Ashli Babbitt was Murdered!

[concha]

12 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

No she wasn't. She was shot entering the threshold of a doorway that led to a hallway. When you enter a hallway, everything comes from in front of you. Regardless, whether it was in the side, behind, or the front, that is all irrelevant.

 

Cool. Irrelevant.

 

No. But it sounds like you're suggesting a conspiracy. Can't wait to hear about it.

 

1. You mention her height often. Let me put the nail in that coffin -- IRRELEVANT

2. Whether she was "near or not"? Irrelevant

3. Whether she was a threat to the officer or not? Irrelevant

Clearly far more than you.

 

1) No. There was an immediate space on left. The cop was waiting there.  You have not watched the video. You don't have a fucking clue.

2) Not irrelevant. The cop who shot her was watching what was going on and would have known that the people outside were not being violent to security.

3) Her size is relevant to her ability to pose a threat. Especially given she was unarmed.

4) I suggest nothing. I was hoping you fine folks would have an explanation for why security people who were not being assaulted at all would suddenly abandon their posts.  Any ideas?

5) "Near or not" is irrelevant to threat assessment?  You are now just advertising your lack of intelligence in neon lights.

6) So now killing people who do not pose a threat is OK?  Did you support all the BLM protests over men who were resisting arrest, assaulting cops, reaching for weapons during an arrest...?

 

Clearly you are as big of an imbecile as Danny and Dumbass6.

 

[concha]

7 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

if the cop was at fault as you claim then she had to be innocent....all 5'2" of her....right Don?....🤡

 

You know, you truly are stupid enough to not be able to process all this simple stuff.

 

[DBP66]

Just now, concha said:

 

You know, you truly are stupid enough to not be able to process all this simple stuff.

 

yea....like someone 5'2" wouldn't/couldn't try to kill our elected officials...she was just there for the "meet and greet"!....🤡

[DBP66]

10 minutes ago, concha said:

 

1) No. There was an immediate space on left. The cop was waiting there.  You have not watched the video. You don't have a fucking clue.

2) Not irrelevant. The cop who shot her was watching what was going on and would have known that the people outside were not being violent to security.

3) Her size is relevant to her ability to pose a threat. Especially given she was unarmed.

4) I suggest nothing. I was hoping you fine folks would have an explanation for why security people who were not being assaulted at all would suddenly abandon their posts.  Any ideas?

5) "Near or not" is irrelevant to threat assessment?  You are now just advertising your lack of intelligence in neon lights.

6) So now killing people who do not pose a threat is OK?  Did you support all the BLM protests over men who were resisting arrest, assaulting cops, reaching for weapons during an arrest...?

 

Clearly you are as big of an imbecile as Danny and Dumbass6.

 

do you think our elected officials who were hiding on the ground didn't think your girl posed a threat to them Don??...all 5'2" of her....the tough veteran....🤡

[GoBigBlack]

12 minutes ago, concha said:

 

1) No. There was an immediate space on left. The cop was waiting there.  You have not watched the video. You don't have a fucking clue.

LMFAO. The left as in 90 degrees? That would put him inside the wall. Again, it doesn't matter where he was. IT. DOESN'T. MATTER.

12 minutes ago, concha said:

2) Not irrelevant. The cop who shot her was watching what was going on and would have known that the people outside were not being violent to security.

Cool. That doesn't matter, either. And it doesn't matter if she was a threat to him. And it doesn't matter if she was a threat to the other rioters, or officers, or janitors. None of that matters, either.

12 minutes ago, concha said:

3) Her size is relevant to her ability to pose a threat. Especially given she was unarmed.

LMFAO no it isn't. You're probably bigger than me and I'd kick the shit out of you. And it's interesting that you knew she was unarmed, Carnac.

12 minutes ago, concha said:

4) I suggest nothing. I was hoping you fine folks would have n explanation for why security people who were not being assaulted at all would suddenly abandon their posts.  Any ideas?

Yeah, I do. They either 1. Got a call on the radio to move somewhere else or 2. Saw the situation unfolding and knew what the hallway behind them was, so they wisely got the hell out of dodge before criminals started getting lit the fuck up. 

Make sense, or do you want me to come up with other, less likely scenarios?

12 minutes ago, concha said:

5) "Near or not" is irrelevant to threat assessment?  You are now just advertising your lack of intelligence in neon lights.

Quite the contrary, my friend with ZERO experience or knowledge on the subject. Of course "near or not" is important. It's just not important how near the guy who pulled the trigger was to the person he shot. Get it? Do you get it yet?

12 minutes ago, concha said:

6) So now killing people who do not pose a threat is OK?  Did you support all the BLM protests over men who were resisting arrest, assaulting cops, reaching for weapons during an arrest...?

Sometimes it is in fact OK to shoot someone who does not pose an immediate physical threat to the person who is doing the killing. Yes, you are entirely correct about that. I support the protests that are justified. Some are, some are not.

[Warrior]

1 hour ago, GoBigBlack said:

None of the answers to any of those questions you asked are relevant. None of the questions apply.

 

Of course they do, just not to you and your cohorts. 

[GoBigBlack]

15 minutes ago, Warrior said:

 

Of course they do, just not to you and your cohorts. 

No, they don’t apply to law enforcement because the use of force model, which the “expert” in the article is surely referencing, does not apply during a riot like it does to a traffic stop where you’re writing a speeding ticket. The only people those questions are relevant to are people who either have no knowledge on the topic, an agenda, or, like everybody here, an agenda and no knowledge. 

[concha]

2 hours ago, GoBigBlack said:

LMFAO. The left as in 90 degrees? That would put him inside the wall. Again, it doesn't matter where he was. IT. DOESN'T. MATTER.

Cool. That doesn't matter, either. And it doesn't matter if she was a threat to him. And it doesn't matter if she was a threat to the other rioters, or officers, or janitors. None of that matters, either.

LMFAO no it isn't. You're probably bigger than me and I'd kick the shit out of you. And it's interesting that you knew she was unarmed, Carnac.

Yeah, I do. They either 1. Got a call on the radio to move somewhere else or 2. Saw the situation unfolding and knew what the hallway behind them was, so they wisely got the hell out of dodge before criminals started getting lit the fuck up. 

Make sense, or do you want me to come up with other, less likely scenarios?

Quite the contrary, my friend with ZERO experience or knowledge on the subject. Of course "near or not" is important. It's just not important how near the guy who pulled the trigger was to the person he shot. Get it? Do you get it yet?

Sometimes it is in fact OK to shoot someone who does not pose an immediate physical threat to the person who is doing the killing. Yes, you are entirely correct about that. I support the protests that are justified. Some are, some are not.

 

1) Left as in left. As in she'd have to have her head turned to the left to properly see him. And since when is deadly force OK against someone not posing a threat?

2) See above

3) Ok, Ninja Sport. And cool that in your world you have to be Carnac to see that a woman who is climbing through a window does not have a weapon in her hands.

4) So they were told to leave despite the (small number of) protesters basically just hanging around outside the doors while they were there.  I believe that. Interesting call.  Small number of people. Not attacking security. So have security bail. Love to know wh made that call and their logic.

5) So I'm supposed to "get" why the diminutive woman who had shown zero physical aggressiveness to security and was outside several arms reach of anyone and displayed no weapon was killed.  But leftists will howl when a guy on drugs assaults a cop and gets shot.  It's all so clear now.

6) See above.

[concha]

55 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

No, they don’t apply to law enforcement because the use of force model, which the “expert” in the article is surely referencing, does not apply during a riot like it does to a traffic stop where you’re writing a speeding ticket. The only people those questions are relevant to are people who either have no knowledge on the topic, an agenda, or, like everybody here, an agenda and no knowledge. 

 

So,  a dozen or so people who moments before were respecting security (who for some reason just left) qualify as a riot when one small woman with no weapon to anyone's knowledge makes her way through a window.

Didn't the cop who shot her claim he felt his life was in danger even though he literally had just watched the very same people doing basically nothing because 3 security guys just stood in their way?

What a steaming pile that was.

 

[Warrior]

1 hour ago, GoBigBlack said:

No, they don’t apply to law enforcement because the use of force model, which the “expert” in the article is surely referencing, does not apply during a riot like it does to a traffic stop where you’re writing a speeding ticket. The only people those questions are relevant to are people who either have no knowledge on the topic, an agenda, or, like everybody here, an agenda and no knowledge. 

 

Use of deadly force is always in question, this situation doesn't change that as many have suggested. It's an easy out to imply otherwise. 

[GoBigBlack]

1 minute ago, concha said:

 

1) Left as in left. As in she'd have to have her head turned to the left to properly see him. And since when is deadly force OK against someone not posing a threat?

For the last time, he could have been on planet Kolob when he pulled the trigger. It doesn't matter. And I never said what you're implying I'm saying. I said the person pulling the trigger doesn't have to be the one being or feeling threatened in order to justly kill somebody. 

3 minutes ago, concha said:

2) See above

Derp derp derp

3 minutes ago, concha said:

3) Ok, Ninja Sport. And cool that in your world you have to be Carnac to see that a woman who is climbing through a window does not have a weapon in her hands.

Did she have a bomb in her backpack? Or a firearm? Did she have one in the back of her pants? You don't know, nor does it matter.

3 minutes ago, concha said:

4) So they were told to leave despite the (small number of) protesters basically just hanging around outside the doors while they were there.  I believe that. Interesting call.  Small number of people. Not attacking security. So have security bail. Love to know wh made that call and their logic.

There were multiple people smashing the windows and tearing down the barricade. I know you call that "hanging around," but those guys didn't. Nor would any other member of law enforcement in that situation. You would have just hung out in front of that door knowing there's a good chance bullets will be coming through it? LMFAO of course you would, because you're you.

3 minutes ago, concha said:

5) So I'm supposed to "get" why the diminutive woman who had shown zero physical aggressiveness to security and was outside several arms reach of anyone and displayed no weapon was killed.  But leftists will howl when a guy on drugs assaults a cop and gets shot.  It's all so clear now.

 

No. You're supposed to get that law enforcement is trained and experienced in those situations and knows what do to. You are not and do not. That doesn't mean they always make the right call, and it doesn't mean the always make the best call. What it means in this instance, is that the shooting was justified based on all the facts of the situation. 

11 minutes ago, concha said:

6) See above.

Derp.

[GoBigBlack]

6 minutes ago, concha said:

 

So,  a dozen or so people who moments before were respecting security (who for some reason just left) qualify as a riot when one small woman with no weapon to anyone's knowledge makes her way through a window.

Didn't the cop who shot her claim he felt his life was in danger even though he literally had just watched the very same people doing basically nothing because 3 security guys just stood in their way?

 

1. Irrelevant.

2. He probably felt his life was in danger long before he pulled the trigger.

 

[Warrior]

Per GoBigBlack the next riot in a major city the Police can open fire on all without recourse. Makes perfect sense?

[GoBigBlack]

2 minutes ago, Warrior said:

 

Use of deadly force is always in question, this situation doesn't change that as many have suggested. It's an easy out to imply otherwise. 

Of course it's always in question. The SOPs and the laws are different in this situation than what you all are trying to make it out to be. To imply otherwise isn't an easy out, it's flat out lying and being deceitful.

[GoBigBlack]

1 minute ago, Warrior said:

Per GoBigBlack the next riot in a major city the Police can open fire on all without recourse. Makes perfect sense?

Interesting. I definitely don't remember saying anything close to that.

[Warrior]

8 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

Interesting. I definitely don't remember saying anything close to that.

your quote - No, they don’t apply to law enforcement because the use of force model, which the “expert” in the article is surely referencing, does not apply during a riot like it does to a traffic stop where you’re writing a speeding ticket. The only people those questions are relevant to are people who either have no knowledge on the topic, an agenda, or, like everybody here, an agenda and no knowledge. 

 

The cops should have just shot them all up, it was a riot so all good. 

[Warrior]

12 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

Of course it's always in question. The SOPs and the laws are different in this situation than what you all are trying to make it out to be. To imply otherwise isn't an easy out, it's flat out lying and being deceitful.

 

There is only one of us being deceitful - anyone who believes or attempts to justify this shooting is a good place to start. 

[GoBigBlack]

4 minutes ago, Warrior said:

your quote - No, they don’t apply to law enforcement because the use of force model, which the “expert” in the article is surely referencing, does not apply during a riot like it does to a traffic stop where you’re writing a speeding ticket. The only people those questions are relevant to are people who either have no knowledge on the topic, an agenda, or, like everybody here, an agenda and no knowledge. 

 

The cops should have just shot them all up, it was a riot so all good. 

 

So your interpretation of "it doesn't apply the same way" is "there's absolutely nothing in place to govern the actions of police during a riot and they're free to murder thousands of people at will." And I'm being deceitful... lul.

[Warrior]

8 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

 

So your interpretation of "it doesn't apply the same way" is "there's absolutely nothing in place to govern the actions of police during a riot and they're free to murder thousands of people at will." And I'm being deceitful... lul.

 

Just using your application to Jan. 6th, this only works one way -  If it applies it should apply for all no? See how silly your argument is now, I'm sure you don't.

[Warrior]

40 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

 

So your interpretation of "it doesn't apply the same way" is "there's absolutely nothing in place to govern the actions of police during a riot and they're free to murder thousands of people at will." And I'm being deceitful... lul.

 

You're the one that stated the expert opinion that the use of force model is void in a riot. So I'm only using your logic. 

[concha]

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/569827-justified-shooting-or-fair-game-shooter-of-ashlii-babbitt-makes-shocking/

 

Interesting read that cuts through bullshit.

 

Justified shooting or fair game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt makes shocking admission

BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 08/28/21 11:15 AM ET
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

 

“That’s my job.” Those three words summed up a controversial interview this week with the long-unnamed officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6. Shortly after being cleared by the Capitol Police in the shooting, Lt. Michael Byrd went public in an NBC interview, insisting that he “saved countless lives” by shooting the unarmed protester.  

I have long expressed doubt over the Babbitt shooting, which directly contradicted standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement. But what was breathtaking about Byrd’s interview was that he confirmed the worst suspicions about the shooting and raised serious questions over the incident reviews by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and, most recently, the Capitol Police.

Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and ardent supporter of former President Trump. She came to Washington to protest the certification of the presidential Electoral College results and stormed into the Capitol when security lines collapsed. She had no criminal record but clearly engaged in criminal conduct that day by entering Capitol and disobeying police commands. The question, however, has been why this unarmed trespasser deserved to die.

When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the chamber’s doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken window. That is when Byrd killed her.

At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.

The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”

While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.

Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby recently was convicted for killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his own head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.

Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared “no further action will be taken” in the case. He proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him.

Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”

Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.

Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.

Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.

Politico reported that Byrd previously was subjected to a disciplinary review when he left his Glock 22 service weapon in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex. He reportedly told other officers that his rank as a lieutenant and his role as commander of the House chambers section would protect him and that he expected to “be treated differently.”

In the Babbitt shooting, the different treatment seems driven more by the identity of the person shot than the shooter. Babbitt is considered by many to be fair game because she was labeled an “insurrectionist.” To describe her shooting as unjustified would be to invite accusations of supporting sedition or insurrection. Thus, it is not enough to condemn her actions (as most of us have done); you must not question her killing.

Like many, I condemned the Jan. 6 riot (along with those who fueled the unhinged anger that led to the violence) as the desecration of our Capitol and our constitutional process. But that doesn’t mean rioting should be treated as a license for the use of lethal force, particularly against unarmed suspects. The “job” of officers, to which Byrd referred, often demands a courage and restraint that few of us could muster. As shown by every other officer that day, it is a job that is often defined by abstinence from rather than application of lethal force. It was the rest of the force who refrained from using lethal force, despite being attacked, that were the extraordinary embodiments of the principles governing their profession.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. 

[GoBigBlack]

26 minutes ago, Warrior said:

 

You're the one the stated the expert opinion that the use of force model is void in a riot. So I'm only using your logic. 

Oh really? Quote it. Where did I say “the use of force model is void in a riot.” Where?

[Warrior]

2 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

Oh really? Quote it. Where did I say “the use of force model is void in a riot.” Where?

 

your quote - No, they don’t apply to law enforcement because the use of force model, which the “expert” in the article is surely referencing, does not apply during a riot like it does to a traffic stop where you’re writing a speeding ticket. The only people those questions are relevant to are people who either have no knowledge on the topic, an agenda, or, like everybody here, an agenda and no knowledge. 

[concha]

1 minute ago, Warrior said:

 

your quote - No, they don’t apply to law enforcement because the use of force model, which the “expert” in the article is surely referencing, does not apply during a riot like it does to a traffic stop where you’re writing a speeding ticket. The only people those questions are relevant to are people who either have no knowledge on the topic, an agenda, or, like everybody here, an agenda and no knowledge. 

 

He asked...

OOOOPS

🤡

 

[DBP66]

1 hour ago, concha said:

 

So,  a dozen or so people who moments before were respecting security (who for some reason just left) qualify as a riot when one small woman with no weapon to anyone's knowledge makes her way through a window.

Didn't the cop who shot her claim he felt his life was in danger even though he literally had just watched the very same people doing basically nothing because 3 security guys just stood in their way?

What a steaming pile that was.

 

LOL..you're questioning if a riot occurred or not???...just 12 tourists looking for a good time??...how did the window get broken??...any guesses??.....and had these 3 "security guards" stuck around nothing would have happened??...you seem like you got it all covered....she didn't mean to go through the broken window but since the 3 "security guards" left she had no choice....sounds like the "deep state" plot worked like a charm!....huh Don!......🤡