Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What murder?The death of this woman must not be forgotten......justice for her killer must be demanded.
Naming the Capitol Cop Who Killed Unarmed Jan. 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt
At top, pistol drawn in the House chamber, a plainclothes black officer who fits the description of Michael L. Byrd. His name was apparently divulged at a hearing as the cop who shot Ashli Babbiwww.realclearinvestigations.com
Posts a racist POS.What a Racist POS.
She put herself in harms way for a misguided ideal?White women's lives don't matter??? Why would the Criminal Lobby give a damn????
Greg
Is the alt-white inventing words now?What a Racist POS.
Byrd shot Ashli Babbitt because she was a white wimmens?
Playtime, why are posting a disagree sign when the facts are just posted? What is wrong with you? Show some class---you are wrong (well I know I have corrected you before on this so actually you are playing games).......admit you are wrong and stop posting bs about this awful stupid druggy reaching for a gun.What do you want to argue here playtime--------------I don't lie asshole.. I am brutally honest which is far more fun.Castille---high on drugs with kids in the car driving around reaching for a gun? That castille?Questions that would come to the mind of a juror and relevant to your remarks:The last part is subjective and not absolute because no situation is identical, including the protection officer's training, prior experience, knowledge, etc. and what else is going on around him.I agree 100% NVM about thinking a cop might think that "if a person can see me addressing them and telling them to cease whatever behavior they're engaged in with my firearm in my hand, and for whatever reason they think they don't have to pay attention to what I'm saying to them, that behavior in and of itself is worrisome MINUS THIs NEXT PART: and can cause them to get shot". That last part seems subjective not absolute.
But what is absolute is that a person is ONLY supposed to use lethal force to counter a threat and the amount of force has to be commensurate with the threat and this applies to civilians as well as law enforcement officers.
Many individuals have been complaining that Ashli herself was not a threat and that she was unarmed. She was the head of a mob attempting to breach the last barrier between the mob and our representatives. Had they breached that last barrier then the only thing between the mob and our representatives would have been the armed protections officers (I don't know if they were LEOS, secret service, etc.) who were vastly outnumbered. Therefore the best strategy was to prevent/discourage them from coming through that window where they had just broken out the glass which demonstrated their intentions to use it to gain entry to the chambers by climbing through it). They this to be their plan when they hoisted Ashli up so that she could climb through.
There was more than one officer on the other side of that window and in that area with their weapons all trained on that window, all presumably prepared to shoot if the mob began coming through. And I'm saying all of this to simply make the point that I don't know anyone who would ignore law enforcement officers, with guns, pointing specifically at them and then expect not to be shot if they ignored their commands.
The mob was the threat primarily because they would have quickly overcome the officers and the best chance that they had to prevent that scenario from playing out was preventing anyone from making it through the window. That's what happened, Ashli tried and was shot and after that no one else tried, so they effectively neutralized the threat.
1. Was there evidence that Ashli Babbitt was considered to be the “leader “ of this particular group of protesters? I haven’t read up enough to know if there is evidence or otherwise.
2. Did the amount of force used commensurate with Babbitt’s attempt to climb through the broken glass on one of the doors?
3. Why did the other capitol police decide to not shoot when they saw Babbitt attempting to climb through the window?
4. Did A. Babbitt hear any officer, particularly of importance would have been the officer who pulled the trigger, give a verbal warning? As I stated earlier, this should weigh in heavily about the legal outcome particularly if none was given.
I agree with your opinion about the cop who shot Ashley likely figured that if he took one out (perhaps he planned to only injure her, but that would be evidence he was a very poor shot and had no business firing in the first place as well as being the first to do so) would send a message to all others and stop their attempts from breaking through the doors.
Had Babbitt not died but only grazed, the USCP wouldn’t have to carry on its traditional role of being separate and secretive and come out publicly with its AG report about January 6th. (I had no clue USCP played by a different set of rules- no reports required about personnels’ public complaints kept secret, and no reports by USCP’s AG required for public disclosure…. ever!? If the reason for their nondisclosure of incidents is the officers’ safety, I’m not buying it. If the reason for their non-disclosure is that it would somehow reveal the US Capitol’s layout better for potential infiltration there are maps available online to view the whole layout -tunnels and all.
So my area of a focus boils down to two things: first, did this cop give a verbal warning-at this point I don’t think he did nor did any of the other cops near him yell out, “First one through the door gets shot!!” That matters greatly. Second, why are capital police allowed to be above the law and have their own separate laws without any legal requirement for disclosure, partial disclosure, or even a glossed-over public version? I can only imagine there must’ve been various coverups to save face in CP’s history…. sorry, I’m just a normal human who suspects when things are intentionally kept below the surface, there’s usually a purpose for it and I’d like to know the purpose.
