U.S. Capitol Police to Be Sued for $10 Million for Killing Unarmed Rioter

[kaz]

...

However, in the case of the cop who shot Ashli Babbitt, well, who knew she was 'unarmed'? Did the cop? Did her compatriots on the other side of the barricaded door? She and they battered it down, she jumped into the breach despite being warned by the cops --and her compatriots. She still jumped.

It's on her.

...

Its the other way around.
You can't legally shoot unless you know for sure she WAS armed.
And no, Ashli had no part in battering doors or windows.
We hear no warning from the cop who shot, but the gun was pointed for a long time and people were pointing out the gun.
But a warning is where you shoot into the floor or something.
Never happened.
So then legally its murder.
Police do not have the authority to shoot unless they for sure see a deadly weapon.

You're FOS, police all around the country do it all the time.

And Smokin' lies again. It's actually incredibly rare. It's your exploitation that isn't rare because you're a racist

You're FOS.

Cops have no more legal authority to shoot than anyone does.
Can you shoot someone unarmed over a deliberate trespass protest?
No, you can't.
So then police legally can't either.
Whether or not police do it all the times is a good reason for more protests and lawsuits, not less.

Actually, there are hundreds of millions of interactions between police and people of all races every year and virtually all of them are uneventful. Cops rarely shoot anyone. Our media is just Pravda reporting that they do

that dude knows every interaction, he said so. his claim.

Yes, it's some stupid shit he's pushing. The roads are packed with people and he claims they pull over every "poor" person all the time. What a stupid lying racist douche white boy Rigby5 is

 

[kaz]

...

However, in the case of the cop who shot Ashli Babbitt, well, who knew she was 'unarmed'? Did the cop? Did her compatriots on the other side of the barricaded door? She and they battered it down, she jumped into the breach despite being warned by the cops --and her compatriots. She still jumped.

It's on her.

...

Its the other way around.
You can't legally shoot unless you know for sure she WAS armed.
And no, Ashli had no part in battering doors or windows.
We hear no warning from the cop who shot, but the gun was pointed for a long time and people were pointing out the gun.
But a warning is where you shoot into the floor or something.
Never happened.
So then legally its murder.
Police do not have the authority to shoot unless they for sure see a deadly weapon.

You're FOS, police all around the country do it all the time.

And Smokin' lies again. It's actually incredibly rare. It's your exploitation that isn't rare because you're a racist

You're FOS.

Cops have no more legal authority to shoot than anyone does.
Can you shoot someone unarmed over a deliberate trespass protest?
No, you can't.
So then police legally can't either.
Whether or not police do it all the times is a good reason for more protests and lawsuits, not less.

Actually, there are hundreds of millions of interactions between police and people of all races every year and virtually all of them are uneventful. Cops rarely shoot anyone. Our media is just Pravda reporting that they do

that dude knows every interaction, he said so. his claim.

Wrong.
What I said is that I have seen enough illegal interactions by police to know they are endemic.
Which means it has to be coming from illegal training, illegal department instructions, illegal decisions by prosecutors, illegal judicial rulings, etc.
For example, Chauvin kept insisting choke holds are legal.
And it is obvious they never are unless deadly forces is warranted.
So it is an example of how all the police departments are universally out of touch with reality.
The number of shots at each shooting is another example.
Like with M'Khia being shot 4 times at close range.
She was turned into hamburger.
Even the use of .40S&W with hollow points is an indication of deliberate excessive force with an illegal deadly intent.
The rest of the world standardized on .380 FMJ in comparison.

You just live in a complete fantasy world. Or you're just a liar. Probably both

 

[kaz]

Chillicoath says, no it isn't, no it isn't, no it isn't

Speaking for that poor avatar of mine, what he is attempting to convey to the poster 'Kaz' is that.......you haven't offered proof of your assertion that the elections was stolen.

If you have, well, we haven't seen it.
If you have.....may we ask you to link us to it so we can read the quality of your proofs and, either side with you, or state that you are wrongheaded.

Be our sherpa here, poster 'kaz'........are we wrong on your lack of substance on 'the Steal', or do you have substance, after all?

Batter up, mein freund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Had I pulled my weapon and shot an unarmed suspect, I would have gone to prison."

Well, that may be. You know your prior record and reputation better than this forum.

However, in the case of the cop who shot Ashli Babbitt, well, who knew she was 'unarmed'? Did the cop? Did her compatriots on the other side of the barricaded door? She and they battered it down, she jumped into the breach despite being warned by the cops --and her compatriots. She still jumped.

It's on her.

May her family be comforted.

If only she'd complied...

Something you never say when it's a black shot by the cops.

You support her death because of your politics, just like you are against the cops every other time because of your politics.

Own your actions and stop lying

Wow!
You know so much about me!

Well, it's not like you post your racist Democrat Nazi shit all over the site every day. Oh wait, you do ...

N-word again....cha-ching!

Wait, weren't people like you referring to Bush and Trump as Hitler?

Where are you going with this, exactly?

Did I? Feel free to show where I did so.

It's like finding your condemnation of violence when it's done by leftist groups like antifa and BLM, huh? It's like it doesn't exist, no one can find it. Including you.

What letter does "Fish" start with? Do you know?

I continue to condemn all rioting, looting, burning, and vandalism by any and all groups....left or right. And now, I've just done it again. And, of course, you will ignore it again. Maybe if I threw around your N-word, you'd notice.

Yet you can't say you condemn rioting from leftist groups like antifa and BLM. You won't say the words. You just piss in the air and hope no one will notice.

I condemn rioting by LEFTIST groups, including antifa and BLM.

It's pretty easy to say, yet you won't.

When you asked, I immediately said I condemn rioting, including by Trump supporters on January 6 and I condemn anyone who went into the Capital whether they rioted or not.

See how easy that is? Yet you simply can't do it

Anyone who condemns rioting when warranted, is wrong and complicit in perpetuating the original crime the rioting is about.

Is rioting warranted over the murder of Ashli?
Of course it is.
The fact she was of the right and I am of the left is irrelevant.
She was conducting protected political expression, and was not a lethal threat to anyone.
Anyone who could pull the trigger on an obviously unarmed woman, is sick and a clear and present danger to the entire society.
Anyone who could protect or endorse such a murder is a dangerous individual who should not be allowed any power or weapons.

No, peaceful demonstrations are warranted. And leftists don't just riot, you loot and set fires and destroy the property of innocent people.

Note all the silence from other leftists while you actually call for violence

No leftist has called for violence, and we've all condemned the violence last summer repeatedly, yet you ignore those comments and continue to make the false claims we promoted violence.

That's what passed for political discussion with conservatives. Right wingers lie about liberals and refuse to accept facts, reality or the abject failure of Republican policies these last 40 years.

You're such a liar. You're in the right party. Democrats lie all the time

 

[kaz]

Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.

That's not true.

Spare us all your broad brushing of police.

The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.

Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.

Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.

Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?

Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it

old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!

No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.

Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it

Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.

Apparently, being a conservative nowadays means a complete and total rejection of objectivity and common sense.

Yeah, show me a conservative on a jury and a conservative defendant who's accused of committing a crime (like Ashli nutcase Babbitt or Kyle Rittenhouse) and despite overwhelming evidence that points all the other jurors to vote guilty, I have no problem believing that the conservative juror will not only vote not guilty, he'll also throw them a parade.

But you can't compare Ashi Babbitt with Kyle Rittenhouse.
Ashli had good intent in that she believed there was election fraud people need to be told about.
I disagree with her, but she brought nothing to indicate harmful intent.
Kyle on the other hand brought an AR-15, which seems overtly provocative to me.

Committing a crime because you were lied to is not a defense. Her past showed her to have anger management problems coupled with impulse control issues. Unfortunately, she was just the kind of person that Trump counted on to do his bidding while he went back to the WH to watch the show.

Here are the results so far Several people died. 80 Capital police were injured. 60 Metro police were injured. Approximately 500 insurrectionists have been arrested and are awaiting charges and trials, some while sitting in jail. Trump got off scot-free. That last sentence is what I would call a miscarriage of justice.

Sure it is.
(being lied to as a defense)
When it was discovered Iraq had no significant WMD, then all those who supported the invasion of Iraq should have been prosecuted as complicit in murder.
But they weren't because people pretty much all claimed that being lied to by Bush was a valid defense.
This is even though people like ambassador Wilson, ambassador Kirkpatric, General Fulford Jr., etc. warned us ahead of time that there were no significant WMD in Iraq.

You realize you just advocated prosecuting John Kerry, Hillary Clinton AND Joe Biden, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not aware of there being any one harmed at the riots and protests except those harmed or killed by police?

No. But property was indeed destroyed. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then.

The funny part though is how the Sons of Liberty swept the decks of those ships clean before they stole back into the city that night.

However, the Intolerable Acts passed by the monarchy in response to that form of protest was a step too far.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord ensued a year later I believe.

By all accounts, the Sons of Liberty were also quite polite to the crewmen of the ship. They weren't looking to harm anyone. Still and all, there were people, George Washington and Ben Franklin most notably, who considered their behavior uncivilized and dishonorable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am not aware of there being any one harmed at the riots and protests except those harmed or killed by police?

No. But property was indeed destroyed. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then.

The funny part though is how the Sons of Liberty swept the decks of those ships clean before they stole back into the city that night.

However, the Intolerable Acts passed by the monarchy in response to that form of protest was a step too far.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord ensued a year later I believe.

By all accounts, the Sons of Liberty were also quite polite to the crewmen of the ship. They weren't looking to harm anyone. Still and all, there were people, George Washington and Ben Franklin most notably, who considered their behavior uncivilized and dishonorable.

Pretty sure George Washinton was pissed at Samuel Adams for that. He went on to command the Continental Army after the battle of Lexington and Concord. The tea party caused a chain reaction, that I think even he was none too thrilled about.

 

[jc456]

Cops have no more legal authority to shoot than anyone does.

sure they do, you're messed in the head.

Wrong.
Go back to basics.
The source of all legal authority in a democratic republic comes from the defense of inherent rights, not from government.
Government is inferior delegated authority we give it when we create it.
So then police can not have any legal authority greater than the individuals who decided to create and hire police departments.
If you think police have any authority above anyone, you are totally and completely wrong.
As hired employees, they have less authority, not more.

wow! are you ok? you have significant issues.

This is pure logic, and rational reasoning.
Police can never have superior authority in a democratic republic, where individual inherent rights are supposed to be the ONLY source of any legal authority.

https://www.hg.org/police-law.html

The Role of Police in Society

The main role of police in any civilized nation is to preserve order. As such, their whole reason for being is to enforce criminal laws, reduce civil disorder, and protect people and property. To accomplish this goal, police are granted certain unique powers that other citizens do not have, like the legitimate use force in preventing crime and the power to impose fines for criminal behavior.


now you post your nonsense link.

 

[jc456]

If only she had complied.

how do you know she didn't?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is never wrong to destroy property if the cause is to right an injustice.

What? No. Never.

 

[Dragonlady]

Grammar is important.

"Would be"

Meaning it hasn't been filed yet. It implies that action will be forthcoming, on a set timetable that does not adhere to yours.

Most people when they say they are filing a lawsuit, do so within days of announcing their intentions.

It's been over a week, and they only thing they did was get peoples hopes up.

It's entirely possible that their attorney has told them that their case has absolutely ZERO chance of succeeding, and that they family might actually get stuck paying the Capitol Police's legal fees, and they are rethinking the wisdom of this notion.

 

[jc456]

It is never wrong to destroy property if the cause is to right an injustice.

What? No. Never.

he admits he drives around in a beater, most likely looking for things to steal. most likely why he's had so many run ins. hahahahahahahahahhaaha can't write it any better than that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am not aware of there being any one harmed at the riots and protests except those harmed or killed by police?

No. But property was indeed destroyed. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then.

The funny part though is how the Sons of Liberty swept the decks of those ships clean before they stole back into the city that night.

However, the Intolerable Acts passed by the monarchy in response to that form of protest was a step too far.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord ensued a year later I believe.

By all accounts, the Sons of Liberty were also quite polite to the crewmen of the ship. They weren't looking to harm anyone. Still and all, there were people, George Washington and Ben Franklin most notably, who considered their behavior uncivilized and dishonorable.

Pretty sure George Washinton was pissed at Samuel Adams for that. He went on to command the Continental Army after the battle of Lexington and Concord. The tea party caused a chain reaction, that I think even he was none too thrilled about.

