• 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
OrphanSlug said:
I believe a civil rights investigation is completed, and not to split hairs but it seems very little has come out on this investigation.
Click to expand...
We normally hear very little about most investigations into police shootings.
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ya'll don't even try to hide the white grievance anymore.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You've added nothing to the conversation. Why don't you tell us about a more justified shooting than this or attempt to defend her insurrection in some way. I can't think of one.
Click to expand...

You're still sounding dramatic and nothing you've posted has added anything either. I've just flailed about less doing it.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...
Based on the DoJ statement, the emphasized the investigation of a civil rights statute and didn't mention the murder or manslaughter statutes. That's rather telling. Darren Wilson, for example, was investigated for 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-charges
Then again, Wilson killed a black man so there wasn't a choice in charging.
 
Lutherf said:
Based on the DoJ statement, the emphasized the investigation of a civil rights statute and didn't mention the murder or manslaughter statutes. That's rather telling. Darren Wilson, for example, was investigated for 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-charges
Then again, Wilson killed a black man so there wasn't a choice in charging.
Click to expand...
They stated the investigation was into whether any federal laws were violated.

Officer Wilson should not have been charged (as he wasn't), given the circumstances of the situation, but those circumstances were still very, very different than those that got Ashli Babbitt killed. They are not comparable.

en.wikipedia.org

Killing of Michael Brown - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
In what nation on earth can you violently storm that nation's capital, and not face potentially deadly force?
Click to expand...


exactly lol

commonsense.jpg
 
Lutherf said:
Based on the DoJ statement, the emphasized the investigation of a civil rights statute and didn't mention the murder or manslaughter statutes. That's rather telling. Darren Wilson, for example, was investigated for 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-charges
Then again, Wilson killed a black man so there wasn't a choice in charging.
Click to expand...
I'm sure if a violent mob had stormed the White House with the goal of finding and hanging your boy Trump, you would've been opposed to using guns.

No one believes for one second that's your actual position. Aren't you one of those guys that always defends a cop when he blasts an unarmed black guy?
 
Nope. She presented no danger.
 
Taylor said:
It's your job to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

WHAT?! :oops:😂

That's what I thought you got nothing!!! instant fail!

YOU made the statement its YOUR job to support it but you won't cause you cant.
Please let u know when you can back up your claim with one fact that makes it true, thanks!
 
I don't know why there is any debate on this topic?
A cop shoots a black man because HE MIGHT be a threat, and that is acceptable.
But a cop shoots a white woman belonging to a certain protest group because SHE MIGHT be a threat, and he should be fired and charged.

Makes perfectly good sense to me.

wonder_40x40.gif
 
Taylor said:
It's your job to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure we have plenty of evidence to support the stance that someone being part of an armed (even if with pointy weapons or blunt objections rather than shooty weapons) mob is still a lethal threat.

Let's hear from someone who actually is all about use of lethal force (interestingly, the first time I was "introduced" to Massad Ayoob was a few months ago in my concealed carry class because the instructor played a video starring this guy who talked about ways to not only carry properly but also defend yourself against your use of force, as well as showing us all how to conceal carry about 50+ weapons at one time).

Defense Against Mobs

armedcitizensnetwork.org armedcitizensnetwork.org
 
roguenuke said:
Pretty sure we have plenty of evidence to support the stance that someone being part of an armed (even if with pointy weapons or blunt objections rather than shooty weapons) mob is still a lethal threat.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you have nothing, which is why you resort to this "part of a" nonsense. Is it open season now on any protestor because they are "part of a" group where someone is carrying a baseball bat? Utter stupidity.
 
Taylor said:
Nope. She presented no danger.
Click to expand...

Explain. She was breaching the final barricade between the protestors and the congress critters. You would have known she had no weapons? Based on what evidence available to the officer?
 
Fledermaus said:
Explain. She was breaching the final barricade between the protestors and the congress critters. You would have known she had no weapons? Based on what evidence available to the officer?
Click to expand...
That was not "the final barricade." She evidently never saw the "cop" - he may as well of walked up behind her and shot her in the back. Coward.
 
Taylor said:
Pretty sure you have nothing, which is why you resort to this "part of a" nonsense. Is it open season now on any protestor because they are "part of a" group where someone is carrying a baseball bat? Utter stupidity.
Click to expand...
I presented it quite clearly. Lethal force is justified against a mob, which means being part of a mob, like Ashli Babbitt was, leaves a person justified to shoot you when you pose a threat to others, as Ashli Babbitt did when she crossed that threshold to try to make it into the Speaker's Lobby. Just as Wyatt Earp would have been if someone had tried to climb through a window into that saloon where they were holding Michael O'Rourke.
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...
If any of the rioters had rushed the police as part of a mob, the police probably would have shot them in response.
 
Taylor said:
That was not "the final barricade"
Click to expand...
Yes it was the final barricade. They did not have enough officers to post at every entrance to the House Chamber from that particular side, so instead they blocked off the Lobby doors, barricaded them and posted a guard. Had that mob made it inside the Speaker's Lobby, they would have had full access to those left within the House Chamber, with the armed officers inside there being greatly outnumbered by the incoming mob.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom