Were they heros to you?
Do you accept that Joe Biden is the legitimately elected President?
A Day of Rage
- Thread starter Circlejoe
- Start date
Were they heros to you?
Do you accept that Joe Biden is the legitimately elected President?
I'm not trolling you. But you noticeably cannot bring yourself to answer the question.
You shouldn't need me to provide anything. You are the one who said there was a double standard. It had nothing to do with charges or investigations. It had to do with what you assumed I would say about Floyd compared to what I was saying about Babbitt. That was the double standard.
That double standard can only exist if you already have enough information to form an opinion. So, do you think they were both justified, or both not justified? Just give us your opinion, already.
You’re a idiot. In fact, you are such an idiot that I shouldn’t even be wasting my time to point out that you’re an idiot. It’s just impossible to resist because everyone on this board understands you are an idiot. Sometimes you just need to be part of the community. You know, that community that understands that you are an idiot. 🤣
Lol you never explain anything, that's your style.
Never concede, deny, counter accuse or whatabout, personal insult then get out.
I've long given you credit, you're a nightmare to argue with as you got some serious trolling game, but that's your identity...a master troll.
You're definitely not an idiot but it would be nice if you elevated your game and discuss in good faith every now and then vs a fight to the death.
Just a suggestion.
Oh and I watched the Wash Post video from the far left side and agree with you, you only see the gunman and don't see her climb up into the window.
So we are clear, it is okay to shoot rioters if you feel threatened now? I know a bunch of posters who would have been extremely pissed off had that been the standard all over the country last summer.
Shoot one, stop hundreds right?
Technically hasn't this always been the case? I mean, it's going to depend on a jury, but it certainly is a valid defense. Take Rittenhouse. The more I see and hear Ranger talking, the more I think that kid ain't getting convicted of murder. Not even in Kenosha.
Babbitt got WAY out over her skis and tried to enter the house chamber through a barricade and broken window. She paid with her life. I don't know what her intent was but I'm fine with the officer not waiting to find out at that point. Same with the summer protests/riots. If someone had gone through a barricade into a police station they should have been shot. In the case of the police station that got burned down I don't know whether they got inside first or if the police abandoned it prior to people getting inside. However, had there been police inside and a group of riotous fools entered.....well, they asked for it.
Funny though, Rittenhouse has had to go to jail, publically had his information released, and is going to face a public trial to defend himself. Same thing with Chauvin and numerous other police officers around the country when they are involved in public incidents of killing a citizen whether justified or not.
In the case of Babbit, we don't know the officer, that officer never faced real public scrutiny, and the officer was absolved of any wrong doing by a secret process of people who would be extremely interested in not admitting any wrong doing on their part. "Well Babbitt was doing something she should not have been..." As are the majority of the people who BLM rioted for last summer up to and including George Floyd. I just want people to admit to themselves that they are okay with the police shooting unarmed individuals as long as the people being shot are political rivals. If the Ashley Babbitt shooting was justified, so are 99% of all the police shootings of black people who were behaving badly right before their death. And when those occur in the future, we can expect that the officer who shot the black person will not have their name released to the public nor do we need any type of hearing outside of an internal investigation to say "all good here". And if that is something that you are not ok with, then you (not you but anyone reading this) really need to reexamine your views around Babbitt.
I bet if we had a real investigation into everything that happened on Jan 6 we could get some answers. Regrettably the Pubs and the Dems would just turn it into a media circus.
I want people to wait for the facts and make judgments based on those. The facts in the Babbitt and Floyd cases are what they are. Babbitt was forcing her way into the house chamber during a riot. Floyd was passing a bad 20 (allegedly) and high on drugs. Floyd was also subdued and on the ground and no longer a threat. I don't think even you could say Babbitt clearly wasn't a threat when she was shot. The kid that got shot earlier this year running from the police with a gun and dropped it as he was turning around. Well, I'd hate to be the officer in that scenario but we give police latitude for a reason - so we don't have to be the ones chasing people with guns down dark alleys.
Having seen you post for a while I suspect you're in the camp of "get the facts" first then make a judgment. This is the camp to be in.
A few thoughts on this.
I doubt the officer was particularly threatened by Babbitt. The threat was the unstoppable (without significant carnage) onslaught of rioters behind her. That threat to the members of Congress he was there to protect was unmistakable. The subsequent beatings and other attacks on officers that afternoon suggest remarkable restraint by the Capitol & DC police that day, when only a single shot was fired.
I don't believe it's imperative that an officer involved in a shooting be publicly identified, at least until an investigation determines whether charges or other actions are warranted. Cops are not the enemy, but there must be accountability.
Protesters were injured by cops last summer. And vice versa. I believe the general tenor of people on the WC was that each situation should be investigated and dealt with based on the facts. That's certainly my view.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Rittenhouse is guilty of something - or at least should be - since his presence escalated the situation. But the left wing mob was dangerous and they caused the deaths of Rosenbaum and Huber with their actions. Both were huge scum bags - with Rosenbaum having just been released from the psych ward that same day.
I split from the 2A side of conservatism on many facets. The first are AR-style weapons. The second is the open carry posture many take thinking it’s a deterrent. In some cases it is and in others it’s an escalator. We are supposed to be a civilized society. Having a cherubic faced teen without training holding an AR is going to hurt all situations.
That said it was clearly self defense. He was attacked by two psychopaths amongst a mob of psychopaths.
I agree with all of that. I do want all the facts on Babbitt. I think that should face the same scrutiny as any other officer involved shooting. At this point I don't feel that is the case.
I also wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that a full "investigation" completed by a political body will end up the same as all of the other "investigations" we get from that body. Namely it will be the opportunity for politicians to give 2 minute speeches about just about anything except the topic at hand and at the end of the day no more light will be shown on the topic then when it started.
I am unabashedly conservative-ish. I am unabashedly to the far right side of the aisle when it comes to social type of issues. I am more moderate economically in that I believe you have to have an ebb and flow in economics to maintain a good equilibrium. I don't like the Democrats. Freely admit that. That does not mean I am team GOP. They don't really reflect my positions either...but my only other real option is a party that represents just about everything I don't.
We argue race and that crap all the time around here and it is a waste of time. The easiest way to fix issues is a combination of conservative social policy mixed with old timey Democratic Party protectionist labor policies. Neither side is interested in addressing that because the "elites" that run our country stand to lose some power, both economic and cultural in the process.
You need two parent families with jobs that can support said families. The voters want the American Dream and to me that is it. But you have two parties actively working against that because one values increasingly large profits to their donor class and the other is afraid to tell people that they are mostly responsible for their lot in life and that normies are not insulated from bad decisions like the "elite" are, so living your life like media portrays you should is usually a good way to screw said life up.
The Elite Media's Lingering Blindspot On Divorce, Class, And Family
Single-parent households, whether through divorce or births out of wedlock, are hurting the working class much more than the wealthy people who write essays for the New York Times.
thefederalist.com
The majority of people took one look at the Floyd video and concluded the officer acted wrongly. And they reached the opposite opinion upon seeing the Babbitt video. I suspect if the Capitol policeman had emptied his revolver through the window at protesters outside, we would know his name.
All the cats are out of the bag. All the toothpaste out of the tube. The genies are long gone. Our libertarian/equality streaks will almost certainly guarantee social policy continues down the road it's on and the interconnected world in which we live prohibits our old timey isolationism.
Interesting article. I wouldn't mind a discussion about how to get closer to its ideal but within the playing field we inhabit today. I don't want to go back to 1970, mostly b/c we can't. How to do we make it work in today's world?
It does from Floyd but not the majority of these cases. Nice try at deflection though.
I think you are right on the first and not on the second. And of those on the second I believe it is mostly for political reasons that they accept her killing.
White trash/redneck lives are expendable.
Do you feel better, now that you've made a post that only insults me? Have you got your little fit out of the way?
What's missing from this discussion is a legal standard, statutory or regulatory, of what is justifiable use of force by federal officers under these circumstances. I did a brief google search and wasn't able to find it. If someone has more time, it would be helpful to know. I did see 10CFR1047.7 defining use of deadly force in Department of Energy Installations. I understand it is N/A, but there's probably a statute/regulation that's directly applicable.
I find the DoJ statement on this matter (attached below) insufficient. It examines the matter based on consideration of 18 USC 242 as a potential civil rights violation. It does not quote with specificity the legal standard to be applied. Nor does it make anything but a cursory attempt to apply that standard to the applicable facts.
As an example, concerning use of deadly force under Indiana law to prevent an crime or effect an arrest, "An officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer: has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony or to effect the arrest of a person who the officer has reason to believe a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person and has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is used". IC 35-41-3-3. Parts of Indiana's "Castle Doctrine' law may also apply. IC 35-41-3-2. (c) & (f).
Although Indiana law is N/A, the elements cited therein would, I think, be applicable to any instance of evaluating whether use of deadly force is reasonable.
