• 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!

Investigation into Babbit shooting closed

lwf said:
If those George Floyd protesters are breaking into a government building where elected officials are taking shelter from them with the intent to forcibly stop those officials from performing their duties, then yes absolutely.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
No I'm not. A threat to ANY PERSON is the same as it is to any other person. A threat to a government official IS NOT a higher priority than a threat to a mother picking her kids up from school is.
 
Lutherf said:
If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force.
Click to expand...

You apply that elsewhere as universal, or only when Trump loyalists are trying to break into Congress to stop the certification of the vote Trump lost?
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Like sooo... many liberals love to bring up, treason assumes due process, not an instant death sentence.
Click to expand...
The officer did his job correctly. Babbitt is responsible for Babbitt’s death. Both are facts.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Unarmed...Entering a building that at least one DC policeman dropped barricades and waved them in, so I would say it's applicable.
Click to expand...

Except she didn't just walk into a building after being waved in by a DC police officer. She entered the building, found a locked and barricaded door leading to the House Chamber, broke out the glass window of the door and attempted to climb through to where elected officials were sheltering in place.
 
OrphanSlug said:
You apply that elsewhere as universal, or only when Trump loyalists are trying to break into Congress to stop the certification of the vote Trump lost?
Click to expand...
We investigate cops for use of deadly force against unarmed suspects all the time. Unless the cop can articulate a reasonable belief that his or her life was at imminent risk of death or great bodily harm then that cop is prosecuted just as any other murder suspect would be. In the case of Babbit you had HUNDREDS of cops did not use deadly force because they couldn't reasonably articulate such a threat. You had one cop that did use deadly force and, based on the DoJ notice, wasn't even investigated for use of force. He was investigated for a civil rights violation which is TOTALLY different.
 
AGENT J said:
Correct the officer deserves a medal, who knows what he prevented
Click to expand...
I get your feeling, but I think he’d probably be good with quietly going on with his career/life without any unnecessary attention.
 
Lutherf said:
No I'm not. A threat to ANY PERSON is the same as it is to any other person. A threat to a government official IS NOT a higher priority than a threat to a mother picking her kids up from school is.
Click to expand...
Interpretations to such things vary legally in many cases.

Think of it like Castle Doctrine...once that invader breaks into your home, the legally accepted (and logical) assumption is that they mean to do you harm. They have already broken the law to reach you...why would a prudent, "reasonable" person believe they're there to shake your hand?
 
Lutherf said:
No I'm not. A threat to ANY PERSON is the same as it is to any other person. A threat to a government official IS NOT a higher priority than a threat to a mother picking her kids up from school is.
Click to expand...

No one said it is. If said mother was home with her police officer husband and a potentially violent but unarmed criminal kicked his way through their front door and her husband shot him, would you be demanding a use of force investigation?
 
bongsaway said:
I know if I were a republican, I would be outraged.
Click to expand...
The idea that political affiliation would be a factor in deciding whether you're outraged or not is...disturbing.
 
Lutherf said:
If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force.
Click to expand...
Posted in other thread:
​
Maybe you dont study self-defense training. Or police training. Maybe you are a mind reader but the cop wasnt...he didnt know she was unarmed.​
​
He did however, see the armed mob that was set to follow behind her. How many should he have let thru before using lethal force to protect himself and Congress? 3? 5? 20?​
​
She had a backpack, she could have had a bomb, who knows? No guns were necessary for an armed mob...they had bludgeons that were handily breaking windows and doors. They had spears (seen on video). Numbers alone with such bludgeons would nullify the cop with a handgun. Why would they have been using them to break thru that barricade if they didnt intend to breech it, like her?​
​
They'd have overwhelmed that cop, possibly killed him, taken his gun...and used it on him or Congress. Certainly not a reasonable risk to allow that at all. He had a responsibility to protect.​
​
An armed mob is a lethal threat. They would have overwhelmed the cop, taken his firearm, and could have used it on him and Congress.​
​
She didnt obey a lawful order from a cop...it was ok for Chauvin to execute GF for that, right?​
​
 
Lutherf said:
The idea that political affiliation would be a factor in deciding whether you're outraged or not is...disturbing.
Click to expand...
Really? I think folks being outraged over mr. potato head is disturbing.
 
Lursa said:
Interpretations to such things vary legally in many cases.

Think of it like Castle Doctrine...once that invader breaks into your home, the legally accepted (and logical) assumption is that they mean to do you harm. They have already broken the law to reach you...why would a prudent, "reasonable" person believe they're there to shake your hand?
Click to expand...
Go ahead and let someone break into your house, wreck the place for 20 minutes and THEN shoot. See how well your "castle doctrine" defense works for you.
 
Lutherf said:
We investigate cops for use of deadly force against unarmed suspects all the time. Unless the cop can articulate a reasonable belief that his or her life was at imminent risk of death or great bodily harm then that cop is prosecuted just as any other murder suspect would be. In the case of Babbit you had HUNDREDS of cops did not use deadly force because they couldn't reasonably articulate such a threat. You had one cop that did use deadly force and, based on the DoJ notice, wasn't even investigated for use of force. He was investigated for a civil rights violation which is TOTALLY different.
Click to expand...

That completely avoided the question.

This is what you said... "If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force."

And here is my question... "You apply that elsewhere as universal, or only when Trump loyalists are trying to break into Congress to stop the certification of the vote Trump lost?"
 
Lutherf said:
Go ahead and let someone break into your house, wreck the place for 20 minutes and THEN shoot. See how well your "castle doctrine" defense works for you.
Click to expand...
Please answer my question before asking more of your own.

They can trash your 'yard,' but once they get in a window or door...what I wrote applies. She had JUST breeched that barricade (window in the door).
 
Lutherf said:
If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force.
Click to expand...
Do you consider having your head smashed in a door jamb with 50 people pushing at you deadly force? I sure do, and I am sure that LEO did too. He sustained injuries from that and it has been widely shown.

Babbitt had been warned not to clime through the broken window which her cohorts broke. She was warned, she stepped through anyway and took a bullet to the head. IMHO, not enough bullets used that day on rioters.
 
Lutherf said:
Go ahead and let someone break into your house, wreck the place for 20 minutes and THEN shoot. See how well your "castle doctrine" defense works for you.
Click to expand...
I gladly would and it would be 100% fine

better yet if you want to be honest, which obviously your posts arent based on honesty at all but thats typical for your posts......

if a people storm my house, breach it, then proceed through my house, then come across a barricade and then breach that with me on the other side? yes the first imbecile through the breach is getting shot and it will be 100% justified

thats what happen to this moron terrorist, she got herself killled

i dont know anybody in real life that even trys to defend this terrorist its funny they are only on the internets LMAO
 
Lutherf said:
The idea that political affiliation would be a factor in deciding whether you're outraged or not is...disturbing.
Click to expand...
There is nothing that doesn’t come out of the vast majority of Trumpers only see it through politics.
 
US&THEM said:
Intent matters
Click to expand...

And Ashli Babbitt is the one responsible for creating the situation that resulted in her death. She had ample opportunity to disengage at any time she wanted to right up until she attempted to climb through the door. She didn't have to break out the window. She didn't have to climb through. This wasn't a police officer approaching and detaining a suspect against his will and then shooting him for not cooperating. This was a criminal aggressor breaking and entering a protected chamber during an attempted insurrection.

Apples and oranges.
 
Mr Person said:
And where are all those excuses about how the cop did not know that she did not have a weapon, how she wasn't following police commands? Has anyone demanded to know whether she had any health conditions or was on drugs, such that being shot might result in death where it otherwise would not? What about her criminal history? Did she shoplift once when she was a teen?

Funny.... it's a dead black dude and we hear all that.
Click to expand...

The cop had to know she was not armed. That is obvious in the video. Another obvious fact is she was old, having lived a full life. Many cruel people think if a person has gray or white hair and a lot of wrinkles, they don;t need to live anymore. So they only get mad if a young person is shot dead. Of course I totally disagree with that crap, but it was all over DP when the covid pandemic was mostly killing old people.
 
Lutherf said:
Go ahead and let someone break into your house, wreck the place for 20 minutes and THEN shoot. See how well your "castle doctrine" defense works for you.
Click to expand...

That isn't what happened here. A better analogy would be: Someone breaks into your house so you lock yourself in your bedroom and let them wreck your house for 20 minutes, and then when they kick down your bedroom door you shoot.

Castle doctrine would most definitely apply in that case whether the criminal turned out to be armed after the fact or not. No question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom