Justice Department ordered to answer for Jan. 6 killing of Ashli Babbitt

[WorldWatcher]

So, we’re just going to keep going round and round about this. I say that other methods should have been employed, such as tear gas, you disagree and think it’s justified to go straight for the kill.

Ok, we disagree.

However, so, just so we’re all straight, if you are acting in a threatening manner toward an officer, and are not holding a weapon, if you disobey his command, he has the right to kill you. In that where we are at?

You are saying that the police do not have to actually see a weapon, just that you are advancing on them and are threatening. They don’t have to tase you or anything, just pull out their gun and shoot to kill.

Is this your assessment?

No again you want to focus on Babbitt the individual and ignore the context of the day. Other methods were used including barriers and spray but the violent mob broke through.

When ever someone starts a statement “you are saying” it invariably results in the next statement NOT being what the person is saying.

I’m saying stop trying to paint Babbitt d as an individual acting alone and look at he context of the day and the clear and present danger she and the violent mob presented.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

She was in the wrong place at the wrong time, trying to break into an area that is prohibited.

Of that we agree.

 

[JoeB131]

16? There were fewer witnesses than that for George Floyd.

True, but the Floyd witnesses got that murder on tape.

Point was that the DA engaged in a whitewash of the whole thing, and the Feds kind of went along with it.

 

[22lcidw]

I don’t get your point

A person in a car trapped by an angry mob has a right to defend themselves

The two people who owned a home with rioters on their property and had weapons to protect themselves had that right also. And the DEI DA charged them. Progressives are Communists. That is why they called and charged people with Insurrections on Jan. 6.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No again you want to focus on Babbitt the individual and ignore the context of the day. Other methods were used including barriers and spray but the violent mob broke through.

When ever someone starts a statement “you are saying” it invariably results in the next statement NOT being what the person is saying.

I’m saying stop trying to paint Babbitt d as an individual acting alone and look at he context of the day and the clear and present danger she and the violent mob presented.

WW

Ok, I’m not going to argue with you anymore. I’ll just agree with you, however, next time someone is shot when rioting, or in a threatening manner to police, and they are shot and killed, then we can expect dems to agree with it.

If a person happens to get caught in a riotous mob on the streets, and they are trying to break his windows, and he steps on the gas and runs over a bunch of people, we don’t need to see dems with their cell phones out trying to capture his license plate to turn in to the police, right?

You agree with these methods, right?

 

[LeftofLeft]

True, but the Floyd witnesses got that murder on tape.

Point was that the DA engaged in a whitewash of the whole thing, and the Feds kind of went along with it.

You have yet to provide anything factual to support your claims about the Michael Brown case. The only “hands up” I can validate in the incident are the hands he raised to the brown immigrant store owner in the video when he knocked him over to grab cigarellos.

And now, you are bringing corrupt DA fantasies in to support your opinion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok, I’m not going to argue with you anymore. I’ll just agree with you, however, next time someone is shot when rioting, or in a threatening manner to police, and they are shot and killed, then we can expect dems to agree with it.

If a person happens to get caught in a riotous mob on the streets, and they are trying to break his windows, and he steps on the gas and runs over a bunch of people, we don’t need to see dems with their cell phones out trying to capture his license plate to turn in to the police, right?

You agree with these methods, right?

#1 I'm not a DEM.

#2 I'm fine with police exercising lethal force when someone presents a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to the law enforcement officer or others in the context of the situation.

#3 I'm fine with individuals exercising lethal force when someone presents a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others in the context of the situation.

#2 and #3 being an application of the reasonable person theory which takes context of the situation into account.

I know you want to ignore context to paint Babbitt as the victim and then you fallacies to try to make out of context rules applicable 100% of the time. That's not how reality works.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

#1 I'm not a DEM.

#2 I'm fine with police exercising lethal force when someone presents a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to the law enforcement officer or others in the context of the situation.

#3 I'm fine with individuals exercising lethal force when someone presents a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others in the context of the situation.

#2 and #3 being an application of the reasonable person theory which takes context of the situation into account.

I know you want to ignore context to paint Babbitt as the victim and then you fallacies to try to make out of context rules applicable 100% of the time. That's not how reality works.

