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

[WEATHER53]

The threat to congress people does not work. There has to be imminent ,and not potential , threat or danger.

 

[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 ???

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.

What case?!?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Nothing less than outrageous. The American people deserve better than this.

The democrats preach coming together but they practice nothing more than hatred for their political opponents.

Such hypocrites.

Police Officers Involved in George Floyd's Death Were Suspended the Next Day - After More than a Month We Still Don't Know Who Shot Ashli Babbitt | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

In May of 2020 George Floyd died in Minneapolis during an arrest. One police officer kneeled on his neck for 8 minutes. The gruesome death led to protests around the country and the four policemen involved were fired the day after Floyd’s death.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The person in question was killed in the process of completing a treasonous act of insurrection. The officer in question was doing. Nothing more than his duty.

This is not a similar situation.

You keep claiming that the lady was killed in the process of committing a treasonous act of insurrection, yet no trial has been conducted, and no verdicts have been rendered in such a trial that would either clear the officer's name, and therefore finalize the verdict of guilty or innocent in regards to the victims intention's or motives in the case. It's amazing how the trials by social media just take legs and walk like they do now. How evil is that ?

Everyone including the innocent should have their day in court, but for some reason the system isn't working anymore, so we get these internet wanta be lawyers convicting people, and condemning them without any conclusive evidence to go on (i.e. a trial that renders the innocent as innocent, and the perps as perps).

When police officers are clearly doing their duty there is rarely a trial. A short internal investigation and back to duty.

And you think shooting down unarmed non-threatening innocent women was his duty? You need to be locked up yourself.

Violent insurrectionists. I'm shocked only one was shot. If I'd been in charge it would have been different.

Bullspit. If you'd been in charge you'd have outrun the other pussies getting home to hide behind your Momma's skirts.

Wrong. Had I been in charge I would have called for flash-bangs, riot munitions and CS when they breached the fence as well as started evac for the VIPs and bringing my reserves to a position between them and the most likely route for the oppo. If they continued to press on to the doors I would have released the use of lethal force at local discretion and committed my reserves to the breach closest to the VIP egress route. My best estimate is at this point the sightseers would be vacating the area asap (live ammo and dead bodies do that) and anyone still pressing forward is a legitimate target so this is where you bring up the heavies and put this thing to bed.

All over but the cleanup.

If that had proven to be an actual insurrection your imaginary actions might at least have been logical. But had it been an actual insurrection the crowd would have come armed and you and most of your men would have been dead long before they breached the doors or windows with anything other than explosive charges/RPGs. The fact no "defenders" were killed wounded or even fired on is proof that did not intend insurrection or even violence. Seems obvious that they deliberately were at pains not to be armed so that anyone but terminal idiots would know they were there to demonstrate their displeasure; not riot. A vivid imagination is not proof of the possession a backbone. I still go with the Momma's skirts theory.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The officer who shot her won't be facing charges. Again, she was a 14 year Air Force veteran. She did raise her hand and swear an oath to protect this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic. And then ended up pissing all over that oath by participating in a violent insurrection. She became that domestic enemy. I hate seeing people die like this..but again, she should have known better.

No Charges For Capitol Officer Who Shot Ashley Babbit - WLTZ

(CNN) – Police investigators are recommending the officer who shot and killed a rioter at the Capitol should not be charged. A U.S. Capitol police officer shot Ashli Babbitt as a violent pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol building on January 6th. Members of Congress, who were certifying the...

www.wltz.com

She did raise her hand and swear an oath to protect this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
And that's exactly what she died attempting to do, dumpass. Her murderer needs to be held responsible for his actions. Her family and friends deserve to see justice done.

Nope, she spit on her oath and was a willing domestic terrorist. Karma got her.

And you spit on your own citizenship by ignoring her Constitutional rights.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The officer who shot her won't be facing charges. Again, she was a 14 year Air Force veteran. She did raise her hand and swear an oath to protect this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic. And then ended up pissing all over that oath by participating in a violent insurrection. She became that domestic enemy. I hate seeing people die like this..but again, she should have known better.

No Charges For Capitol Officer Who Shot Ashley Babbit - WLTZ

(CNN) – Police investigators are recommending the officer who shot and killed a rioter at the Capitol should not be charged. A U.S. Capitol police officer shot Ashli Babbitt as a violent pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol building on January 6th. Members of Congress, who were certifying the...

www.wltz.com

She did raise her hand and swear an oath to protect this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
And that's exactly what she died attempting to do, dumpass. Her murderer needs to be held responsible for his actions. Her family and friends deserve to see justice done.

