If the Ashli Babbitt murder/shooting was so justified why was she the only one shot? Didn’t hundreds break in?

Listening to the liberals here you would think one small unarmed woman could have walked through all the armed police and all by herself taken over the whole damn government of the United States.

She was simply a SUPERWOMAN. She was so terrifying she simply had to be shot!

View attachment 580869
Of course she herself couldn't, but had she been allowed through, the rest of the mob, beating on doors to break in, would have followed her. Shooting her kept lawmakers, still in the chamber, safe.
 
You must think history books will just gloss over the invasion of the Capitol by right wing domestic terrorists. For you, it's no big deal. But for sane America, we will never forget nor forgive.
I am for peaceful protests but draw the line at riots. Bit this riot has been call an “insurrection” which it wasn’t.


 
I am for peaceful protests but draw the line at riots. Bit this riot has been call an “insurrection” which it wasn’t.


quiz time...

"scant" means.

  • a) None
  • b) Some
  • c) A lot
 
I’m guessing that you didn’t see the answer I provided to that question.
The only reason she was shot was because the police officer panicked. She posed no threat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, I did see the answer you provided to your own rhetorical question. And your repeat of it..as I quote above.
And frankly, I'm not totally opposed to your answer. Perhaps, he was panicked.

But it makes no differnce if he was cool as Dirty Harry, or scared to death, she was righteously stopped by the means at hand.
His demeanor is irrelevant.

She violently breached a barrier specifically erected to prevent her--and others ----from getting near the Congress the officers were sworn to protect.
She breached that barrier despite being firmly warned to back away, to cease, to desist, to leave.
She breached that barrier charging directly at the officers who had been warning her.
She did so knowing a gun was aimed at her.

Ashli is dead because of Ashli.

Regardless if the officer was scared, or cool and methodical.
It ain't on him.
It's on her.
May her family find peace.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listening to the liberals here you would think one small unarmed woman could have walked through all the armed police and all by herself taken over the whole damn government of the United States. She was simply a SUPERWOMAN. She was so terrifying she simply had to be shot!
Good poster Batcat, that is sillly. You are sounding hysterical. Settle down.
NOBODY has stated or even hinted that Babbitt was Super Woman or even intent on de-stabilizing our electoral process.
Nobody knows for sure what her motivation was to charge into the breach, directly at the officers who had warned her away, and brandished a gun at her.
She died because she foolishly made a decision to defy the officers and leap into the breach towards them.
May her family find peace.
 
When she was shot she was not going directly at the officer. The officer was off to the side.
 
I am for peaceful protests but draw the line at riots. Bit this riot has been call an “insurrection” which it wasn’t.


Who cares what you want to call it. The traitors that entered the Capitol were there to stop the process of putting Biden in power as the duly elected President of the United States. Because Trump convinced them if he loses, the voting is rigged. Now we have to deal with this shit I guess if a trumpanzee loses a Presidential election. None of those traitors are for the rule of law, support the police, or believe in the integrity our election system. Traitors one and all.
 
If I was a cop and someone was throwing bricks at me, another person was trying to set me on fire with a Molotov cocktail and some fool was trying to blind me with a green laser I would definitely feel I should have the right to defend myself with lethal force.

But apparently the cops in the blue cities can’t defend themselves. Therefore if I was a younger person looking for a career I would cross law enforcement off my list.
This is such a terrible problem, a maybe unsolvable problem, and I know more about it than I should, because of all the recent history reading of revolutions in Europe. Early on the "police," whatever was functioning in that capacity, WOULD shoot at the rock-throwing protestors, always cobblestones from that day to this in Europe, and we have never achieved their technology here until someone thought of frozen water bottles. And every time, unless the whole city was killed out (Lyon, 1793), the mob immediately attacked worse and more. The next day, the next week. Then there really WAS a revolution!! THAT is the problem: shooting them makes the rest mad, and there are so many of them, they cannot be stopped. In our case, antifa would stream in from other cities and light up Seattle.

There is one other problem, worse and more immediate: no one on earth can stop thousands of people running together. Maybe sometimes massed machine-gun fire can mow them down as they come, if you are lucky and well-placed and have enough machine guns (World War I in the trenches and WWII in the Pacific) but it often doesn't work anyway. And our police do NOT have machine guns. The police in their black riot gear and riot shields look SO SCARY, we think, why can't they turn the crowd? Maybe they could, the first time, with surprise --- after that, we're talking a war zone and maybe the now-armed rioters will just keep going and overrun all of them and kill every one of them. Our riot police know all this. This is why they don't shoot rioters. I am now reading the book 1848 when there were violent leftwing riots all over Europe and it was just one city after another overwhelming the riot police; they couldn't do anything with them.

Basically, when this happens, what you really have is a war, and Portland and Seattle won't face up to that. I mean, yeah, you can fight a war with these types but it IS a war and "police" just aren't in it. So I shouldn't have said they should shoot rioters; that was way too simplified and doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
I wish I had voted for Gore, now. I know he went crazy later, but I bet he wouldn't have if he had gotten to be prez.

Another in a long list of elections where the country loses either way.
 
'When she was shot she was not going directly at the officer. The officer was off to the side.'

I understand the point, but it is a distinction without a difference.
Babbitt was warned away from the Speaker's Lobby. Firmly. Clearly.
She then chose to breach the barrier and enter the 'space' that that officer and the ones behind him were sworn to protect.

Babbit did NOT....stop at the warnings.
Did not hesitate.
Did not hold up her hands in surrender.
Did not retreat.
Instead, she advanced forward.
Towards the police who had warned her.

And for that, she died.
May her family eventually find peace.
 
Oh, whoops. I like Batcat, so I don't "explain" anything to him. Assuming it's a him. Explanations are always aggressive.
Well then we can only hope he sees your post and learns from it.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, I did see the answer you provided to your own rhetorical question.
It wasn't my question. It was a question posed by the OP. It's the subject of the thread.
 

Forum List

Back
Top