Liz Cheney says Trump appears to have been ‘personally involved in planning’ 6 Jan insurrection

[ClaireH]

You make for a delusional juror as people start shouting, "he has a gun," about 14-15 seconds before Ashes Targetpractice got herself shot, not "within a second."

And everyone else backed up. We'll never know why Benedict Babbitt chose to forge ahead.

The very first time I watched the video I wondered why did this quiet shooter not at least give a warning? Why did he choose to remain silent? I can understand, because he wasn’t in riot gear, to stand off to the side but his mistake was not shouting “First one through the doors gets shot!” That, and only that, would have been fair warning as officers are trained to do. It would have taken all of 2 seconds to yell the warning. Assuming that his adrenaline was rushing there was no reason why he couldn’t of done this simple act. Are you going to come back with the fact that he panicked? That’s also a likely factor since he choose to shoot without verbal warning.

 

[Faun]

The very first time I watched the video I wondered why did this quiet shooter not at least give a warning? Why did he choose to remain silent? I can understand, because he wasn’t in riot gear, to stand off to the side but his mistake was not shouting “First one through the doors gets shot!” That, and only that, would have been fair warning as officers are trained to do. It would have taken all of 2 seconds to yell the warning. Assuming that his adrenaline was rushing there was no reason why he couldn’t of done this simple act. Are you going to come back with the fact that he panicked? That’s also a likely factor since he choose to shoot without verbal warning.

You're wrong from the start. He claims he did warn the mob to stay back. Others saw him and saw the gun and even yelled he's got a gun. At least one held his hands up to motion surrender. The others started backing away. All except Benedict Babbitt.

And it doesn't appear he panicked. He didn't shoot anyone who was breaking windows or pounding on the doors. He didn't shoot until someone was actually about to breach the police barricade forged on his side of the doors, which was only feet away from an unbarricaded door leading into the House chamber where lawmakers were still hold up.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The very first time I watched the video I wondered why did this quiet shooter not at least give a warning? Why did he choose to remain silent? I

Lt. Michael Byrd gave a warning and according to reports, a member of the pro-Trump mob standing next to her heard the warning. So I have no idea why you think he didn’t.

Capitol Police Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Insists He Did Warn Her Before Opening Fire​

Lt. Michael Byrd says Ashli Babbitt ignored his order to stay outside a barricaded door in the Capitol on January 6. A member of the pro-Trump mob standing next to her heard the warning.
Robert Mackey
August 27 2021, 8:45 p.m

 

[ClaireH]

Lt. Michael Byrd gave a warning and according to reports, a member of the pro-Trump mob standing next to her heard the warning. So I have no idea why you think he didn’t.

Capitol Police Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Insists He Did Warn Her Before Opening Fire​

Lt. Michael Byrd says Ashli Babbitt ignored his order to stay outside a barricaded door in the Capitol on January 6. A member of the pro-Trump mob standing next to her heard the warning.
Robert Mackey
August 27 2021, 8:45 p.m

Because the footage viewed was directly next to the officer who shot her within close range to where he was standing, otherwise, the camera angle and distance would be different. Where are the reports that people heard him give a verbal warning, do you have a link? If so, why is all noise, except for this reported verbal warning, heard clearly on the tape?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Are you going to come back with the fact that he panicked?

Perhaps this will help you overcome your prolonged difficulty in obtaining the truth regarding this matter. There were reports on the radio and his radio that officer BYRD heard of shots being fired by rioters while breaching barricades

NBC Interview Sheds Light on Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd’s Legal Justification for Shooting Ashli Babbitt

U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd's interview has naturally resulted in a rancorous debate which predictably devolved along the lines of race and politics. Few, however, have examined the legal standard by which Byrd's actions have been judged and perhaps will be judged again in civil suits.

www.google.com

HOLT: What are you hearing on your radio?

BYRD: I’m hearing about the breaches of different barricaded areas, officers being overrun, officers being down.HOLT: Did you ever hear a call or a report of shots fired during any of this?BYRD: As a matter of fact, I did. There was reports of shots fired through the House main door, onto the floor of the chamber.

“Later, those reports would prove to be false,” Holt noted with reference to the latter. But that would likely not affect a legal assessment of the situation. Byrd subjectively believed shots had been fired, that officers were down, and that officers were being overrun. Most of that was true. Byrd’s assessment that what he was hearing from fellow officers on his police radio was either true or close to the truth was likely reasonable as well given the totality of the circumstances of the Jan. 6th breach of the Capitol

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. Where are the reports that people heard him give a verbal warning, do you have a link? I

YES - you should be ashamed of yourself

Capitol Police Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Insists He Did Warn Her Before Opening Fire

Lt. Michael Byrd says Babbitt ignored his order to stay outside a barricaded door in the Capitol on January 6.

theintercept.com

LT. MICHAEL BYRD, the Capitol Police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt on January 6, has rejected claims from her defenders that he opened fire without warning, telling NBC News that he ordered the fanatical Donald Trump supporter to stop advancing before he fired the fatal shot.

“I had been yelling and screaming,” Byrd said in an interview broadcast Thursday night, “‘Please stop, get back, get back, stop.’”

Video posted online by multiple witnesses that day showed that Babbitt, an Air Force veteran wearing a Stars and Stripes backpack and a Trump flag as a cape, was shot by Byrd as she climbed through the shattered window of the barricaded Speaker’s Lobby door, which was all that separated the mob of Trump supporters from members of Congress.

The officer’s statement matches the account of a fellow member of the pro-Trump mob, Thomas Baranyi, who caught Babbitt as she fell back. Baranyi, who still had Babbitt’s blood on his hand when he spoke to a local news crew outside the Capitol minutes later, said that “a number of police and Secret Service were saying, ‘Get back, get down, get out of the way.’ She didn’t heed the call.”

Further evidence that Byrd’s warning was clear to those around Babbitt comes from graphic video of the shooting posted on Twitter less than 40 minutes after the event by another witness. Those images clearly show that Baranyi, who was wearing a backward blue Trump cap and standing close to Babbitt, raised his hand and nodded in Byrd’s direction to signal his compliance with the command to stay back. Three seconds later, Babbitt climbed into the window to cross the barricade and was shot

 

[ClaireH]

Perhaps this will help you overcome your prolonged difficulty in obtaining the truth regarding this matter. There were reports on the radio and his radio that officer BYRD heard of shots being fired by rioters while breaching barricades

NBC Interview Sheds Light on Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd’s Legal Justification for Shooting Ashli Babbitt

U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd's interview has naturally resulted in a rancorous debate which predictably devolved along the lines of race and politics. Few, however, have examined the legal standard by which Byrd's actions have been judged and perhaps will be judged again in civil suits.

www.google.com

HOLT: What are you hearing on your radio?

BYRD: I’m hearing about the breaches of different barricaded areas, officers being overrun, officers being down.HOLT: Did you ever hear a call or a report of shots fired during any of this?BYRD: As a matter of fact, I did. There was reports of shots fired through the House main door, onto the floor of the chamber.

“Later, those reports would prove to be false,” Holt noted with reference to the latter. But that would likely not affect a legal assessment of the situation. Byrd subjectively believed shots had been fired, that officers were down, and that officers were being overrun. Most of that was true. Byrd’s assessment that what he was hearing from fellow officers on his police radio was either true or close to the truth was likely reasonable as well given the totality of the circumstances of the Jan. 6th breach of the Capitol

Thank you for providing quick link to the footage. No warning heard, no warning given. Unless you’re claiming the warning was given at some other point of conflict- it didn’t happen on tape. What is heard are at least 2 males stating -there’s a gun, there’s a gun- yes, that would’ve been enough for me to stop had I’d been participating.

Because one person does a foolish thing doesn’t mean the other person is not negligent. Often it’s an unfortunate mix of responsibility, and that’s how I view this particular case.

 

[ClaireH]

You're wrong from the start. He claims he did warn the mob to stay back. Others saw him and saw the gun and even yelled he's got a gun. At least one held his hands up to motion surrender. The others started backing away. All except Benedict Babbitt.

And it doesn't appear he panicked. He didn't shoot anyone who was breaking windows or pounding on the doors. He didn't shoot until someone was actually about to breach the police barricade forged on his side of the doors, which was only feet away from an unbarricaded door leading into the House chamber where lawmakers were still hold up.

A claim that isn’t heard on the tape doesn’t go far for those who seek full transparency. A person can claim anything they want after the fact. Also during that transcript the words the officer used “as a matter fact” strongly suggests that the next part that came out of his mouth was a lie. “As a matter fact, I WAS given reports” after the interviewer asked him if that was the case. Leading, shall we say? Good grief.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. No warning heard, no warning given

She should’ve been shot without a fucking warning. She was shot by a cop who is protecting my representative in Congress who was supposed to be doing work mandated in the constitution that was the final step prior to inauguration, in the peaceful transfer of power to the certified winner of the election. People next to the Q anon trump riled up maniac Are clearly seen in the video putting their hands up and stopping and reacting as if they heard something. So you can stop your revisionist pleadings right now. If not you are dead to America. There is nothing American about you.

 

[Faun]

Thank you for providing quick link to the footage. No warning heard, no warning given. Unless you’re claiming the warning was given at some other point of conflict- it didn’t happen on tape. What is heard are at least 2 males stating -there’s a gun, there’s a gun- yes, that would’ve been enough for me to stop had I’d been participating.

Because one person does a foolish thing doesn’t mean the other person is not negligent. Often it’s an unfortunate mix of responsibility, and that’s how I view this particular case.

Yes, Ashes Targetpractice was warned. You just can't learn, can ya?

 

[Faun]

A claim that isn’t heard on the tape doesn’t go far for those who seek full transparency. A person can claim anything they want after the fact. Also during that transcript the words the officer used “as a matter fact” strongly suggests that the next part that came out of his mouth was a lie. “As a matter fact, I WAS given reports” after the interviewer asked him if that was the case. Leading, shall we say? Good grief.

