• 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!

U.S. Capitol Police officer cleared of wrongdoing in fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol attack

Rexedgar

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
63,221
Reaction score
52,923
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
apple.news

U.S. Capitol Police officer cleared of wrongdoing in fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol attack — The Washington Post

Babbitt’s slaying became one of the defining moments of the mob action on Jan. 6, after graphic videos of her shooting spread across social media and were replayed by news outlets.
apple.news apple.news

”Authorities determined there was insufficient evidence to prove Babbitt’s civil rights were violated, and that it was reasonable for the officer to believe he was firing in self-defense or in defense of members of Congress and aides who were fleeing the House chamber. Prosecutors did not identify the officer.”


According to the article, the victiis being used as a recruiting tool for the far right, there’s even a flag. The Star of David is a nice touch!


1618421919214.png
 
Rexedgar said:
apple.news

U.S. Capitol Police officer cleared of wrongdoing in fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol attack — The Washington Post

Babbitt’s slaying became one of the defining moments of the mob action on Jan. 6, after graphic videos of her shooting spread across social media and were replayed by news outlets.
apple.news apple.news

”Authorities determined there was insufficient evidence to prove Babbitt’s civil rights were violated, and that it was reasonable for the officer to believe he was firing in self-defense or in defense of members of Congress and aides who were fleeing the House chamber. Prosecutors did not identify the officer.”


According to the article, the victiis being used as a recruiting tool for the far right, there’s even a flag. The Star of David is a nice touch!


View attachment 67328583
Click to expand...
Yes...he had to fire in self-defense because a small woman was climbing through a small window and she was a life-threat to four or five burly police officers on the other side of the window. (Not to mention the other four or five burly police officers who were standing right behind her.)

Yes, folks...it was a righteous shoot.
 
Rexedgar said:
apple.news

U.S. Capitol Police officer cleared of wrongdoing in fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol attack — The Washington Post

Babbitt’s slaying became one of the defining moments of the mob action on Jan. 6, after graphic videos of her shooting spread across social media and were replayed by news outlets.
apple.news apple.news

”Authorities determined there was insufficient evidence to prove Babbitt’s civil rights were violated, and that it was reasonable for the officer to believe he was firing in self-defense or in defense of members of Congress and aides who were fleeing the House chamber. Prosecutors did not identify the officer.”


According to the article, the victiis being used as a recruiting tool for the far right, there’s even a flag. The Star of David is a nice touch!


View attachment 67328583
Click to expand...

I saw this image referenced in the Post story. Where did you find it?
 
Mycroft said:
Yes...he had to fire in self-defense because a small woman was climbing through a small window and she was a life-threat to four or five burly police officers on the other side of the window. (Not to mention the other four or five burly police officers who were standing right behind her.)

Yes, folks...it was a righteous shoot.
Click to expand...
That statement in bold is either intentionally disingenuous or its incredibly ignorant. I'll let you tell us which.
 
Mycroft said:
Yes...he had to fire in self-defense because a small woman was climbing through a small window and she was a life-threat to four or five burly police officers on the other side of the window. (Not to mention the other four or five burly police officers who were standing right behind her.)

Yes, folks...it was a righteous shoot.
Click to expand...

There wasn’t anything righteous about the Trump mob on Jan 6th.
 
calamity said:
That statement in bold is either intentionally disingenuous or its incredibly ignorant. I'll let you tell us which.
Click to expand...

Remember that this is the guy who insisted for over a month that there would be no more than 10,000 covid deaths (long after the number was more than five times that) and he insulted, verbally assaulted, and floated all sorts of silly self serving and very disingenuous arguments to claim why his totally ridiculous claim was fact.
 
Mycroft said:
Yes...he had to fire in self-defense because a small woman was climbing through a small window and she was a life-threat to four or five burly police officers on the other side of the window. (Not to mention the other four or five burly police officers who were standing right behind her.)

Yes, folks...it was a righteous shoot.
Click to expand...
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.

A 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?
 
swing_voter said:
It's a shame she died.

But I'm not sure what people expected the police to do.



.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree. Now if only the people who rioted because police shot a suspected rapist brandishing a knife and reaching into a vehicle for god-knows-what, after fighting with police officers trying to arrest him, would be so sensible.
 
Lursa said:
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.

A 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?
Click to expand...

GF may have had a mini bomb under his shirt with a transmitter in his mouth that could set it off. The gathering others could have had a gun or bomb.

You don't see irony in the claim "a mob is a lethal threat," do you? Why aren't police shooting protesters in Minnesota? They all are a mob, all could have guns and all have bombs. So shouldn't they all be shot near point blank just-in-case?
 
joko104 said:
You don't see irony in the claim "a mob is a lethal threat," do you? Why aren't police shooting protesters in Minnesota? They all are a mob, all could have guns and all have bombs. So shouldn't they all be shot near point blank just-in-case?
Click to expand...
Peaceful protesters arent 'mobs.' Those mobs arent directly threatening anyone. They are legally allowed to be where they are (they arent trespassing). They arent using bludgeons and spears to break things. They are shouting but not violent.

If there is a direct threat, the police DO use comparable force to stop them. They do use force to stop rioters.

The irony is that your bias blinds you so much that you cant see these...and more...distinctions.
 
Mycroft said:
Yes...he had to fire in self-defense because a small woman was climbing through a small window and she was a life-threat to four or five burly police officers on the other side of the window. (Not to mention the other four or five burly police officers who were standing right behind her.)

Yes, folks...it was a righteous shoot.
Click to expand...

Treason has consequences bud.

The Trump cult should really figure that out.
 
joko104 said:
GF may have had a mini bomb under his shirt with a transmitter in his mouth that could set it off. The gathering others could have had a gun or bomb.
Click to expand...
If the cops missed that when they searched him before putting him in the cop car? Then they deserved to be blown up. And the crowd was peaceful.

By the time he was back outside on the pavement having the life squeezed out of him they knew very well he had no weapons.

Another fail for you.
 
Lursa said:
Peaceful protesters arent 'mobs.' Those mobs arent directly threatening anyone. They are legally allowed to be where they are (they arent trespassing). They arent using bludgeons and spears to break things. They are shouting but not violent.

If there is a direct threat, the police DO use comparable force to stop them. They do use force to stop rioters.

The irony is that your bias blinds you so much that you cant see these...and more...distinctions.
Click to expand...

When recently have police shot protesters or rioters attacking people violently? When have police shot anyone to stop a person being murdered by rioters or protesters - other than her? When have police shot arsonists and looting rioters? When have police shot protesters trying to burn a courthouse with people inside? Shoot protesters who permanently blinded hundreds of police officers using lasers?
 
Lursa said:
If the cops missed that when they searched him before putting him in the cop car? Then they deserved to be blown up. And the crowd was peaceful.

By the time he was back outside on the pavement having the life squeezed out of him they knew very well he had no weapons.

Another fail for you.
Click to expand...

That summarizes the value you place on the life of police, doesn't it?
 
joko104 said:
When recently have police shot protesters or rioters attacking people violently? When have police shot anyone to stop a person being murdered by rioters or protesters - other than her? When have police shot arsonists and looting rioters? When have police shot protesters trying to burn a courthouse with people inside? Shoot protesters who permanently blinded hundreds of police officers using lasers?
Click to expand...
If they didnt need to, they didnt need to. You are generalizing...we have specifics and video for this case.

And let's see those sources for the cops permanently blinded by protesters with lasers.
 
joko104 said:
That summarizes the value you place on the life of police, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Incompetent ones that by their incompetency also endanger the nearby public? yes. :rolleyes:

LMAO, I see you had no actual defense for the officers in your 'scenario.'
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Yes...he had to fire in self-defense because a small woman was climbing through a small window and she was a life-threat to four or five burly police officers on the other side of the window. (Not to mention the other four or five burly police officers who were standing right behind her.)

Yes, folks...it was a righteous shoot.
Click to expand...
She could of had a weapon...oh well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom