BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. I have you pegged perfect!y.

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

Supporting law enforcement and endorsing all cop killings are two very different things. I support law enforcement as well, and believe what they've been through the past year has been terrible.

I also believe what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd was manslaughter at a minimum. Does that make me a "cop hater" in your book?

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified.

---

At least you are consistent, most posters wanted Chauvin cleared and think Byrd is a murderer.

But no I don't think there are any questions.

---

I haven't met a single person that wanted Chauvin cleared.

---

Go back and read the thread a few months ago. And sure sounds like RD was a Chauvin fan based on his posts here.

---

So you've surmised RD wanted Chauvin cleared. Who are the others? You said "most posters wanted Chauvin cleared." Who are they?

---

Go reread the Chauvin court case thread. Have at it.

---

You're making an accusation about RD, why don't you prove it?

---

Considering you were one of those that wanted Chauvin off (just went to reread that thread), I'd stand down.

---

That's a outright lie, a-s-s*hole.... .point me to where I said he should get off/found not guilty/be set free.

I'll sure as hell show you where I said the exact opposite: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/84724/replies/2131538

You're fckin' desperate, quite making crap up

---

Spelling sure goes out the window when you get mad.

I like that you posted the last post you made in the thread. Not the first several where you stated Floyd was to blame instead of Chauvin.

Also, not a liberal. Actually volunteer for the Republican Party in my hometown, voted for Trump and previously interned for a Republican Congressman.

I spend time chewing out fake conservatives like yourself that are a stain on my party.

---

Show me where I said chauvin should get off? What's wrong, can't do it?

That link is to my post that explicitly states what I think should happen to chauvin.

Just because someone recognizes that floyd played a part in his own death doesn't mean that chauvin is without blame. Are you that stupid or dishonest or both?

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. I have you pegged perfect!y.

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

Supporting law enforcement and endorsing all cop killings are two very different things. I support law enforcement as well, and believe what they've been through the past year has been terrible.

I also believe what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd was manslaughter at a minimum. Does that make me a "cop hater" in your book?

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified.

---

At least you are consistent, most posters wanted Chauvin cleared and think Byrd is a murderer.

But no I don't think there are any questions.

---

I haven't met a single person that wanted Chauvin cleared.

---

Go back and read the thread a few months ago. And sure sounds like RD was a Chauvin fan based on his posts here.

---

So you've surmised RD wanted Chauvin cleared. Who are the others? You said "most posters wanted Chauvin cleared." Who are they?

---

Go reread the Chauvin court case thread. Have at it.

---

You're making an accusation about RD, why don't you prove it?

---

Considering you were one of those that wanted Chauvin off (just went to reread that thread), I'd stand down.

---

That's a outright lie, a-s-s*hole.... .point me to where I said he should get off/found not guilty/be set free.

I'll sure as hell show you where I said the exact opposite: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/84724/replies/2131538

You're fckin' desperate, quite making crap up

---

Spelling sure goes out the window when you get mad.

I like that you posted the last post you made in the thread. Not the first several where you stated Floyd was to blame instead of Chauvin.

Also, not a liberal. Actually volunteer for the Republican Party in my hometown, voted for Trump and previously interned for a Republican Congressman.

I spend time chewing out fake conservatives like yourself that are a stain on my party.

---

Show me where I said chauvin should get off? What's wrong, can't do it?

That link is to my post that explicitly states what I think should happen to chauvin.

Just because someone recognizes that floyd played a part in his own death doesn't mean that chauvin is without blame. Are you that stupid or dishonest or both?

---

Sorry for missing your post of page 16 of 16 on that thread. Glad you changed your tune and stopped talking solely about Floyd in that situation.

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. I have you pegged perfect!y.

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

Supporting law enforcement and endorsing all cop killings are two very different things. I support law enforcement as well, and believe what they've been through the past year has been terrible.

I also believe what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd was manslaughter at a minimum. Does that make me a "cop hater" in your book?

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified.

---

At least you are consistent, most posters wanted Chauvin cleared and think Byrd is a murderer.

But no I don't think there are any questions.

---

I haven't met a single person that wanted Chauvin cleared.

---

Go back and read the thread a few months ago. And sure sounds like RD was a Chauvin fan based on his posts here.

---

So you've surmised RD wanted Chauvin cleared. Who are the others? You said "most posters wanted Chauvin cleared." Who are they?

---

Go reread the Chauvin court case thread. Have at it.

---

You're making an accusation about RD, why don't you prove it?

---

Considering you were one of those that wanted Chauvin off (just went to reread that thread), I'd stand down.

---

That's a outright lie, a-s-s*hole.... .point me to where I said he should get off/found not guilty/be set free.

I'll sure as hell show you where I said the exact opposite: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/84724/replies/2131538

You're fckin' desperate, quite making crap up

---

Spelling sure goes out the window when you get mad.

I like that you posted the last post you made in the thread. Not the first several where you stated Floyd was to blame instead of Chauvin.

Also, not a liberal. Actually volunteer for the Republican Party in my hometown, voted for Trump and previously interned for a Republican Congressman.

I spend time chewing out fake conservatives like yourself that are a stain on my party.

---

Show me where I said chauvin should get off? What's wrong, can't do it?

That link is to my post that explicitly states what I think should happen to chauvin.

Just because someone recognizes that floyd played a part in his own death doesn't mean that chauvin is without blame. Are you that stupid or dishonest or both?

---

Sorry for missing your post of page 16 of 16 on that thread. Glad you changed your tune and stopped talking solely about Floyd in that situation.

---

I never changed my tune. I grown up to recognize that floyd played a part in his own death and recognize that chauvin belongs in prison.

Shocker! also believe babitt played a role her death.

Geeesh. Now stop making crap up about what people said when they never did.

I thought you guys supported Deadly force against Terrorists

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. I have you pegged perfect!y.

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

Supporting law enforcement and endorsing all cop killings are two very different things. I support law enforcement as well, and believe what they've been through the past year has been terrible.

I also believe what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd was manslaughter at a minimum. Does that make me a "cop hater" in your book?

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified.

---

At least you are consistent, most posters wanted Chauvin cleared and think Byrd is a murderer.

But no I don't think there are any questions.

---

I haven't met a single person that wanted Chauvin cleared.

---

Go back and read the thread a few months ago. And sure sounds like RD was a Chauvin fan based on his posts here.

---

So you've surmised RD wanted Chauvin cleared. Who are the others? You said "most posters wanted Chauvin cleared." Who are they?

---

Go reread the Chauvin court case thread. Have at it.

---

You're making an accusation about RD, why don't you prove it?

---

Considering you were one of those that wanted Chauvin off (just went to reread that thread), I'd stand down.

---

That's a outright lie, a-s-s*hole.... .point me to where I said he should get off/found not guilty/be set free.

I'll sure as hell show you where I said the exact opposite: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/84724/replies/2131538

You're fckin' desperate, quite making crap up

---

Spelling sure goes out the window when you get mad.

I like that you posted the last post you made in the thread. Not the first several where you stated Floyd was to blame instead of Chauvin.

Also, not a liberal. Actually volunteer for the Republican Party in my hometown, voted for Trump and previously interned for a Republican Congressman.

I spend time chewing out fake conservatives like yourself that are a stain on my party.

---

I'd suggest spending less time trying to purge those who may have supported Trump more vociferously than you and I did, and more time trying to find common ground. We have a common enemy, and as the past few months have proven, he's far worse than Trump on Trump's worst day. There is no need for ideological purity and all such purges accomplish is to ensure Democrats get elected.

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. I have you pegged perfect!y.

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

Supporting law enforcement and endorsing all cop killings are two very different things. I support law enforcement as well, and believe what they've been through the past year has been terrible.

I also believe what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd was manslaughter at a minimum. Does that make me a "cop hater" in your book?

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified.

---

At least you are consistent, most posters wanted Chauvin cleared and think Byrd is a murderer.

But no I don't think there are any questions.

---

I haven't met a single person that wanted Chauvin cleared.

---

Go back and read the thread a few months ago. And sure sounds like RD was a Chauvin fan based on his posts here.

---

So you've surmised RD wanted Chauvin cleared. Who are the others? You said "most posters wanted Chauvin cleared." Who are they?

---

Go reread the Chauvin court case thread. Have at it.

---

You're making an accusation about RD, why don't you prove it?

---

Considering you were one of those that wanted Chauvin off (just went to reread that thread), I'd stand down.

---

That's a outright lie, a-s-s*hole.... .point me to where I said he should get off/found not guilty/be set free.

I'll sure as hell show you where I said the exact opposite: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/84724/replies/2131538

You're fckin' desperate, quite making crap up

---

Spelling sure goes out the window when you get mad.

I like that you posted the last post you made in the thread. Not the first several where you stated Floyd was to blame instead of Chauvin.

Also, not a liberal. Actually volunteer for the Republican Party in my hometown, voted for Trump and previously interned for a Republican Congressman.

I spend time chewing out fake conservatives like yourself that are a stain on my party.

---

I'd suggest spending less time trying to purge those who may have supported Trump more vociferously than you and I did, and more time trying to find common ground. We have a common enemy, and as the past few months have proven, he's far worse than Trump on Trump's worst day. There is no need for ideological purity and all such purges accomplish is to ensure Democrats get elected.

---

Taking hardline stances like "Babbit is a martyr that was murdered" will absolutely get Democrats elected. That is what I'm fighting against.

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. I have you pegged perfect!y.

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

---

So did George Floyd. But we won't talk about that.

---

I dare you to discuss this specific case without discussing BLM or George Floyd. You won't be able to. Because politics clouds your judgement. Picking teams is more important than justice or right/wrong.

---

Fair enough. Tell me how an unarmed 5'2" 125 lb. woman woman deserves to be gunned down by a cop because he felt like his life was threatened.

GO!

---

She was breaking through a barricaded entrance with dozens of rioters behind her. Behind the cop were many members of our national government that he is obligated to protect (literally his job). He has no idea if she is armed and she is carrying a backpack with unknown contents. While she doesn't "deserve" to die for that, it shouldn't really be a surprise. Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.

Would you be at all surprised if you tried to break through a window into the West Wing and the Secret Service shot you? I wouldn't. I'd sit there and think to myself "I'm an idiot. I should absolutely have known this was the most likely outcome." It would not matter one bit if I was armed or not. The possibility I might be would be enough.

Byrd might not be a hero but he certainly isn't a villain. Babbitt's death is on her and whoever convinced her to enter the Capital and start breaking through barricaded doors.

---

Shooting through a locked door is reckless and stupid, plain and simple. You have no idea what that bullet will hit. He should be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm at minimum.

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. I have you pegged perfect!y.

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

Supporting law enforcement and endorsing all cop killings are two very different things. I support law enforcement as well, and believe what they've been through the past year has been terrible.

I also believe what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd was manslaughter at a minimum. Does that make me a "cop hater" in your book?

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified.

---

At least you are consistent, most posters wanted Chauvin cleared and think Byrd is a murderer.

But no I don't think there are any questions.

---

I haven't met a single person that wanted Chauvin cleared.

---

Go back and read the thread a few months ago. And sure sounds like RD was a Chauvin fan based on his posts here.

---

So you've surmised RD wanted Chauvin cleared. Who are the others? You said "most posters wanted Chauvin cleared." Who are they?

---

Go reread the Chauvin court case thread. Have at it.

---

You're making an accusation about RD, why don't you prove it?

---

Considering you were one of those that wanted Chauvin off (just went to reread that thread), I'd stand down.

---

That's a outright lie, a-s-s*hole.... .point me to where I said he should get off/found not guilty/be set free.

I'll sure as hell show you where I said the exact opposite: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/84724/replies/2131538

You're fckin' desperate, quite making crap up

---

Spelling sure goes out the window when you get mad.

I like that you posted the last post you made in the thread. Not the first several where you stated Floyd was to blame instead of Chauvin.

Also, not a liberal. Actually volunteer for the Republican Party in my hometown, voted for Trump and previously interned for a Republican Congressman.

I spend time chewing out fake conservatives like yourself that are a stain on my party.

---

I'd suggest spending less time trying to purge those who may have supported Trump more vociferously than you and I did, and more time trying to find common ground. We have a common enemy, and as the past few months have proven, he's far worse than Trump on Trump's worst day. There is no need for ideological purity and all such purges accomplish is to ensure Democrats get elected.

---

Taking hardline stances like "Babbit is a martyr that was murdered" will absolutely get Democrats elected. That is what I'm fighting against.

---

That's a straw man. Nobody on this thread has said or even suggested that.

While we don't see eye to eye on Trump, I've found you to be a pretty reasonable poster. But you've been guilty of mischaracterizing a number of posters' positions on this thread. I'd suggest you take a break, take a deep breath, and step away from the keyboard for a few hours.

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. %A0I have you pegged perfect!y. %A0

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

Supporting law enforcement and endorsing all cop killings are two very different things. %A0I support law enforcement as well, and believe what they've been through the past year has been terrible.

I also believe what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd was manslaughter at a minimum. Does that make me a "cop hater" in your book?

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified. %A0

---

At least you are consistent, most posters wanted Chauvin cleared and think Byrd is a murderer.

But no I don't think there are any questions.

---

I haven't met a single person that wanted Chauvin cleared.

---

Go back and read the thread a few months ago. And sure sounds like RD was a Chauvin fan based on his posts here.

---

So you've surmised RD wanted Chauvin cleared. %A0Who are the others? %A0You said "most posters wanted Chauvin cleared." %A0Who are they?

---

Go reread the Chauvin court case thread. Have at it.

---

You're making an accusation about RD, why don't you prove it?

---

Considering you were one of those that wanted Chauvin off (just went to reread that thread), I'd stand down.

---

That's a outright lie, a-s-s*hole.... .point me to where I said he should get off/found not guilty/be set free.

I'll sure as hell show you where I said the exact opposite: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/84724/replies/2131538

You're fckin' desperate, quite making crap up

---

Spelling sure goes out the window when you get mad.

I like that you posted the last post you made in the thread. Not the first several where you stated Floyd was to blame instead of Chauvin.

Also, not a liberal. Actually volunteer for the Republican Party in my hometown, voted for Trump and previously interned for a Republican Congressman.

I spend time chewing out fake conservatives like yourself that are a stain on my party.

---

I'd suggest spending less time trying to purge those who may have supported Trump more vociferously than you and I did, and more time trying to find common ground. %A0We have a common enemy, and as the past few months have proven, he's far worse than Trump on Trump's worst day. %A0There is no need for ideological purity and all such purges accomplish is to ensure Democrats get elected.

---

Taking hardline stances like "Babbit is a martyr that was murdered" will absolutely get Democrats elected. That is what I'm fighting against.

---

Show me where I took hardline stance and said Babbit is a martyr. Quite the opposite, I've repeatedly said she played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

Do you have no comprehension abilities?

Seems to me that there are a number of posters here using 'facts' they made up to suit their opinion.

Man, not too long ago many posters were up in arms about her death, now they are scrambling over which exact words they used.

Many of you said it. It's not that she deserved death, it's that she put herself into a situation where her chances of dying rose dramatically, and normally we call that being an idiot.

Porteroso said:

---

Man, not too long ago many posters were up in arms about her death, now they are scrambling over which exact words they used.

Many of you said it. It's not that she deserved death, it's that she put herself into a situation where her chances of dying rose dramatically, and normally we call that being an idiot.

---

Yep. A lot of back tracking going on. The OP considered this a murder last night. Wonder if he still agrees. Murder 1, 2 or 3?

BearTruth13 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Man, not too long ago many posters were up in arms about her death, now they are scrambling over which exact words they used.

Many of you said it. It's not that she deserved death, it's that she put herself into a situation where her chances of dying rose dramatically, and normally we call that being an idiot.

---

Yep. A lot of back tracking going on. The OP considered this a murder last night. Wonder if he still agrees. Murder 1, 2 or 3?

---

So, do you think I'm back tracking?

From day 1, my issue of the whole babbitt incident is the hypocrisy of the left about it. How it was treated completely different. That issue has not changed.

You mentioned in an earlier post that I changed my tune.... well, for me to change my tune I must've been all up in arms about the actual shooting to begin with.

And I'll help your comprehension.... My issue of how everyone was kept in the dark or the lack of any scrutiny or the lack of releasing the cops name does not constitute an endorsement of "the cop murdered the woman and she brought up in front of a firing squad" narrative.

Hell I'll even go back to May:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/86449/replies/2152513

"Woman played a stupid game and won a stupid prize


Rayshard Brooks played a stupid game won a stupid prize

Media immediately investigated, discovered the identity of the officer involved with the Rayshard Brooks shooting and immediately reported his name to the public

Media didn't/doesn't care about reporting the name of officer that killed Ashli Babbitt

Double standard, no way to spin it"

This story is the paragon of the stupidity of our political debates. The same people trashing cops during the past 10 years and promoting fake news about police killings suddenly love this guy and what he did. We can never have honest conversations if goalposts constantly move.

BearTruth13 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Man, not too long ago many posters were up in arms about her death, now they are scrambling over which exact words they used.

Many of you said it. It's not that she deserved death, it's that she put herself into a situation where her chances of dying rose dramatically, and normally we call that being an idiot.

---

Yep. A lot of back tracking going on. The OP considered this a murder last night. Wonder if he still agrees. Murder 1, 2 or 3?

---

No backtracking from me. Murder two or three or manslaughter at the very least. The dude should be Derek Chauvin's cellmate.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This story is the paragon of the stupidity of our political debates. The same people trashing cops during the past 10 years and promoting fake news about police killings suddenly love this guy and what he did. We can never have honest conversations if goalposts constantly move.

---

I've been pretty consistent. I wait for video evidence and watch it myself. I give it 48 hours at least before jumping to conclusions. If it is a tough situation, I typically side with the police. If the cops are clearly on a power trip, have had previous complaints and the situation was under control and the cop was still escalating the situation, I am always in favor of them getting justice.

We can cry about the media hypocrisy til we are blue in the face. I'd rather view cases on a case by case basis and not play tit for tat.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Man, not too long ago many posters were up in arms about her death, now they are scrambling over which exact words they used.

Many of you said it. It's not that she deserved death, it's that she put herself into a situation where her chances of dying rose dramatically, and normally we call that being an idiot.

---

Yep. A lot of back tracking going on. The OP considered this a murder last night. Wonder if he still agrees. Murder 1, 2 or 3?

---

No backtracking from me. Murder two or three or manslaughter at the very least. The dude should be Derek Chauvin's cellmate.

---

Well at least we've got it in writing.

If thousands of pu$$ies can riot, loot, steal, beat up people and destroy property and businesses around our great nation for a solid year and do so often times armed without getting shot, how can you justify Ashli Babbitt's murder?

No warning shot over her head? No baton between her eyes? No mace in her eyes? This cop panicked and killed an unarmed citizen of the US.

Why can't our police shoot Antifa and BLM people when they were rioting, trespassing, burning, looting, destroying, attacking and doing far worse? I'd add KKK, White Supremacist and those Proud Boys if they had just rioted, trespassed, looted, beat people up and mirrored the clown shows we had to watch.

BearTruth13 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This story is the paragon of the stupidity of our political debates. The same people trashing cops during the past 10 years and promoting fake news about police killings suddenly love this guy and what he did. We can never have honest conversations if goalposts constantly move.

---

I've been pretty consistent. I wait for video evidence and watch it myself. I give it 48 hours at least before jumping to conclusions. If it is a tough situation, I typically side with the police. If the cops are clearly on a power trip, have had previous complaints and the situation was under control and the cop was still escalating the situation, I am always in favor of them getting justice.

We can cry about the media hypocrisy til we are blue in the face. I'd rather view cases on a case by case basis and not play tit for tat.

---

I did not mean that to be directed at you. There are a few people that follow your tact but not many, and none in the left-wing media.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. I have you pegged perfect!y.

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified.

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. We know that wasn't done here.

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. That of course never happened here. The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. This is standard police officer training in this country. Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? Of course he could have.

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. And she was killed by a black officer.

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. I've stated the legal standard. I've also given given you enforcement policy. I've never suggested they are synonymous. That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. It does not. And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. I have you pegged perfect!y.

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified.

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. We know that wasn't done here.

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. That of course never happened here. The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. This is standard police officer training in this country. Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? Of course he could have.

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. And she was killed by a black officer.

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. I've stated the legal standard. I've also given given you enforcement policy. I've never suggested they are synonymous. That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. It does not. And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. I have you pegged perfect!y.

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified.

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. We know that wasn't done here.

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. That of course never happened here. The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. This is standard police officer training in this country. Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? Of course he could have.

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. And she was killed by a black officer.

