Ashli Babbitt - Capitol Shooting Victim

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
Correct me if I am wrong.

I constantly do but, alas, it never seems to correct the issue...

So. You cannot correct this...

Correct me if I am wrong. Even military police cannot shoot someone, or persons just because they are trespassing on an average military base / post. The persons must be a credible threat to someone’s life. Or trying to gain access to something like weapons or nuclear material. And that being said. Using a fire arm is still by procedure the last resort after all other reasonable means are exhausted.

Yes. People should face their acts relating to civil disobedience.

And it was a protest by civil disobedience of a glorified office building. And there was no justification for the women to be shot. While risking the law enforcement behind here. Arrested yes. Killed no.

a reply to: neutronflux

The comment wasn’t even directed at you. Do try and keep up with conversation if you’re going to insist on inserting yourself into it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
Correct me if I am wrong.

I constantly do but, alas, it never seems to correct the issue...

Sorry. You got caught once again being a hypocrite, using false statements, and having no opinion based on actual procedures?

a reply to: neutronflux

You're all over the place. You can keep asking questions but I'm not answering them, I'm not interested in your strawman logical fallacies.

Short version: rioter got shot rioting.

a reply to: neutronflux

Point of fact, DoD cops actually are permitted to use deadly force to stop somebody for something other than being a direct and imminent threat to somebody’s life.

Once you post the procedure you think supports your argument, I’ll post the actual policy that says you’re wrong. No need to ask me for it, the ball is in your court.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You

Point of fact, DoD cops actually are permitted to use deadly force to stop somebody for something other than being a direct and imminent threat to somebody’s life.

Have I posted otherwise?

I’ll used again..

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: spacedoubt

You..

She went through a broken window wearing a backpack,

So? Nothing in her hands to make her a threat as she climbed through the window?

Climbing through a window?

Place the handcuffs on her as she climb through?

Or push her out?

How does shooting her stop what ever nefarious item was in her backpack that was not in her hand?

with a group that was in some sort of mob mentality.

Then why was only one person shot?

They were heading to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

With a backpack? How exactly if the building was evacuated of lawmakers?

She got shot,

You said she was in a group? Why only her? And how does a group simultaneously climb through a broken window?

Why not detain her as she climb through the window?

because she did something really stupid

Stupid people should be shot. I think we all would have gunshot wounds.

and illegal.

People get arrested with backpacks everyday without being shot, nor shot and killed?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Once you post the procedure you think supports your argument, I’ll post the actual policy that says you’re wrong.

She was no credible threat to any person present with no indication she had a weapon to cause a credible threat to armed law enforcement.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

To be honest, if I had to put money on it I would say the ones in tactical gear were coming up the stairs to try and reinforce the barricaded door rather than being “with” the rioters. That door lead to an occupied/not evacuated yet area, doesn’t look to be many officers in place at the door to begin with. No statement from CPD to base that on obviously but that’s my take on it.

According to the person I know who was there, only 2 guys guarding the door at the time. They were also busy arguing with a group of people.

Pinch of salt and all that but your assessment seems correct.

originally posted by: spacedoubt
She was shot for those reasons.
She died a criminal. For a lost cause, for the lies of Trump.

The way you put it ... it remains unjustifiable. And that was a summary execution if I've ever seen one. Do you advocate that treatment for everyone who voted for Trump?

Wife ... Mother ... Veteran.

They could have apprehended her. Even if deadly force was authorized, it wasn't necessary.

a reply to: neutronflux

No more, and no less, of a threat than any other rioter ever is.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: neutronflux

No more, and no less, of a threat than any other rioter ever is.

How many rioters were shot this summer by law enforcement?

a reply to: neutronflux

How many on ATS cheered when the feds went in to Portland and started handling rioters?

a reply to: Shamrock6

I never claimed those at the Capitol should not have been detained and arrested.

What does that have to do with, “How many rioters were shot this summer by law enforcement? “

To you posting, “ No more, and no less, of a threat than any other rioter ever is.”

a reply to: neutronflux

Rioters being handled has everything to do with rioters being handled, and consistency of position has everything to do with consistency of position. You have yet to provide any source to the USCP use of force policy, or provide any source that links to a situation that directly mirrors this one. Do that, then we can discuss the veracity of your position.

a reply to: Shamrock6

And you have not cited any source or procedure that justifies the shooting of Ashli Babbitt.

While you cannot cite a case of law enforcement shooting rioters this summer.

The shooter who shot Babbitt was supposedly “sheltering” in place. But is on video shown to be actively moving toward Babbitt, not “sheltering” when the individual fires.

The person shot Babbitt while she was no threat to anyone while encumbered by climbing through the window. With a person standing by her that looks to have no involvement with trying to breach the window. With law enforcement directly behind Babbitt in the line of fire. The law enforcement behind Babbitt armed with rifles while Babbitt having no sign of being armed.

Yes I was not there. But from my military training, I would not feel entitled, nor feel it my duty to shot Babbitt. Especially with no effort to repel her by none-lethal means first. As required by most outlines on when using lethal force. She was not in a large group. And a large portion of the people behind Babbitt was law enforcement.

a reply to: neutronflux

And you have not cited any source or procedure that justifies the shooting of Ashli Babbitt.

