- 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
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.
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.