Ashli Babbit. Say Her Name.

[RipponRedeaux]

BYRD should have been relieved of duty months before he murdered Ashli. He left his revolver in the bathroom of the Capitol and didn't retrieve it till hours later. He was an incompetent and trigger-happy individual.

 

[canadyjd]

Murdered.
By a frightened coward.

Frightened? Probably. Only a fool would have no fear in that situation.

A coward? Absolutely not. He stood his ground and did his job. He stopped a violent mob from gaining access to the chamber.

Tragic but justified

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

BYRD should have been relieved of duty months before he murdered Ashli. He left his revolver in the bathroom of the Capitol and didn't retrieve it till hours later. He was an incompetent and trigger-happy individual.

If he misplaced his weapon, I agree he should have been relieved of duty.

That makes him incompetent. It doesn’t make him trigger happy. Had he fired his weapon through the window randomly, that would support the accusation of “trigger happy”.

Tragic but justified

peace to you

 

[Reformed1689]

Hero, No. Innocent, Yes. The Capitol police let these people in - but nothing has happened to them. This was all orchestrated for a reason by our leaders. But could you really expect better from people who have sanctioned and praised the murder of children in the womb?

What I saw was not innocent. Destruction of property, not innocent. Rioting, not innocent. The incident was not a peaceful protest or sit-in.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

What I saw was not innocent. Destruction of property, not innocent. Rioting, not innocent. The incident was not a peaceful protest or sit-in.

Guilt by association then? Regardless of the fact that there were people there doing such things it does not change the fact that she was not, nor did the Officers on the side of the barricade that she was on (standing a few feet away) think so either. Even if he was in fear for his life it's not like she was going to jump threw the window fighting, he very easily could have contained her when she came through.

 

[Use of Time]

Guilt by association then? Regardless of the fact that there were people there doing such things it does not change the fact that she was not, nor did the Officers on the side of the barricade that she was on (standing a few feet away) think so either. Even if he was in fear for his life it's not like she was going to jump threw the window fighting, he very easily could have contained her when she came through.

It’s disingenuous to act like this was a one on one scenario. Sure he could have detained her one on one but the flood gates were bursting and their perimeter had deteriorated to the inner rooms of the building. What about the 100’s that follow her through the door?

 

[5 point Gillinist]

It’s disingenuous to act like this was a one on one scenario. Sure he could have detained her one on one but the flood gates were bursting and their perimeter had deteriorated to the inner rooms of the building. What about the 100’s that follow her through the door?

Again watch the video I posted. Several Officers were standing a few feet from her doing nothing. Now it seems to me, that if they didn't think enough of it to respond, then maybe it wasn't a just shooting. It is interesting out of the supposed "hundreds" (you claim) that were following her (which there didn't appear to be hundreds trying to get threw the window, let alone even hundreds in that area) she is the only one to get shot. Aside from the fact that the Capitol Police let these people in.

 

[Reformed1689]

Guilt by association then? Regardless of the fact that there were people there doing such things it does not change the fact that she was not, nor did the Officers on the side of the barricade that she was on (standing a few feet away) think so either. Even if he was in fear for his life it's not like she was going to jump threw the window fighting, he very easily could have contained her when she came through.

No it is not guilty by association. She was with a group BREAKING WINDOWS in the building and she then climbed through that broken window when she was shot. That is not innocent. Period.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

You only addressed part of my statement. I'm going to assume that you don't know the SOP for use of force?

 

[canadyjd]

Guilt by association then? Regardless of the fact that there were people there doing such things it does not change the fact that she was not, nor did the Officers on the side of the barricade that she was on (standing a few feet away) think so either. Even if he was in fear for his life it's not like she was going to jump threw the window fighting, he very easily could have contained her when she came through.

Once again, the LEO had to make the decision, in the moment, without the benefit of pouring over video looking for errors in judgment.

You do not know if he could have “very easily” contained her and neither do I. I give the LEO on scene the benefit of the doubt as to his assessment of the situation.

He saw a threat to life that wasn’t just a woman crawling through a window. His job was to protect the Congress members from threats to their lives. He did his job.

Tragic but justified

peace to you

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Once again, the LEO had to make the decision, in the moment, without the benefit of pouring over video looking for errors in judgment.

You do not know if he could have “very easily” contained her and neither do I. I give the LEO on scene the benefit of the doubt as to his assessment of the situation.

He saw a threat to life that wasn’t just a woman crawling through a window. His job was to protect the Congress members from threats to their lives. He did his job.

Tragic but justified

peace to you

Let me give you a few of the facts that determine that this was an unjust shooting/unnecessary use of force.

He issued no verbal warning - that is something LEOs MUST do. If she had a gun or a visible weapon that would have been different. A verbal warning is also required for non-lethal use of force methods; taser, baton, OC, even hands on.
He right off the bat pulled out his firearm and was aiming it at her.

There were multiple officers a few feet away - none of them were concerned, if there was a fear then they would have responded as back up to the situation.

The Officer shot the woman, and then he ran away. That is NOT protocol in that situation.

The woman made no threats, had no weapons in her hand, etc.

I can give you many anecdotal accounts of Officers dealing with dangerous suspects which resulted in no deaths, rather the Officers were the ones that sustained injury.

I'm not trying to be rude, but this is a very serious incident, one that sets a dangerous precedent. Aside from the fact that a fellow image bearer was murdered.

 

[canadyjd]

Let me give you a few of the facts that determine that this was an unjust shooting/unnecessary use of force.

He issued no verbal warning - that is something LEOs MUST do. If she had a gun or a visible weapon that would have been different. A verbal warning is also required for non-lethal use of force methods; taser, baton, OC, even hands on.
He right off the bat pulled out his firearm and was aiming it at her.

There were multiple officers a few feet away - none of them were concerned, if there was a fear then they would have responded as back up to the situation.

The Officer shot the woman, and then he ran away. That is NOT protocol in that situation.

The woman made no threats, had no weapons in her hand, etc.

I can give you many anecdotal accounts of Officers dealing with dangerous suspects which resulted in no deaths, rather the Officers were the ones that sustained injury.

I'm not trying to be rude, but this is a very serious incident, one that sets a dangerous precedent. Aside from the fact that a fellow image bearer was murdered.

I understand this is serious.

A few facts. The is no requirement to give a verbal warning prior to using force. It is recommended iif there is time. The officer has discretion as to whether there is time, especially with deadly force.

The riot had been going in for some time. Several people were attempting to smash the windows to the chamber. If there were LEO’s around her (the story stated they had left the area), it’s hard for me to believe they were just spectators. Regardless, that is clear violence directed toward congressional members.

I will leave this question with you and all those claiming this was murder. I hope you will answer directly.

If you were at work and a violent antifa mob began smashing windows, attempting to gain access, threatening to kill people inside, and a LEO shot the first person crawling through the window, would you be calling it murder?

Please answer directly

peace to you

 

[RipponRedeaux]

What I saw was not innocent. Destruction of property, not innocent. Rioting, not innocent. The incident was not a peaceful protest or sit-in.

Who ever heard of an unarmed insurrection? It was more like a Fedsurrection.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I understand this is serious.

A few facts. The is no requirement to give a verbal warning prior to using force. It is recommended iif there is time. The officer has discretion as to whether there is time, especially with deadly force.

The riot had been going in for some time. Several people were attempting to smash the windows to the chamber. If there were LEO’s around her (the story stated they had left the area), it’s hard for me to believe they were just spectators. Regardless, that is clear violence directed toward congressional members.

I will leave this question with you and all those claiming this was murder. I hope you will answer directly.

If you were at work and a violent antifa mob began smashing windows, attempting to gain access, threatening to kill people inside, and a LEO shot the first person crawling through the window, would you be calling it murder?

Please answer directly

peace to you

Well I posted a video where you can see the other LEO's, don't just take my word for it, and in the age we're living in don't take the media's word for it either.

There absolutely is a requirement in a situation like this. Ask Reynolds his opinion, he was an LEO for far longer than I have been.

To begin with your scenario is a false dichotomy, but I will answer your question to the best of your given info.

1.) Antifa is an organized group, which is well known to be violent, and by all means should be classified as a domestic terrorist group. There are multiple videos of the group going around and assaulting people with fists, bricks, bats, etc.
Miss Babbit was not apart of this or any other known group that is known for violent acts.

2.) Miss. Babbit was not making threats as I stated above.

3.) I cannot sufficiently answer your question at this point as there are MANY details left to the imagination which is why it is a false dichotomy. Your scenario is in no way equivalent to the situation at this part of the Capitol, which we have a video of that paints a very different situation from what you are saying happened (as well as your pretend scenario).

Now answer my question - why did he shoot just her, and then run off (which is very much a violation of protocol), if this was such a desperate situation in which he was holding back a "violent mob?" Seems like if this was the situation he would have remained.
Better yet, why did the Capitol police welcome the protesters into the Capitol building?

 

[Reformed1689]

Who ever heard of an unarmed insurrection? It was more like a Fedsurrection.

Notice I did not say anything about insurrection.

 

[Reformed1689]

Better yet, why did the Capitol police welcome the protesters into the Capitol building?

