Justice for Ashli Babbitt grinds along

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Meh, I’m going to disagree with you here. I agree the circumstances and context of the situations are different, but perhaps a more simplistic view of things is necessary in this overly complex world.

As I’ve stated, Babbitt made a terrible choice and unfortunately faced the consequences. In the same vein, George Floyd and Michael Brown did the same. If you resist arrest and screw around with the police, you are taking undue risk with that choice.

If you are someone with a long history of violence, criminality, and mental illness, you are going to have a much higher chance of something bad happening to you, including things done by others (police).

Sometimes people want to spin it for more than it is. This does not necessarily exonerate Chauvin, Byrd, etc. in legal or societal views from their actions, but the “victims” put themselves in harms way from what I know.

Fvck Around, Find Out is a simple way to explain bad decision making. Maybe I’m just a simpleton or ignoromus, but at least I’m trying to be consistent. There are so many more worthwhile people and causes to care about, such as kids that were wronged (cancer, abuse, etc.).

The thing Chauvin did wrong was use a particular technique that was known to be dangerous and, as I understand, was not approved for use by his department, and he did it in a situation in which the subject was already subdued. That really has nothing to do with the broader issue of FAFO, which is what cost Babbitt her life. She didn't get the chance to be subdued and become less of a threat. She tried to jump through a broken window into what was clearly a No-Go-Or-Else area.

99% of the time, when the cops kill someone, you can pretty much chalk it up to FAFO. Michael Brown is sadly a great example. That kid really didn't deserve to die, but he brought it on himself by rushing the cop. It's tragic, but it's reality. Babbitt, same thing. Lots of other dead people, same thing. Chauvin/Floyd was just a unique case.

Edit: And I want to be clear, I'm not defending the concept of lethal cops here. Other societies have found a way to make policing far less deadly, and I wish we could do the same. But we have the system we have, and in that system, a lot of individual encounters with police are primarily deadly because the suspect made a dumb choice.

 

[DANC]

I'm not legal enough to know what qualifies for immunity, but common sense would say Babbitt made a stupid decision and the family is trying to pin this on someone who didn't make a stupid decision, given the circumstances. If you are going to protest, there is always risk. If you are going to protest in one of the nation's most sacred places which always has a high police presence and shouldn't tolerate stupidity, then there is even more risk.

Babbitt was negligent. Not Byrd.

Lots of people make stupid decisions with police and aren't killed for it.

Your reasoning is bizarre.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Lots of people make stupid decisions with police and aren't killed for it.

Your reasoning is bizarre.

I’m consistent. You are defending Babbitt and blaming Floyd. That’s not a consistent view.

See my prior post

 

[DANC]

I’m consistent. You are defending Babbitt and blaming Floyd. That’s not a consistent view.

See my prior post

No I'm not. Go back and read my posts when Floyd was shot. I said then he didn't deserve it and the police should be held accountable.

But if the standard is FAFO if you don't follow police orders, then Floyd is just as responsible as Babbitt.

Unless you're saying Floyd deserved it, too? Is that what you're saying?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

No I'm not. Go back and read my posts when Floyd was shot. I said then he didn't deserve it and the police should be held accountable.

But if the standard is FAFO if you don't follow police orders, then Floyd is just as responsible as Babbitt.

Unless you're saying Floyd deserved it, too? Is that what you're saying?

Yes. He wasn’t shot. Are you confusing another case?

 

[DANC]

Yes. He wasn’t shot. Are you confusing another case?

I obviously misspoke. He wasn't shot. But he died with the cop holding him down.

Now, do you still want to say I'm inconsistent? Do you think Byrd's actions were justified but the Minny policemen's weren't?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I obviously misspoke. He wasn't shot. But he died with the cop holding him down.

Now, do you still want to say I'm inconsistent? Do you think Byrd's actions were justified but the Minny policemen's weren't?

"Misspoke" Lol.

 

[DANC]

"Misspoke" Lol.

*burp*

 

[IUCrazy2]

I just mean generally case where law enforcement uses deadly force. It's rarely found to be unjustified in court.

I would find it to be unjustified if I were on the jury.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I’m consistent. You are defending Babbitt and blaming Floyd. That’s not a consistent view.

See my prior post

This is why these discussions are so messed up. Babbitt and Floyd are largely irrelevant in an excessive force case. The discussion should be about Chauvin and Byrd.

