Ashli Babbitt killer comes forward.

[Reynolds]

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.

Every person brandishing a brick was a "good shoot". The person standing beside him with no brick was a "bad shoot".

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

not an equivalent comparison

 

[Baptist Believer]

Less than lethal methods of crowd control

Capitol Police had been doing ALL of that, but Babbitt breached the last line of defense.

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.

The standards you were under are not the same as the Capitol Police. It is a completely different situation, AND Babbitt was not just one actor, but one person out of a huge mob of persons acting in a coordinated way.

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

Completely different situation.

 

[Baptist Believer]

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.

The rioters were not just shouting threats and profanities at them. They were attacking with stated intent to harm our nation's officeholders who were trying to evacuate the area.

 

[Reynolds]

Capitol Police had been doing ALL of that, but Babbitt breached the last line of defense.


The standards you were under are not the same as the Capitol Police. It is a completely different situation, AND Babbitt was not just one actor, but one person out of a huge mob of persons acting in a coordinated way.


Completely different situation.

The standards not the situations are different. M.O.J. were the standards set by Federal courts. They listed no exception for Capital Police. Policy can restrict officers to a higher standard than the law, but policy can not broaden an officers authority past that given him by law.
M.O J. Was not met.

 

[Reynolds]

The rioters were not just shouting threats and profanities at them. They were attacking with stated intent to harm our nation's officeholders who were trying to evacuate the area.

The officials were already secure. They were not threatening violence.

 

[canadyjd]

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.

Not sure about a 20ft rule for sword wielding maniacs; perhaps you could reference that statute.

I thought the Atlanta officer was exonerated, and all charges dropped.

Again, concerning the capital shooting, I’m giving the officer the benefit of the doubt. He was there, making split second decisions concerning the threat level.

peace to you

 

[Baptist Believer]

The standards not the situations are different. M.O.J. were the standards set by Federal courts. They listed no exception for Capital Police.

They are the Capitol Police (Capitol is a building, while Capital has a variety of meanings, including the city where government is housed), so they are not a municipal police department, but a hybrid force providing personal protection (like the Secret Service does for the President and Vice President) and securing the Capitol facilities and grounds.

As presented previously, the situation met the standards of the Capitol Police:

"[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." (NOTE: THIS IS A HYPERLINK)
​

The officials were already secure.

Not according to the testimony of all involved.

They were not threatening violence.

They were COMMITTING violence, breaking through the doors and windows, and Babbitt ignored the warning of the officer. (Also a hyperlink.)

 

[Reynolds]

They are the Capitol Police (Capitol is a building, while Capital has a variety of meanings, including the city where government is housed), so they are not a municipal police department, but a hybrid force providing personal protection (like the Secret Service does for the President and Vice President) and securing the Capitol facilities and grounds.

As presented previously, the situation met the standards of the Capitol Police:

"[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." (NOTE: THIS IS A HYPERLINK)
​

Not according to the testimony of all involved.


They were COMMITTING violence, breaking through the doors and windows, and Babbitt ignored the warning of the officer. (Also a hyperlink.)

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

 

[carpro]

I don't condone murder since Babbitt's death was not murder.

SNIP

I revise my comment. It appears that only for partisan political reasons will you condone murder.

At least, I hope that's the case.

 

[carpro]

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

peace to you

If you can get me in front of him, I will have no problem saying it to his face, after introducing myself

 

[Reynolds]

I revise my comment. It appears that only for partisan political reasons will you condone murder.

At least, I hope that's the case.

I don't know about that. Democrats love killing innocent people. (Abortion)

 

[carpro]

I don't know about that. Democrats love killing innocent people. (Abortion)

I'm being kind.

 

[canadyjd]

If you can get me in front of him, I will have no problem saying it to his face, after introducing myself

Why do you need me?

Peace to you

 

[carpro]

Why do you need me?

Peace to you

I don't.Not for anything at all.

Until just recently, the coward was being shielded for political reasons.

He's a murderer, pure and simple.

 

[just-want-peace]

I don't.Not for anything at all.

Until just recently, the coward was being shielded for political reasons.

He's a murderer, pure and simple.

AFAIC, the above statement is accurate, AND, IMHO, gives him two strikes against him to start.

Edited to add: Again, IMHO, the only reason this is popping up in the news now is to distract from that hellish blunder in Afghanistan.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I revise my comment. It appears that only for partisan political reasons will you condone murder.

At least, I hope that's the case.

Your are a liar, and worse.

I do not condone murder at all.

 

[canadyjd]

I don't.Not for anything at all.

Until just recently, the coward was being shielded for political reasons.

He's a murderer, pure and simple.

Tell you what. If you really want to confront him “face to face” I suggest you call the capitol police.

Just say, “I’m carpo. I’ve been anonymously slandering the officer that shot Ms. Babbitt on the internet; calling him a murderer and a coward. Someone pointed out I was a hypocrite and a coward myself because I am slandering him anonymously and it hurt my feelings. My manhood is now in question.

I would very much like to meet the officer, so I can call him a murderer and a coward to his face. I don’t want to harm him, just call him names. Could you please arrange that meeting so I can restore my manhood on the BB?”

For the record, I’m being sarcastic. I don’t really want you to call the capitol police. That would be a very stupid thing to do.

So, please, don’t do it! Please, oh please, don’t!!!

Peace to you

 

[carpro]

I would very much like to meet the officer, so I can call him a murderer and a coward to his face. I don’t want to harm him, just call him names. Could you please arrange that meeting so I can restore my manhood on the BB?”

Peace to you

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.

 

[canadyjd]

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

Officers are trained to not draw their weapons unless the threat is present.

Giving commands to “stop” at the point is like giving commands to “drop the sword” before he gets within 20ft.

Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

peace to you