From the ‘You’re Kidding Yet It’s Government’ Files of the Babbitt Murder

You do know Hitler was head of the socialist party don’t you?
They called themselves socialist to garner public support but their policies were not socialist and they were against the Communist party which actually was socialist.

Regardless of your ignorance, like Trump, Hitler lost his election for president. But that didn't stop the Nazi Party from making him führer by declaring him chancellor & president. Very similar to Trump, who also lost his election for president but his party, the Republican Party, tried their damnest to get him declared president. The only reason it worked for Hitler but not for Trump was because Republicans didn't have as much power in the government as Nazis did in Germany in 1934. Otherwise we would have seen a repeat of Nazi Germany politics. Which is why I laugh every time I see you rightards project it's the left who are the nazis.
 
Died at the hands of a cop who wasn’t even questioned.

Takes real retards to think the government was in peril.
Congrats, retard.
Idiot...


The officer was interviewed by investigators last week, The Times reported.
 
In fact, investigators cleared Byrd of wrongdoing in the shooting without actually interviewing him about the shooting or threatening him with punishment if he did not cooperate with their criminal investigation.

“He didn’t provide any statement to [criminal] investigators and they didn’t push him to make a statement,” Babbitt family attorney Terry Roberts said in an RCI interview. “It’s astonishing how skimpy his investigative file is."

Roberts, who has spoken with the D.C. MPD detective assigned to the case, said the kid-glove treatment of Byrd raises suspicions the investigation was a “whitewash.”

The lawyer's account appears to be backed up by a January 2021 internal affairs report, which notes Byrd "declined to provide a statement,” D.C. MPD documents show.
Skin colors and narrative was the only thing the swamp creatures care about.

I’m so old I remember when the Left pretended to care about the police shooting unarmed citizens.

No statute of limitation on a Federal murder
 
Fishing expeditions to look for crimes is something the Soviets and NAZIS were good at.
Congrats.

Sounds like the Republican controlled House between 2011 and 2017.
But that didn't stop the Nazi Party from making him führer by declaring him chancellor & president

Not really. It was a back room deal, but he was appointed Chancellor legally. They thought they could control him. He was ruthless and used violence and intimidation to force through the Enabling Acts. That basically gave him the dictatorship early in 1933.
 
Hilarious. OP is about the murderer never being questioned and now you think some claim of a fantasy weapon is justifying homicide.
Fantasy weapon?? That mob was a weapon. That was a violent mob of domestic terrorists. Just ask Cancun Cruz, he'll tell ya.

Since when is the right against shooting violent terrorists who are threatening the safety of members of our government?
 
Although I stand by my position that Aubrey could have prevented his own death in that situation, after hearing all of the facts, that was murder, plain and simple.
You know, so could Babbit have, if she hadn’t been the process of committing a crime…she wouldn’t have been shot.
 
We need to get generalized and specific on many things. So, we use events to our advantage for political, economic and personal reason. So that woman was a felon who never stopped being that. Doing bad things to others as a felon. Not taking care of children the right way. Cheating and stealing and gaming the system. If studied, we can probably put up a list of positive and negatives of each. And the reason for their final demise. Jan. 6 is like a mystery that seems to have the National Police State involved with tyranny and control of the population as its main pint of existing now. Floyd was an inept response to another crime that was minor by a felon who was a loser and dangerous at times and put the act on for being on drugs or not and died for it. There is more behind the scenes than Chauvin in these poverty, lower income or African American areas. And they will exist long after Chauvin is dead.
 
Sounds like the Republican controlled House between 2011 and 2017.


Not really. It was a back room deal, but he was appointed Chancellor legally. They thought they could control him. He was ruthless and used violence and intimidation to force through the Enabling Acts. That basically gave him the dictatorship early in 1933.
Hitler wasn't the leader of Germany until Hindenburg died. He was legally appointed chancellor and then legally made führer by making him president as well when that happened.

