Ashli Babbitt killer comes forward.

[canadyjd]

And you think that would work?

He wouldn't dare to face me, just like he hasn't dared to face anyone else, especially her family.

I don’t know the man, but I have a great amount of respect for anyone who puts on the uniform. I find it hard to believe he would be afraid of you, though having anonymous people seeking you out would unnerve most.

Every shooting, fatal or not, results in a review by “internal affairs” or the equivalent in the capitol police. He has faced the hard questions. Meeting with the family seems a bad idea in most cases, imo, but may happen should they sue.

peace to you

 

[Baptist Believer]

He wouldn't dare to face me...

Because you are SO intimidating!

...just like he hasn't dared to face anyone else...

He "outed" himself on national television to the media. As far as I know, he is still working for the Capitol Police. He has faced the entire nation.

...especially her family.

Is that a requirement where you live?

Is it a rule that police officers who kill criminals in the midst of their crimes must go visit the criminal's family?

 

[Revmitchell]

Ignoring orders to stop does not justify a shooting. M.O.J. justifies a law enforcement shooting. It does not matter where it occurs.

First the fact that it happened in the Capital building does matter and does give justification for the shooting. As someone who did security for Bush sr., Dukakis, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, military bombing ranges, Marine Corps aircraft I can tell you that these high value situations give justification for deadly use of force in ways not found for everyone else.

If it weren’t for the fact that capital police were given orders to let the protestors in that shooting would be justified.

 

[Use of Time]

First the fact that it happened in the Capital building does matter and does give justification for the shooting. As someone who did security for Bush sr., Dukakis, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, military bombing ranges, Marine Corps aircraft I can tell you that these high value situations give justification for deadly use of force in ways not found for everyone else.

If it weren’t for the fact that capital police were given orders to let the protestors in that shooting would be justified.

The shooting is justified no matter what the lawyers of BB decide.

 

[canadyjd]

…

If it weren’t for the fact that capital police were given orders to let the protestors in that shooting would be justified.

I don’t think your logic is sound. Even if the protestors were allowed into the lobby area, it’s hard to imagine they believed they had permission to smash a window to gain access to the chamber, especially since a LEO was standing on the other side, weapon drawn, commanding them not to crawl through.

If someone was on a White House tour (permission granted) do you think that gives them permission to break down a door to get into the Oval Office to speak to the Pres?

Of course not. Permission to enter a non-restricted area doesn’t give permission for restricted areas and even that permission can be revoked at will should circumstances change.

peace to you

 

[Alcott]

The only other case I am aware of, when an intruder illegally entered restricted space-- the White House grounds, in this case-- and was fatally shot was Chester Plummer in 1976. He defied an SS officer's order to stop, then a rookie officer, who is not identified in any info about the incident, shot him. He had what could have been used as a weapon, a section of pipe. Interviews with his family and acquaintances indicate he was a quiet, moody individual who was "apolitical" and had not expresses ambivalence against Pres. Ford (who seemed to have gotten more than his share of this type of thing).

But there have been a number of similar cases of jumping the wall or driving into barriers, in which all the trespassers got was probation or assignment to a booby hatch. So in this case and the Babbitt case, it was defiance of an order to stop which wasn't heeded. DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED, as those signs outside the Nevada Test Site say. Those words have teeth or they don't.

 

[JonC]

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

Actually, it is not arbitrary.

If a security guard shoots an unarmed man for breaking in Walmart there will be an issue.

But if you just try to climb the fence at a nuclear facility they will shoot you without reprocussions (you don't even have to get to a processing facility).

Climb my fence and you will not be shot (the dog may make you wish you had been, but I will not shoot you)

Climb the fence at the White House at the risk of losing your life.

 

[canadyjd]

Actually, it is not arbitrary.

If a security guard shoots an unarmed man for breaking in Walmart there will be an issue.

But if you just try to climb the fence at a nuclear facility they will shoot you without reprocussions (you don't even have to get to a processing facility).

Climb my fence and you will not be shot (the dog may make you wish you had been, but I will not shoot you)

Climb the fence at the White House at the risk of losing your life.

Like it or not, the reality is some people’s lives are considered more important and worthy of increased protection.

In such cases, the standards for using lethal force will vary.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Like it or not, the reality is some people’s lives are considered more important and worthy of increased protection.

In such cases, the standards for using lethal force will vary.

peace to you

Some do consider certain lives more important, but that is not the reason our representatives are assigned protection.

When the people broke into the Capital Congress was in session. What was being guarded was our system of government irrespective of the people holding those positions.

For example, if you shoot a drug dealer on the side of the road you are a criminal. If you shoot a President, or Congressman you are a traitor.

The first would be depriving a man his life, a mother her son, a child his father, ect.

But the second would be depriving the US its elected official.

Also, Presidents, Congressmen, and Senators have a much higher potential to be targeted than you and I.

 

[canadyjd]

Some do consider certain lives more important, but that is not the reason our representatives are assigned protection.

When the people broke into the Capital Congress was in session. What was being guarded was our system of government irrespective of the people holding those positions.

For example, if you shoot a drug dealer on the side of the road you are a criminal. If you shoot a President, or Congressman you are a traitor.

The first would be depriving a man his life, a mother her son, a child his father, ect.

But the second would be depriving the US its elected official.

Also, Presidents, Congressmen, and Senators have a much higher potential to be targeted than you and I.

Ok

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Ok

peace to you

Peace back atcha.

 

[FollowTheWay]

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.

If that woman broke YOUR window and tried to enter your house with an angry mob behind her would you be justified in shooting her?

 

[Reynolds]

If that woman broke YOUR window and tried to enter your house with an angry mob behind her would you be justified in shooting her?

As a private citizen, in most states I would. As a peace officer acting under color of law, no, I would not.
I will use Ga because I worked there. Violent and tumultuous manner of entry is the standard for a personal abode. MOJ is the standard for a police officer.
If on duty I went home to eat supper. An unarmed man who did not put my life or the life of others in immediate danger by meeting the criteria of MOJ kicks my door down, I can not shoot him.
10 hrs later off duty, I can triple tap him.

 

[FollowTheWay]

As a private citizen, in most states I would. As a peace officer acting under color of law, no, I would not.
I will use Ga because I worked there. Violent and tumultuous manner of entry is the standard for a personal abode. MOJ is the standard for a police officer.
If on duty I went home to eat supper. An unarmed man who did not put my life or the life of others in immediate danger by meeting the criteria of MOJ kicks my door down, I can not shoot him.
10 hrs later off duty, I can triple tap him.

Then why have there been so many murders of unarmed people in GA and elsewhere because the officer was "afraid?"

 

[Reynolds]

Then why have there been so many murders of unarmed people in GA and elsewhere because the officer was "afraid?"

The shootings were in many cases because the person was capable of MOJ without a weapon.