As an example, I have no reason to believe that AB was WARNED prior to the officer shooting. It seems self-evident from the video that the officer intended to shoot the first person who stuck his or her head through a window or a door. Yes, some people were freaking out when they saw the pointed gum, but we hear no warning given, nor does the DoJ say any was given. Also, was AB in the midst of committing a 'forcible felony', or did she, being an unarmed female, pose a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer, or anyone else? See IC 35-31.5-2-138 for Indiana's definition of "forcible felony".
It's not enough, as bawlmer brags, that the action was 'effective'. So was Tiananmen Square.
Now....as I said before, there may be a statute or regulation that specifically applies to the Capital building, as there probably is for federal facilities like military bases or nuke production or nuke energy plants. If so, the DoJ hasn't bothered to inform the American public of that fact. Nor has anyone from the MSM, other than right-leaning outlets, bothered to ask.
I don't know how exactly we do that, but it is the conversation that we need to be having as opposed to continuing to argue over who has it worst based on this or that characteristic. I think the family question is harder to address from a government standpoint. The question as to what we will allow to happen to workers or whether or not we will continue to allow large corporations and Wall St. financiers to make money off of the destruction of the U.S. working class while at the same time requiring tax abatements and breaks to "be competitive" against a monster that our ruling class and businesses helped create (China) is something that should be right up governments government's alley. And frankly, with the way some conservatives feel about corporate America right now with tech censorship and the corporations putting their fingers on the social issue scale, now is the time to make those moves. Don't tax the companies themselves because they will pass that to the consumer, but if you want to tax the ever loving hell out of Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffett, the remaining Koch brother (I think one passed IIRC), Soros, etc. I think the majority of the country is ready for that now.
And what separates Floyd and Taylor etc from racism and unarmed whites that are killed by cops are facts and data. Bleat on with your emotions
Several years ago the local police department showed a film to a club to which I belonged. The film was entitled "Shoot or Don't Shoot".
The police officer who was showing the film picked me out of the crowd to pretend I was the police officer in the film. The film depicted a police officer approaching an automobile which had been stopped for a traffic violation. As the officer came closer to the stopped car, the film would be halted and I would be asked whether I would shoot or not.
To make a long story short, i didn't shoot and the occupant of the car killed me with a gun shot.
Upon reflection i felt the entire presentation was a set up to make the audience understand the dangers a police officer faces, and why a police officer must be prepared to use deadly force to protect himself.
i have to admit that upon reflection in the Babbitt case and having watched the video. I do wonder why the unnamed Capitol police officer fired the weapon at the time it was fired. Then again, having been shot shot several years ago during a police film presentation, my judgment in these matters is obviously flawed.
Thanks for linking the JD report. A key word in that report that occurs 7 times in the paragraph describing the actual shooting is "mob." If Babbitt was alone, I doubt the shooting would have been deemed justified. Within the context of leading a mob which had overrun the Capitol and was entering the occupied House chamber, the situation is very different. In my opinion, the decision by the officer to fire probably saved even greater bloodshed. That's why I think it was effective.What's missing from this discussion is a legal standard, statutory or regulatory, of what is justifiable use of force by federal officers under these circumstances. I did a brief google search and wasn't able to find it. If someone has more time, it would be helpful to know. I did see 10CFR1047.7 defining use of deadly force in Department of Energy Installations. I understand it is N/A, but there's probably a statute/regulation that's directly applicable.
I find the DoJ statement on this matter (attached below) insufficient. It examines the matter based on consideration of 18 USC 242 as a potential civil rights violation. It does not quote with specificity the legal standard to be applied. Nor does it make anything but a cursory attempt to apply that standard to the applicable facts.
As an example, concerning use of deadly force under Indiana law to prevent an crime or effect an arrest, "An officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer: has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony or to effect the arrest of a person who the officer has reason to believe a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person and has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is used". IC 35-41-3-3. Parts of Indiana's "Castle Doctrine' law may also apply. IC 35-41-3-2. (c) & (f).
Although Indiana law is N/A, the elements cited therein would, I think, be applicable to any instance of evaluating whether use of deadly force is reasonable.
As an example, I have no reason to believe that AB was WARNED prior to the officer shooting. It seems self-evident from the video that the officer intended to shoot the first person who stuck his or her head through a window or a door. Yes, some people were freaking out when they saw the pointed gum, but we hear no warning given, nor does the DoJ say any was given. Also, was AB in the midst of committing a 'forcible felony', or did she, being an unarmed female, pose a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer, or anyone else? See IC 35-31.5-2-138 for Indiana's definition of "forcible felony".
It's not enough, as bawlmer brags, that the action was 'effective'. So was Tiananmen Square.
Now....as I said before, there may be a statute or regulation that specifically applies to the Capital building, as there probably is for federal facilities like military bases or nuke production or nuke energy plants. If so, the DoJ hasn't bothered to inform the American public of that fact. Nor has anyone from the MSM, other than right-leaning outlets, bothered to ask.
I'm not sure why you take such offense at someone else's interpretation of events that differs from yours since the Prosecutors haven't shown the slightest hesitancy to fully prosecute this case. It may well be that a jury sees things your way, but we won't know if that applies till after the trial...
I do know enough about the incident to know that after Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum he had enough time to make a phone call while people milled by him. It was only after people started to recognize and point him out as the person who shot Rosenbaum that both Huber, Grosskreutz, and others started to chase after him and that he fell while running away.
I just fail to see how shooting two people who were chasing you because they know you shot someone else qualifies as "self-defense", but I guess that will be what the defense case will maintain... Did you watch the video of the arraignment? If you did and have a different view of the prosecutors' demeanor then that's fine.
But I saw a prosecution team who were abhorred by Rittenhouse's actions, with those feelings exacerbated by his illegal activities and seemed pretty confidant of the case they were going to present. I don't think they agree with your personal analysis of the case, but maybe they fooled me and actually feel they're wasting their time? I think the trial is scheduled around Nov- no doubt it will be a divisive proceeding...
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
HUBER ATTACKED HIS HEAD WITH A SKATEBOARD.
Would you like me to attack you with a skateboard on your head and neck? Do you think you might use whatever force is necessary to get me to stop? Do you think a skateboard is balsa wood?
I agree. That's why after viewing the NYT video, I think it would be a huge mistake for Babbitt's family to try and pursue any attempt at compensation.
The outnumbered cops are not merely guarding an empty room or passage, but you can see the lawmakers they are protecting and the proximity of those folks to the entrance the cops are protecting The badly outnumbered officers are literally the last line of defense keeping the mob from attacking the fleeing lawmakers. And the anger and hostility from the mob towards their intended target (the lawmakers) is visceral...
Actually, I’m quite sure you would just lay there & take the beating …
You seem to be arguing as if the initial shooting isn't a CRIMINAL act. I know that is what YOU believe, but he is being charged with 2 counts of manslaughter level offenses, so clearly the prosecutors do not agree with your contention that the shooting of Rosenbaum is "justified"...
You're attacking me based on my disagreement with you on events that happened. But I'm basing my argument on what the criminal complaint alleges and it does not maintain that he shot Rosenbaum in self-defense...
Huber (IMO) believed he was trying to disarm a murderer, so he used the weapon available to him. He also attempted to wrestle the gun away, which I believe Rosenbaum may have done as well.
At any rate, Rittenhouse is the one who was illegally armed, according to Wisconsin law. I think your skateboard defense only applies IF Rittenhouse hadn't already shot someone.
Again that will turn on how the jury views the Rosenbaum shooting. But I still maintain that once I shoot someone on the street it's pretty hard to maintain that people using deadly force to subdue me are somehow engaging in an illegal act. And that I can claim self-defense if I shoot them and kill one while injuring another...
Do you think if Grosskreutz (who was legally carrying a weapon) had shot and killed Rittenhouse following the shooting of Rosenbaum that Grosskreutz would have been charged? I personally believe it's doubtful, and even if charged I doubt he'd have been convicted. Did you think a FL jury would acquit the guy who shot the unarmed Black man who shoved him to the ground?
I'm a layperson who is just giving my opinion, based on what I've seen and read. No reason to attack me like I'm an idiot, I'm just giving my personal view. I think it will be a very contentious case, and jury selection will be huge...
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
What planet do you live on where you think it’s justified to attack someone with a skateboard based on a crowd of angry psychopaths merely informing you that the guy you’re attacking is a murderer?
Guess what, chief. If I am walking down the street and a guy passes me with a gun and someone else shouts to me that the guy that passed was a murderer and I kill him by shooting him from behind without him being a threat to me or property - I’m the murderer. He wasn’t in the act of committing of a crime that I stopped and I didn’t witness anything.
You don’t know what you’re talking about - neither from a combat perspective or a legal perspective. I think you should just stop. You’re taking in emotional circles.
And before you call me a Trumper reflexively - I think I’ve been pretty clear about the Babbitt incident being a legal shoot and justified. You’re way over your skis here. Why not sit it out and talk about something on which you have knowledge.