WW

But I’m not trying to paint babbit as the victim. I’ve agreed that she was in the wrong, but, I just don’t believe that much effort was put in at that barricade to deter the threat. Again, if they had even just attempted tear gas, then I’d say “ok, they tried to stop them with alternative means and it didn’t work, the shoot was good”.

And I’m not even talking about when babbit tried to go through the window, I’m saying they should have tried the tear gas long before that ever happened.

 

[PeterPilot]

No again you want to focus on Babbitt the individual and ignore the context of the day. Other methods were used including barriers and spray but the violent mob broke through.

When ever someone starts a statement “you are saying” it invariably results in the next statement NOT being what the person is saying.

I’m saying stop trying to paint Babbitt d as an individual acting alone and look at he context of the day and the clear and present danger she and the violent mob presented.

WW

The "violent mob" had the doors opened for them by uniformed police officers.

 

[Blaster]

Jan 6 was not an insurrection but rather was planned by Democrats to try and destroy Trump and paint his followers as rioters. Most folks realize this.

 

[elektra]

Hahaha, the non-riot of a million people where nobody got trampled to death.

Look at the peaceful crowd. The ones on the steps are not attacking the capitol, they are looking back at the crowd. No confederate flags.

Looks to me like Pelosi refused to allow the national guard manage this extremely large crowd

So many people crowding into the Capitol grounds the people in front were being cruched until they got pushed through that line the police held with disneyland type of temporary pedistrian guides/gates.

 

[otto105]

Sadly I doubt her family will prevail. The legal system is far too corrupt.

Sadly, we can’t dig her up and shot again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But I’m not trying to paint babbit as the victim. I’ve agreed that she was in the wrong, but, I just don’t believe that much effort was put in at that barricade to deter the threat. Again, if they had even just attempted tear gas, then I’d say “ok, they tried to stop them with alternative means and it didn’t work, the shoot was good”.

And I’m not even talking about when babbit tried to go through the window, I’m saying they should have tried the tear gas long before that ever happened.

The officers in the Speaker Lobby DIDN’T have tear gas or tasers. Lt. Byrd had his side arm only.

And actually officers HAD used tear gas/spray on areas of the violent mob earlier and it didn’t stop them.

What your wish he had and how it relates to the reality of that moment in time are not the sane.

WW

 

[PeterPilot]

That nobody was carrying a firearm speaks volumes for those of us who possess common sense and practice critical thinking.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The officers in the Speaker Lobby DIDN’T have tear gas or tasers. Lt. Byrd had his side arm only.

And actually officers HAD used tear gas/spray on areas of the violent mob earlier and it didn’t stop them.

What your wish he had and how it relates to the reality of that moment in time are not the sane.

WW

The officers in the Speaker Lobby DIDN’T have tear gas or tasers. Lt. Byrd had his side arm only.

I understand that, at that time. There was enough time to equip people, once they saw they had a riot situation on their hands, the proper deterrence methods should have been brought in and deployed.

As a matter of fact, I don’t recall any counter protest measures being used INSIDE the building, other than shields and barricades.

Capitol Police ordered not to use tear gas canisters during Jan. 6 riot, despite them being used on Lafayette Park protesters last June

Inspector general tells Congress that Capitol Police leadership told officers not to use 37mm, 40mm & Stinger Ball Grenades.

www.wusa9.com

Seems capitol police were actually ordered NOT to use tear gas.

Hmm, if they had used those methods, maybe a lot of what happened inside the building that day could have been prevented.

 

[JoeB131]

You have yet to provide anything factual to support your claims about the Michael Brown case. The only “hands up” I can validate in the incident are the hands he raised to the brown immigrant store owner in the video when he knocked him over to grab cigarellos.

And now, you are bringing corrupt DA fantasies in to support your opinion.

Uh, the people voted that corrupt DA out the next election. They had quite enough.

 

[Chillicothe]

"The "violent mob" had the doors opened for them by uniformed police officers."

Well, I have watched that violent mob outside the Speaker's Lobby violently batter open a purpose-built barricade intended to bar the violent mob and protect the sheltering Representatives....and through which the point-of-the-spear, the 'Point Man'......leapt towards the guarding police and the huddled and fearful innocent Reps and staff.

And, it appeared to me that Officer Byrd only 'opened the doors' for Babbitt.......to a different dimension.

Ashli is dead because of Ashli.
Bad decisions ofttimes lead to bad outcomes.*

*ps....that is from a TED Talk.