cities bracing for black unrest this weekend.

[IUCrazy2]

I agree, there is no reason to call her trash. I have no idea anything about her life, and she isn't around to defend/explain what is in the article. People shouldn't go there. It is irrelevant to the discussion anyway. The people hijacking the thread want a debate on the validity of the shooting. Whatever she did before she tried to climb through the broken glass in that door is mostly irrelevant (her choosing to enter the Capitol is a little relevant).

Exactly. I can even buy the argument that what she was doing is why she deserved to be shot. My only problem would be that I don't think that would have been the case if something similar had happened the summer before she was shot. That is where my disconnect resides.

Based on some of these other police killings, she wasn't given the opportunity to comply before being killed. Nobody tried to arrest her. She clearly had no weapon. I think it is fair to question that too.

And I think quite a bit of where people tend to give the benefit of the doubt in each situation is very heavily weighted to whose ox was gored.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

No, I read enough to get the jist. I am just not going to put a "trash" label on her. Particularly in the context of the conversation of whether the officer was justified in shooting her. And again, I think many people with a very strong opinion that kind of runs along the line of, "the officer took the trash out" has quite a bit to do with their feelings on Trump.

No, not everyone has that level of aggression in their past. Ever drink and drive? Ever been in a fist fight for any reason? Ever said something in anger you aren't proud of? We get that woman's POV on Babbitt. We don't get to hear her explanation for any of that because she is dead. Now imagine something happens to you and the person who probably dislikes you the most out of everyone you have had contact with gets to be your character witness and you get no rebuttal. How are you going to come off looking? I look back into my early 20's and there are things that happened that I wouldn't want to be completely judged on.

TBH, I wasn’t looking at her past (this story) as a justification for shooting her. I thought it did, however, offer some insight into her willingness to act like she did.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Nope, looters and insurrectionists are both playing stupid games and might well win stupid prizes, for which I would not complain.

crazy is still confused about the difference between protestors and rioters. I don't recall anyone defending the latter or saying they shouldn't be punished.

The only thing people were saying in defense of BLM protests is not everyone was breaking the law (rioting/looting), rioting/looting doesn't typically deserve a death sentence, and that death sentences should be from a judge and not on the street by a cop or civilian (unless person is a threat to others as in the Babbitt/mob shooting)

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Exactly. I can even buy the argument that what she was doing is why she deserved to be shot. My only problem would be that I don't think that would have been the case if something similar had happened the summer before she was shot. That is where my disconnect resides.

Based on some of these other police killings, she wasn't given the opportunity to comply before being killed. Nobody tried to arrest her. She clearly had no weapon. I think it is fair to question that too.

And I think quite a bit of where people tend to give the benefit of the doubt in each situation is very heavily weighted to whose ox was gored.

Let’s make sure to make the distinction that the cop did not shoot her because Trump. Now, I have no problem with the argument that our opinions of the event may be defined by him.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Let’s make sure to make the distinction that the cop did not shoot her because Trump. Now, I have no problem with the argument that our opinions of the event may be defined by him.

I don't think the cop shot her because of Trump, I think that all of us have our views of these types of events somewhat clouded by politics and that is especially pronounced when he (Trump) is involved.

 

[IUCrazy2]

The only thing people were saying in defense of BLM protests is not everyone was breaking the law (rioting/looting), rioting/looting doesn't typically deserve a death sentence, and that death sentences should be from a judge and not on the street by a cop or civilian.

So you agree with DanC and CoH that the officer shouldn't have given Babbitt the death sentence for rioting.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

So you agree with DanC and CoH that the officer shouldn't have given Babbitt the death sentence for rioting.

When students ask teachers why they gave them an “F”, the correct response is usually “I didn’t give you an “F”. You gave yourself an “F”.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Maybe, but not by Babbitt. She was climbing through a broken door window and presented no threat of death or serious bodily harm. She had no weapon .

They didn’t know whether she had a weapon or not. They didn’t know it was a woman. They knew a mob was coming after the people whom they had to protect, she had the bad luck of being at the front.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Exactly. I can even buy the argument that what she was doing is why she deserved to be shot. My only problem would be that I don't think that would have been the case if something similar had happened the summer before she was shot. That is where my disconnect resides.

Based on some of these other police killings, she wasn't given the opportunity to comply before being killed. Nobody tried to arrest her. She clearly had no weapon. I think it is fair to question that too.

And I think quite a bit of where people tend to give the benefit of the doubt in each situation is very heavily weighted to whose ox was gored.

You might be right on the benefit of doubt issue. But there are differences between many of these cases. A large group of gang members surround a couple of police and threaten violence, I think we can understand the use of force more than if there are a dozen officers and one suspect even if in both cases the suspects are unarmed.

 

[IU_Hickory]

They didn’t know whether she had a weapon or not. They didn’t know it was a woman. They knew a mob was coming after the people whom they had to protect, she had the bad luck of being at the front.

Not sure it much to do with luck. Other people had gotten there first but had decided better of testing if the cop would fire

 

[IUCrazy2]

When students ask teachers why they gave them an “F”, the correct response is usually “I didn’t give you an “F”. You gave yourself an “F”.

He kind of set himself up for that one....

 

[IUCrazy2]

You might be right on the benefit of doubt issue. But there are differences between many of these cases. A large group of gang members surround a couple of police and threaten violence, I think we can understand the use of force more than if there are a dozen officers and one suspect even if in both cases the suspects are unarmed.

Not talking like what happened with Memphis but this situation would be similar, no? Should the cops have fired on the crowd?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

View embedded media

Not talking like what happened with Memphis but this situation would be similar, no? Should the cops have fired on the crowd?

Let me ask you this way, how many Guardsmen at Kent State were charged with crimes?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Who died that day?

Huh? Who would have died if they’d just let the mob in? Would they have hung Mike Pence? Nancy Pelosi? Who knows?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Let me ask you this way, how many Guardsmen at Kent State were charged with crimes?

Zero? Honestly a bit before my time and the coverage of it that I was exposed to was mainly of the event itself and not what they did with the guard.

Edit: And isn't it pretty accepted that the guard was in the wrong?

I don't know, I apologize for helping this get way off track. We didn't have the big riot everyone was expecting and I think most people believe that the officers in Memphis were wrong so the interest in that will probably fade.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Maybe, but not by Babbitt. She was climbing through a broken door window and presented no threat of death or serious bodily harm. She had no weapon .

You have to be trolling here. You seriously cannot believe what you’re spouting in this thread.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Why do you ignore the Capitol police who are on Babbitt's side of the door? They are doing nothing.

The cop was trigger-happy and should have been prosecuted.

How ignorant do you have to be to not know the difference?? Seriously?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Maybe because she actually believes in something?

I didn't see your posts pointing out that the recent Atlanta riots drew people from the Pacific Northwest states.

Lol. What did she believe in? Oh right. The lie that Donald Trump, Fox News, your beloved 2000 Mules. Because people easily duped get radicalized and that’s what happened to her . And millions of others in the cult.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Here is a video of the shooting, they are trying to break out the window. You can see she is shot as she is trying to climb through. On the other side is the officer, gun plainly visible. In fact, the protestors start yelling, "There's a gun" several seconds before she tries to go through. There are reports there were still members of congress in the balcony at that time, if these doors are breached there is a pretty simple trip to that balcony. At a minimum, they members are isolated from help. The officer probably heard the "hang Mike Pence, hang Nancy Pelosi" chants. He would have known the main line was overrun or the protestors wouldn't be in this location. And he knows they are attempting to destroy the doors blocking them from getting to where the congresspeople are. I am not sure what part of reasonableness this all fails. Was the officer supposed to give any remaining congresspeople his thoughts and prayers and let everyone past?

Again chanting, other police lines overrun, destruction of property, it seems very reasonable to conclude his lives and other lives were in danger. The test is how a reasonable person would respond, and I can see why a reasonable person would conclude that a life-threatening danger is imminent if those doors are breached. We have had this exact same debate with shop owners in rioting. A crowd bursts into your shop after beating through a police line, do you have reason to believe your life could be in danger? Of course.

View embedded media

Actually those two officers who are just standing there are probably the ones who should be investigated. How did they not think this was a dangerous mob?

 

[zeke4ahs]

View embedded media

Not talking like what happened with Memphis but this situation would be similar, no? Should the cops have fired on the crowd?

