation about it, we are coming from too different of places. .
Osodecentx said:What do you think they were going to do?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window,Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
And what do you think little Ashli Babbitt and the other MAGA knuckle heads were gonna do if they got into the Chamber? Kill everyone? Behead people like some Hamas terrorists?
They said they wanted to keep Trump in office along with hanging Pence
You obviously think it was a bloody thirsty mob of grandmas, blue collar workers from Ohio, and female ex-Air Force service members that were apparently going to murder and cannibalize the Congressmen.
I don't think for one second they were going to randomly start killing people.
The American people have the most weapons/firearms of any population on earth.
[American civilians account for an estimated 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms]
Yet you think they had come to Washington to over throw the Federal government, kill congressmen, and hang the VP....but forgot to bring their arsenal of weapons with them?
If I'm going to participate in a coup d'tat I'm going strapped with deadly weaponry
So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
FLBear5630 said:If you believe that January 6th was a perfectly legal and peaceful action, I got nothing for you.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:What do you think that mob was going to do? Sit down and have a discussion over policy? Go in and take a seat and watch from the Gallery?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window,Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
And what do you think little Ashli Babbitt and the other MAGA knuckle heads were gonna do if they got into the Chamber? Kill everyone? Behead people like some Hamas terrorists?
I mean I can see some overly emotional insane liberal girl in Brooklyn or Austin who believes in "MAGA conservatives are literal Nazis!" dreaming up some scenario of unhinged violence...but its fantasy.
We have seen protestors in Hong Kong and Brazil take control of their respective government buildings for a time...and not mass bloodshed takes place....with in a few hours they get moved out.
On Jan. 6th protestors entered the Senate Chamber and did nothing but walk around and take pictures. The very same protestors in the main areas of Capitol did not even wreak the place or tear down statues (something BLM rioters did do during the Summer)
None of these Chambers (owned by the people) should have been defended by deadly force anyway.
Congress should have evacuated the building once things got out of control and simply gone and met at another Federal building in the city to continue their business.
The Capitol is not a "Scared Temple of our Democracy"....its just a Federal government building that does not even appear in the Constitution and was not even a serious seat of government until the Jeff Davis decided to make the place nice...
"Davis's most lasting legacy as a nation-builder, both figuratively and literally, was as a prime mover in the mammoth project to expand the United States Capitol from a small, cramped, statehouse-like building into a sprawling, magisterial seat of government"
Yeah, it was all so controlled and peaceful. Why does the Secret Service have weapons drawn? Those guys are just fat cops right? No experience in measuring crowd intent or people's mannerisms. Check that out, peaceful, right? The last one is what the cop saw, he can tell how small and peaceful. You guys will keep defending this? This is the US and how people should act at the Capitol? There are a ton more. It was not one little girl in a hall that was just shot by a 2775 pound cop...
My points sand.
Its a crowd of protestors/mob/whatever entering a Public building paid for by taxpayers.
Evacuate the building and meet somewhere else until police can clear the building on later at a safer time.
Don't shoot unarmed women to death.
Congress is not even required to meet at the Capitol building as per the Constitution... it can meet at the Arlington IHOP if it wants. At one point it met at Nassau Hall on Princeton University's campus
[Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States...The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Section 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not..
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers...
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments..
Section 5.
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
If you watched that on TV and thought it was OK. .
Didn't say it was legal...didn't say it was completely peaceful...didn't watch it on tv and say "hey that's great"
What I said is the Capitol is not some kind of "scared Temple of our Democracy" that needs to be defended from American citizens by lethal force.
Especially not deadly force against unarmed women.
Its a government building....Constitutionally no different than the local DMV
Congress is not even required to meet there by our Federal Constitution.
Nor does a mob occupying it for a few hours end our system of government or nullify an election or the power of the Congress and Federal government
muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
Nobody said it "ends our system of government" or nullified an election.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:If you believe that January 6th was a perfectly legal and peaceful action, I got nothing for you.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:What do you think that mob was going to do? Sit down and have a discussion over policy? Go in and take a seat and watch from the Gallery?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:People like him will never get it. The Cops job was to protect Congressional members, there was one way in and one way out. They were trying to break the doors down, broke the window,Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
And what do you think little Ashli Babbitt and the other MAGA knuckle heads were gonna do if they got into the Chamber? Kill everyone? Behead people like some Hamas terrorists?
