Report: U.S. to pay family of Ashli Babbitt, killed by police Jan. 6 (1 Viewer)

[Top Cat]

Sometimes doing the right thing comes at a price.

Perhaps you should have been there as well.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

She was a patriot.

Babbitt was once a patriot, but died a deeply disturbed and horribly misguided anti-patriot.

Sometimes doing the right thing comes at a price.

“The right thing” by violently attempting to stop the certification of a legitimate election?

You have a completely twisted view of what’s right if you endorse the actions of those involved in the attack on Congress and our Constitution.

 

[Metric Mouse]

I guess we are in the habit paying the families of people who are potential terrorists now.

Lots of families get paid when cops shoot unarmed people.

It's like a national past time here in the United States.

 

[VySky]

Perhaps you should have been there as well.

Why? How do you know I wasn't?

 

[VySky]

abbitt was once a patriot, but died a deeply disturbed and horribly misguided anti-patriot.

Your opinion is noted and dismissed

ou have a completely twisted view of what’s right if you endorse the actions of those involved in the attack on Congress and our Constitution.

Its encouraging to see leftist stand for the Constitution. Who would have thought?

 

[ncguy]

Your opinion is noted and dismissed


Its encouraging to see leftist stand for the Constitution. Who would have thought?

who would have thought? anyone who is paying attention.

 

[Cope]

What a bullshit response. And it was mostly more questions. "Why didnt the cops shoot everyone with backpacks?" That has to be the most cowardly response in the thread.

Any time there is a self-defense shooting it's based on a hypothetical...true or false? Do you KNOW they'll kill you? Or do you weigh all the factors? One woman, the first woman, was just one factor...part of the mob...why didnt you answer the question about how many he should have let thru before being overwhelmed and killed and his gun taken? Keep hiding.

The only thing hiding is the lack of factual evidence.
Your hypotheticals could go a million different ways. He should have let any amount through until a threat to his life or those he was protecting, presented itself. Her climbing through a window was NOT it.

The "what would a reasonable man do" thing here seems just so inconvenient to your hugely slanted post.

Not at all. We know what they would do because THEY didn't shoot anyone.

I didnt say it did...why do you make up stuff? Because you cant escape this thread with a shred of dignity left, that's why. Or you would answer questions directly and not with other questions.

How does it differ from Castle Law in that the officer at all times has a right to defend himself from an imminent lethal threat AND his duty was to protect Congress?

So...I asked you the question also...are you going to answer it or keep avoiding it?

For you to claim you didn't attempt the Castle Doctrine defense seems silly now that it is quoted, don't ya think?

Castle Law not needed. The officer at all times has a right to defend himself from an imminent lethal threat AND his duty was to protect Congress. Yes or no? And then please explain if you'd allow her to break in thru your window, with your family in the home, and an armed, violent mob behind her?

Yes, IMMINENT threat. **** the duty to 'protect Congress' unless that imminent threat is presented. Protecting Congress is not the get out of jail card that you, and a lot of others think it is.

 

[Cope]

As I said earlier, it depends on personal values/beliefs. Internally, I mostly hold to the first point below, but there are some lives I value less based on reprehensible actions. I've mentioned them earlier in this thread. People who are serial killers or who orchestrate serial killings fall to the bottom. People who commit other acts of violence or murder would be a rung up. Overall, I try to treat strangers as innocent until proven guilty and hold their lives to equal standards.

Society then filters into the second and third points below. There are some lives that impact society and the overall population in greater ways.

• Ethical & Personal Perspective: Some might argue that all lives hold equal value, but in security-based decisions, protecting key figures ensures continuity of leadership and governance.
• Legal & Institutional Significance: Members of Congress hold positions that directly impact national governance, making their safety a matter of national stability.
• Security Protocol: Government officials often receive heightened protection due to their symbolic and strategic importance, not because their individual lives are inherently more valuable.

This all makes sense, as I have the same rungs of 'importance'. My bottom rung starts with rapists, and child molesters/traffickers though, serial killers would be a rung up.

Those rungs go precisely to my point. In the attempt to paint all the Jan 6 people as the same 'violent insurrectionists' as the media and people in this very thread have done, it is a simple thing for them to say that 'yes, she should have been shot'

I don't see, nor feel that the law as written, allows that to happen. She presented no imminent threat.

I have no doubt that there were bad actors in the Jan 6th riot. Not nearly all of them. The only question that remains before us; was Babbitt one of them, and did she deserve to be shot? Was her life less important than the Congress members?

 

[roguenuke]

This all makes sense, as I have the same rungs of 'importance'. My bottom rung starts with rapists, and child molesters/traffickers though, serial killers would be a rung up.

Those rungs go precisely to my point. In the attempt to paint all the Jan 6 people as the same 'violent insurrectionists' as the media and people in this very thread have done, it is a simple thing for them to say that 'yes, she should have been shot'

I don't see, nor feel that the law as written, allows that to happen. She presented no imminent threat.

I have no doubt that there were bad actors in the Jan 6th riot. Not nearly all of them. The only question that remains before us; was Babbitt one of them, and did she deserve to be shot? Was her life less important than the Congress members?

She was leading a violent mob into an area with innocent people inside to most likely attack them. She was a bad actor. And yes, she made her life less important than those doing nothing wrong on the other side of that barricade, being terrified by her and the mob she was leading in that moment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

She presented no imminent threat.

And this ladies and gentleman is the crux of their argument which ignores the CONTEXT of the day and the operational environment that Lt. Byrd was in as he held the thin blue line.

• There were reports of violence of the radio net.
• Some members of the mob were armed. (Yes melee weapons such as baseball bats, flag poles, battons, and using helmets and shields as weapons.)
• There were reports over the radio net of officers down.
• There was an earlier report over the radio network that the rioters had fired a gun, this was later proved to be false - but in the context of the time Lt. Byrd didn't know that. The false nature of the transmission was determined after the fact.
• Lt. Byrd watched as the violent mob used the weapons they carried to attack and breech the barrier prior to access to the House Chamber (whose door was only steps away).

Lt. Byrds actions that day in holding the line, not panicking, a single controlled shot center of mass and shocking the mob for critical seconds until reinforcements in the form of the SWAT team coming up the stairs likely saved lives that day. Without that critical pause in the advance of the violent mob, they'd have breached the House Chamber and then you would have had multiple officers forced to open fire to prevent death or seriously bodily injury to those in the House Chamber.

The CONTEXT is not "Well - she was later found to not be armed and her backpack didn't have an explosive device." The CONTEXT is armed violent mob that had just broken through the last barrier before gaining access to the House and the real fear of serious personal injury or death or the protection of others from serious personal injury or death.

WW

 

[Xilnik]

This all makes sense, as I have the same rungs of 'importance'. My bottom rung starts with rapists, and child molesters/traffickers though, serial killers would be a rung up.

Those rungs go precisely to my point. In the attempt to paint all the Jan 6 people as the same 'violent insurrectionists' as the media and people in this very thread have done, it is a simple thing for them to say that 'yes, she should have been shot'

I don't see, nor feel that the law as written, allows that to happen. She presented no imminent threat.

I have no doubt that there were bad actors in the Jan 6th riot. Not nearly all of them. The only question that remains before us; was Babbitt one of them, and did she deserve to be shot? Was her life less important than the Congress members?

Is one life less important than dozens? I'll answer in the affirmative, especially when the one is leading a violent mob to attack those dozens and already caused multiple injuries to officers.

 

[Emlee]

And this ladies and gentleman is the crux of their argument which ignores the CONTEXT of the day and the operational environment that Lt. Byrd was in as he held the thin blue line.

• There were reports of violence of the radio net.
• Some members of the mob were armed. (Yes melee weapons such as baseball bats, flag poles, battons, and using helmets and shields as weapons.)
• There were reports over the radio net of officers down.
• There was an earlier report over the radio network that the rioters had fired a gun, this was later proved to be false - but in the context of the time Lt. Byrd didn't know that. The false nature of the transmission was determined after the fact.
• Lt. Byrd watched as the violent mob used the weapons they carried to attack and breech the barrier prior to access to the House Chamber (whose door was only steps away).

Lt. Byrds actions that day in holding the line, not panicking, a single controlled shot center of mass and shocking the mob for critical seconds until reinforcements in the form of the SWAT team coming up the stairs likely saved lives that day. Without that critical pause in the advance of the violent mob, they'd have breached the House Chamber and then you would have had multiple officers forced to open fire to prevent death or seriously bodily injury to those in the House Chamber.

The CONTEXT is not "Well - she was later found to not be armed and her backpack didn't have an explosive device." The CONTEXT is armed violent mob that had just broken through the last barrier before gaining access to the House and the real fear of serious personal injury or death or the protection of others from serious personal injury or death.

WW

Not to mention the pipe bombs were found prior to Babbit illegally breaking in, which police had also been warned about.

There was actually a gun fired, John Banuelos, the guy who climbed the scaffolding had fired a gun, twice, that was aso prior to Babbit being shot.

Any notion that there should have been no concern or belief that her and the mob with her being an imminent threat, when taking the totality and full context of everything that was transpiring at the time, or her backpack, is absurd.

 

[Cope]

And this ladies and gentleman is the crux of their argument which ignores the CONTEXT of the day and the operational environment that Lt. Byrd was in as he held the thin blue line.

• There were reports of violence of the radio net.
• Some members of the mob were armed. (Yes melee weapons such as baseball bats, flag poles, battons, and using helmets and shields as weapons.)
• There were reports over the radio net of officers down.
• There was an earlier report over the radio network that the rioters had fired a gun, this was later proved to be false - but in the context of the time Lt. Byrd didn't know that. The false nature of the transmission was determined after the fact.
• Lt. Byrd watched as the violent mob used the weapons they carried to attack and breech the barrier prior to access to the House Chamber (whose door was only steps away).

I can see how all of those would affect a person. Why just Byrd though?
And the fact that a lot of them were false or plain wrong, seems to me a bit fishy. I'd certainly like to know all about the inner workings and an investigation, and/or trial would flesh those out.

Lt. Byrds actions that day in holding the line, not panicking, a single controlled shot center of mass and shocking the mob for critical seconds until reinforcements in the form of the SWAT team coming up the stairs likely saved lives that day. Without that critical pause in the advance of the violent mob, they'd have breached the House Chamber and then you would have had multiple officers forced to open fire to prevent death or seriously bodily injury to those in the House Chamber.

The CONTEXT is not "Well - she was later found to not be armed and her backpack didn't have an explosive device." The CONTEXT is armed violent mob that had just broken through the last barrier before gaining access to the House and the real fear of serious personal injury or death or the protection of others from serious personal injury or death.

WW

Really, the only question that needed answering is 'was there an imminent threat to Byrd, or those he was assigned to guard'
The internal investigation said yes. I'd have liked to see an EXTERNAL one done, just like most people defending Byrd in this instance would want to see done with police shootings where the political wind blows the other way.

 

[Cope]

Is one life less important than dozens?

I guess I don't see that differently. Yes, dozens is more important than a single. But I didn't see the danger to a single, much less the dozens. (and yes, we are looking in hindsight)

I'll answer in the affirmative, especially when the one is leading a violent mob to attack those dozens and already caused multiple injuries to officers.

 

[Irredentist]

I can see how all of those would affect a person. Why just Byrd though?
And the fact that a lot of them were false or plain wrong, seems to me a bit fishy. I'd certainly like to know all about the inner workings and an investigation, and/or trial would flesh those out.

Really, the only question that needed answering is 'was there an imminent threat to Byrd, or those he was assigned to guard'
The internal investigation said yes. I'd have liked to see an EXTERNAL one done, just like most people defending Byrd in this instance would want to see done with police shootings where the political wind blows the other way.

It seems to me that if you're violently smashing your way into a government building that's protected by armed guards, then you have consciously made the decision to risk your life. Babbitt took that risk, knowing the potential consequences, and it didn't pay off for her. Sad, but entirely predictable.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I can see how all of those would affect a person. Why just Byrd though?
And the fact that a lot of them were false or plain wrong, seems to me a bit fishy. I'd certainly like to know all about the inner workings and an investigation, and/or trial would flesh those out.

Really, the only question that needed answering is 'was there an imminent threat to Byrd, or those he was assigned to guard'
The internal investigation said yes. I'd have liked to see an EXTERNAL one done, just like most people defending Byrd in this instance would want to see done with police shootings where the political wind blows the other way.

I disagree with the government settling.

I WANT the civil case to proceed to trail.

But it's not going to happen, the Trump administration wants the buried and to not be exposed to the cleansing light of the sunshine of full public view in open court. There will be no civil case, there will be no criminal case.

The Administration does NOT want the video of that day, the violence, the use of weapons, audio records of the police radio network establishing the CONTEXT of the situation that Lt. Byrd faced as he held the thin blue line. The last thing they want is this in the news cycles, on the networks, in social media, and video's playing of what happened playing on peoples computers/tablets/phones.

WW

 

[WillyPete]

Really, the only question that needed answering is 'was there an imminent threat to Byrd, or those he was assigned to guard'

The internal investigation said yes. I'd have liked to see an EXTERNAL one done, just like most people defending Byrd in this instance would want to see done with police shootings where the political wind blows the other way.

I don't know the rules on that, but I'd support redundant investigations in cases like this.

But, when they came back clean again I rather doubt that would be satisfying.

---

I've recently begun approaching it this way:

Imagine what would have happened if Ashli was literally all powerful that day, and couldn't be stopped by anyone from doing whatever she wanted.

What would she have done that day with her power?

 

[Fledermaus]

This all makes sense, as I have the same rungs of 'importance'. My bottom rung starts with rapists, and child molesters/traffickers though, serial killers would be a rung up.

Those rungs go precisely to my point. In the attempt to paint all the Jan 6 people as the same 'violent insurrectionists' as the media and people in this very thread have done, it is a simple thing for them to say that 'yes, she should have been shot'

I don't see, nor feel that the law as written, allows that to happen. She presented no imminent threat.

I have no doubt that there were bad actors in the Jan 6th riot. Not nearly all of them. The only question that remains before us; was Babbitt one of them, and did she deserve to be shot? Was her life less important than the Congress members?

You state "She presented no imminent threat" while completely ignoring she was only one of a group of insurrectioniats bent on getting into the area.

 

[Cope]

You state "She presented no imminent threat" while completely ignoring she was only one of a group of insurrectioniats bent on getting into the area.

Your problem (the main one) is that in order for you to feel good about your judgement call, you have to use hyperbolic language to do so.

In your mind because you see them as insurrectionists, they(she) are deserving of whatever they get.

Try letting that go and looking at it from a non biased view point.

Just a thought.

 

[Fledermaus]

Your problem (the main one) is that in order for you to feel good about your judgement call, you have to use hyperbolic language to do so.

In your mind because you see them as insurrectionists, they(she) are deserving of whatever they get.

Try letting that go and looking at it from a non biased view point.

Just a thought.

Just a thought.

The word Insurrectioniats fits.

You state "She presented no imminent threat" while completely ignoring she was only one of a group of insurrectioniats bent on getting into the area.

 

[Cope]

Just a thought.

The word Insurrectioniats fits.

You state "She presented no imminent threat" while completely ignoring she was only one of a group of insurrectioniats bent on getting into the area.

You could have just said you couldn't be unbiased.

 

[ncguy]

You could have just said you couldn't be unbiased.

why would he want to lie?

of course, since no one is actually totally unbiased, stating that would seem to be silly as well

 

[Fledermaus]

You could have just said you couldn't be unbiased.

I am biased against unsupported claims and unsubstantiated accusations.

INSURRECTION
noun
a violent uprising against an authority or government.

 

[Boots]

Oh I'm sorry. Did I hurt your feelings? It's not disgusting when you're describing a ****ing traitor.

I get the feeling that you are pretty free with describing women in that way, whether they are traitorous or not.

 

[DCCougar]

Deadly force... is authorized for imminent threat to life.

You're leaving out "...or serious bodily injury."