Philandro Castile gets blown away for trying to do what he was being told. Not a peep.
Here we have someone that was shot breaking into the Capital and there seems to be a lot of questions.
seems you got a problem with pathological lying. cough up an unbiased credible link proving that or just stfu.
5 years ago: Philando Castile shot 5 times, killed by officer during traffic stop
MINNEAPOLIS (AP/WNCN) — Philando Castile, a 32-year-old school cafeteria worker, was shot five times by a St. Anthony, Minnesota police officer during a July 6, 2016 traffic stop after Castil…www.cbs17.com
Officer’s defense can bring up Philando Castile’s marijuana use, judge rules
Evidence of marijuana use by Philando Castile on the day he was fatally shot by a St. Anthony police officer can be used at the officer’s manslaughter trial, a Ramsey County judge ruled Tuesday. Di…www.twincities.com
Playtime, why are posting a disagree sign when the facts are just posted? What is wrong with you? Show some class---you are wrong (well I know I have corrected you before on this so actually you are playing games).......admit you are wrong and stop posting bs about this awful stupid druggy reaching for a gun.What do you want to argue here playtime--------------I don't lie asshole.. I am brutally honest which is far more fun.Castille---high on drugs with kids in the car driving around reaching for a gun? That castille?Questions that would come to the mind of a juror and relevant to your remarks:The last part is subjective and not absolute because no situation is identical, including the protection officer's training, prior experience, knowledge, etc. and what else is going on around him.I agree 100% NVM about thinking a cop might think that "if a person can see me addressing them and telling them to cease whatever behavior they're engaged in with my firearm in my hand, and for whatever reason they think they don't have to pay attention to what I'm saying to them, that behavior in and of itself is worrisome MINUS THIs NEXT PART: and can cause them to get shot". That last part seems subjective not absolute.
But what is absolute is that a person is ONLY supposed to use lethal force to counter a threat and the amount of force has to be commensurate with the threat and this applies to civilians as well as law enforcement officers.
Many individuals have been complaining that Ashli herself was not a threat and that she was unarmed. She was the head of a mob attempting to breach the last barrier between the mob and our representatives. Had they breached that last barrier then the only thing between the mob and our representatives would have been the armed protections officers (I don't know if they were LEOS, secret service, etc.) who were vastly outnumbered. Therefore the best strategy was to prevent/discourage them from coming through that window where they had just broken out the glass which demonstrated their intentions to use it to gain entry to the chambers by climbing through it). They this to be their plan when they hoisted Ashli up so that she could climb through.
There was more than one officer on the other side of that window and in that area with their weapons all trained on that window, all presumably prepared to shoot if the mob began coming through. And I'm saying all of this to simply make the point that I don't know anyone who would ignore law enforcement officers, with guns, pointing specifically at them and then expect not to be shot if they ignored their commands.
The mob was the threat primarily because they would have quickly overcome the officers and the best chance that they had to prevent that scenario from playing out was preventing anyone from making it through the window. That's what happened, Ashli tried and was shot and after that no one else tried, so they effectively neutralized the threat.
1. Was there evidence that Ashli Babbitt was considered to be the “leader “ of this particular group of protesters? I haven’t read up enough to know if there is evidence or otherwise.
2. Did the amount of force used commensurate with Babbitt’s attempt to climb through the broken glass on one of the doors?
3. Why did the other capitol police decide to not shoot when they saw Babbitt attempting to climb through the window?
4. Did A. Babbitt hear any officer, particularly of importance would have been the officer who pulled the trigger, give a verbal warning? As I stated earlier, this should weigh in heavily about the legal outcome particularly if none was given.
I agree with your opinion about the cop who shot Ashley likely figured that if he took one out (perhaps he planned to only injure her, but that would be evidence he was a very poor shot and had no business firing in the first place as well as being the first to do so) would send a message to all others and stop their attempts from breaking through the doors.
Had Babbitt not died but only grazed, the USCP wouldn’t have to carry on its traditional role of being separate and secretive and come out publicly with its AG report about January 6th. (I had no clue USCP played by a different set of rules- no reports required about personnels’ public complaints kept secret, and no reports by USCP’s AG required for public disclosure…. ever!? If the reason for their nondisclosure of incidents is the officers’ safety, I’m not buying it. If the reason for their non-disclosure is that it would somehow reveal the US Capitol’s layout better for potential infiltration there are maps available online to view the whole layout -tunnels and all.
So my area of a focus boils down to two things: first, did this cop give a verbal warning-at this point I don’t think he did nor did any of the other cops near him yell out, “First one through the door gets shot!!” That matters greatly. Second, why are capital police allowed to be above the law and have their own separate laws without any legal requirement for disclosure, partial disclosure, or even a glossed-over public version? I can only imagine there must’ve been various coverups to save face in CP’s history…. sorry, I’m just a normal human who suspects when things are intentionally kept below the surface, there’s usually a purpose for it and I’d like to know the purpose.
Philandro Castile gets blown away for trying to do what he was being told. Not a peep.
Here we have someone that was shot breaking into the Capital and there seems to be a lot of questions.
seems you got a problem with pathological lying. cough up an unbiased credible link proving that or just stfu.
5 years ago: Philando Castile shot 5 times, killed by officer during traffic stop
MINNEAPOLIS (AP/WNCN) — Philando Castile, a 32-year-old school cafeteria worker, was shot five times by a St. Anthony, Minnesota police officer during a July 6, 2016 traffic stop after Castil…
Officer’s defense can bring up Philando Castile’s marijuana use, judge rules
Evidence of marijuana use by Philando Castile on the day he was fatally shot by a St. Anthony police officer can be used at the officer’s manslaughter trial, a Ramsey County judge ruled Tuesday. Di…
Claire there are several police officers who ended up being pushed into the mob and were being attacked. Listen if you would, to the reason the first officer gave for not using deadly force in that situation in the video below.Questions that would come to the mind of a juror and relevant to your remarks:The last part is subjective and not absolute because no situation is identical, including the protection officer's training, prior experience, knowledge, etc. and what else is going on around him.I agree 100% NVM about thinking a cop might think that "if a person can see me addressing them and telling them to cease whatever behavior they're engaged in with my firearm in my hand, and for whatever reason they think they don't have to pay attention to what I'm saying to them, that behavior in and of itself is worrisome MINUS THIs NEXT PART: and can cause them to get shot". That last part seems subjective not absolute.
But what is absolute is that a person is ONLY supposed to use lethal force to counter a threat and the amount of force has to be commensurate with the threat and this applies to civilians as well as law enforcement officers.
Many individuals have been complaining that Ashli herself was not a threat and that she was unarmed. She was the head of a mob attempting to breach the last barrier between the mob and our representatives. Had they breached that last barrier then the only thing between the mob and our representatives would have been the armed protections officers (I don't know if they were LEOS, secret service, etc.) who were vastly outnumbered. Therefore the best strategy was to prevent/discourage them from coming through that window where they had just broken out the glass which demonstrated their intentions to use it to gain entry to the chambers by climbing through it). They this to be their plan when they hoisted Ashli up so that she could climb through.
There was more than one officer on the other side of that window and in that area with their weapons all trained on that window, all presumably prepared to shoot if the mob began coming through. And I'm saying all of this to simply make the point that I don't know anyone who would ignore law enforcement officers, with guns, pointing specifically at them and then expect not to be shot if they ignored their commands.
The mob was the threat primarily because they would have quickly overcome the officers and the best chance that they had to prevent that scenario from playing out was preventing anyone from making it through the window. That's what happened, Ashli tried and was shot and after that no one else tried, so they effectively neutralized the threat.
1. Was there evidence that Ashli Babbitt was considered to be the “leader “ of this particular group of protesters? I haven’t read up enough to know if there is evidence or otherwise.
2. Did the amount of force used commensurate with Babbitt’s attempt to climb through the broken glass on one of the doors?
3. Why did the other capitol police decide to not shoot when they saw Babbitt attempting to climb through the window?
4. Did A. Babbitt hear any officer, particularly of importance would have been the officer who pulled the trigger, give a verbal warning? As I stated earlier, this should weigh in heavily about the legal outcome particularly if none was given.
I agree with your opinion about the cop who shot Ashley likely figured that if he took one out (perhaps he planned to only injure her, but that would be evidence he was a very poor shot and had no business firing in the first place as well as being the first to do so) would send a message to all others and stop their attempts from breaking through the doors.
Had Babbitt not died but only grazed, the USCP wouldn’t have to carry on its traditional role of being separate and secretive and come out publicly with its AG report about January 6th. (I had no clue USCP played by a different set of rules- no reports required about personnels’ public complaints kept secret, and no reports by USCP’s AG required for public disclosure…. ever!? If the reason for their nondisclosure of incidents is the officers’ safety, I’m not buying it. If the reason for their non-disclosure is that it would somehow reveal the US Capitol’s layout better for potential infiltration there are maps available online to view the whole layout -tunnels and all.
So my area of a focus boils down to two things: first, did this cop give a verbal warning-at this point I don’t think he did nor did any of the other cops near him yell out, “First one through the door gets shot!!” That matters greatly. Second, why are capital police allowed to be above the law and have their own separate laws without any legal requirement for disclosure, partial disclosure, or even a glossed-over public version? I can only imagine there must’ve been various coverups to save face in CP’s history…. sorry, I’m just a normal human who suspects when things are intentionally kept below the surface, there’s usually a purpose for it and I’d like to know the purpose.
www.cnn.com
I forgot to mention in my previous response that they're not required to give a verbal warning that they will shoot before doing so. On the other hand, some things are implied. A police officer pointing his gun at you and particularly if he appears to be saying something would have been more than enough for me to freeze and put my hands up. I honestly don't understand why anyone thinks otherwise.Questions that would come to the mind of a juror and relevant to your remarks:The last part is subjective and not absolute because no situation is identical, including the protection officer's training, prior experience, knowledge, etc. and what else is going on around him.I agree 100% NVM about thinking a cop might think that "if a person can see me addressing them and telling them to cease whatever behavior they're engaged in with my firearm in my hand, and for whatever reason they think they don't have to pay attention to what I'm saying to them, that behavior in and of itself is worrisome MINUS THIs NEXT PART: and can cause them to get shot". That last part seems subjective not absolute.
But what is absolute is that a person is ONLY supposed to use lethal force to counter a threat and the amount of force has to be commensurate with the threat and this applies to civilians as well as law enforcement officers.
Many individuals have been complaining that Ashli herself was not a threat and that she was unarmed. She was the head of a mob attempting to breach the last barrier between the mob and our representatives. Had they breached that last barrier then the only thing between the mob and our representatives would have been the armed protections officers (I don't know if they were LEOS, secret service, etc.) who were vastly outnumbered. Therefore the best strategy was to prevent/discourage them from coming through that window where they had just broken out the glass which demonstrated their intentions to use it to gain entry to the chambers by climbing through it). They this to be their plan when they hoisted Ashli up so that she could climb through.
There was more than one officer on the other side of that window and in that area with their weapons all trained on that window, all presumably prepared to shoot if the mob began coming through. And I'm saying all of this to simply make the point that I don't know anyone who would ignore law enforcement officers, with guns, pointing specifically at them and then expect not to be shot if they ignored their commands.
The mob was the threat primarily because they would have quickly overcome the officers and the best chance that they had to prevent that scenario from playing out was preventing anyone from making it through the window. That's what happened, Ashli tried and was shot and after that no one else tried, so they effectively neutralized the threat.
1. Was there evidence that Ashli Babbitt was considered to be the “leader “ of this particular group of protesters? I haven’t read up enough to know if there is evidence or otherwise.
2. Did the amount of force used commensurate with Babbitt’s attempt to climb through the broken glass on one of the doors?
3. Why did the other capitol police decide to not shoot when they saw Babbitt attempting to climb through the window?
4. Did A. Babbitt hear any officer, particularly of importance would have been the officer who pulled the trigger, give a verbal warning? As I stated earlier, this should weigh in heavily about the legal outcome particularly if none was given.
I agree with your opinion about the cop who shot Ashley likely figured that if he took one out (perhaps he planned to only injure her, but that would be evidence he was a very poor shot and had no business firing in the first place as well as being the first to do so) would send a message to all others and stop their attempts from breaking through the doors.
Had Babbitt not died but only grazed, the USCP wouldn’t have to carry on its traditional role of being separate and secretive and come out publicly with its AG report about January 6th. (I had no clue USCP played by a different set of rules- no reports required about personnels’ public complaints kept secret, and no reports by USCP’s AG required for public disclosure…. ever!? If the reason for their nondisclosure of incidents is the officers’ safety, I’m not buying it. If the reason for their non-disclosure is that it would somehow reveal the US Capitol’s layout better for potential infiltration there are maps available online to view the whole layout -tunnels and all.
So my area of a focus boils down to two things: first, did this cop give a verbal warning-at this point I don’t think he did nor did any of the other cops near him yell out, “First one through the door gets shot!!” That matters greatly. Second, why are capital police allowed to be above the law and have their own separate laws without any legal requirement for disclosure, partial disclosure, or even a glossed-over public version? I can only imagine there must’ve been various coverups to save face in CP’s history…. sorry, I’m just a normal human who suspects when things are intentionally kept below the surface, there’s usually a purpose for it and I’d like to know the purpose.
Okay that was funny but now I want an almond Snickers bar lol.She wasn't breaking down anything fool. FBI/antifa/blm had already broken the window out. She didn't know the Racist Killer Kapital Kop was there. He hid to shoot her, and didn't issue any warnings before doing so.
^^^
View attachment 510689
FYI Ashli's parents and lawyer know the officers name. I read that a few days ago. They've known the name.The death of this woman must not be forgotten......justice for her killer must be demanded.
Naming the Capitol Cop Who Killed Unarmed Jan. 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt
At top, pistol drawn in the House chamber, a plainclothes black officer who fits the description of Michael L. Byrd. His name was apparently divulged at a hearing as the cop who shot Ashli Babbi
Wrong on her not being a threat, wrong that it's unlawful to shoot someone who is unarmed, wrong on your description of the officer/circumstancesShe was a threat to no one....yeah she was security for the AF and knew that being shot unarmed would be against the law hence why the other what 7 cops in the area didn't fire on her---just the racist one who said that he wanted to kill Trump supporters and wasn't even supposed to be at the door.playtime No she wasn't..she was no threat...hell she wasn't even issued a warning or shown a badge...
she knew she was a threat the second she entered the capital unauthorised.
she knew she was a threat the second she joined a VIOLENT mob trying to get thru a busted door into the speaker's lobby.
she was in the AF & was security for AF bases.
you don't know wtf you're talking about Qanon girl.
Although the specific laws about deadly force are different from one state to the next, in the United States there is one fairly uniform standard on using deadly force which, if followed, will keep you within the law no matter where you live. This standard has its roots in common law and has been used as a benchmark in law enforcement training for many, many years. It applies whether you are at home or in public, no matter what method your attacker uses to try to do you harm. As long as your response to his actions falls entirely within this standard, your position in court afterward should be very strong.
The Basic StandardYou may legally use deadly force only when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.
In order to meet this basic standard, you must be able to convince a jury that you (or the person you defended) were an innocent party, and that you were in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm.
Meeting the "immediate" part of the standard isn’t too difficult. You only fight back when the danger is actually present, not when it might be present sometime in the future or was present sometime in the past. If someone threatens to kill you tomorrow, you don’t gun him down; you get a restraining order and make sure he can’t find you tomorrow. If someone attacks you and then runs off, you don’t shoot him in the backside no matter how badly you want to. If someone leaves the scene to get a weapon, you get out of Dodge as quick as you can so you aren’t there when he gets back. You don’t use deadly force unless the danger of getting killed or maimed is right then and right there. The danger must be immediate. It must be present at the very moment you pull the trigger.
Since you’re a smart person, if you could have figured out another way to avoid the danger you would have done it. If you were in public, you probably tried to walk away or disengage. Even in your own home, you probably tried getting behind furniture, or barring the door, or even leaving the house. 1 You may have even called 911. Your actions must show that shooting the attacker was the absolute last thing on your list of things you wanted to do. That is how you meet the "otherwise unavoidable" part of the standard.
Showing that you were the "innocent" party is also fairly straightforward in most cases. If you don’t habitually get into bar brawls or yell at other people, if you’ve learned to deal with beggars by saying no and walking away, if you don’t get involved in road-rage incidents — all of these are commonsense things your mother probably told you, and although mom probably didn’t know it she was giving you sound legal advice. If you did not willingly participate in an altercation or egg it on, the court will see that you were an innocent party.
But how can you know and prove that the situation you were in was truly life-threatening, and really involved a danger of grave bodily harm or even death?
Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy
Police are trained to answer this question by looking for three basic elements that must be present before they may use lethal force. These three elements are called Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy (often abbreviated to A, O, J). When these three things are present, any reasonable person would believe that a life was in danger, so the defendant’s legal position is very strong. But if one of the elements is missing, the defendant may have a hard time convincing a jury that shooting the attacker was really necessary.
Important Definitions!
Ability means that the other person has the power to kill or to cripple you.
Opportunity means that the circumstances are such that the other person would be able to use his ability against you.
Jeopardy means that the other person’s actions or words provide you with a reasonably-perceived belief that he intends to kill you or cripple you.
It is important to realize that any two of the elements may be present in a lot of common interactions. The presence of only two elements does not justify using deadly force. This isn’t as complicated as it sounds, and it is mostly just common sense.
An example of A & O, but not J: a young man with a baseball bat (ability) is standing within ten feet of you (opportunity). Unless the young man either verbally threatens to assault you, or physically begins the motions necessary to whack you, or in some other way makes it very obvious that he intends to do you harm, jeopardy is not present.
An example of O & J, but not A: a very irate little girl says, "I hate you! I’m going to kill you!" (jeopardy). She is standing right next to you, close enough to hit you (opportunity). But she’s only a little girl, and she doesn’t have any weapons. Ability is not present.