Take this letter Washington wrote to his wife, for example:

George Washington to Martha Washington, June 18, 1775,

"It has been determined in Congress, that the whole army raised for the defense of the American Cause shall be put under my care, and that it is necessary for me to proceed immediately to Boston to take upon me the Command of it. You may believe me my dear Patsy, when I assure you in the most solemn manner, that, so far from seeking this appointment, I have used every endeavor in my power to avoid it."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not aware of there being any one harmed at the riots and protests except those harmed or killed by police?

No. But property was indeed destroyed. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then.

The funny part though is how the Sons of Liberty swept the decks of those ships clean before they stole back into the city that night.

However, the Intolerable Acts passed by the monarchy in response to that form of protest was a step too far.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord ensued a year later I believe.

By all accounts, the Sons of Liberty were also quite polite to the crewmen of the ship. They weren't looking to harm anyone. Still and all, there were people, George Washington and Ben Franklin most notably, who considered their behavior uncivilized and dishonorable.

Pretty sure George Washinton was pissed at Samuel Adams for that. He went on to command the Continental Army after the battle of Lexington and Concord. The tea party caused a chain reaction, that I think even he was none too thrilled about.

I don't think any of the Founding Fathers WANTED a war with Great Britain. They'd have had to be damned fools to WANT to go to war with the most powerful military on the planet at that time. But some of them came to the conclusion that it was inevitable well before the others did.

As I understand it, Sam Adams and John Hancock had an ulterior personal motive for wanting the Boston Tea Party, since they were both making some bucks as black-market tea smugglers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh and before I forget, this is for the cop haters on this thread:

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't think any of the Founding Fathers WANTED a war with Great Britain. They'd have had to be damned fools to WANT to go to war with the most powerful military on the planet at that time. But some of them came to the conclusion that it was inevitable well before the others did.

So I guess Sam Adams just hastened the inevitable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think any of the Founding Fathers WANTED a war with Great Britain. They'd have had to be damned fools to WANT to go to war with the most powerful military on the planet at that time. But some of them came to the conclusion that it was inevitable well before the others did.

So I guess Sam Adams just hastened the inevitable.

Well, HE certainly thought it was inevitable. I think he might have been correct, but there's no real way to know "what would have happened IF . . ."

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't think any of the Founding Fathers WANTED a war with Great Britain. They'd have had to be damned fools to WANT to go to war with the most powerful military on the planet at that time. But some of them came to the conclusion that it was inevitable well before the others did.

So I guess Sam Adams just hastened the inevitable.

Well, HE certainly thought it was inevitable. I think he might have been correct, but there's no real way to know "what would have happened IF . . ."

Good point.

 

[jc456]

No, we're not blissfully ignorant of how police are TRAINED.

By all means, educate me. How precisely are police trained?

I stand ready to eviscerate your cluelessness.

To obey the law and Department Policy, you dolt!

Oh, that's not all there is to it.

It goes much deeper than simple obedience.

Situational awareness, psychological training, negotiating tactics, mitigation procedures, marksmanship training.

But you must believe cops are automatons who can be programmed, right?

his misconceptions are his misconceptions.

Indeed. But a repeatedly held misconception stops being a misconception and becomes an accepted fact to the one holding the misconception...

If that makes any sense.

total. It's why I posted it.

 

[jc456]

Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.

That's not true.

Spare us all your broad brushing of police.

The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.

Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.

Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.

Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?

Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it

old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!

No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.

Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it

Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.

hey, I'll stay in your delusion for a couple of questions, what gives a citizen a right to point a gun at a cop then? And what is the cops responsibility at that time in your delusion?

 

[bodecea]

Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.

That's not true.

Spare us all your broad brushing of police.

The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.

Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.

Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.

Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?

Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it

old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!

No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.

Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it

Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.

Apparently, being a conservative nowadays means a complete and total rejection of objectivity and common sense.

Yeah, show me a conservative on a jury and a conservative defendant who's accused of committing a crime (like Ashli nutcase Babbitt or Kyle Rittenhouse) and despite overwhelming evidence that points all the other jurors to vote guilty, I have no problem believing that the conservative juror will not only vote not guilty, he'll also throw them a parade.

And canonize them.