• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ashli Babbitt, justified shooting based on legality? Yes or no

Ashli Babbitt, justified shooting based on legality? Yes or no


  • Total voters
    101

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ashli Babbitt, justified shooting based on legality?

YES

NO


WASHINGTON – The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice will not pursue criminal charges against the U.S. Capitol Police officer involved in the fatal shooting of 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, the Office announced today.

The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. In order to establish a violation of this statute, prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer acted willfully to deprive Ms. Babbitt of a right protected by the Constitution or other law, here the Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure. Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.

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.

The facts of the day, she was a terrorist nutter who stormed the nations capitol (this alone can get you shot), she then breached the capitol (a second action that can get you shot), stormed through the capitol (a third action that can get you shot) and then came across another barricade and proceeds to breach that one also and BLAMO .. Finally her actions did get her shot.

Watching the video her shoot was easily justified and I could have shot her if this was my house also. She got her own dumbass self killed.
People can have all the feelings they want and that’s fine it but the question is what it justified based on legality.
 
In a non-riot, non-insurrection scenario a stun gun would have sufficed. Under the actual circumstances, however, I can’t blame the officer one bit.
I think this is true for many situations. The circumstances that a person is dealing with, particularly an officer, have to be taken into account.

If the situation was not a mob with her, but just her alone or maybe 1 or 2 others trying to do the same thing, then it wouldn't have been the same type of situation, the same level of threat, which means even just subduing her by hand (if they don't have other less than lethal weapons) would have been called for (especially if it was just her), especially since then others would have also been available to assist in the subduing. But the given situation made her a larger, more serious threat, especially being part of a mob, not being alone.
 
They're not pressing charges against the officer who shot her.


.
correct thats what my link and many other news outlets are reporting
 
In a non-riot, non-insurrection scenario a stun gun would have sufficed. Under the actual circumstances, however, I can’t blame the officer one bit.


Agreed
. . .eventhough one random person, breaching a window can justifiably get one shot the grey area is much larger

a member of a mob who has stormed a building (let alone the capitol) committing violence along the way, breached it .. and now are in the middle of another breach . . . that is justifiable.
 
Not to sound dramatic, but I don't think there's ever been a more justified shooting ever. Why would capital guards even have guns if they're not going to use it in this situation?? It IMMEDIATELY changed the tone of the terrorists when they saw this was real and they would be dropped if they kept pushing.

The officer that put a bullet in her deserves a god damn medal. How telling it is that conservatives support cops blowing away innocent and unarmed black people but are truly outraged about this.
 
Here's the code section that was considered - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

It's pretty clear that the cop didn't kill her based on her being an alien, a person of color or her race so, under this statute, no crime was committed. Using this statute in this way also precludes cops from using the same level of force against a person of color in the same situation so at least we have standards.

The assassination of Ashli Babbitt is entirely justified because she's white. So sayeth the DoJ.
 
Not to sound dramatic, but I don't think there's ever been a more justified shooting ever. Why would capital guards even have guns if they're not going to use it in this situation?? It IMMEDIATELY changed the tone of the terrorists when they saw this was real and they would be dropped if they kept pushing.

The officer that put a bullet in her deserves a god damn medal. How telling it is that conservatives support cops blowing away innocent and unarmed black people but are truly outraged about this.


Right?
based on facts what possible logic even exists to suggest it wasn't justified?

I agree, I could have shot her if this situation was my house and a mob stormed it, breached it, then i barricaded myself in a nother part and they breached that too . . .its like the cleanest example of when to use deadly force . . its basically textbook lol
 
Here's the code section that was considered - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242



It's pretty clear that the cop didn't kill her based on her being an alien, a person of color or her race so, under this statute, no crime was committed. Using this statute in this way also precludes cops from using the same level of force against a person of color in the same situation so at least we have standards.

The assassination of Ashli Babbitt is entirely justified because she's white. So sayeth the DoJ.
Talk about misinformation. This is not true. They considered if he violated any statutes, not just that one being under consideration. They concentrated on that one because it would have been really difficult for them to claim he violated any statutes that were similar to a local law when the local officials have been saying they didn't see that what he did was wrong.

"The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. " *emphasis mine
 
Here's the code section that was considered - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
It's pretty clear that the cop didn't kill her based on her being an alien, a person of color or her race so, under this statute, no crime was committed. Using this statute in this way also precludes cops from using the same level of force against a person of color in the same situation so at least we have standards.

The assassination of Ashli Babbitt is entirely justified because she's white. So sayeth the DoJ.
If it was an Antifa or Muslim mob storming the capital looking to hang people and destruct the congressional process you would have no problem with putting one of them down. Don't pretend this isn't anything but rabid partisanship on your part.

Don't like getting shot? Don't break into the capital where armed guards protect our democracy. Pretty simple actually. This dumb bitch got exactly what she deserved. If the terrorists wouldn't have tucked tail and run it would've been even more.
 
Talk about misinformation. This is not true. They considered if he violated any statutes, not just that one being under consideration. They concentrated on that one because it would have been really difficult for them to claim he violated any statutes that were similar to a local law when the local officials have been saying they didn't see that what he did was wrong.

"The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. " *emphasis mine
Yeah? Then where is the investigation into violations of 18 USC 1111 or 1112?
 
Ashli Babbitt, justified shooting based on legality?
The government is allowing it to go unpunished, ergo it's legal.

I do think it's unfortunate that an unarmed woman was gunned down for the crime of protesting against her government.
 
If it was an Antifa or Muslim mob storming the capital looking to hang people and destruct the congressional process you would have no problem with putting one of them down. Don't pretend this isn't anything but rabid partisanship on your part.

Don't like getting shot? Don't break into the capital where armed guards protect our democracy. Pretty simple actually. This dumb bitch got exactly what she deserved.
We had LOTS of Antifa/BLM mobs threatening to kill cops over the summer and we didn't kill those guys. Then again, since those mobs were primarily people of color then doing so would have been a violation of the aforementioned statute.
 
The government is allowing it to go unpunished, ergo it's legal.

I do think it's unfortunate that an unarmed woman was gunned down for the crime of protesting against her government.
Violently breaking into the capital building is not protesting. Maybe you should give it a try yourself and see what happens.

We had LOTS of Antifa/BLM mobs threatening to kill cops over the summer and we didn't kill those guys. Then again, since those mobs were primarily people of color then doing so would have been a violation of the aforementioned statute.
If they had violently broken into the capital building the guards would've had every right to shoot them as well. Consistency: not for everyone.
 
Yeah? Then where is the investigation into violations of 18 USC 1111 or 1112?
They stated they looked into if any federal laws were violated. Are you going to claim that there are not similar local laws in DC regarding murder? Or perhaps that he wasn't justified in shooting someone who presented themselves as a threat to him and those within his duty to protect?

They investigated that and it was basically deemed a justified shooting.
 
Here's the code section that was considered - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

It's pretty clear that the cop didn't kill her based on her being an alien, a person of color or her race so, under this statute, no crime was committed. Using this statute in this way also precludes cops from using the same level of force against a person of color in the same situation so at least we have standards.

The assassination of Ashli Babbitt is entirely justified because she's white. So sayeth the DoJ.
BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA . . now thats some funny tin foil hat nuttery right there, . Not one honest educated and objective poster will take that seriously. Why do you post so many lies that people will just destroy and make fun of?

8ytbprI.gif
 
Talk about misinformation. This is not true. They considered if he violated any statutes, not just that one being under consideration. They concentrated on that one because it would have been really difficult for them to claim he violated any statutes that were similar to a local law when the local officials have been saying they didn't see that what he did was wrong.

"The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. " *emphasis mine


the nerve of you posting facts logic and common sense like that!!!!
 
The government is allowing it to go unpunished, ergo it's legal.

I do think it's unfortunate that an unarmed woman was gunned down for the crime of protesting against her government.
If she had been gunned down outside the Capitol, then it would have been her protesting against her government. She was not simply protesting. She was part of a violent mob who was breaking their way into the barricaded House Chamber. She had no right to be there, even to protest peacefully, at that particular time. Since the mob she was with was not at all peaceful, that makes her part of the threat as a whole.
 
I cannot answer the question as such, I am inclined to say no but a criminal investigation was never completed on this.
 
The government is allowing it to go unpunished, ergo it's legal.

I do think it's unfortunate that an unarmed woman was gunned down for the crime of protesting against her government.


??? sorry you must be in the wrong thread, this is about the terrorist Ashli Babbitt, who are you taklking about?

😁 🍿
 
Yes, the federal investigation was completed. That is the point of this thread.

I believe a civil rights investigation is completed, and not to split hairs but it seems very little has come out on this investigation.
 
We had LOTS of Antifa/BLM mobs threatening to kill cops over the summer and we didn't kill those guys. Then again, since those mobs were primarily people of color then doing so would have been a violation of the aforementioned statute.

I love the triggered meltdowns this is causing for some

LMAO once again not even close to analogous


Please tell us who said we should kill people over your proclaimed threats? 😂
 
I believe a civil rights investigation is completed, and not to split hairs but it seems very little has come out on this investigation.

The link doesn't support your claim at all. Seems very thorough, could you be more specific?

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice will not pursue criminal charges against the U.S. Capitol Police officer involved in the fatal shooting of 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, the Office announced today.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia’s Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and the Civil Rights Division, with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), conducted a thorough investigation of Ms. Babbitt’s shooting.

The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws
 
Back
Top Bottom