This happened at EVERY entrance? There were some locations that the protesters were being peaceful.

 

[canadyjd]

Well I posted a video where you can see the other LEO's, don't just take my word for it, and in the age we're living in don't take the media's word for it either.

There absolutely is a requirement in a situation like this. Ask Reynolds his opinion, he was an LEO for far longer than I have been.

To begin with your scenario is a false dichotomy, but I will answer your question to the best of your given info.

1.) Antifa is an organized group, which is well known to be violent, and by all means should be classified as a domestic terrorist group. There are multiple videos of the group going around and assaulting people with fists, bricks, bats, etc.
Miss Babbit was not apart of this or any other known group who is known for violent acts.

2.) Miss. Babbit was not making threats as I stated above.

3.) I cannot sufficiently answer your question at this point as there are MANY details left to the imagination which is why it is a false dichotomy. Your scenario is in no way equivalent either to the situation.

Now answer my question - why did he shoot just her, and then run off, if this was such a desperate situation, and he was holding back a "violent mob?" Seems like if this was the situation he would have remained.

There is no “requirement” to give a verbal warning and I don’t need to ask anyone else their opinion. The situation dictates the response and I give the LEO on site the benefit of the doubt whether he thought he had time to give a warning.

Crawling through the broken window into the house chamber is a clear threat.

You didn’t answer my question directly and that’s unfortunate. Forget antifa. Clearly, my scenario is identical to this situation. If a mob was breaking windows at your work, trying to get in, threatening to kill people once inside and a LEO shot the first person crawling through the window, would you call that murder?

I suspect you cannot answer directly because it undermines your position in this case.

He “just “ shot her because that was all that was necessary to control the situation. No one else attempted to crawl through the window.

You guys are all over the place. Someone accused the LEO of being trigger happy. You question why he demonstrated restraint and didn’t shoot more people.

Why did he “run off”? Again, the situation dictates the response and I give LEO’s on site the benefit of the doubt.

The fact all congress members remained safe and unharmed indicates a job well done.

peace to you

 

[5 point Gillinist]

There is no “requirement” to give a verbal warning and I don’t need to ask anyone else their opinion. The situation dictates the response and I give the LEO on site the benefit of the doubt whether he thought he had time to give a warning.

Crawling through the broken window into the house chamber is a clear threat.

You didn’t answer my question directly and that’s unfortunate. Forget antifa. Clearly, my scenario is identical to this situation. If a mob was breaking windows at your work, trying to get in, threatening to kill people once inside and a LEO shot the first person crawling through the window, would you call that murder?

I suspect you cannot answer directly because it undermines your position in this case.

He only shot her because that was all that was necessary to control the situation. No one else attempted to crawl through the window.

You guys are all over the place. Someone accused the LEO of being trigger happy. You question why he demonstrated restraint and didn’t shoot more people.

Why did he “run off”? Again, the situation dictates the response and I give LEO’s on site the benefit of the doubt.

The fact all congress members remained safe and unharmed indicates a job well done.

peace to you

Your situation as I stated is both a false equivalency, and a false dichotomy. Your situation is hardly identical.

So the situation dictated that he shoot one person of the "violent mob" and then run away? Usually violent, bloodthirsty mobs aren't brought into subjection by shooting one person - did he then trust that the "violent mob" had learned their lesson so he decided to flee? Does your statement honestly make sense to you?

You don't want to ask someone else's opinion that is knowledgeable on such things due to being trained in these things?

 

[canadyjd]

Your situation as I stated is both a false equivalency, and a false dichotomy. Your situation is hardly identical.

So the situation dictated that he shoot one person of the "violent mob" and then run away? Usually violent, bloodthirsty mobs aren't brought into subjection by shooting one person - did he then trust that the "violent mob" had learned their lesson so he decided to flee? Does your statement honestly make sense to you?

You don't want to ask someone else's opinion that is knowledgeable on such things due to being trained in these things?

I know there is no “requirement” to give a warning before using deadly force. The LEO makes the decision whether there is time for a warning or not. On that, I don’t need anyone’s opinion.

Why don’t you PM Reynolds and ask him. Be sure to let us know what he says.

The fact no one else attempted to crawl through that window demonstrates the one shot was enough. Isn’t that a good thing?

Your characterization of the LEO “running away” doesn’t fit. They were evacuating the Congress. I doubt he ran screaming for an exit, running over congressmen in the process.

please explain how the situation I described is a “false equivalency”.

peace to you

 

[Reformed1689]

Why did he “run off”? Again, the situation dictates the response and I give LEO’s on site the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps because there was a massive mob there?