I mean I can see some overly emotional insane liberal girl in Brooklyn or Austin who believes in "MAGA conservatives are literal Nazis!" dreaming up some scenario of unhinged violence...but its fantasy.
We have seen protestors in Hong Kong and Brazil take control of their respective government buildings for a time...and not mass bloodshed takes place....with in a few hours they get moved out.
On Jan. 6th protestors entered the Senate Chamber and did nothing but walk around and take pictures. The very same protestors in the main areas of Capitol did not even wreak the place or tear down statues (something BLM rioters did do during the Summer)
None of these Chambers (owned by the people) should have been defended by deadly force anyway.
Congress should have evacuated the building once things got out of control and simply gone and met at another Federal building in the city to continue their business.
The Capitol is not a "Scared Temple of our Democracy"....its just a Federal government building that does not even appear in the Constitution and was not even a serious seat of government until the Jeff Davis decided to make the place nice...
"Davis's most lasting legacy as a nation-builder, both figuratively and literally, was as a prime mover in the mammoth project to expand the United States Capitol from a small, cramped, statehouse-like building into a sprawling, magisterial seat of government"
Yeah, it was all so controlled and peaceful. Why does the Secret Service have weapons drawn? Those guys are just fat cops right? No experience in measuring crowd intent or people's mannerisms. Check that out, peaceful, right? The last one is what the cop saw, he can tell how small and peaceful. You guys will keep defending this? This is the US and how people should act at the Capitol? There are a ton more. It was not one little girl in a hall that was just shot by a 2775 pound cop...
My points sand.
Its a crowd of protestors/mob/whatever entering a Public building paid for by taxpayers.
Evacuate the building and meet somewhere else until police can clear the building on later at a safer time.
Don't shoot unarmed women to death.
Congress is not even required to meet at the Capitol building as per the Constitution... it can meet at the Arlington IHOP if it wants. At one point it met at Nassau Hall on Princeton University's campus
[Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States...The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Section 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not..
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers...
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments..
Section 5.
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
If you watched that on TV and thought it was OK. .
Didn't say it was legal...didn't say it was completely peaceful...didn't watch it on tv and say "hey that's great"
What I said is the Capitol is not some kind of "scared Temple of our Democracy" that needs to be defended from American citizens by lethal force.
Especially not deadly force against unarmed women.
Its a government building....Constitutionally no different than the local DMV
Congress is not even required to meet there by our Federal Constitution.
Nor does a mob occupying it for a few hours end our system of government or nullify an election or the power of the Congress and Federal government
The crowd was given a lawful order to not enter, they did. They were told to disperse, they didn't.
The Capitol Police, no different than a Park Ranger at a National Park, told them NOT to enter the Chamber. She came in through the window anyway. She was shot in the shoulder and died, not a head shot or even an organ shot. It was bad luck she died. She obeys the law, she is alive. Sad and tragic as it is, it is her fault not the Cop.
Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If they are trapped in a room with a mob of people breaking in then yes, of course.muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
I can not say its peaceful or not....I can say that meeting protestors (tax paying American citizens) with lethal force is wrong.
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
Its not the end of our Republic or the end of the Federal Government or even that serious of an issue.
At some point they will need to voluntarily remove themselves from the building or be arrested/forced out so business can resume.
But I would never shoot someone dead for trying to enter a government office.
They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
Well, let's start with are they breaking down doors and climbing through broken out windows with the Cops saying don't come in here?Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
Is that a place to start?
Osodecentx said:They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
You think I care if Leftists get arrested? No
I don't particularly care if Leftists even live or die...since they want nothing but death and destruction for me and my family.
Its hard to summon up any emotional support for Marxists who make excuses for Stalin and Mao
But as American citizens they have a right to protest....and they have a right to protest at government buildings...buildings owned by the Taxpayers and the people.
And they have a right to protest without being shot dead by the police.
Now I follow your logic. If folks disagree with you, it's okay to kill them.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
You think I care if Leftists get arrested? No
I don't particularly care if Leftists even live or die...since they want nothing but death and destruction for me and my family.
Its hard to summon up any emotional support for Marxists who make excuses for Stalin and Mao
But as American citizens they have a right to protest....and they have a right to protest at government buildings...buildings owned by the Taxpayers and the people.
And they have a right to protest without being shot dead by the police.