Well, I'm 66 yrs old and I can't even walk a block without becoming exhausted, so the idea of even attempting to run with my heart issues is anathema. That's the problem with heart failure resulting from dead heart muscle. There's no way to ever reclaim the dead tissue-it's never going to regenerate...
I've never understood your preoccupation with me. I've been posting on this board for more than a decade, and I don't even remember interacting with you until the last 2 yrs or so.
And as both Rick (Marvin) and Randy (stollcpa) will attest, I'm a pretty mild-mannered person who doesn't go out of his way to seek confrontation. I know Rick for the past few years from the dog park and Randy and I had a great time at an IU game a few years back and never knew each others politics because the subject never came up.
You seem to have taken a personal dislike to me (which is your prerogative), but I honestly never understood why? I know I generally avoid even commenting on a post you make, because ( despite CoH's assertion) I really do not enjoy confrontation and it seems personal with you where I am concerned. I should've just ignored this comment, but for some reason, it just rubbed me the wrong way...
"I'm a pretty mild-mannered person who doesn't go out of his way to seek confrontation."
LMAO! Too funny!
How about a little self awareness?
Don't rest your case on "unarmed." It is irrelevant whether a post-shooting investigation can't find a gun, after somebody acted like he/she might be armed. Hiding your hands or pointing your finger inside a jacket pocket or refusing to obey instructions is a real threat too.
And, people with fists, jackboots and heels can kill you even without a gun or blade.
Those of us without x-ray vision absolutely cannot tell if someone is "armed" or " unarmed" as the event is happening, especially at night. If the person acts like he/she is "armed" or may be, that person should respect the position the police officer is in rather than act like this:
In addition to new instructions for how the police should behave, we also need renewed instructions for how the public should behave.
Yeah I agree with all of that, but that has been the argument in many of the other cases I was comparing to.Don't rest your case on "unarmed." It is irrelevant whether a post-shooting investigation can't find a gun, after somebody acted like he/she might be armed. Hiding your hands or pointing your finger inside a jacket pocket or refusing to obey instructions is a real threat too.
And, people with fists, jackboots and heels can kill you even without a gun or blade.
Those of us without x-ray vision absolutely cannot tell if someone is "armed" or " unarmed" as the event is happening, especially at night. If the person acts like he/she is "armed" or may be, that person should respect the position the police officer is in rather than act like this:
In addition to new instructions for how the police should behave, we also need renewed instructions for how the public should behave.
I understand that you are for some reason convinced that YOUR interpretation of events is the ultimate final word but the case is going to trial. So I'm not sure how I'm not able to have a different interpretation (shared by the prosecution team and plenty of other people, btw)
I do know that the defense argued for a couple of the minor charges to be dropped and the judge ruled that all 6 charges were at the probable cause level and denied the defense motion.
There is no reason to discuss this further, as you seem to take it as a personal affront that I dare to have an opinion on this. Turns out that I was wrong to label the video I watched as an "arraignment", as it was actually the procedure when the judge ruled on the defense motions and I watched it live. There were a number of key elements discussed and I remember being struck by the demeanor of the Prosecution team, who might be surprised to learn that you've unilaterally decided they're wasting their time in prosecuting the case...
Believe it or not, I did not watch the court proceedings or read and watch the accounts and video captures of this incident with the express purpose of attacking you or your position. My opinions on this case were shaped by what I saw and heard long before it became a topic of discussion on this board. So I'm certainly not trying to deliberately provoke your ire by stating a differing opinion. But I wonder why if it's as cut and dried an issue as you want to maintain, this Prosecutor is interested in pursuing a case with charges he has no hope of winning a court battle on...
This is a video which is essentially providing an analysis of the procedure I actually watched live. Again what struck me was the demeanor of the Prosecutor and the way he presents his argument. I'm not Nostradamus, so I'm not sure how the case will be decided. But I watch this guy and I get a sense that he feels extremely confidant in the case he is going to bring to trial. Again, that is my interpretation...
Bc you’rone trick pony attacks on conservatives is exhausting. The only thing worse is your devout belief in the bs you read from outlets like Republicans R Evil.
Same stupid shit you always do. You take legal info filtered from your far left websites and pretend they’re actual pleadings/discovery. It’s idiotic. And you never learn.
I agree with him. He and I certainly don’t agree a lot politically, but he’s right on this. He seems fairly mild-mannered to me and not significantly confrontational - especially compared to other posters here. He can be a little long winded though.