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. I've stated the legal standard. I've also given given you enforcement policy. I've never suggested they are synonymous. That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. It does not. And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

---

I've only stated one legal standard. Apparently you'd rather mischaracterize my position than have a discussion. That's fine. Your argument sucked anyway.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Right? It's almost as crazy as making a martyr out of a violent criminal simply because he died fighting with the police who were trying to enforce the law

---

Yes. Two words. George Floyd.

---

George Floyd did not make this woman do anything.

Try to breach airport security or a police building with a backpack and see what happens (but really do not, b/c you will get harmed).

Sad death but it was a fatal decision she made.

---

Wow. Maybe she should have done her breach thing in Seattle or Portland. Surprising post from you, Jack.

---

Because you are wrong

You are encouraged to re-examine your premises

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. %A0I have you pegged perfect!y. %A0

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified. %A0

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. %A0We know that wasn't done here. %A0

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. %A0That of course never happened here. %A0The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. %A0This is standard police officer training in this country. %A0Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? %A0Of course he could have. %A0

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. %A0He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. %A0So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. %A0But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. %A0We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. %A0She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. %A0And she was killed by a black officer. %A0

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. %A0I've stated the legal standard. %A0I've also given given you enforcement policy. %A0I've never suggested they are synonymous. %A0That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. %A0But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. %A0It does not. %A0And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

---

I've only stated one legal standard. Apparently you'd rather mischaracterize my position than have a discussion. %A0That's fine. %A0Your argument sucked anyway.

---

I haven't made my argument yet. I was trying to establish the rule first, but I can see that won't be possible given the hopeless jumble of issues in your mind.

---

I established the rule several posts ago. You just restated it a couple of posts ago. It hasn't changed.

And you did make an argument - that the shooting was justified. So you're a liar as well.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. %A0I have you pegged perfect!y. %A0

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified. %A0

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. %A0We know that wasn't done here. %A0

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. %A0That of course never happened here. %A0The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. %A0This is standard police officer training in this country. %A0Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? %A0Of course he could have. %A0

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. %A0He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. %A0So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. %A0But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. %A0We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. %A0She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. %A0And she was killed by a black officer. %A0

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. %A0I've stated the legal standard. %A0I've also given given you enforcement policy. %A0I've never suggested they are synonymous. %A0That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. %A0But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. %A0It does not. %A0And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

---

I've only stated one legal standard. Apparently you'd rather mischaracterize my position than have a discussion. %A0That's fine. %A0Your argument sucked anyway.

---

I haven't made my argument yet. I was trying to establish the rule first, but I can see that won't be possible given the hopeless jumble of issues in your mind.

---

I established the rule several posts ago. You just restated it a couple of posts ago. It hasn't changed.

And you did make an argument - that the shooting was justified. So you're a liar as well.

---

The shooting was justified

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. %A0I have you pegged perfect!y. %A0

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified. %A0

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. %A0We know that wasn't done here. %A0

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. %A0That of course never happened here. %A0The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. %A0This is standard police officer training in this country. %A0Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? %A0Of course he could have. %A0

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. %A0He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. %A0So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. %A0But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. %A0We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. %A0She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. %A0And she was killed by a black officer. %A0

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. %A0I've stated the legal standard. %A0I've also given given you enforcement policy. %A0I've never suggested they are synonymous. %A0That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. %A0But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. %A0It does not. %A0And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

---

I've only stated one legal standard. Apparently you'd rather mischaracterize my position than have a discussion. %A0That's fine. %A0Your argument sucked anyway.

---

I haven't made my argument yet. I was trying to establish the rule first, but I can see that won't be possible given the hopeless jumble of issues in your mind.

---

I established the rule several posts ago. You just restated it a couple of posts ago. It hasn't changed.

And you did make an argument - that the shooting was justified. So you're a liar as well.

---

Never said it was justified, so that would be a lie on your part.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. %A0I have you pegged perfect!y. %A0

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified. %A0

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. %A0We know that wasn't done here. %A0

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. %A0That of course never happened here. %A0The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. %A0This is standard police officer training in this country. %A0Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? %A0Of course he could have. %A0

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. %A0He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. %A0So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. %A0But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. %A0We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. %A0She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. %A0And she was killed by a black officer. %A0

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. %A0I've stated the legal standard. %A0I've also given given you enforcement policy. %A0I've never suggested they are synonymous. %A0That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. %A0But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. %A0It does not. %A0And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

---

I've only stated one legal standard. Apparently you'd rather mischaracterize my position than have a discussion. %A0That's fine. %A0Your argument sucked anyway.

---

I haven't made my argument yet. I was trying to establish the rule first, but I can see that won't be possible given the hopeless jumble of issues in your mind.

---

I established the rule several posts ago. You just restated it a couple of posts ago. It hasn't changed.

And you did make an argument - that the shooting was justified. So you're a liar as well.

---

The shooting was justified

---

We disagree.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. %A0I have you pegged perfect!y. %A0

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified. %A0

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. %A0We know that wasn't done here. %A0

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. %A0That of course never happened here. %A0The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. %A0This is standard police officer training in this country. %A0Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? %A0Of course he could have. %A0

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. %A0He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. %A0So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. %A0But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. %A0We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. %A0She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. %A0And she was killed by a black officer. %A0

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. %A0I've stated the legal standard. %A0I've also given given you enforcement policy. %A0I've never suggested they are synonymous. %A0That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. %A0But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. %A0It does not. %A0And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

---

I've only stated one legal standard. Apparently you'd rather mischaracterize my position than have a discussion. %A0That's fine. %A0Your argument sucked anyway.

---

I haven't made my argument yet. I was trying to establish the rule first, but I can see that won't be possible given the hopeless jumble of issues in your mind.

---

I established the rule several posts ago. You just restated it a couple of posts ago. It hasn't changed.

And you did make an argument - that the shooting was justified. So you're a liar as well.

---

The shooting was justified

---

True.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. %A0I have you pegged perfect!y. %A0

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified. %A0

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. %A0We know that wasn't done here. %A0

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. %A0That of course never happened here. %A0The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. %A0This is standard police officer training in this country. %A0Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? %A0Of course he could have. %A0

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. %A0He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. %A0So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. %A0But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. %A0We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. %A0She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. %A0And she was killed by a black officer. %A0

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. %A0I've stated the legal standard. %A0I've also given given you enforcement policy. %A0I've never suggested they are synonymous. %A0That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. %A0But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. %A0It does not. %A0And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

---

I've only stated one legal standard. Apparently you'd rather mischaracterize my position than have a discussion. %A0That's fine. %A0Your argument sucked anyway.

---

I haven't made my argument yet. I was trying to establish the rule first, but I can see that won't be possible given the hopeless jumble of issues in your mind.

---

I established the rule several posts ago. You just restated it a couple of posts ago. It hasn't changed.

And you did make an argument - that the shooting was justified. So you're a liar as well.

---

Never said it was justified, so that would be a lie on your part.

---

Sure bro. Have a good evening.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. %A0I have you pegged perfect!y. %A0

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified. %A0

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. %A0We know that wasn't done here. %A0

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. %A0That of course never happened here. %A0The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. %A0This is standard police officer training in this country. %A0Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? %A0Of course he could have. %A0

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. %A0He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. %A0So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. %A0But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. %A0We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. %A0She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. %A0And she was killed by a black officer. %A0

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. %A0I've stated the legal standard. %A0I've also given given you enforcement policy. %A0I've never suggested they are synonymous. %A0That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. %A0But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. %A0It does not. %A0And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

---

I've only stated one legal standard. Apparently you'd rather mischaracterize my position than have a discussion. %A0That's fine. %A0Your argument sucked anyway.

---

I haven't made my argument yet. I was trying to establish the rule first, but I can see that won't be possible given the hopeless jumble of issues in your mind.

---

I established the rule several posts ago. You just restated it a couple of posts ago. It hasn't changed.

And you did make an argument - that the shooting was justified. So you're a liar as well.

---

The shooting was justified

---

True.

---

Proof that you will argue with a brick wall.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. %A0I have you pegged perfect!y. %A0

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified. %A0

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. %A0We know that wasn't done here. %A0

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. %A0That of course never happened here. %A0The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. %A0This is standard police officer training in this country. %A0Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? %A0Of course he could have. %A0

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. %A0He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. %A0So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. %A0But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. %A0We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. %A0She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. %A0And she was killed by a black officer. %A0

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. %A0I've stated the legal standard. %A0I've also given given you enforcement policy. %A0I've never suggested they are synonymous. %A0That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. %A0But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. %A0It does not. %A0And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

---

I've only stated one legal standard. Apparently you'd rather mischaracterize my position than have a discussion. %A0That's fine. %A0Your argument sucked anyway.