An example of A & J, but not O: you are in court and you have just testified against a male criminal who is physically much bigger and stronger than you are, and who has been trained as a martial artist (ability). As the guilty verdict is read, the criminal rages to his feet and begins shouting and threatening to kill you right then and there (jeopardy). But he is restrained by handcuffs and by the bailiffs. Opportunity is not present.
Now that we have defined our terms and have seen the simple overview, let’s examine each of the individual elements more closely.
The power to kill or cripple another human being can be represented by a lot of different things. Most often, it is represented by a weapon of some sort: a gun, a knife, a tire iron or club, or even some improvised weapon like a screwdriver or a metal chain. This isn’t a complete list, of course. The number of items that could be used as deadly weapons is nearly infinite, and they all represent ability. But ability can be present even when a weapon is not.
Ability
If a weapon is not present, ability may be represented by something the courts call disparity of force. This is just a fancy phrase that means the fight would be so radically unfair and so unevenly matched that any reasonable bystander would agree that one of the participants could kill or permanently damage the other person even without a weapon. Disparity of force is figured out on a case-by-case basis, taking in the entire set of circumstances. Generally speaking, disparity exists:
Let me repeat that last point for emphasis: if an unarmed man attacks a woman, the courts generally recognize that disparity of force is present. This means that if a woman is attacked even by an unarmed man, she may generally assume that ability exists. A male attacker who goes after a female victim does not have to display a weapon in order to be a deadly threat. A woman who is attacked may reasonably believe that even an unarmed male possesses the power to kill her or to severely injure her. 2
- When a young person attacks a really old person
- When a large, powerful man attacks someone who is very, very much smaller than he is
- When three or more people attack one person
- When an adult attacks a child
- When a healthy person attacks someone who is handicapped
- When a known, skilled martial artist attacks someone who is not a martial artist
- When one participant has become so badly injured that he is unable to physically defend himself from a continued violent assault
- When a man attacks a woman
Opportunity means that the total circumstances are such that the other person would be able to use his ability to maim or kill you. It includes, but is not limited to, questions such as how close he is to where you are, what objects might be between you and him, whether you have a readily-available means of stopping him from reaching you, and what he is armed with if he is armed at all.
Opportunity
When opportunity is present, a person with a gun will be within shooting distance (which can be quite far away, if there is no readily-available cover for you). If he is armed with a blade or an impact weapon, he will be room distance from you or closer, with no impediments between you. He will be close enough to kill you with whatever weapon he has, or with his bare hands. And there will be nothing in the environment to prevent him from doing so.
Probably the most important thing to note about opportunity is that even if the other person is armed with an impact weapon or a blade, they can possess the element of opportunity even if they are on the other side of an average household room. This is because an average adult human being can cover 21 feet of distance in about 1.5 seconds or a little less. If you have practiced on the range with a timer, you know that is just barely enough time to draw your gun from concealment and get one good shot downrange. This means that an attacker armed with an impact weapon can swarm you and kill you before you are able to draw your gun, unless you begin the defensive process before he covers that distance. 3
On a practical level, most criminals prefer to operate without any witnesses. If you are trying to avoid the elements of A,O,J coming into place around you, it is a good idea to be especially alert in places where a crowd is not far away, but witnesses are unlikely to follow. 4
Jeopardy
Jeopardy is the most difficult of the three elements to articulate and the most difficult to prove. It is most often the central nub of a criminal trial. The reason for this is that human beings are not mind readers. You cannot know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, what another person is thinking and what he intends to do. You can only reasonably perceive his intentions based upon his actions and his words.
It is important to note here that simple fear isn’t enough to believe jeopardy is present. Someone who "looks menacing" may in fact be an innocent person with unfortunate features. Being afraid of what someone might do, when they have not given any real indication that they will do it, is not jeopardy.
As with the other two elements, jeopardy is really based on the entire set of surrounding circumstances. The jury will be instructed to ask themselves whether a reasonable and prudent person, knowing exactly what you knew at that moment (and no more!), would have come to the same conclusion you did. Would a reasonable and prudent person have believed that your attacker meant to use his ability to kill or cripple you? Was your decision that the person was a threat based upon simple fear, or did his actions and/or words give you a reasonable perception that he intended to kill you? What did the other person say or do, what physical motions did he make, which convinced you that he meant to do you harm?
Jeopardy does not necessarily require a clear verbal statement that the other person is trying to kill or cripple you. Some attacks might include a spoken threat ("I’m going to kill you!" or "Do what I say or you’ll die, b*****" or "See this knife? I’m gonna cut your throat…") Any of these types of verbal statements may be used to establish jeopardy. But jeopardy can be present even when the other person does not say a single word. For example, an intruder who climbs in through a bedroom window, brandishes a knife, and advances toward you may be clearly showing, by his actions, that he intends to slice you to ribbons. Jeopardy would be present because the intruder’s physical actions clearly demonstrate his probable intent.
Jeopardy can be present even if the other person later says they were "just joking," or if it turns out the gun or knife they were threatening you with was nothing but a toy. Remember, the jury will be instructed to ask themselves whether a reasonable and prudent person, knowing exactly what you knew at the time (and no more!) would have come to the same conclusion you did. If the person was acting in such a way that anyone with a lick of sense would have believed he really did intend to maim or kill you, then jeopardy did in fact exist no matter what other facts might have come to light after the dust settled.
Conclusion
Now that you have learned about the elements of A,O,J and how they relate to the legal situation if you use your firearm to defend yourself, the best way to keep these items in your memory is to practice using them.
When you watch the evening news, or read a newspaper, pay attention to stories which involve criminal attacks. Are the elements of A,O,J present? Did the criminal have the ability to kill or cripple his victim? At what point was there an opportunity for the criminal to attack? Did the victim reasonably perceive that the criminal intended to kill or cripple — was jeopardy present? If any of the three elements were not present, what parts of the story would need to be different in order for that element to be there? What important information did the news account leave out and how could that information alter the victim’s legal situation?
Get in the habit of asking yourself these questions, so that you become easily comfortable with applying the elements of A,O,J to situations which may allow the legal use of deadly force.
The Basic StandardYou may legally use deadly force only when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.
Whoever tried breaching that door by going through the broken out window would have been shot. Ashli just happened to be the one who tried but it could have been anyone of them.I don't rejoice in her being shot either -- but I am consistent in that regard......I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.
They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?
she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.
All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.
But I am also not stupid enough to fake shock and disgust about her being shot...
I just do a simple little thought exercise.....if a bunch of muslims stormed the DC capitol to delay or stop a government action they were against -- the only shock would be that just one woman was killed instead of hundreds...
The thing I do not understand is why just this one woman? I think that's a question the family needs to hear.
Yes, I'm not done with this issue either and need to spend some time doing the same. New footage has been released but looked to be similar to what's been shown. Not enough hours in the day I say! I would fully back a 48 hour day...humans requiring less sleep of courseClaire there are several police officers who ended up being pushed into the mob and were being attacked. Listen if you would, to the reason the first officer gave for not using deadly force in that situation in the video below.Questions that would come to the mind of a juror and relevant to your remarks:The last part is subjective and not absolute because no situation is identical, including the protection officer's training, prior experience, knowledge, etc. and what else is going on around him.I agree 100% NVM about thinking a cop might think that "if a person can see me addressing them and telling them to cease whatever behavior they're engaged in with my firearm in my hand, and for whatever reason they think they don't have to pay attention to what I'm saying to them, that behavior in and of itself is worrisome MINUS THIs NEXT PART: and can cause them to get shot". That last part seems subjective not absolute.
But what is absolute is that a person is ONLY supposed to use lethal force to counter a threat and the amount of force has to be commensurate with the threat and this applies to civilians as well as law enforcement officers.
Many individuals have been complaining that Ashli herself was not a threat and that she was unarmed. She was the head of a mob attempting to breach the last barrier between the mob and our representatives. Had they breached that last barrier then the only thing between the mob and our representatives would have been the armed protections officers (I don't know if they were LEOS, secret service, etc.) who were vastly outnumbered. Therefore the best strategy was to prevent/discourage them from coming through that window where they had just broken out the glass which demonstrated their intentions to use it to gain entry to the chambers by climbing through it). They this to be their plan when they hoisted Ashli up so that she could climb through.
There was more than one officer on the other side of that window and in that area with their weapons all trained on that window, all presumably prepared to shoot if the mob began coming through. And I'm saying all of this to simply make the point that I don't know anyone who would ignore law enforcement officers, with guns, pointing specifically at them and then expect not to be shot if they ignored their commands.
The mob was the threat primarily because they would have quickly overcome the officers and the best chance that they had to prevent that scenario from playing out was preventing anyone from making it through the window. That's what happened, Ashli tried and was shot and after that no one else tried, so they effectively neutralized the threat.
1. Was there evidence that Ashli Babbitt was considered to be the “leader “ of this particular group of protesters? I haven’t read up enough to know if there is evidence or otherwise.
2. Did the amount of force used commensurate with Babbitt’s attempt to climb through the broken glass on one of the doors?
3. Why did the other capitol police decide to not shoot when they saw Babbitt attempting to climb through the window?
4. Did A. Babbitt hear any officer, particularly of importance would have been the officer who pulled the trigger, give a verbal warning? As I stated earlier, this should weigh in heavily about the legal outcome particularly if none was given.
