Ashli Babbitt killer comes forward.

[canadyjd]

Only a cowardly drama queen would say something like that…..

So says the man anonymously slandering a LEO on the internet.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

It is unfortunate, but as soon as you illegally enter the Capital (especially when Congress is in session) you have a good chance of forfeiting your life. The priority shifts from looking after the trespasser to protecting our elected leaders. The only one to blame for Babbitt's death is Babbitt.

 

[Reynolds]

"Great bodily harm" had already been inflicted upon Capitol Police officers, as well as stated (shouted) intent to harm lawmakers. Deadly force was easily justified.


Means (a riotous mob armed with striking weapons), opportunity (the mob -- including Babbitt) were successfully breaking through the windows and doors (with Babbitt getting through), jeopardy (members of Congress and the Vice President were until immanent threat) were all present.


As an individual, maybe and maybe not. She was ex-military AND was carrying a backpack with unknown contents. She would have not been the only one to go through that window if she had not been met with deadly force.


Only because she was shot.


All of the Capitol Police officers were in danger of losing their lives.

Your comprehension of the law is majorly flawed.
You can not indiscriminately shoot members of a mob because some members of a mob are armed.
You would be crying a river if L.E. opened fire on the BLM mobs.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Your comprehension of the law is majorly flawed.

Your comprehension of my posts is impaired.

You can not indiscriminately shoot members of a mob because some members of a mob are armed.

No one was shot indiscriminately. She crossed into an area where she was warned not to enter as part of a mob. She was culpable and responsible for her own behavior, as well as an accessory to other illegal behavior by others in the mob.

You would be crying a river if L.E. opened fire on the BLM mobs.

Not for a similar circumstance. If BLM was storming the Capitol, attacking police officers, smashing through doors and windows, and expressing intent to harm the Vice President and members of Congress, I would say the same thing. In fact, it is due to amazing restraint by the Capitol Police that more people were not justifiably shot.

It someone gets through the fences and security at the White House, smashes their way into the White House and expresses intent to harm the President, they likely will not survive the encounter. The same thing goes with the Capitol.

 

[canadyjd]

…

Not for a similar circumstance. If BLM was storming the Capitol, attacking police officers, smashing through doors and windows, and expressing intent to harm the Vice President and members of Congress, I would say the same thing. In fact, it is due to amazing restraint by the Capitol Police that more people were not justifiably shot..

Actually, BL: has been doing similar things at federal courthouses and police stations for almost two years.

I am amazed at the restraint of LEO’s who allowed them to burn businesses, attack LEO with fire bombs and other weapons.

If he LEO’s in Seattle would have done what this officer did, the riots would have lasted one day.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

Your comprehension of my posts is impaired.


No one was shot indiscriminately. She crossed into an area where she was warned not to enter as part of a mob. She was culpable and responsible for her own behavior, as well as an accessory to other illegal behavior by others in the mob.


Not for a similar circumstance. If BLM was storming the Capitol, attacking police officers, smashing through doors and windows, and expressing intent to harm the Vice President and members of Congress, I would say the same thing. In fact, it is due to amazing restraint by the Capitol Police that more people were not justifiably shot.

It someone gets through the fences and security at the White House, smashes their way into the White House and expresses intent to harm the President, they likely will not survive the encounter. The same thing goes with the Capitol.

So, you have now just arbitrarily decided that a different set of laws apply if politicians are involved?

 

[Baptist Believer]

So, you have now just arbitrarily decided that a different set of laws apply if politicians are involved?

Really? Is that a serious question?

Okay, I’ll pretend that you don’t understand the value and operation of a representative democracy:

First of all, your question is fundamentally designed to distort the issue – a different set of laws does not apply when POLITICIANS are involved, but there is a difference between an attack on a politician and an attack on an OFFICEHOLDER.

For instance, an attack on former President Donald Trump would be a different level of thing than an attack on him when he was President. I would be greatly appalled in either situation, but an attack on Trump would not be an attack on our government since he is not an officeholder. I’ll explain:

If you stayed awake in high school government class, you would know that persons occupy offices in the layers of our government, whether they be judges, police officers, governors, congresspeople (state and federal), and the federal Executive Branch (the President and Vice President). An attack on these persons in the course of their duties (a judge presiding over a trial, Congress in session, the Vice President, the President, etc.) is not only an attack upon the person, but upon the office(s) and responsibilities they hold. Since the United States is a representative democracy, members of Congress are our representatives that are acting on our behalf (whether we agree with them or not) that have been selected through elections. The President and Vice President (whether we agree with them or not) has been elected through the Constitutional process of the Electoral College through our votes, or the votes of our fellow citizens.

Therefore, an attack on officeholders who are attempting to perform their duties is an attack on our Constitutional order; an attack on the people who are represented by those persons; an attack on our ability to be a representative democracy; and is a supreme offense to every patriot who upholds the Constitution, our laws, and our heritage as a representative democracy.

 

[Reynolds]

Really? Is that a serious question?

Okay, I’ll pretend that you don’t understand the value and operation of a representative democracy:

First of all, your question is fundamentally designed to distort the issue – a different set of laws does not apply when POLITICIANS are involved, but there is a difference between an attack on a politician and an attack on an OFFICEHOLDER.

For instance, an attack on former President Donald Trump would be a different level of thing than an attack on him when he was President. I would be greatly appalled in either situation, but an attack on Trump would not be an attack on our government since he is not an officeholder. I’ll explain:

If you stayed awake in high school government class, you would know that persons occupy offices in the layers of our government, whether they be judges, police officers, governors, congresspeople (state and federal), and the federal Executive Branch (the President and Vice President). An attack on these persons in the course of their duties (a judge presiding over a trial, Congress in session, the Vice President, the President, etc.) is not only an attack upon the person, but upon the office(s) and responsibilities they hold. Since the United States is a representative democracy, members of Congress are our representatives that are acting on our behalf (whether we agree with them or not) that have been selected through elections. The President and Vice President (whether we agree with them or not) has been elected through the Constitutional process of the Electoral College through our votes, or the votes of our fellow citizens.

Therefore, an attack on officeholders who are attempting to perform their duties is an attack on our Constitutional order; an attack on the people who are represented by those persons; an attack on our ability to be a representative democracy; and is a supreme offense to every patriot who upholds the Constitution, our laws, and our heritage as a representative democracy.

More of your garbage.
I understand how our government works.
Show me in the United States statutes where a lower standard of use of lethal force exits for security for members of house Of representatives or senate.

 

[Baptist Believer]

More of your garbage.
I understand how our government works.

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if you do, since you referred to what I wrote about protecting the fundamental basis of the function of our government as "garbage."

Show me in the United States statutes where a lower standard of use of lethal force exits for security for members of house Of representatives or senate.

Again, you write the questions in such a way as to distort the issues. In lethal force situations, the law is written with enough flexibility to allow officers to use "reasonable" judgment that will be reviewed later.

In terms of whether or not it is a serious violation of federal law to do what they did, it most definitely is.

Since it was obvious to all that Capitol Police officers were being attacked and members of the crowd were shouting their intent to "hang Mike Pence" and go after Nancy Polosi (and others), the well being of those officeholders was clearly in danger. Regular citizens and police officers have the right to use deadly force if their own lives, or the lives of the people they are protecting, are in danger.

I thought this was a helpful article that illustrated the issues involved in a way that reasonable people would understand:

Should you shoot someone breaching the U.S. Capitol?

Excerpts:

"Case in point: Congress is in session. We basically have the entire House of Representatives and members of the Senate all in one building. There are countless offices in that same building filled with staff members and rife with top-secret documents and electronic equipment storing government secrets.

And someone with a backpack ignores law enforcement orders, breaks through a window and begins climbing through. They’re breaching the United States Capitol...
--
"Forget what you have seen; the videos of the mob and rioters disrespecting our laws and brazenly overtaking and occupying the Capitol building on January 6th. Imagine it was just one person effecting the breach.

What do you do if you are a Capitol police officer or a member of the United States Secret Service?