No she wasn't. She had become just another Q believing lemming. Look at this ladies social media presence over the last year and you'll see EXACTLY what kind of shit that the cult of Trump hath wrought.
Again, when she went into the service, did she raise her right hand and swear an oath to this county? That is the ONLY question you need to answer.

I swore the same oath. To protect and defend the Constitution (not the government or whatever you decide to call "this country") against all enemies foreign and domestic which may include you and traitorous members of the government (or-in this case- claiming to be members of the government). How can you ignore her Constitutional Right to free speech, assembly, and due process? Your willingness to overlook her rights in furtherance of your selfish totalitarian agenda labels you an enemy of the Constitution as well.

Were you there? Were you one of the domestic terrorists rioting and breaking into the Capitol?

I was not there and neither were any "domestic terrorists" that I know of. Unfortunately I'm just a bit too old and disabled to manage all that jumping around yelling and marching. Had I had the ability I would have most certainly been there and proud of it. And the people who were there have my support.

 

[MarathonMike]

Nothing less than outrageous. The American people deserve better than this.

The democrats preach coming together but they practice nothing more than hatred for their political opponents.

Such hypocrites.

Police Officers Involved in George Floyd's Death Were Suspended the Next Day - After More than a Month We Still Don't Know Who Shot Ashli Babbitt | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

In May of 2020 George Floyd died in Minneapolis during an arrest. One police officer kneeled on his neck for 8 minutes. The gruesome death led to protests around the country and the four policemen involved were fired the day after Floyd’s death.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The Media double standard in full effect. Had it been a Black Lives Matter rioter shot, the officer's name would have been released within MINUTES of the shooting.

 

[9thIDdoc]

She was not violent. You are simply defending an execution of an unarmed woman.

ANYONE attempting to breach a secured area in order to gain access to the individuals contained within, after they are already unlawfully on the property AND after having gained access to the property by breaching external barriers, closed and/or locked windows/doors should expect nothing less.

The fact that she was the only fatality on the mob's side speaks volumns.

She was not "executed", she suffered a fatal gunshot would while she was in the commission of a federal crime.

Without a trial, all your assertion's are meaningless.

Of course you're wrong but that is nothing new.

When your job is to protect a particular person or group of individuals from imminent threats (meaning the threat is happening RIGHT NOW), the only place a trial has in the scenario is determining whether or not your response was justified under the law, including the use of lethal force in defense of one's self or others, IF a trial is deemed warranted. AFTER THE FACT.

You should brush up on your knowledge of criminal law or how our legal system works, including how it's supposed to work.

So in your words a trial is warranted to determine guilt or innocence, yet no trial is scheduled ??

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.

"... the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted."

Pay attention. There are just an awful lot of somebodies who question that the shooting was warranted. And no the police do not do it all the time without question. In fact unjustified violence has resulted in the worst riots this Nation has ever seen weather the law was followed or not. You think BLM has a monopoly? I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

Is the shooter dead?

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

If no charges were brought that just means no charges have been brought yet. What is the statute of limitations for federal murder? Even this government is probably not stupid enough to let this go without some (very public) action being taken. Unless they maybe set Hillary on him.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

Link? Proof or bullspit? I'd bet more bullspit.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Nothing less than outrageous. The American people deserve better than this.

The democrats preach coming together but they practice nothing more than hatred for their political opponents.

Such hypocrites.

Police Officers Involved in George Floyd's Death Were Suspended the Next Day - After More than a Month We Still Don't Know Who Shot Ashli Babbitt | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

In May of 2020 George Floyd died in Minneapolis during an arrest. One police officer kneeled on his neck for 8 minutes. The gruesome death led to protests around the country and the four policemen involved were fired the day after Floyd’s death.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

They are saying that the shooting cop is DAVID BAILEY...........don't know how accurate this info is though so don't jump to conclusions. They are saying that he is a brazilian immigrant and blm member who threatened to kill Trump supporters.

REDPILLED MEDIA EXCLUSIVE: US Capitol Special Agent David Bailey Who Murdered Ashli Babbitt is a Brazilian Immigrant and Black Lives Matter Militant — HE REPEATEDLY THREATENED TO KILL TRUMP SUPPORTERS ON FACEBOOK FOR MONTHS! (Exclusive Evidence)

Please note: RBN is in dire need of funds — despite our constant efforts to reduce costs for our live programming (17 hours/day, 7 days/week) and other operations — and will grea…

republicbroadcasting.org

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

She was not violent. You are simply defending an execution of an unarmed woman.

ANYONE attempting to breach a secured area in order to gain access to the individuals contained within, after they are already unlawfully on the property AND after having gained access to the property by breaching external barriers, closed and/or locked windows/doors should expect nothing less.

The fact that she was the only fatality on the mob's side speaks volumns.