I haven’t claimed that it’s justified. You’ve claimed it’s not. The one making claims is the one responsible for providing sources.

While you cannot cite a case of law enforcement shooting rioters this summer.

And you can’t cite an instance during the riots this summer that mirrors this incident point by point. I didn’t make that comparison, you did. Your comparison, you provide sources for it not me.

The shooter who shot Babbitt was supposedly “sheltering” in place. But is on video shown to be actively moving toward Babbitt, not “sheltering” when the individual fires.

Law enforcement doesn’t get to shelter in place like those that they are charged with protecting. That’s simply an idiotic position of you to adopt.

With law enforcement directly behind Babbitt in the line of fire. The law enforcement behind Babbitt armed with rifles while Babbitt having no sign of being armed.

They came up the stairs after she was shot. They were “behind her” in the same way that the Rotunda was behind her: in the vaguest possible sense of the word. “Behind her” from the angle she was shot from would be a wall. This is all on video, you don’t get to make up a narrative and substitute it for actual evidence.

You don’t get to refuse to provide actual evidence to support your claims and then go a step further and just make things up and call it evidence.

But from my military training, I would not feel entitled, nor feel it my duty to shot Babbitt.

Your claims of training mean absolutely nothing. All the more so when you provide no support for any of your claims and resort to making things up.

As required by most outlines on when using lethal force.

Only one UoF policy matters here. You haven’t provided it, despite repeatedly claiming the shooting is in violation of said policy.

And a large portion of the people behind Babbitt was law enforcement.

Excluding the wall that was behind her from the angle she was shot from, exactly what “portion” of the people “behind” her were law enforcement? What’s the total number of people “behind” her? Source, please and thanks.

No need to bother replying to me until you’ve collected all the sources I’ve asked for multiple times now. Until I see those, I won’t engage you any further as it’s an exercise in futility to engage with those who make things up in a discussion rather than stick with actual factual information; not beyond the length of time it takes to illustrate how they’re making things up, anyway. Which I’ve done. I eagerly await your posting of the source info, though!

a reply to: Shamrock6

I will grant you I read this wrong.

As protesters were forcing their way toward the House Chamber where Members of Congress were sheltering in place, a sworn USCP employee discharged their service weapon, striking an adult female.

www.uscp.gov...

You

They came up the stairs after she was shot.

Nope.

Law enforcement arrived from behind Babbitt before being shot..

Around this time, the departing officers were met by colleagues wearing helmets and armed with rifles, who had arrived from a stairwell behind Babbitt and the rioters, according to other video posted to social media. These officers began evacuating the officers who had guarded the door down the stairs.

With help from someone who hoisted her up, Babbitt began to step through a portion of the door where the glass had been broken out. An officer on the other side, who was wearing a suit and a surgical mask, immediately shot Babbitt in the neck. She fell to the floor.

www.washingtonpost.com...

The wall was to Babbitt’s right.

The shooter came from her left.

The shooter shot to his/her right.

That means and anyone along the doors to Babbitt’s left or behind her was in the line of fire.


I find it odd with all the law enforcement around. There was no actual physical attempt to remove the group at the door. So it went to being human shields with no action straight to lethal force by one officer.

a reply to: neutronflux

Doesnt look like anyone had to force through anything.

Twitter

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Another 100% foolproof method for not getting shot to death, is by not committing treason

What she did was more like sedition.

Really? Reminds me of that movie called "V" with Natalie Portman.

It starts off with a viral plague. And suddenly a new set of politicians come into office to shut everything down violating everyone's rights in the process. Turns out that the politicians elected had money invested in a pharmaceutical company that had a cure for the virus. So once in office they made billions. But they didn't want to lose their power and started accusing everyone of "sedition". And at the end of the movie, everyone united with "V" and they all blew up the House of Parliament in London.

Realistically, when people go around throwing out the word "sedition" everytime people exercise free speech, the people fight back with even more fury.

Meanwhile, this topic was about an unarmed woman who was shot and killed by cops climbing through a window. The unarmed woman who was shot happened to be a 14-year veteran with the airforce.

There is no excuse to shoot an unarmed woman. Here in Arizona, if you shoot an unarmed person who breaks into your home then you can be charged with manslaughter and the family of the burglar can sue you. However, if the burglar breaking in has a weapon and you shoot them breaking into your home then it is self-defense.

The woman was unarmed. There was no justification for the woman to be shot. The cops should have simply handcuffed her as she stuck her hands thru the window. Or they could have tased her or pepper sprayed her.

But since they shot an unarmed woman, it's excessive force.

I'm really kind of disappointed that for 2 days I've wanted to read about what happened. Who was the woman? Was she armed?

And finally after 2 days, no local media reporting the story here. I have to watch a video on SkyNews from the U.K. I have to get the news from another country about an unarmed woman shot in the Capitol Building of the U.S.

Wow. The media is really pathetic for not covering this story in the US. LOTS OF PEOPLE want to read it but can't find local media reporting on it.

a reply to: samuelsson

Oh, wait, kinda looks like they did force things. Weird.

Other Twitter