Go hands-on?

What sane person would ignore orders from a duly appointed, armed law enforcement official? What is their purpose, goal, intent?

What about that backpack? What’s in it?

What if it contains explosives? Anthrax?

What if it doesn’t contain anything but clothing and a rambling political manifesto?

The decision to shoot or not to shoot would take place in less time than it took me to type those questions.

Now imagine that it’s not just one person breaching. It’s one thousand...
--
"This job has never been easy when it comes to making deadly force decisions in the moment. The second-guessing is easy. It’s also arrogant and presumptuous.

It’s usually done with malicious bias, self-righteousness and complete ignorance of the deadly realities and immense complexities of these situations. It also totally disregards the humanity of the officers involved and the emotional, psychological and often legal aftermath they face. For doing their jobs. For protecting others."​

 

[Reynolds]

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if you do, since you referred to what I wrote about protecting the fundamental basis of the function of our government as "garbage."


Again, you write the questions in such a way as to distort the issues. In lethal force situations, the law is written with enough flexibility to allow officers to use "reasonable" judgment that will be reviewed later.

In terms of whether or not it is a serious violation of federal law to do what they did, it most definitely is.

Since it was obvious to all that Capitol Police officers were being attacked and members of the crowd were shouting their intent to "hang Mike Pence" and go after Nancy Polosi (and others), the well being of those officeholders was clearly in danger. Regular citizens and police officers have the right to use deadly force if their own lives, or the lives of the people they are protecting, are in danger.

I thought this was a helpful article that illustrated the issues involved in a way that reasonable people would understand:

Should you shoot someone breaching the U.S. Capitol?

Excerpts:

"Case in point: Congress is in session. We basically have the entire House of Representatives and members of the Senate all in one building. There are countless offices in that same building filled with staff members and rife with top-secret documents and electronic equipment storing government secrets.

And someone with a backpack ignores law enforcement orders, breaks through a window and begins climbing through. They’re breaching the United States Capitol...
--
"Forget what you have seen; the videos of the mob and rioters disrespecting our laws and brazenly overtaking and occupying the Capitol building on January 6th. Imagine it was just one person effecting the breach.

What do you do if you are a Capitol police officer or a member of the United States Secret Service?

Go hands-on?

What sane person would ignore orders from a duly appointed, armed law enforcement official? What is their purpose, goal, intent?

What about that backpack? What’s in it?

What if it contains explosives? Anthrax?

What if it doesn’t contain anything but clothing and a rambling political manifesto?

The decision to shoot or not to shoot would take place in less time than it took me to type those questions.

Now imagine that it’s not just one person breaching. It’s one thousand...
--
"This job has never been easy when it comes to making deadly force decisions in the moment. The second-guessing is easy. It’s also arrogant and presumptuous.

It’s usually done with malicious bias, self-righteousness and complete ignorance of the deadly realities and immense complexities of these situations. It also totally disregards the humanity of the officers involved and the emotional, psychological and often legal aftermath they face. For doing their jobs. For protecting others."​

I have seen that before.
Still waiting for the statute.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I have seen that before.
Still waiting for the statute.

Federal policy for the use of force is currently based the standard set in the Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) decision, that states:

(b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 394-395.

(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.​

Something to specifically note is that the Capitol Police are not like a municipal police force. They are a very specialized police force that manages the security of the Capitol building, the security of members of Congress, and maintenance of order so that Congress can perform its work.

"[United States Capitol Police policy states] an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."​

Since the officer was defending the lives and well-being of our nation's Congress and the Vice President, as well as his own life, he was fully within US Capitol Police policy on use of deadly force.

Morever, the Department of Justice investigated the shooting and stated:

"The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter."​

 

[Reynolds]

Federal policy for the use of force is currently based the standard set in the Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) decision, that states:

(b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 394-395.

(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.​

Something to specifically note is that the Capitol Police are not like a municipal police force. They are a very specialized police force that manages the security of the Capitol building, the security of members of Congress, and maintenance of order so that Congress can perform its work.

"[United States Capitol Police policy states] an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."​

Since the officer was defending the lives and well-being of our nation's Congress and the Vice President, as well as his own life, he was fully within US Capitol Police policy on use of deadly force.

Morever, the Department of Justice investigated the shooting and stated:

"The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter."​

That is the case that established M.O.J. None of the three were met.

 

[Baptist Believer]

That is the case that established M.O.J. None of the three were met.

The Capitol Police, the Justice Department, and most of the United States disagrees. I suspect the only ones who disagree are the persons who are trying to justify the attack on our Constitutional government.

The actions of the officer were quite reasonable. The stunning thing is that the whole event was not a complete bloodbath with officers justifiably using deadly force to defend themselves while being beaten by the mob.

 

[Reynolds]

The Capitol Police, the Justice Department, and most of the United States disagrees. I suspect the only ones who disagree are the persons who are trying to justify the attack on our Constitutional government.

The actions of the officer were quite reasonable. The stunning thing is that the whole event was not a complete bloodbath with officers justifiably using deadly force to defend themselves while being beaten by the mob.

Any other officer in USA had done that they would be on trial for murder.
There were instances that day where deadly force was justified. That shooting was not one of them.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Any other officer in USA had done that they would be on trial for murder.

I sincerely doubt that. But even if it were true, the Capitol Police force is NOT a municipal police department. They function as a hybrid between police officers and bodyguards. If the people they guard are threatened, and they cannot deescalate (like the situation on 1/6), they have no choice. They had already ceded control of much of the building in exchange for keeping Congress safe and not turning the scene into a bloodbath of dead Trump zealots.

 

[Use of Time]

Any other officer in USA had done that they would be on trial for murder.
There were instances that day where deadly force was justified. That shooting was not one of them.

What exactly was he supposed to do? Ask them to please nicely line up for arrest in lines of 100. I’m sure they were agreeable to verbal commands. Lol. What do you think would have happen if he stepped aside and just let them through? What do you think would have happened if they actually reached the targets they were literally threatening to kill? If this were democrats threatening to “hang Trump I’m sure you would be singing a different tune and you absolutely know it. The guy prevented a disaster and sent a message that this was the line. Who knows how many lives he saved.

The fact that the police only killed one person is a miracle in and of itself.

 

[Reynolds]

What exactly was he supposed to do? Ask them to please nicely line up for arrest in lines of 100. I’m sure they were agreeable to verbal commands. Lol. What do you think would have happen if he stepped aside and just let them through? What do you think would have happened if they actually reached the targets they were literally threatening to kill? If this were democrats threatening to “hang Trump I’m sure you would be singing a different tune and you absolutely know it. The guy prevented a disaster and sent a message that this was the line. Who knows how many lives he saved.

The fact that the police only killed one person is a miracle in and of itself.

Must have M.O.J. all present at time deadly force was used.
No means present.
No opportunity present.
No one was in immediate threat of becoming the victim of her committing a forcible felony against them..

 

[Use of Time]

Must have M.O.J. all present at time deadly force was used.
No means present.
No opportunity present.
No one was in immediate threat of becoming the victim of her committing a forcible felony against them..

You are treating this like it’s a one on one situation and you know it wasn’t.

And again what was he supposed to do?

 

[Reynolds]

You are treating this like it’s a one on one situation and you know it wasn’t.

And again what was he supposed to do?

Use of force on an individual must be justified by that individual presenting M.O.J.
What are the officers supposed to do?
Less than lethal methods of crowd control

Had they shot someone swinging a stick at them I would say "Good shoot."

The person shot was not meeting one element of M.O. J when she was shot. Not one!
You can't even shoot someone brandishing a sword at you until they get within 20 ft.

Officer in ATL was charger for murder for shooting black man who took his taser and fired it at officer.

 

[Alcott]

If all this 'using justifiable deadly force' in regard to Jan. 6 is true, then the National Guardsmen at Kent State in 1970 were certainly justified in killing a sample of the protestors who shouted threats and profanities at them, some holding bricks and signs with the president's face on skull and crossbones.