Saying things like Babbitt “deserved” it is not what the case is about.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I don't know about DC, but not in any jurisdiction with "stand your ground" laws. Our NRA people would have him on their shoulders celebrating his use of his rights. It should not be hard to portray a reasonable fear of a mob breaking down barricades and doors as presenting a reasonable threat.

Now how people in locations without that law view the shooting may be different.

I don't think Minnesota has stand your ground, a pawn store owner was never charged after shooting and killing a rioter there because the authorities never felt they could overcome self defense.

I love this. So we know agree Kyle Rittenhouse was justified. We also now agree that the next time a bunch of Democrat voters get pissed about a police action and decide to break into a store that the store owner is completely within their rights to mow down anyone trying to break in? I mean, I am completely cool with those rules or is that (D)ifferent?

Somehow I doubt you would be offering the same argument if someone mows down 10 "teens" the next time this happens in Chicago:



However, I fully support your new rules. Rioters breaking windows and trying to gain access to cars, stores, buildings, etc. are a threat and deadly force is a reasonable response.

 

[twenty02]

This is why these discussions are so messed up. Babbitt and Floyd are largely irrelevant in an excessive force case. The discussion should be about Chauvin and Byrd.

Saying things like Babbitt “deserved” it is not what the case is about.

Babbit was a domestic terrorist and was put down like the dog she was. Too bad a lot more weren't too

 

[stollcpa]

Nothing at all. You do you, we'll do us. Carry on.

You already have carried on. And the post in this thread is despicable and mean-spirited. But since you posted it’s okay. I just added it to my catalog of screenshots. You have a habit of deleting posts and saying they never existed.

 

[stollcpa]

Babbit was a domestic terrorist and was put down like the dog she was. Too bad a lot more weren't too

Not that it matters to you, I’ve never had an issue with any of your posts. In fact one of the best on here. This one is despicable.

For future reference, rioters burning and looting businesses and police stations should be shot down like dogs?

 

[twenty02]

Not that it matters to you, I’ve never had an issue with any of your posts. In fact one of the best on here. This one is despicable.

For future reference, rioters burning and looting businesses and police stations should be shot down like dogs?

Yes they should. Like those animals that Rittenhouse killed

 

[twenty02]

Not that it matters to you, I’ve never had an issue with any of your posts. In fact one of the best on here. This one is despicable.

For future reference, rioters burning and looting businesses and police stations should be shot down like dogs?

If it was a bunch of hijab wearing Palestinians from Dearborn smashing glass to get into a blockaded police station that got shot you wouldn't be defending them.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Babbit was a domestic terrorist and was put down like the dog she was. Too bad a lot more weren't too

You sound like a member of Hamas talking about Jews on the morning of October 7, 2023. .

 

[twenty02]

You sound like a member of Hamas talking about Jews on the morning of October 7, 2023.

Well actually the complete opposite. Babbit would have been comparable to Hamas. But don't please don't stop posting utterly inane postulations.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You already have carried on. And the post in this thread is despicable and mean-spirited. But since you posted it’s okay. I just added it to my catalog of screenshots. You have a habit of deleting posts and saying they never existed.

Catalog of screenshots? You have issues. I'm really sorry you are the way you are. Must be tough.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

I do not give a flying fu$# if this gets me kicked off this Board, but your post is that of a despicable, mean-spirited, ugly twisted mind.

Facts hurt?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I love this. So we know agree Kyle Rittenhouse was justified. We also now agree that the next time a bunch of Democrat voters get pissed about a police action and decide to break into a store that the store owner is completely within their rights to mow down anyone trying to break in? I mean, I am completely cool with those rules or is that (D)ifferent?

Somehow I doubt you would be offering the same argument if someone mows down 10 "teens" the next time this happens in Chicago:

View embedded media

However, I fully support your new rules. Rioters breaking windows and trying to gain access to cars, stores, buildings, etc. are a threat and deadly force is a reasonable response.

"My new rules"? I never said Rittenhouse was guilty. Go back and look all you want. He shouldn't have been there thinking he was Rambo, but he wasn't guilty of anything. If you look at https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/t...e-waters-ordered-mob-rule.215545/post-3313366 I said during the trial I thought he would be found not guilty and didn't complain about that one bit.

But similar to your argument, where are all the people who said about those people Rittenhouse shot, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"? Why did that not carry over to this case?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well actually the complete opposite. Babbit would have been comparable to Hamas. But don't please don't stop posting utterly inane postulations.

Whatever. You sound like you are fine with a dog eat dog world.

I think sovereigns must have high standards.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Yes they should. Like those animals that Rittenhouse killed

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

For future reference, rioters burning and looting businesses and police stations should be shot down like dogs?

 

[twenty02]

Whatever. You sound like you are fine with a dog eat dog world.

I think sovereigns must have high standards.

I have zero regard or sympathy for terrorists or rioters.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

"My new rules"? I never said Rittenhouse was guilty. Go back and look all you want. He shouldn't have been there thinking he was Rambo, but he wasn't guilty of anything. If you look at https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/t...e-waters-ordered-mob-rule.215545/post-3313366 I said during the trial I thought he would be found not guilty and didn't complain about that one bit.

But similar to your argument, where are all the people who said about those people Rittenhouse shot, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"? Why did that not carry over to this case?

Rittenhouse did not represent sovereign authority.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I have zero regard or sympathy for terrorists or rioters.

That’s fine. You shouldn’t consider law enforcement as a career.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Not that it matters to you, I’ve never had an issue with any of your posts. In fact one of the best on here. This one is despicable.

For future reference, rioters burning and looting businesses and police stations should be shot down like dogs?

Not once has anyone defended the rioters that were committing crimes that summer. the arguments were about how many were rioters committing crimes vs legal protestors.

 

[IUCrazy2]

"My new rules"? I never said Rittenhouse was guilty. Go back and look all you want. He shouldn't have been there thinking he was Rambo, but he wasn't guilty of anything. If you look at https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/t...e-waters-ordered-mob-rule.215545/post-3313366 I said during the trial I thought he would be found not guilty and didn't complain about that one bit.

But similar to your argument, where are all the people who said about those people Rittenhouse shot, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"? Why did that not carry over to this case?

In this case I said the state has a compelling interest to not resort to violence unless it is a last resort. I don't think that was clearly the case here. If I were on the jury I would basically do the "jury nullification" bit and throw Byrd to the wolves. He can sit next to Chauvin in prison.

Am I being hypocritical for political reasons? Yes. 100%. If George Floyd gets a ****ing statue and Chauvin thrown in prison then Babbit is a saint and Byrd should be there next to him. I have given up on the idea that the law matters or that justice is blind. We have social and restorative justice now and in my mind (which has long been established is all that matters) my team gets ****ed over while your team gets to do whatever the **** it wants. So bring on the hypocrisy.

And some of that is tongue and cheek but I am dangerously close to that point Marv. My faith in our social compact is in tatters at the moment.

 

[twenty02]

That’s fine. You shouldn’t consider law enforcement as a career.

Thankfully I'm not. Pretty impossible job these days.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

"My new rules"? I never said Rittenhouse was guilty. Go back and look all you want. He shouldn't have been there thinking he was Rambo, but he wasn't guilty of anything. If you look at https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/t...e-waters-ordered-mob-rule.215545/post-3313366 I said during the trial I thought he would be found not guilty and didn't complain about that one bit.

But similar to your argument, where are all the people who said about those people Rittenhouse shot, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"? Why did that not carry over to this case?

Like you said, Rittenhouse had no business even being there as he was not a police officer. We also don't know if the people he shot were actually committing any crimes that night or were just protesting. The fact that they were felons from previous crimes (on another day) is immaterial given Rittenhouse wouldn't have had any idea about that at the time and he doesn't qualify as a judge delivering sentences.

Anyone that thinks an actual cop doing his job is wrong but defend a boy playing cop that overreacted when he got spooked is nutso partisan.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Rittenhouse did not represent sovereign authority.

He also wasn't charged with protecting people. Recall not everyone was out, some were trapped upstairs and were frightened for their lives, they recorded it and I am sure you have seen it. I don't know where that spot is and I am DAMN SURE you don't know either, but there are key locations at which, if lost, a position becomes totally indefensible. Do you doubt that? If you don't, do you KNOW if this was such a spot? I don't.

But even a normal cop in the street has a right to shoot if they feel they are in imminent danger. I don't see any way around that in this case, she gets through, the mob gets through, where does that leave the handful of officers on the other side (who again are tasked not just with themselves but with the elected officials in the building that they do not KNOW exactly where every last one is).

 

[twenty02]

In this case I said the state has a compelling interest to not resort to violence unless it is a last resort. I don't think that was clearly the case here. If I were on the jury I would basically do the "jury nullification" bit and throw Byrd to the wolves. He can sit next to Chauvin in prison.

Am I being hypocritical for political reasons? Yes. 100%. If George Floyd gets a ****ing statue and Chauvin thrown in prison then Babbit is a saint and Byrd should be there next to him. I have given up on the idea that the law matters or that justice is blind. We have social and restorative justice now and in my mind (which has long been established is all that matters) my team gets ****ed over while your team gets to do whatever the **** it wants. So bring on the hypocrisy.

And some of that is tongue and cheek but I am dangerously close to that point Marv. My faith in our social compact is in tatters at the moment.

I don't think you understand what jury nullification means.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Like you said, Rittenhouse had no business even being there as he was not a police officer. We also don't know if the people he shot were actually committing any crimes that night or were just protesting. The fact that they were felons from previous crimes (on another day) is immaterial given Rittenhouse wouldn't have had any idea about that at the time and he doesn't qualify as a judge delivering sentences.

Anyone that thinks an actual cop doing his job is wrong but defend a boy playing cop that overreacted when he got spooked is nutso partisan.

And people like you are why I don't care anymore. Chauvin was an actual cop doing his job, right? "No, he overstepped the boundaries of his job...." So actual cops doing their "job" can be questioned then? So what is wrong with running Byrd through the same wringer for killing someone?

You make my point. This is all about teams anymore and if that is the level of justice we are at, so be it.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I don't think you understand what jury nullification means.

No, I do, it is when they let a guilty defendant off because they don't agree with the law. In my case I would throw this technically legally not guilty defendant under the bus because I don't agree with the law (sort of).

So in that context I think it would still apply (even though that isn't a common usage).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

He also wasn't charged with protecting people. Recall not everyone was out, some were trapped upstairs and were frightened for their lives, they recorded it and I am sure you have seen it. I don't know where that spot is and I am DAMN SURE you don't know either, but there are key locations at which, if lost, a position becomes totally indefensible. Do you doubt that? If you don't, do you KNOW if this was such a spot? I don't.

But even a normal cop in the street has a right to shoot if they feel they are in imminent danger. I don't see any way around that in this case, she gets through, the mob gets through, where does that leave the handful of officers on the other side (who again are tasked not just with themselves but with the elected officials in the building that they do not KNOW exactly where every last one is).

For the eleventy -hundred time in this thread; point is not whether this is a good shoot. The point is that Byrd appears in court and will be cross examined. In a case with all the J6 baggage, that point is vital to law and order. Even the Brits saw the importance of a judicial process when they prosecuted the soldiers for the Boston Massacre. Same for Kent State.

 

[twenty02]

No, I do, it is when they let a guilty defendant off because they don't agree with the law. In my case I would throw this technically legally not guilty defendant under the bus because I don't agree with the law (sort of).

So in that context I think it would still apply (even though that isn't a common usage).

Well now you are just making stuff up that doesn't exist.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

For the eleventy -hundred time in this thread; point is not whether this is a good shoot. The point is that Byrd appears in court and will be cross examined. In a case with all the J6 baggage, that point is vital to law and order. Even the Brits saw the importance of a judicial process when they prosecuted the soldiers for the Boston Massacre. Same for Kent State.

Where on earth have I said that it was wrong to have an investigation or a trial? I did ask way early aren't most trials held in proximity to where they occur. There is a cost and inconvenience to witnesses to hold a trial CA for an event in DC. But you never answered.

I don't care if there is a trial. I didn't care Rittenhouse was tried though I thought him innocent.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Where on earth have I said that it was wrong to have an investigation or a trial? I did ask way early aren't most trials held in proximity to where they occur. There is a cost and inconvenience to witnesses to hold a trial CA for an event in DC. But you never answered.

I don't care if there is a trial. I didn't care Rittenhouse was tried though I thought him innocent.

That’s the inference I took from the implication of your second paragraph.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Catalog of screenshots? You have issues. I'm really sorry you are the way you are. Must be tough.

That’s an accountant son. He keeps receipts!!!!!