I agree with your opinion about the cop who shot Ashley likely figured that if he took one out (perhaps he planned to only injure her, but that would be evidence he was a very poor shot and had no business firing in the first place as well as being the first to do so) would send a message to all others and stop their attempts from breaking through the doors.
Had Babbitt not died but only grazed, the USCP wouldn’t have to carry on its traditional role of being separate and secretive and come out publicly with its AG report about January 6th. (I had no clue USCP played by a different set of rules- no reports required about personnels’ public complaints kept secret, and no reports by USCP’s AG required for public disclosure…. ever!? If the reason for their nondisclosure of incidents is the officers’ safety, I’m not buying it. If the reason for their non-disclosure is that it would somehow reveal the US Capitol’s layout better for potential infiltration there are maps available online to view the whole layout -tunnels and all.
So my area of a focus boils down to two things: first, did this cop give a verbal warning-at this point I don’t think he did nor did any of the other cops near him yell out, “First one through the door gets shot!!” That matters greatly. Second, why are capital police allowed to be above the law and have their own separate laws without any legal requirement for disclosure, partial disclosure, or even a glossed-over public version? I can only imagine there must’ve been various coverups to save face in CP’s history…. sorry, I’m just a normal human who suspects when things are intentionally kept below the surface, there’s usually a purpose for it and I’d like to know the purpose.
Pennsylvania man assaulted police officer, stole another's bodycam during Capitol riot, prosecutors say | CNN
Federal prosecutors say that during the Capitol riot, Michael John Lopatic Sr. brutally assaulted a police officer, stole and destroyed another officer's bodycam, and that threatening messages posted on social media about elected leaders in Washington show that his actions "were not spontaneous."
I probably will research the reasoning behind why this particular law enforcement agency is not required to disclose information that other agencies are however I may not have time until after the end of the weekend.
I do enjoy my zzz's! lol
They were ALL a threat, collectively. Have you watched any of the video of what was going on that day?True, but did you hear that cop yell out "First person through gets shot!" No. He said nothing before firing. The filmer was standing close to where he was standing and had the audio on the whole time. I heard nothing from that cop...nada....what I did hear was another person from behind the doors say, "I see a gun!". That would have been enough for me to not attempt to continue to get through the doors. She chose to continue but I have no proof she heard what was audible on tape when the person (sounded like another in her group) saying I see a gun. My point? Even in the heat of the moment, hearts racing, adrenaline pumping, focusing on protecting the sealed area, that cop should have at least shouted out "I plan to shoot!" or similar heads up but he chose to stay mute. Maybe if this does go to court, as it sounds, he'll provide testimony about why he just chose to shoot without verbal warning when he had the time to do so.I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.
They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?
she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.
All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.
they were busting thru the door.
We have no idea what kind of warning he gave. He was out of sight of the camera at first.
he warned them not to enter. who do the insurrectionists think were on the other side of that busted door?
ignorance is not a defense.
Nobody else was a risk?
The new video showed the cop point his gun from cracked window to window....one closer to him, where the violent rioters were still bashing at the door window as hard and with all the might that they could, and then Ashli's window, then boom, she was shot in the anterior (front) shoulder....according to the Medical Examiner's report. Not the head, not the heart, not the neck as all the rumors claimed, but in the front shoulder...Whoever tried breaching that door by going through the broken out window would have been shot. Ashli just happened to be the one who tried but it could have been anyone of them.I don't rejoice in her being shot either -- but I am consistent in that regard......I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.
They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?
she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.
All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.
But I am also not stupid enough to fake shock and disgust about her being shot...
I just do a simple little thought exercise.....if a bunch of muslims stormed the DC capitol to delay or stop a government action they were against -- the only shock would be that just one woman was killed instead of hundreds...
The thing I do not understand is why just this one woman? I think that's a question the family needs to hear.
That bitch got shot for trying to breach the capitol. She wasn't murdered. This guy deserves a medal for shooting her stupid ass.What I want to know is ...why is that criminal who murdered Ashli Babbitt, walking among the living?
He should have been shot the same way he shot Ashli ...he is scum!
That bitch got shot for trying to breach the capitol. She wasn't murdered. This guy deserves a medal for shooting her stupid ass.What I want to know is ...why is that criminal who murdered Ashli Babbitt, walking among the living?
He should have been shot the same way he shot Ashli ...he is scum!
He's not wrongThat bitch got shot for trying to breach the capitol. She wasn't murdered. This guy deserves a medal for shooting her stupid ass.What I want to know is ...why is that criminal who murdered Ashli Babbitt, walking among the living?
He should have been shot the same way he shot Ashli ...he is scum!
No.