No. They were protecting a statue. Very different than protecting members of Congress.

 

[IUCrazy2]

No. They were protecting a statue. Very different than protecting members of Congress.

What about protecting themselves?

 

[DANC]

So, Law enforcement is not supposed to stop members of a violent mob that are in the act of committing multiple felonies and are an established threat to the lives of multiple innocent civilians? Is that the position for which (amazingly) I am seeing some support?

 

[DANC]

It doesn't matter. It's better to understand Danc. Danc is like a gatling gun. he doesn't see liberal, conservative, independent. he takes on all comers. what's more he can take on as many as a dozen posters at one time in multiple threads. and the counter shots just ricochet right off him, as he seamlessly bounces to the next poster/thread. the only hope is to get in your shots early, while he's sleeping, and hope he doesn't see them

Does this mean you want to do a deli with me?

 

[DANC]

I’m so Fing crabby. I have a shit ton to do today and my first text is no school. Snow. Now I’m stuck

This will cheer you up. Don't give up - there is hope.

SilverSingles | The Exclusive Dating Site for 50+ Singles

Looking for over 50 dating? SilverSingles is the 50+ dating site to meet singles near you - the time is now to try online dating for yourself!

www.silversingles.com

 

[CO. Hoosier]

They didn’t know whether she had a weapon or not.

Exactly. Shoot first and ask questions later?

They knew a mob was coming after the people whom they had to protect, she had the bad luck of being at the front.

I’ve never heard of cops killing those in front as a means to control a mob.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I’ve never heard of cops killing those in front as a means to control a mob.

It kind of works in Iran.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The officer was not concealed, he was not hiding, and he did not conduct an ambush. Those are false statements. You can see it in the video Marv posted.

Disagree. I think he deliberately concealed himself. All he had to do is enter the corridor, raise his firearm, and say “I will use deadly force against anyone coming through that door”.

 

[DANC]

It kind of works in Iran.

Great! Let's be like Iran!

 

[DANC]

Disagree. I think he deliberately concealed himself. All he had to do is enter the corridor, raise his firearm, and say “I will use deadly force against anyone coming through that door”.

Come on - she was a MAGA supporter. It'a like killing Mau-Mau's.

Mau Mau uprising: Bloody history of Kenya conflict

Four Kenyans allegedly tortured in the Mau-Mau uprising are taking the UK government to court

www.bbc.com

 

[Crayfish57]

Great! Let's be like Iran!

How far though?

 

[BCCHoosier]

Disagree. I think he deliberately concealed himself. All he had to do is enter the corridor, raise his firearm, and say “I will use deadly force against anyone coming through that door”.

All they had to do was turn around, not break glass, not threaten, etc.

 

[DANC]

All they had to do was turn around, not break glass, not threaten, etc.

All Tyre had to do was show them his hands, let them handcuff him, etc.

 

[IUCrazy2]

All they had to do was turn around, not break glass, not threaten, etc.

All Tyre had to do was show them his hands, let them handcuff him, etc.

You guys are right back where this all started.

 

[DANC]

You guys are right back where this all started.

Yeah, but he means it.

I've explained before - I'm just exposing hypocrisy. I don't think Tyre's death was justifiable in any way.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Here is why no charges were filed (and why charges aren't filed as often as the public believes should in other cases):

Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.

Department of Justice Closes Investigation into the Death of Ashli Babbitt

www.justice.gov

And if you want a nuanced and objective discussion of the law in this area that is applied to this case, go here:

Evaluating the Police Shooting of Ashli Babbitt

A parsing of the legal issues at play in the police shooting in the Capitol on Jan. 6.

www.lawfareblog.com

"Prosecutors have an ethical obligation to “seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes ... that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.” They cannot just bring charges based on their personal belief that there was a criminal intent. They have to be able to prove it."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Here is why no charges were filed (and why charges aren't filed as often as the public believes should in other cases):

Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.

Department of Justice Closes Investigation into the Death of Ashli Babbitt

www.justice.gov

And if you want a nuanced and objective discussion of the law in this area that is applied to this case, go here:

Evaluating the Police Shooting of Ashli Babbitt

A parsing of the legal issues at play in the police shooting in the Capitol on Jan. 6.

www.lawfareblog.com

"Prosecutors have an ethical obligation to “seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes ... that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.” They cannot just bring charges based on their personal belief that there was a criminal intent. They have to be able to prove it."

