Police offices involved in G. Floyd's death were suspended the next day--aftermorethan a month we still do not know who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt

[Asclepias]

The officer who shot her won't be facing charges.

Good.

Okay. How about we start shooting blm when they loot and burn businesses. Hypocritical moonbat.

Property crimes are not capital crimes. An insurrection is.

View attachment 454449

When did the president officially declare it a insurrection?

*****SMILE*****

The same day it happened.

View attachment 454453

So it declared it an official insurrection long after the first shot was fired.

Sounds like she was executed so an insurrection could be declared so the party that was now in power could cite that there was violence....... Thing is the violence started from the side declaring it an insurrection belatedly.

*****SMILE*****

You dont have to make something official for someone to call it what it is.

View attachment 454457

Then the riots of the last year or more need to be declared an insurrection so we can go round up the insurrectionists..... Which means we can use live rounds if they resist arrest right?

*****SMILE*****

Sure. Let me know when youre coming so you can be greeted properly.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The officer who fired the deadly shot at her told investigators that there was utter confusion at the time, and he feared the rioters were about to access the chamber when he pulled the trigger. Many videos of the shooting posted on social media showed Babbitt, who appears to be wearing a Trump flag as a cape, falling from a smashed-out window after being shot by the officer on the other side of a set of double doors.

As soon as Babbit and the crowd moved in, they got a clear view of the lieutenant on the other side, who was raising his .40-caliber Glock handgun. “There’s a gun!” “He’s got a gun!” people shouted. As Babbitt was hoisted up, the lieutenant fired a single shot. She fell backward, striking the hard floor. There was no evidence that she was armed.

Why do you think she was required to be armed?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The officer who fired the deadly shot at her told investigators that there was utter confusion at the time, and he feared the rioters were about to access the chamber when he pulled the trigger. Many videos of the shooting posted on social media showed Babbitt, who appears to be wearing a Trump flag as a cape, falling from a smashed-out window after being shot by the officer on the other side of a set of double doors.

As soon as Babbit and the crowd moved in, they got a clear view of the lieutenant on the other side, who was raising his .40-caliber Glock handgun. “There’s a gun!” “He’s got a gun!” people shouted. As Babbitt was hoisted up, the lieutenant fired a single shot. She fell backward, striking the hard floor. There was no evidence that she was armed.

And no one else tried to breach that window?

 

[Lesh]

And no one else tried to breach that window?

That bullet in the face kinda made things real for those assholes

 

[Lesh]

Newsflash...the Capitol Police operate under different rules than any other police force.

Not too long ago the CP blasted a woman who took a wrong turn in front of the Capitol. We never heard who pulled that trigger either

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The officer who shot her won't be facing charges.

Good.

Okay. How about we start shooting blm when they loot and burn businesses. Hypocritical moonbat.

Property crimes are not capital crimes. An insurrection is.

View attachment 454449

When did the president officially declare it a insurrection?

*****SMILE*****

The same day it happened.

View attachment 454453

So it declared it an official insurrection long after the first shot was fired.

Sounds like she was executed so an insurrection could be declared so the party that was now in power could cite that there was violence....... Thing is the violence started from the side declaring it an insurrection belatedly.

*****SMILE*****

You dont have to make something official for someone to call it what it is.

View attachment 454457

Then the riots of the last year or more need to be declared an insurrection so we can go round up the insurrectionists..... Which means we can use live rounds if they resist arrest right?

*****SMILE*****

Sure. Let me know when youre coming so you can be greeted properly.

They're outside your door now.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Asclepias]

The officer who shot her won't be facing charges.

Good.

Okay. How about we start shooting blm when they loot and burn businesses. Hypocritical moonbat.

Property crimes are not capital crimes. An insurrection is.

View attachment 454449

When did the president officially declare it a insurrection?

*****SMILE*****

The same day it happened.

View attachment 454453

So it declared it an official insurrection long after the first shot was fired.

Sounds like she was executed so an insurrection could be declared so the party that was now in power could cite that there was violence....... Thing is the violence started from the side declaring it an insurrection belatedly.

*****SMILE*****

You dont have to make something official for someone to call it what it is.

View attachment 454457

Then the riots of the last year or more need to be declared an insurrection so we can go round up the insurrectionists..... Which means we can use live rounds if they resist arrest right?

*****SMILE*****

Sure. Let me know when youre coming so you can be greeted properly.

View attachment 454462

They're outside your door now.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Thats not what my dogs or my security cameras say.

 

[Asclepias]

The officer who fired the deadly shot at her told investigators that there was utter confusion at the time, and he feared the rioters were about to access the chamber when he pulled the trigger. Many videos of the shooting posted on social media showed Babbitt, who appears to be wearing a Trump flag as a cape, falling from a smashed-out window after being shot by the officer on the other side of a set of double doors.

As soon as Babbit and the crowd moved in, they got a clear view of the lieutenant on the other side, who was raising his .40-caliber Glock handgun. “There’s a gun!” “He’s got a gun!” people shouted. As Babbitt was hoisted up, the lieutenant fired a single shot. She fell backward, striking the hard floor. There was no evidence that she was armed.

Why do you think she was required to be armed?

Its not like they hadnt heard of the pipe bombs.

 

[beagle9]

Property crimes are not capital crimes. An insurrection is.

All crimes have a right to trial, few have the penalty of death. Liberals usually scream and run crying at the thought of a criminal being executed. Then there's your special kind of stupid.

"All crimes have a right to trial,"

You cant have a trial if the criminal is dead.

Are you this dumb ? So all cops convicted of mishandling the events where a criminal ended up dead, should be set free by your words spoken just now ??

Where did you see that in my response?

Slowly now "you can't have a trial if the criminal is dead".... Now if you can somehow get the parallels, and comprehend the inference, then there might be hope, but it's doubtful.

Thats correct. If a criminal is dead you cant charge them with anything now can you? Before you talk at least know what youre talking about eh?

Twist it if you want too, but both parties involved must be cleared, and you know that. In the case of the capital, especially with all the insinuations, lies, and guilt being laid upon the case without it going to court, then it begs for the court to clear all parties involved, and to set the record straight as to what actually took place on that day. This is how social media tyranny is stopped in this country, because that is exactly what we have now.

"but both parties involved must be cleared"

The cop that shot the crazy bitch was cleared and no charges were brought. You dont have to have a trial to be cleared.

Says you, but how do we know that ?? Without transparency, our laws are dead. Isn't that what you BLM types claim 24/7 ??

 

[Asclepias]

Property crimes are not capital crimes. An insurrection is.

All crimes have a right to trial, few have the penalty of death. Liberals usually scream and run crying at the thought of a criminal being executed. Then there's your special kind of stupid.

"All crimes have a right to trial,"

You cant have a trial if the criminal is dead.

Are you this dumb ? So all cops convicted of mishandling the events where a criminal ended up dead, should be set free by your words spoken just now ??

Where did you see that in my response?

Slowly now "you can't have a trial if the criminal is dead".... Now if you can somehow get the parallels, and comprehend the inference, then there might be hope, but it's doubtful.

Thats correct. If a criminal is dead you cant charge them with anything now can you? Before you talk at least know what youre talking about eh?

Twist it if you want too, but both parties involved must be cleared, and you know that. In the case of the capital, especially with all the insinuations, lies, and guilt being laid upon the case without it going to court, then it begs for the court to clear all parties involved, and to set the record straight as to what actually took place on that day. This is how social media tyranny is stopped in this country, because that is exactly what we have now.

"but both parties involved must be cleared"

The cop that shot the crazy bitch was cleared and no charges were brought. You dont have to have a trial to be cleared.

Says you, but how do we know that ?? Without transparency, our laws are dead. Isn't that what you BLM types claim 24/7 ??

How do you know what? People arent charged with a crime just so you can know something.

 

[beagle9]

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

If the woman ignores commands to cease advancing and the officer(s) believe she is a threat, particularly if she is a part of a mob of what, perhaps 20 or more individuals who just broke a window in order to gain access to a barricaded area, then yes, she and anyone else risks being shot and possibly killed.

Just remember these justifications the next time a cop shoot's a suspect on the street, wherefore you now unconditionally back the blue because you actually weren't there, nor do you have any solid proof to offer, yet you clear the cop because it was an alledged Trump supporter. No matter that she was unarmed, and yes she was in the building, but was the kill justified ?? We'll never know, and you will never know, but you can sure speculate can't you ???

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

If the woman ignores commands to cease advancing and the officer(s) believe she is a threat, particularly if she is a part of a mob of what, perhaps 20 or more individuals who just broke a window in order to gain access to a barricaded area, then yes, she and anyone else risks being shot and possibly killed.

Just remember these justifications the next time a cop shoot's a suspect on the street, wherefore you now unconditionally back the blue because you actually weren't there, nor do you have any solid proof to offer, yet you clear the cop because it was an alledged Trump supporter. No matter that she was unarmed, and yes she was in the building, but was the kill justified ?? We'll never know, and you will never know, but you can sure speculate can't you ???

Everyone saw the video. She was told to back up. She willingly allowed herself to be lifted so she could jump through the window. She got her crazy ass shot. End of story.

 

[beagle9]

Property crimes are not capital crimes. An insurrection is.

All crimes have a right to trial, few have the penalty of death. Liberals usually scream and run crying at the thought of a criminal being executed. Then there's your special kind of stupid.

"All crimes have a right to trial,"

You cant have a trial if the criminal is dead.

Are you this dumb ? So all cops convicted of mishandling the events where a criminal ended up dead, should be set free by your words spoken just now ??

Where did you see that in my response?

Slowly now "you can't have a trial if the criminal is dead".... Now if you can somehow get the parallels, and comprehend the inference, then there might be hope, but it's doubtful.

Thats correct. If a criminal is dead you cant charge them with anything now can you? Before you talk at least know what youre talking about eh?

Twist it if you want too, but both parties involved must be cleared, and you know that. In the case of the capital, especially with all the insinuations, lies, and guilt being laid upon the case without it going to court, then it begs for the court to clear all parties involved, and to set the record straight as to what actually took place on that day. This is how social media tyranny is stopped in this country, because that is exactly what we have now.

"but both parties involved must be cleared"

The cop that shot the crazy bitch was cleared and no charges were brought. You dont have to have a trial to be cleared.

Says you, but how do we know that ?? Without transparency, our laws are dead. Isn't that what you BLM types claim 24/7 ??

How do you know what? People arent charged with a crime just so you can know something.

A grand jury interview is not being charged with a crime, but it's to clear any wrong doings if any are not present or found in the interview.

 

[beagle9]

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

If the woman ignores commands to cease advancing and the officer(s) believe she is a threat, particularly if she is a part of a mob of what, perhaps 20 or more individuals who just broke a window in order to gain access to a barricaded area, then yes, she and anyone else risks being shot and possibly killed.

Just remember these justifications the next time a cop shoot's a suspect on the street, wherefore you now unconditionally back the blue because you actually weren't there, nor do you have any solid proof to offer, yet you clear the cop because it was an alledged Trump supporter. No matter that she was unarmed, and yes she was in the building, but was the kill justified ?? We'll never know, and you will never know, but you can sure speculate can't you ???

Everyone saw the video. She was told to back up. She willingly allowed herself to be lifted so she could jump through the window. She got her crazy ass shot. End of story.

Matters not what we saw, it's not official because the case in total wasn't reviewed and concluded in a transparent way. If it were, we wouldn't be discussing it like this.

 

[beagle9]

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

If the woman ignores commands to cease advancing and the officer(s) believe she is a threat, particularly if she is a part of a mob of what, perhaps 20 or more individuals who just broke a window in order to gain access to a barricaded area, then yes, she and anyone else risks being shot and possibly killed.

Just remember these justifications the next time a cop shoot's a suspect on the street, wherefore you now unconditionally back the blue because you actually weren't there, nor do you have any solid proof to offer, yet you clear the cop because it was an alledged Trump supporter. No matter that she was unarmed, and yes she was in the building, but was the kill justified ?? We'll never know, and you will never know, but you can sure speculate can't you ???

Everyone saw the video. She was told to back up. She willingly allowed herself to be lifted so she could jump through the window. She got her crazy ass shot. End of story.

Why not just catch the unarmed assailant, put her on the ground, handcuff her, and arrest her ???

 

[Asclepias]

Property crimes are not capital crimes. An insurrection is.

All crimes have a right to trial, few have the penalty of death. Liberals usually scream and run crying at the thought of a criminal being executed. Then there's your special kind of stupid.

"All crimes have a right to trial,"

You cant have a trial if the criminal is dead.

Are you this dumb ? So all cops convicted of mishandling the events where a criminal ended up dead, should be set free by your words spoken just now ??

Where did you see that in my response?

Slowly now "you can't have a trial if the criminal is dead".... Now if you can somehow get the parallels, and comprehend the inference, then there might be hope, but it's doubtful.

Thats correct. If a criminal is dead you cant charge them with anything now can you? Before you talk at least know what youre talking about eh?

Twist it if you want too, but both parties involved must be cleared, and you know that. In the case of the capital, especially with all the insinuations, lies, and guilt being laid upon the case without it going to court, then it begs for the court to clear all parties involved, and to set the record straight as to what actually took place on that day. This is how social media tyranny is stopped in this country, because that is exactly what we have now.

"but both parties involved must be cleared"

The cop that shot the crazy bitch was cleared and no charges were brought. You dont have to have a trial to be cleared.

Says you, but how do we know that ?? Without transparency, our laws are dead. Isn't that what you BLM types claim 24/7 ??

How do you know what? People arent charged with a crime just so you can know something.

A grand jury interview is not being charged with a crime, but it's to clear any wrong doings if any are not present or found in the interview.

No grand jury interview is needed. Its a waste of tax payer dollars. It was all on video for the world to see.

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

If the woman ignores commands to cease advancing and the officer(s) believe she is a threat, particularly if she is a part of a mob of what, perhaps 20 or more individuals who just broke a window in order to gain access to a barricaded area, then yes, she and anyone else risks being shot and possibly killed.

Just remember these justifications the next time a cop shoot's a suspect on the street, wherefore you now unconditionally back the blue because you actually weren't there, nor do you have any solid proof to offer, yet you clear the cop because it was an alledged Trump supporter. No matter that she was unarmed, and yes she was in the building, but was the kill justified ?? We'll never know, and you will never know, but you can sure speculate can't you ???

Everyone saw the video. She was told to back up. She willingly allowed herself to be lifted so she could jump through the window. She got her crazy ass shot. End of story.

Why not just catch the unarmed assailant, put her on the ground, handcuff her, and arrest her ???

How was that supposed to happen with 100's of other terrorists attempting to get in as well?

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

If the woman ignores commands to cease advancing and the officer(s) believe she is a threat, particularly if she is a part of a mob of what, perhaps 20 or more individuals who just broke a window in order to gain access to a barricaded area, then yes, she and anyone else risks being shot and possibly killed.

Just remember these justifications the next time a cop shoot's a suspect on the street, wherefore you now unconditionally back the blue because you actually weren't there, nor do you have any solid proof to offer, yet you clear the cop because it was an alledged Trump supporter. No matter that she was unarmed, and yes she was in the building, but was the kill justified ?? We'll never know, and you will never know, but you can sure speculate can't you ???

Everyone saw the video. She was told to back up. She willingly allowed herself to be lifted so she could jump through the window. She got her crazy ass shot. End of story.

Matters not what we saw, it's not official because the case in total wasn't reviewed and concluded in a transparent way. If it were, we wouldn't be discussing it like this.

Its official. The cop was cleared. Nothing you say on some random site on the internet is going to change that fact.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

If the woman ignores commands to cease advancing and the officer(s) believe she is a threat, particularly if she is a part of a mob of what, perhaps 20 or more individuals who just broke a window in order to gain access to a barricaded area, then yes, she and anyone else risks being shot and possibly killed.

Just remember these justifications the next time a cop shoot's a suspect on the street, wherefore you now unconditionally back the blue because you actually weren't there, nor do you have any solid proof to offer, yet you clear the cop because it was an alledged Trump supporter. No matter that she was unarmed, and yes she was in the building, but was the kill justified ?? We'll never know, and you will never know, but you can sure speculate can't you ???

What I'm stating to you are not justifications, they are the laws governing the use of deadly force in self defense or defense of others. And believe it or not, the standard is the same for law enforcement or civilian carry.

I don't unconditionally back anyone and in my previous comment I just mentioned that the police don't always comply 100% with the deadly force laws yet that even when they're not, the shootings are still generally found to be justifiable.

Nobody said that the officer was justified in killing her because she was an "alleged Trump supporter". She was shot solely because she was attempting to breach a barricaded area to which the officers and their charges had retreated and her act by doing so was deemed a threat by the officers, a decision which they have 100% lawful authority to have made.

And I'm not speculating, most anyone who works doing protection detail would tell you the exact same thing. Because that's how they're trained.

You're just confused because you don't understand how many of our laws and legal system works. Seriously, I'm not trying to insult you, it's an observation based on the statements you make regarding your understanding or rather lack thereof, of this particular situation as well as others and U.S. law.

 

[WEATHER53]

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

If the woman ignores commands to cease advancing and the officer(s) believe she is a threat, particularly if she is a part of a mob of what, perhaps 20 or more individuals who just broke a window in order to gain access to a barricaded area, then yes, she and anyone else risks being shot and possibly killed.

Just remember these justifications the next time a cop shoot's a suspect on the street, wherefore you now unconditionally back the blue because you actually weren't there, nor do you have any solid proof to offer, yet you clear the cop because it was an alledged Trump supporter. No matter that she was unarmed, and yes she was in the building, but was the kill justified ?? We'll never know, and you will never know, but you can sure speculate can't you ???

Everyone saw the video. She was told to back up. She willingly allowed herself to be lifted so she could jump through the window. She got her crazy ass shot. End of story.

During all those months of street riots in all those cities; how many times was a “protestor” shot by police for crawling through a broken window.?