It matters not if it was heard on the recordings. Byrd was on the other side of the doors. Meanwhile, he was heard warning Trump's thugs to stay back.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No warning heard, no warning given. Unless you’re claiming the warning was given at some other point of conflict- it didn’t happen on tape. What is heard are at least 2 males stating -there’s a gun, there’s a gun- yes, that would’ve been enough for me to stop had I’d been participating.

You don’t know that the warning to stop is not on tape. It can be muffled or muted by the window between the officer and the violent marauders. - THE FBI likely can unscramble it if it mattered . Under the circumstances there is no requirement in that situation and in the midst of such overwhelming chaos and threat to bother. and had the Trump worshiping moron not poked her head and shoulder through the window she would still be alive today. Also she had her stupid body in the broken window muting sounds as well .

If he let her through without shooting he’ll have to be dealing with her and she still had her backpack on which under those conditions could’ve contained a bomb. Officer BYRD WHO was correct when he said shooting her saved lives including the lives of the other TRUMP idiots that were behind her.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He has no idea what occurred in that hallway, he's gotten just about every detail wrong, yet he keeps insisting Ashes Targetpractice, a traitor to America, was executed anyway.

He does know. It has been shown to him.. He is saying shit he knows is stupid and wrong, to get attention.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the doors gets shot!” That, and only that, would have been fair warning as officers are trained to do

Well, you can make up these.silly fantasies all day, but you are wrong. The officer has been cleared and is a hero. On to the next silly fantasy for you I guess...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes, Ashes Targetpractice was warned. You just can't learn, can ya?

My god, watching that young punk Trump goon speak to a reporter with Babbitt’s fresh blood on his hands as if he just attended a innocent MAGA rally and tour of the Capitol when the deep state cops just starting shooting for no reason - makes me wonder if he has any idea that he is an anti-democracy fascist and his political views in that interview are iabout as un-American as it gets..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My god, watching that young punk Trump goon speak to a reporter with Babbitt’s fresh blood on his hands as if he just attended a innocent MAGA rally and tour of the Capitol when the deep state cops just starting shooting for no reason - makes me wonder if he has any idea that he is an anti-democracy fascist and his political views in that interview are iabout as un-American as it gets..

He has no idea. His brains have been turned to tapioca by the cult.

 

[ThisIsMe]

ThisIsMe wrote: I'm just trying to discuss the illogical nature of trying to enact a plan that you know full well is a lie and that everyone else knows is a lie. 21POST08-POST#897

NFBW wrote: The fallacy in your analysis ThisIsMe and your search for logic in whatever DJT does or does not do, is evidenced here when you said “everyone else knows it is a lie”. That is simply not true. That is of course not true because you must be aware that Trump’s well defined targeted audience is his American Church of Trump twitter following where each and everyone in it believes every single word that man says without question and Will devotedly send him money like as if it were tithes. He therefore has every incentive to lie if it makes him what he lives most - making money. 21POST08-POST#900

There are only 2 answers, either he believed he had legal standing and tried to use it, or he he knew he didn't have legal standing, and he enacted a plan that he knew was illegal and he knew would have never worked.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ThisIsMe wrote: There are only 2 answers, either he believed he had legal standing and tried to use it, or he he knew he didn't have legal standing, and he enacted a plan that he knew was illegal and he knew would have never worked. 21POST09-POST#917

NFBW wrote: Instead of using terms “legal and illegal” can we use “constitutional“and unconstitutional” for the basic reason that we are discussing a sitting president of the United States of America who took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. Trump is quite a bit different than the average Joe Sixpack sitting in a bar drinking his daily beers while watching Trump on TV saying it’s statistically impossible for him to not win the election and believing him. Can we do that? 21POST09-POST#918

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ThisIsMe wrote: There are only 2 answers, either he believed he had legal standing and tried to use it, or he knew he didn't have legal standing, and he enacted a plan that he knew was illegal and he knew would have never worked. 21POST09-POST#917

NFBW wrote: I see in your biased and lopsided attempts to normalize DJT you are trying to dismiss the over-arching fact that DJT could care less whether his devised plan to overturn the election was constitutional or not. 21POST09-POST#919

NFBW wrote: You must admit that DJT has a powerful motive clearly established by observing his behavior to keep his base riled up and motivated. As long as Trump has 50 million Americans and supporters who would fight for him, not only do they send him money but it forces the big money donors to send him big money as well. So the money comes from people who do not give a damn whether Trump cares about the constitution. Too bad but hat is just the way it is. 21POST09-POST#919

NFBW wrote: And then again, there’s the other motivation, not quite so obvious but it surely needs to be put on the table. It is the disgraced General Michael Flynn chaos plan. There is quite the probability that DJ T would implement an unconstitutional plan just to see what kind of chaos it could create in order to impose martial law or the insurrection act. You should not be so hasty to rule that out. We do know that Flynn was invited to the White House in December after all 50 states certified their election results. 21POST09-POST#919

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are only 2 answers, either he believed he had legal standing and tried to use it, or he he knew he didn't have legal standing, and he enacted a plan that he knew was illegal and he knew would have never worked.

6 more subpoenas. I wonder how the democrats are going to force the Trump allies to lie under oath? They have to do so, if your fantasies are going to survive another day.

So...torture? Death threats to their families?