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.
You stated a conclusion, not a fact.
Incomplete, irrelevant, incorrect and somewhat tortured.The second sentence was a conclusion.
We know she was hanging through a window.
We know she was unarmed
We know he is the only officer the entire day who felt the need to take a shot.
We know there were other officers on the same side of the door as her at the time of the shot.
We know that no congress-critter was near the location of the shooting.
Those are FACTS.
Incomplete, irrelevant, incorrect and somewhat tortured.
She was coming through the window. Saying she was “hanging” is an attempt to distort the facts.
Being unarmed is irrelevant. As is the fact the he’s the only one that took a shot.
There were still people evacuating from the House floor adjacent to the hallway.
All that matter is whether he felt a rational fear of imminent serious harm or death.
Earlier you tried to claim the other cops didn’t feel threatened. You made that up.
What do you mean by “hanging” through the window? Why can’t you be honest by saying she was coming through the window?What you are posting now are opinions, not facts.
My postings are facts. You can't dispute them without lying.
No, he made up feeling threatened by the woman hanging through the window. If he was truly feeling threatened he would have shot the people breaking the door down.
that is my OPINION. Unlike you I don't try to dress up my opinions as facts.
What do you mean by “hanging” through the window? Why can’t you be honest by saying she was coming through the window?
She was in the window when she was shot. Was she in the process of climbing through the window? Yes or no.Was she still in the window when she was shot, yes or no?
Which side of the door did she end up on when she was shot, his side or her original side?
She was in the window when she was shot. Was she in the process of climbing through the window? Yes or no.
Then why are you constantly describing her as “hanging” when this is inaccurately downplaying what was going on?Yes, but at the time she was in a helpless position and not a threat to anyone.
Did she fall into the room he was in, or the room she originated from.
Immaterial.Yes, but at the time she was in a helpless position and not a threat to anyone.
Did she fall into the room he was in, or the room she originated from.
Then why are you constantly describing her as “hanging” when this is inaccurately downplaying what was going on?
The action of the criminal matters. If someone is coming at you, it’s a threat. If someone is running away, not a threat. If someone is standing still, less of a threat. This matters to the reasonableness of the shooting.
Someone coming through a barricaded doorway makes themselves a threat. Her exact position at the time of the shooting is less relevant than the action she was undertaking.
No, she disobeyed lawful commands. The officer makes that call, not you.At the time of the shooting she was hanging through the window. A threat to no one. At that point the police are supposed to apprehend, not shoot.
Wrong. To be shot by an officer they have to be an immediate threat.
No, she disobeyed lawful commands. The officer makes that call, not you.
Nope, that the way it works. The call is good until the court says no and no court will ever say no to the shooting of Babbit.The law makes the call in the end, not the officer, and in this case the officer never had to face the law because he was protected by abuse of the law.
Nope, that the way it works. The call is good until the court says no and no court will ever say no to the shooting of Babbit.
That’s idiotic. Someone coming through a window mere feet away represents an imminent threat throughout the entire process of climbing through that window just as someone running immediately towards you represents an imminent threat even if they haven’t reached you yet.At the time of the shooting she was hanging through the window. A threat to no one. At that point the police are supposed to apprehend, not shoot.
Wrong. To be shot by an officer they have to be an immediate threat.
That’s idiotic. Someone coming through a window mere feet away represents an imminent threat throughout the entire process of climbing through that window just as someone running immediately towards you represents an imminent threat even if they haven’t reached you yet.
Coming through that window is perfectly equivalent to running at you. Both represent physical motion towards the person exercising self defense which is why you can call it a threat. It’s even more threatening when you consider she is coming through a smashed window of a barricaded door, demonstrating she is behaving in a lawless and violent manner.Nope. Try that in a robbery at a gas station and see how fast the cop is put on trial.
Running towards said cop creates imminent danger, hanging in a window does not.
Tough to be you then.No court got a chance. Nice fuckup on your part bringing that up.