She was not "executed", she suffered a fatal gunshot would while she was in the commission of a federal crime.

Without a trial, all your assertion's are meaningless.

Of course you're wrong but that is nothing new.

When your job is to protect a particular person or group of individuals from imminent threats (meaning the threat is happening RIGHT NOW), the only place a trial has in the scenario is determining whether or not your response was justified under the law, including the use of lethal force in defense of one's self or others, IF a trial is deemed warranted. AFTER THE FACT.

You should brush up on your knowledge of criminal law or how our legal system works, including how it's supposed to work.

So in your words a trial is warranted to determine guilt or innocence, yet no trial is scheduled ??

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.

"... the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted."

Pay attention. There are just an awful lot of somebodies who question that the shooting was warranted. And no the police do not do it all the time without question. In fact unjustified violence has resulted in the worst riots this Nation has ever seen weather the law was followed or not. You think BLM has a monopoly? I wouldn't bet on it.

I'm not the one who needs to pay attention. How many of those "awful lot of somebodies" have any idea of how our legal system works or the laws governing lawful lethal force in defense?

I'll clue you in on something - you all are arguing the wrong thing. Nobody was required to know or believe that an insurrection was taking place. All those officers needed to know is that there were multiple individuals, constituting a "mob", that was trying to breach an area they were defending. WHY they were there has nothing to do with it as long as they were there under NO LAWFUL authority AND their actions posed a threat to the officers and/or the individuals they were protecting.

So tell me this. Can you take a couple of controversial shootings that were in the news in recent years and explain how and why they were justified and then for the record compare them to this incident using the same logic? And for the record, I'm not asking you to do so, I'm asking if you're able to do so because I'd be interested in your methodology.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

If no charges were brought that just means no charges have been brought yet. What is the statute of limitations for federal murder? Even this government is probably not stupid enough to let this go without some (very public) action being taken. Unless they maybe set Hillary on him.

There is no statute of limitations on murder but she wasn't murdered. She was shot by a police officer while she was in the commission of a crime.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

If no charges were brought that just means no charges have been brought yet. What is the statute of limitations for federal murder? Even this government is probably not stupid enough to let this go without some (very public) action being taken. Unless they maybe set Hillary on him.

There is no statute of limitations on murder but she wasn't murdered. She was shot by a police officer while she was in the commission of a crime.

She was MURDERED no matter how you spin it.

Cops have certain protocols that they must follow and this guy DID NOT follow those protocols....he shot her while hiding while cops are required to to give warning and announce themselves. The cop just shot her---she didn't even know he was there and no one knew where the bullet came from......

Secondly cops can not shoot unarmed women who are no threat to them. She did nothing but crawl through a broken window--------hardly a capital offense or even a threat.

Third, 3 other cops were there but the shooter is denying (in other articles) that he even knew that the 3 other cops were blocking the door. How can any cop be that inept.

Fourth------if correct this stupid DAVID BAILEY blm member posted that he planned on shooting trump supporters and that people deserve what they get (shot) for what they say.

Drag his ass out---put him on trail and then deal with him for his capital crimes.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I'll clue you in on something - you all are arguing the wrong thing. Nobody was required to know or believe that an insurrection was taking place. All those officers needed to know is that there were multiple individuals, constituting a "mob", that was trying to breach an area they were defending. WHY they were there has nothing to do with it as long as they were there under NO LAWFUL authority AND their actions posed a threat to the officers and/or the individuals they were protecting.

Trespass on public property is rarely considered just cause to use lethal force. If the officer in question can show good reason to believe his victim posed an actual threat of serious bodily harm to someone he may have been justified but I'll believe that when and if I see it. The facts as I know them come nowhere near supporting that conclusion.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'll clue you in on something - you all are arguing the wrong thing. Nobody was required to know or believe that an insurrection was taking place. All those officers needed to know is that there were multiple individuals, constituting a "mob", that was trying to breach an area they were defending. WHY they were there has nothing to do with it as long as they were there under NO LAWFUL authority AND their actions posed a threat to the officers and/or the individuals they were protecting.

Trespass on public property is rarely considered just cause to use lethal force. If the officer in question can show good reason to believe his victim posed an actual threat of serious bodily harm to someone he may have been justified but I'll believe that when and if I see it. The facts as I know them come nowhere near supporting that conclusion.

Yet there are plenty of U.S. Message Board members who believe that the McMichaels, the men who hunted down Ahmuad Arbery in their pickup truck for allegedly trespassing on a neighbor's property were entirely justified in their actions when they shot & killed him for not appreciating them confronting him and attempting to place him under citizen's arrest while pointing a shotgun at him. It wasn't even their property, nothing was taken yet they have tied themselves into pretzels trying to turn that "simple trespass" into a felony that would have given them the right to stop and detain him, at least in all of their minds. They're still in jail awaiting trial by the way although I can't recall if they're facing murder or manslaughter charges.

I don't see any of this as a simple trespass for no other reason than their stated goal was to "stop the steal" which implies they were there to attempt to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden as the next president of the United States and to keep Trump in office. However this doesn't really have any impact on the officer's responsibilities to protect our Congressional representatives from the mob outside of the chamber doors.

 

[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 ???

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

So you are saying that they were understaffed, and unprepared as a force hired to protect the capital and it's congress person's on that day ??? And due to their understaffing, and their ignorance, then they had no choice but to resort to lethal force in dealing with an unarmed female veteran that gathered with her fellow Americans in an attempt to make their voices known inside the chambers to congress itself ??? Of course we won't never know the intent, because the whole thing is being judged without proper transparency involved, and this (I'm guessing), is for political reason's in order to stick with certain political narratives involved. You know "Orange Man bad" and all conservatives are evil terrorist etc.

Never let a good crisis go to waste right ?

 

[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.

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.?

Not only that, but actually beating and hurting innocent citizen's who were left trying to protect their businesses on their own because police were ordered to stand down or walk softly.

 

[Crepitus]

Nothing less than outrageous. The American people deserve better than this.

The democrats preach coming together but they practice nothing more than hatred for their political opponents.

Such hypocrites.

Police Officers Involved in George Floyd's Death Were Suspended the Next Day - After More than a Month We Still Don't Know Who Shot Ashli Babbitt | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

In May of 2020 George Floyd died in Minneapolis during an arrest. One police officer kneeled on his neck for 8 minutes. The gruesome death led to protests around the country and the four policemen involved were fired the day after Floyd’s death.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The person in question was killed in the process of completing a treasonous act of insurrection. The officer in question was doing. Nothing more than his duty.

This is not a similar situation.

You keep claiming that the lady was killed in the process of committing a treasonous act of insurrection, yet no trial has been conducted, and no verdicts have been rendered in such a trial that would either clear the officer's name, and therefore finalize the verdict of guilty or innocent in regards to the victims intention's or motives in the case. It's amazing how the trials by social media just take legs and walk like they do now. How evil is that ?

Everyone including the innocent should have their day in court, but for some reason the system isn't working anymore, so we get these internet wanta be lawyers convicting people, and condemning them without any conclusive evidence to go on (i.e. a trial that renders the innocent as innocent, and the perps as perps).

When police officers are clearly doing their duty there is rarely a trial. A short internal investigation and back to duty.

And you think shooting down unarmed non-threatening innocent women was his duty? You need to be locked up yourself.

Violent insurrectionists. I'm shocked only one was shot. If I'd been in charge it would have been different.

Bullspit. If you'd been in charge you'd have outrun the other pussies getting home to hide behind your Momma's skirts.

Wrong. Had I been in charge I would have called for flash-bangs, riot munitions and CS when they breached the fence as well as started evac for the VIPs and bringing my reserves to a position between them and the most likely route for the oppo. If they continued to press on to the doors I would have released the use of lethal force at local discretion and committed my reserves to the breach closest to the VIP egress route. My best estimate is at this point the sightseers would be vacating the area asap (live ammo and dead bodies do that) and anyone still pressing forward is a legitimate target so this is where you bring up the heavies and put this thing to bed.

All over but the cleanup.

If that had proven to be an actual insurrection your imaginary actions might at least have been logical. But had it been an actual insurrection the crowd would have come armed and you and most of your men would have been dead long before they breached the doors or windows with anything other than explosive charges/RPGs. The fact no "defenders" were killed wounded or even fired on is proof that did not intend insurrection or even violence. Seems obvious that they deliberately were at pains not to be armed so that anyone but terminal idiots would know they were there to demonstrate their displeasure; not riot. A vivid imagination is not proof of the possession a backbone. I still go with the Momma's skirts theory.

It was an actual insurrection, 6 people died including two officers and more than 140 officers were injured. RPGs are pretty tough to get a hold of in the United States and massive overkill for windows. It does not "seem obvious" they were "at pains" to be unarmed. There were weapons in plenty.

Arrested Capitol rioters had guns and bombs, everyday careers and Olympic medals

United by political grievances, they came in costumes, snapping selfies, calling themselves patriots. Some came armed for battle and planning for "war."

www.reuters.com

And this isn't imaginary, it was on live TV.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Is the shooter dead?

Listen closely:
The.
Shooter.
Is.
Not.
The.
Criminal.
He.
Is.
A.
Cop.
Preforming.
His.
Duty.