---

I haven't made my argument yet. I was trying to establish the rule first, but I can see that won't be possible given the hopeless jumble of issues in your mind.

---

I established the rule several posts ago. You just restated it a couple of posts ago. It hasn't changed.

And you did make an argument - that the shooting was justified. So you're a liar as well.

---

The shooting was justified

---

True.

---

Proof that you will argue with a brick wall.

---

And often to greater effect.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Didn't peg you for a cop hater.

---

Wow. %A0I have you pegged perfect!y. %A0

---

I support law enforcement. Babbit made stupid choices, put herself in a stupid and bad situation and paid for it.

It's a shame you don't.

---

There are serious questions as to whether the killing of Babbit was justified. %A0

---

What are they?

---

The video raises serious doubts about whether the officer had probable cause to believe Babbit posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Typically, that requires a belief that the suspect is armed. Officers are encouraged to use less than deadly force, such as stun guns and pepper spray, when they don't know that a suspect is armed and poses a risk of serious bodily harm. %A0We know that wasn't done here. %A0

Another problem is that because these proceedings have been kept secret, we are largely in the dark. If this had been a police officer who had used deadly force on say a BLM protestor, his name would be splashed across the news and the findings of the investigation made public. %A0That of course never happened here. %A0The same level of scrutiny has not been applied.

---

It may typically involve a belief that the suspect is armed; it certainly does not require any such belief. The video also shows that others were armed, at least with blunt weapons.

---

Like I said, it raises questions regarding whether the use of deadly force was justified. Indeed it does.

---

It's hard to take seriously under the circumstances. What was the officer going to do -- wait for the entrance to be breached, wave her on, and have the rest of the rioters pass through in single file so he could stop and frisk them? Meanwhile they're free to assault and beat the legislators within an inch of their lives as long as they do it unarmed and mostly peacefully?

It was his job to protect them. If nothing else, he probably kept a lot more rioters from dying if they'd gotten through.

---

The question in these circumstances is whether less than deadly force could have first been employed prior to the use of deadly force. %A0This is standard police officer training in this country. %A0Unless you know the individual is armed and dangerous, police forces across the country require their officers to use less than deadly force to repel and prevent attack. So, could the officer have used pepper spray or a stun gun? %A0Of course he could have. %A0

I realize this officer was in a difficult position. %A0He was unaware that the protestors hadn't harmed any legislators at the time of this incident. %A0So, I am not saying that he should have been tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter. %A0But I do think the question of whether deadly force was justified deserves closer scrutiny. %A0We will never get that in this case because Babbitt was an undesirable. %A0She was far right, white, and had entered the Capitol and committed vandalism inside. %A0And she was killed by a black officer. %A0

---

You're mixing up legal standards with law enforcement policy. The rule is that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he or she has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death against the officer or someone else. Period. Stun guns and pepper spray are not meant for deadly force situations. Whether the officer should have used non-lethal force earlier in the encounter, as a matter of training and policy, may be something for his superiors to consider in hindsight. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether probable cause existed.

---

Nope. %A0I've stated the legal standard. %A0I've also given given you enforcement policy. %A0I've never suggested they are synonymous. %A0That's your misinterpretation.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting this officer is guilty of murder. %A0But I couldn't disagree more that the video clearly demonstrates the officer was justified in using deadly force. %A0It does not. %A0And we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

---

You've garbled the standard severely, so there's no point in analyzing further.

---

I've only stated one legal standard. Apparently you'd rather mischaracterize my position than have a discussion. %A0That's fine. %A0Your argument sucked anyway.

---

I haven't made my argument yet. I was trying to establish the rule first, but I can see that won't be possible given the hopeless jumble of issues in your mind.

---

I established the rule several posts ago. You just restated it a couple of posts ago. It hasn't changed.

And you did make an argument - that the shooting was justified. So you're a liar as well.

---

The shooting was justified

---

True.

---

Proof that you will argue with a brick wall.

---

And often to greater effect.

---

On that we agree.