Had Republicans had the power in our government, they would have legally, and successfully, objected to enough of Biden electors to make Trump president and leader of the U.S..

Other than the procedure used to make those two election losers leader of their respective countries, I don't see much difference.
 
If they're threatening the safety of others while in the commission of a crime themselves, of course. When hasn't that been the case?

An unarmed woman is not "threatening" anyone.
Crawling through a window is not a crime, and in fact trespassing is a regulatory violation, and NOT a criminal act.
 
Last edited:
The poorly armed guards left their position and before the well armed reinforcement arrived, the rioters took advantage and swarmed the entrance way then began a brute force attack on the barricade. The men guarding the barricade on the other side only saw that and they were apparently authorized to use deadly force to stop any rioter from entering that hallway.

Wrong.
The 3 cops holding the barricade did not leave UNTIL the well armed police arrived to the stairwell.
There were no "men guarding the barricade on the other side".
Bryd was with 3 other cops, but had barricaded themselves in a side meeting room, and were not defending the barricade of the doorway to the Speaker's Lobby.
They were NOT authorized to use deadly force, as there is no one who could give them that authority.
Nor is deadly force ever possible to authorize if one could instead simply have pushed Ashli back through the window.
 
LOL

It's quite amusing watching rightards call others Nazis while it was the right, who like the 1930's Nazis in Germany, got the leader of their party into the office of the presidency despite him losing the presidential election, rightards tried to do the same.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, who represented the wealthy elite.
He did not take office by force or subterfuge.
There is no evidence the Jan 6 rioters intended to use force to accomplish anything illegal.
The only evidence we have is that they were just trying to gain publicity.
 
How did he know she was unarmed?

That is totally and completely backwards.
The law requires you know for sure someone IS armed, before lethal force becomes justifiable.

If you lower the standard to what they simply MAY do, then you could legally shoot any cop you see because they are all armed and some cops have committed murder, so then all cops potentially could be a lethal threat.

You can not use a different standard for police than the one you use for anyone else.
You can not shoot unless you specifically see evidence they are about to commit a murder.
 
Other than the procedure used to make those two election losers leader of their respective countries, I don't see much difference.

"The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz) of 1933 gave the German Cabinet power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat, the legislative bodies of the Weimar government. It gave Adolph Hitler complete and absolute power over Germany.

The passage of the Enabling Act required Hitler to gain support from a quorum from a super-majority of the entire Reichstag; this process was made easier by nearly all Communist and some Social Democrat deputies being arrested under the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties after the burning of the Reichstag under the auspices of the beginning of a Communist revolution. But to win the rest of the votes, he needed to convince religious parliamentarians that Germany’s religious life would be kept secure and that its civil society would not vanish.


The promises helped secure the Center Party’s votes for the Enabling Act. Unfortunately for the Center Party, Hitler would use the power they bestowed on him to violate every one of these promises."

Trump only wishes he could have.......maybe he dreams of it.
 
She was part of a violent mob that had just busted out a window into the congressional chamber, and was crawling through to where police were guarding remaining congressional people and staffers who had not yet been able to get to safety. She ignored commands to get back and continued to come through. Presumably to open the door and let the mob in.

Wrong.
Ashli could easily have been prevented by the cops in front of the door, if they had wanted to.
These cops had just been reinforced by helmeted and machinegun toting cops down the stairwell, so they had total control over that barricade.
The fact they let Ashli through can only mean all the congress people had left who wanted to leave, and there was no longer any point to that barricade.

And Bryd himself admitted he never said a word.
There was never any command to Ashli to not enter the window.
In fact, it is likely she never even saw Byrd at all, since he was off to the side.
Nor was there any reason for Bryd to shoot, since it would have been trivial for him to simply have moved over to the window and push Ashli back out.
Nor could Ashli likely have moved the tables, etc., in front of the doorway.
 

Forum List

Back
Top