Your folks get access to all public buildings 24 hours a day with our limitation or restrictions
You broke his code. Is it authoritarian or totalitarian?FLBear5630 said:Well, let's start with are they breaking down doors and climbing through broken out windows with the Cops saying don't come in here?Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
Is that a place to start?
Do people also have the right to break into military bases, use some tanks or jets too since it's all paid by taxes?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
But as American citizens they have a right to protest....and they have a right to protest at government buildings...buildings owned by the Taxpayers and the people.
Osodecentx said:Now I follow your logic. If folks disagree with you, it's okay to kill them.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
You think I care if Leftists get arrested? No
I don't particularly care if Leftists even live or die...since they want nothing but death and destruction for me and my family.
Its hard to summon up any emotional support for Marxists who make excuses for Stalin and Mao
But as American citizens they have a right to protest....and they have a right to protest at government buildings...buildings owned by the Taxpayers and the people.
And they have a right to protest without being shot dead by the police.
Your folks get access to all public buildings 24 hours a day with our limitation or restrictions
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I just said above that even though I don't like Leftists at all...they have a right to protest and NOT be shot dead by police for being in a government building.
Did you just not read what I wrote....or did you have a senior moment?
Bestweekeverr said:Do people also have the right to break into military bases, use some tanks or jets too since it's all paid by taxes?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
But as American citizens they have a right to protest....and they have a right to protest at government buildings...buildings owned by the Taxpayers and the people.
Well that just opens up a whole other subject about if we should be even having a massive standing army with Federal bases scattered all over the nation...something the Founding Fathers would have thought immoral and tyrannical.
[The founding fathers were almost completely averse to standing armies and believed they posed a dangerous threat to American liberty.
In contrast to the Navy, the Constitution stipulates that appropriations for the Army can't be made for longer than two years. Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the main architects of the Bill of Rights, went so far as to declare that a standing army is "the bane of liberty."]
But I would hope you can see the difference between a place where protests have happened continuously over our national life (Capitol) and a place that is the center of laws, legislation, and a place long established as a central location to petition our government and demand a redress of grievances.....and a place like a military base that only exists to store weapons for the army.
Americans have a long history of protesting in D.C. and at the public owned buildings there in our National capitol district ....far less of any such history protesting at some army base in Lawton Oklahoma.
Its also illegal by Federal Law to enter a military base without permission...or leave without permission if a service member...with armed guards at all entrances manned 24-7 and its always been that way for our national history.
While the U.S. Capitol.... ["There was a time where anybody could come walk into the building at any time," Jane Campbell, president of the United States Historical Society, said.
But Campbell said that time was more than 40 years ago and adds laws have been on the books since the 1970s controlling public access to the Capitol. Congress tightened restrictions in the 1970s after a radical left-wing militant group set off a bomb in the Capitol and again in the late '90s when an armed assailant stormed past a U.S. Capitol security checkpoint and killed two Capitol Police officers.
Now, the only public access to the Capitol is through the visitor's center]
[Mr. Bowling, now 80, used to take a 25-cent train ride down from Baltimore as a teenager to walk the halls of the Capitol... walking into the vault two floors below the Rotunda where they stored the Lincoln catafalque, the wooden platform used since 1865 to support the coffins of Americans lying in state at the Capitol.
That was decades before the construction of the $600 million underground Capitol Visitor Center, which since 2008 has shunted tourists through security checkpoints, into curated exhibits and on tightly controlled tours. That was before it became impossible to simply walk up the western steps of the Capitol to sit and watch the sun set across the National Mall.
"As to what the founding generation would have thought," Mr. Bowling said, "obviously Washington and L'Enfant expected the citizenry to come to this great Capitol."
A similar erosion of access has taken place around the city. You can no longer climb the stairs of the Washington Monument. You can't grab lunch in the cafeterias of federal office buildings. You can't get close enough to the White House to peer in and imagine what might be happening inside]
You're one of those "by any means necessary guys". Don't you understand what you're saying? It's very leftist jargon. You think citizenship gives you rights above others. You don't equal treatment under the law, you want special treatment.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Now I follow your logic. If folks disagree with you, it's okay to kill them.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
You think I care if Leftists get arrested? No
I don't particularly care if Leftists even live or die...since they want nothing but death and destruction for me and my family.
Its hard to summon up any emotional support for Marxists who make excuses for Stalin and Mao
But as American citizens they have a right to protest....and they have a right to protest at government buildings...buildings owned by the Taxpayers and the people.
And they have a right to protest without being shot dead by the police.
Your folks get access to all public buildings 24 hours a day with our limitation or restrictions
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I just said above that even though I don't like Leftists at all...they have a right to protest and NOT be shot dead by police for being in a government building.
Did you just not read what I wrote....or did you have a senior moment?
Osodecentx said:You're one of those "by any means necessary guys". Don't you understand what you're saying? It's very leftist jargon. You think citizenship gives you rights above others. You don't equal treatment under the law, you want special treatment.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Now I follow your logic. If folks disagree with you, it's okay to kill them.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
You think I care if Leftists get arrested? No
I don't particularly care if Leftists even live or die...since they want nothing but death and destruction for me and my family.
Its hard to summon up any emotional support for Marxists who make excuses for Stalin and Mao
But as American citizens they have a right to protest....and they have a right to protest at government buildings...buildings owned by the Taxpayers and the people.
And they have a right to protest without being shot dead by the police.
Your folks get access to all public buildings 24 hours a day with our limitation or restrictions
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I just said above that even though I don't like Leftists at all...they have a right to protest and NOT be shot dead by police for being in a government building.
Did you just not read what I wrote....or did you have a senior moment?
I don't even know what that means.
I have said that both sides (Left or Right) have a right to protest at the National Capitol and not get shot dead for it.
I think that's actually a pretty consistent and logically position.
Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:You're one of those "by any means necessary guys". Don't you understand what you're saying? It's very leftist jargon. You think citizenship gives you rights above others. You don't equal treatment under the law, you want special treatment.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Now I follow your logic. If folks disagree with you, it's okay to kill them.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
You think I care if Leftists get arrested? No
I don't particularly care if Leftists even live or die...since they want nothing but death and destruction for me and my family.
Its hard to summon up any emotional support for Marxists who make excuses for Stalin and Mao
But as American citizens they have a right to protest....and they have a right to protest at government buildings...buildings owned by the Taxpayers and the people.
And they have a right to protest without being shot dead by the police.
Your folks get access to all public buildings 24 hours a day with our limitation or restrictions
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I just said above that even though I don't like Leftists at all...they have a right to protest and NOT be shot dead by police for being in a government building.
Did you just not read what I wrote....or did you have a senior moment?
I don't even know what that means.
I have said that both sides (Left or Right) have a right to protest at the National Capitol and not get shot dead for it.
I think that's actually a pretty consistent and logically position.
There's a difference between a "protest" and a riot.
Bestweekeverr said:Do people also have the right to break into military bases, use some tanks or jets too since it's all paid by taxes?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
But as American citizens they have a right to protest....and they have a right to protest at government buildings...buildings owned by the Taxpayers and the people.
Thinking about this a little more.
Military hardware and Constitutionally defined political power are also very different things.
If you break into a military base and get hold of the Tanks or Jets....you have possession of them...and can unleash havoc.
But if you break into the Oval office or the Supreme Court chamber....you do not come into possession of the powers of President or SCOTUS. I can break in and sit in Joe Biden's chair....I do not then become President. I can't issue executive orders or rule on Cases involving the Constitution.
Me and my buddies can break into the Senate Chamber...but we do not become the Senate. We can't pass Federal Laws.
The Senate can meet at the Walmart in Waco and its still the Senate with all its powers.
The President is not required to even step foot in the White House during his term of office...he can still be President by governing from a lake house in Michigan for 4 years.
While if I break into a military base I can in fact get hold of the weapons....so there is far far more reason to defend a military base with lethal force...than to defend a government building in DC
I don't think you are consistent. I don't believe you've thought through the implications of your statements. You are sure you are right and those expressing other views are wrong. There certainly a lot of wrong opinions out there, but your assertion of rights makes me wonder how far you woulRedbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:You're one of those "by any means necessary guys". Don't you understand what you're saying? It's very leftist jargon. You think citizenship gives you rights above others. You don't equal treatment under the law, you want special treatment.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Now I follow your logic. If folks disagree with you, it's okay to kill them.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:They were arrested. Is the OK with you?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Trying to follow your "logic"Redbrickbear said:muddybrazos said:So cops should just open fire on everyone that could have a gun. Sounds like a good policy.Bestweekeverr said:A 130lb woman that could've had a gun and had dozens of people trying to get in with her. She died because Trump made her believe in a fantasy.muddybrazos said:typical bootlicker repsonse that you think it was justified that a 275lb man was somehow afraid for his life of a 130lb woman that he needed to shoot her in the neck rather than just throw her to the ground.FLBear5630 said:Sorry, I respect both of you as posters but I don't see a controversy here.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
Amen....great post
It was a bad choice to shoot.
She should not have been engaged in the actions she was...I admit that...and others should admit that he should NOT have shot her dead when he had pepper spray, tasers, and back up
I will defend that interpretation
She was coming through the window after being told to disperse. It was one way in, one way out and members of Congress were there. Have any of you read the Officers account? Sorry, can't second guess the line officer making the decision in the heat of battle, especially watching the video.
Well these guys (and our Media system) think its ok as long as the suspects are part of the red tribe....its blast away...ask questions later.
Other wise the police need to act with extreme caution.
If these folks forcefully break into the Capitol and force evacuation of Congress, we know they are peaceful?
If some Leftists occupy the building for a few hours over Palestine....so what?
You think I care if Leftists get arrested? No
I don't particularly care if Leftists even live or die...since they want nothing but death and destruction for me and my family.
Its hard to summon up any emotional support for Marxists who make excuses for Stalin and Mao
But as American citizens they have a right to protest....and they have a right to protest at government buildings...buildings owned by the Taxpayers and the people.
And they have a right to protest without being shot dead by the police.
Your folks get access to all public buildings 24 hours a day with our limitation or restrictions
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I just said above that even though I don't like Leftists at all...they have a right to protest and NOT be shot dead by police for being in a government building.
Did you just not read what I wrote....or did you have a senior moment?
I don't even know what that means.
I have said that both sides (Left or Right) have a right to protest at the National Capitol and not get shot dead for it.
I think that's actually a pretty consistent and logically position.
The following is dense reading, but you are intelligent and I'm sure can follow it.
Dostoevsky Knew: It Can Happen Here
Some people who cheer Hamas's atrocities would surely be capable of committing similar acts if given an opportunity.
As I read about Harvard students demonstrating in favor of Hamas and educated people proclaiming that "decolonization" should be pursued "by any means necessary," I thought of Dostoevsky's reaction, a century and a half ago, to atrocities committed by the Ottomans as they suppressed uprisings among their Slavic subjects. This was a case, apparently unknown to today's "decolonizers," in which a Muslim empire persecuted colonized Christians.
The European press was then filled with reports that now seem familiar. Whole families were wiped out; women raped and tortured; living people humiliated and corpses abused; children slowly murdered before their parents' eyes; and, in one case that particularly shocked Dostoevsky, a young child forced to watch her father being flayed alive "completely." The child, Dostoevsky reported, was being cared for in Russia, where she repeatedly fainted as she recalled what she witnessed.
If it seems that only uncivilized people could be such sadists, Dostoevsky cautions, know that the same thing could happen among civilized Europeans as well. "For the moment it is still against the law," he writes, "but were it to depend on us, perhaps, nothing would stop us despite all our civilization."
For the time being, "people are simply intimidated by some sort of habit," Dostoevsky continues, but if some progressive expert were to come up with a theory showing that sometimes flaying skins can benefit the right cause because "the end justifies any means," and if that expert were to express his view "using the appropriate style," then, "believe me," there would be respectable people among us "willing to carry out the idea." Despite our sophistication and professions of compassion, "all that's needed is for some new fad to appear and people would be instantly transformed." Not everyone, of course, but the number of adherents of the new fad would grow while others would be afraid, or embarrassed, to cling to old ideas. And then, "where would we find ourselves: among the flayed or among the flayers?"
After 9/11, it turned out that terrorists were often well-off and well-educated. Cruelty often thrives among the sophisticated. Dostoevsky recalls the French terror, when people were humiliated and murdered in the name of the highest principles "and this after Rousseau and Voltaire!" We know, as Dostoevsky could only suppose, that during the Stalinist terrors millions were routinely tortured in the most degrading way possible; and that during the collectivization of agriculture, millions more were deliberately starved to death, with young Bolshevik idealists brought in to enforce the famine and take bits of food away from bloated children. In the West, intellectuals justified such behavior because it was done in the name of socialism and anti-imperialism.
Dostoevsky adds that there is no need to resort to examples from the past because the same dynamic can occur in any place at any time that allows the dark side of human nature to show itself, clad in the language of whatever passes for progressive and enlightened. "Believe me," Dostoevsky addresses his readers, "the most complete aberration of human hearts and minds is always possible."
It is a terrible mistake to imagine that thuggish deeds are performed only by thugs. Recalling his own early career as a revolutionist, Dostoevsky maintains that his group, which could readily have performed the most terrible acts, was composed of sophisticated people with the Russian equivalent of Ivy League educations. But despite regarding themselves as a cultured eliteor perhaps because they didfew "of us . . . could resist that well-known cycle of ideas and concepts that had taken such a firm hold on young society." Then it was "theoretical socialism," but it could have been anything, and there is no good reason to "think that even murder . . . would have stopped usnot all of us, of course, but at least some of us . . . surrounded by doctrines that had captured our souls."
Dostoevsky recalls that in his novel "The Possessed," he showed how even the most innocent hearts can be drawn into committing monstrous deeds and feeling proud to have committed them. "And therein lies the real horror: that . . . one can commit the foulest and most villainous act without in the least being a villain! And this happens . . . all over the world, since time began." "The possibility of considering oneselfand sometimes even being, in factan honorable person while committing obvious and undeniable villainy," he adds, is a possibility we overlook at our own peril.
A century later, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, contemplating the idealist Russians who joined in torture and the enlightened Western intellectuals who whitewashed it, asked why Shakespeare's villains murdered only a few people while the Bolsheviks killed millions. To answer this question, he reflects, one must grasp that no one thinks of himself as evil. To perform evil deeds a person must discover "a justification for his actions," so that he can regard stealing, humiliating and killing as good. "Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble," and so conscience restrained him. He had no ideology, Solzhenitsyn observes, nothing like "anti-imperialism" or "decolonization" to allay pangs of guilt. Solzhenitsyn concludes: "Ideologythat is what gives evil-doing its long-sought justification and gives the evil-doer the necessary steadfastness and determination . . . so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but receive praise and honors."
I have heard commentators worried that cancel culture and suppression of diverse opinions might lead to a "soft totalitarianism." If only. We need to recognize that some of those who justify Hamas's atrocities would be ready to perform them against their designated enemies. And unlike Dostoevsky's Turks or today's Hamas, they would have high-tech means at their disposal to extend their reach. I fear that the horrors of the 20th century may prove only a foretaste of much worse in the near future.
[url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/doestoevsky-knew-it-can-happen-here-hamas-palestine-progressive-radicalism-a7d196d6?mod=opinion_lead_pos6][/url]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/doestoevsky-knew-it-can-happen-here-hamas-palestine-progressive-radicalism-a7d196d6?mod=opinion_lead_pos6
Well, that is one opinion. An awful lot of people disagree. And that is my point. It is controversial. Usually is when a cop shoots an unarmed individual. And in this case, a cop shot a WOMAN who was clearly no threat to him.D. C. Bear said:whiterock said:Multiple points of disconnect going on there.FLBear5630 said:You MAGA guys keep doing that. Changing the argument from the Babbit or Trump actions and their legality to the 202o rioters didn't get punished (that you know). The two are not connected! The Capitol Policeman didn't say well what did they do in Portland in 2020 during the middle of a Breach of the Capitol by 10,000 people. (Really about 1000, but we will use Trump-speak biggest ever, a multitude! Or for this it was 1 woman in a hall and the Police drew on her!)whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
I'm a Republican, not a Maga-head. I defended Nikki Haley in another thread just this AM from an unfair attack.
Mostly, though, your response doesn't really address the points I made. I noted the specific details of the incident, and showed not that one side was right and the other was wrong, but that both sides had reasonable points and that it was completely understandable that there would be controversy about the shooting. I have not criticized the officer, but I do question the objectivity of determination that the use of deadly force was justified. A good right hook would have ended any threat she posed. Was it REALLY necessary, there and then, to shoot an unarmed woman crawling thru a window? On what planet would reasonable people not wonder if that was the right call?
Unfortunately, this one.
Curiously, I can find no polling on this incident. I suspect it is an avatar for the larger question of whether J6 was a "mostly peaceful riot" or "an insurrection." To the extent that is true, then we could expect +60% of the public to disagree that the shooting was justified. Which would, of course, only underscore my very narrow point above = the controversy about the shooting is justified. When a male cop shoots an unarmed female protestor who was clearly no threat to him.....on what planet would that not be controversial? Add in the political and racial aspects of this particular shooting and you have a fairly volatile mix.