I never claimed the officer committed a crime. I don’t think he did. I have only argued that he did not follow proper use of deadly force protocols.

FWIW, I think this cop‘s conduct is closer to criminal conduct than the cop’s conduct who shot Michael Brown; Obama’s DOJ, the media, and the public went batshit crazy over that one. The nut jobs destroyed the cop’s career and life. It spawned BLM. What’s worse, it began the era of police disrespect, and is directly related to short staffing and lower standards. Then along comes Memphis.

What a country.

 

[Bowlmania]

I never claimed the officer committed a crime. I don’t think he did. I have only argued that he did not follow proper use of deadly force protocols.

FWIW, I think this cop‘s conduct is closer to criminal conduct than the cop’s conduct who shot Michael Brown; Obama’s DOJ, the media, and the public went batshit crazy over that one. The nut jobs destroyed the cop’s career and life. It spawned BLM. What’s worse, it began the era of police disrespect, and is directly related to short staffing and lower standards. Then along comes Memphis.

What a country.

You view everything through a hyper-partisan lens. That's why you felt compelled to take a shot at Obama in a thread that has nothing to do with Obama. That's why you can't understand that deadly force was warranted in the Babbitt shooting (Trump and far-right Republicans have made her a martyr). That's why you have no credibility and are typically full of shit.

"[US Capitol Police's] Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."

"The actions of the officer [in the January 6 officer-involved shooting] potentially saved Members [of the House] and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and to the House Chamber where Members and staff were steps away. USCP Officers had barricaded the Speaker’s Lobby with furniture before a rioter shattered the glass door. If the doors were breached, the rioters would have immediate access to the House Chambers. The officer’s actions were consistent with the officer’s training and USCP policies and procedures."

USCP Completes Internal Investigation into the January 6 Officer-Involved Shooting

After interviewing multiple witnesses and reviewing all the available evidence, including video and radio calls, the United States Capitol Police has completed the internal investigation into the fatal shooting of Ms. Ashli Babbitt, which occurred in the Speaker's Lobby on January 6.

www.uscp.gov

 

[DANC]

Here is why no charges were filed (and why charges aren't filed as often as the public believes should in other cases):

Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.

Department of Justice Closes Investigation into the Death of Ashli Babbitt

www.justice.gov

And if you want a nuanced and objective discussion of the law in this area that is applied to this case, go here:

Evaluating the Police Shooting of Ashli Babbitt

A parsing of the legal issues at play in the police shooting in the Capitol on Jan. 6.

www.lawfareblog.com

"Prosecutors have an ethical obligation to “seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes ... that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.” They cannot just bring charges based on their personal belief that there was a criminal intent. They have to be able to prove it."

How about just firing him for reckless use of a firearm - a charge I assume that could have been made when he left his gun the bathroom.

It's pretty obvious this guy was trigger-happy. I don't think any other Capitol cop discharged their firearm during the riot.

 

[DANC]

I never claimed the officer committed a crime. I don’t think he did. I have only argued that he did not follow proper use of deadly force protocols.

FWIW, I think this cop‘s conduct is closer to criminal conduct than the cop’s conduct who shot Michael Brown; Obama’s DOJ, the media, and the public went batshit crazy over that one. The nut jobs destroyed the cop’s career and life. It spawned BLM. What’s worse, it began the era of police disrespect, and is directly related to short staffing and lower standards. Then along comes Memphis.

What a country.

I think he committed a crime as much as the cops who beat Trye. Both showed blatant disregard for the welfare of another human being.

But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to understand the 'nuance' - aka shyster lawyer argument - of the case.

 

[Bowlmania]

How about just firing him for reckless use of a firearm - a charge I assume that could have been made when he left his gun the bathroom.

It's pretty obvious this guy was trigger-happy. I don't think any other Capitol cop discharged their firearm during the riot.

Utter nonsense. The use of deadly force was justified in the Babbitt shooting. The fact that no other cop discharged a firearm is of no consequence with respect to the Babbitt shooting. It speaks to the impressive collective restraint of law enforcement that day, as video evidence strongly suggests that deadly force would have been justified in other instances.