I am agreeing with you. It is unfortunate that (otherwise) reasonable people do not wonder if it was the right call.whiterock said:Well, that is one opinion. An awful lot of people disagree. And that is my point. It is controversial. Usually is when a cop shoots an unarmed individual. And in this case, a cop shot a WOMAN who was clearly no threat to him.D. C. Bear said:whiterock said:Multiple points of disconnect going on there.FLBear5630 said:You MAGA guys keep doing that. Changing the argument from the Babbit or Trump actions and their legality to the 202o rioters didn't get punished (that you know). The two are not connected! The Capitol Policeman didn't say well what did they do in Portland in 2020 during the middle of a Breach of the Capitol by 10,000 people. (Really about 1000, but we will use Trump-speak biggest ever, a multitude! Or for this it was 1 woman in a hall and the Police drew on her!)whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
I'm a Republican, not a Maga-head. I defended Nikki Haley in another thread just this AM from an unfair attack.
Mostly, though, your response doesn't really address the points I made. I noted the specific details of the incident, and showed not that one side was right and the other was wrong, but that both sides had reasonable points and that it was completely understandable that there would be controversy about the shooting. I have not criticized the officer, but I do question the objectivity of determination that the use of deadly force was justified. A good right hook would have ended any threat she posed. Was it REALLY necessary, there and then, to shoot an unarmed woman crawling thru a window? On what planet would reasonable people not wonder if that was the right call?
Unfortunately, this one.
Curiously, I can find no polling on this incident. I suspect it is an avatar for the larger question of whether J6 was a "mostly peaceful riot" or "an insurrection." To the extent that is true, then we could expect +60% of the public to disagree that the shooting was justified. Which would, of course, only underscore my very narrow point above = the controversy about the shooting is justified. When a male cop shoots an unarmed female protestor who was clearly no threat to him.....on what planet would that not be controversial? Add in the political and racial aspects of this particular shooting and you have a fairly volatile mix.
Try this. This is a legal (Law Fare Media) review, that is balanced. It is based on law, not polls. Polling is irrelevant in this case. Either he committed a crime or not. Whether people agree means nothing here, this is a criminal matter, not opinion.whiterock said:Well, that is one opinion. An awful lot of people disagree. And that is my point. It is controversial. Usually is when a cop shoots an unarmed individual. And in this case, a cop shot a WOMAN who was clearly no threat to him.D. C. Bear said:whiterock said:Multiple points of disconnect going on there.FLBear5630 said:You MAGA guys keep doing that. Changing the argument from the Babbit or Trump actions and their legality to the 202o rioters didn't get punished (that you know). The two are not connected! The Capitol Policeman didn't say well what did they do in Portland in 2020 during the middle of a Breach of the Capitol by 10,000 people. (Really about 1000, but we will use Trump-speak biggest ever, a multitude! Or for this it was 1 woman in a hall and the Police drew on her!)whiterock said:she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.FLBear5630 said:Mothra said:I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.Redbrickbear said:Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.
— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023
Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.
Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.
Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng
I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.
That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.
The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.
The controversy is justified.
The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.
The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/
Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.
The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.
I'm a Republican, not a Maga-head. I defended Nikki Haley in another thread just this AM from an unfair attack.
Mostly, though, your response doesn't really address the points I made. I noted the specific details of the incident, and showed not that one side was right and the other was wrong, but that both sides had reasonable points and that it was completely understandable that there would be controversy about the shooting. I have not criticized the officer, but I do question the objectivity of determination that the use of deadly force was justified. A good right hook would have ended any threat she posed. Was it REALLY necessary, there and then, to shoot an unarmed woman crawling thru a window? On what planet would reasonable people not wonder if that was the right call?
Unfortunately, this one.
Curiously, I can find no polling on this incident. I suspect it is an avatar for the larger question of whether J6 was a "mostly peaceful riot" or "an insurrection." To the extent that is true, then we could expect +60% of the public to disagree that the shooting was justified. Which would, of course, only underscore my very narrow point above = the controversy about the shooting is justified. When a male cop shoots an unarmed female protestor who was clearly no threat to him.....on what planet would that not be controversial? Add in the political and racial aspects of this particular shooting and you have a fairly volatile mix.
Evaluating the Police Shooting of Ashli Babbitt | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org)