Ashli Babbitt - Capitol Shooting Victim

a reply to: Lysergic


I know that you "dgaf", it's pretty clear.

It is nothing more than Darwinism, natural selection.

If you are stupid enough to believe in Q, leave your family and children in California to go and try to be a cosplay revolutionary solider and break and enter into a Federal building, then don't complain if things don't work out for you.

Play stupid games, win dumb prizes.

a reply to: wheresthebody

Cool so I'll just pretend along with you, there you go my little buttercup, smile.

a reply to: Lysergic

I know that it's hard to understand that some people actually do care, even when you don't.

Actually, I am brushed up on the laws. There's a difference between how the average person interprets the laws and the courts do.

Here's how the attorneys defending homeowners who have shot burglars account for their experience on the laws.

When force isn't justified
Arizona law generally allows a person to threaten and use physical force to defend themselves from an attacker, but there are some caveats.
...
Wenker said self-defense can be justifiable in the latter situation if the person who provoked the incident tries to diffuse and leave the situation but continues to be physically attacked. The level of force one uses to defend themselves also has to be "reasonable."

"Like the proportionality with self-defense, you can only use deadly force if you're facing a deadly threat," Wenker told The Arizona Republic. "So if someone punches you, you can't say, 'Oh, I thought my life was in danger, so I shot him in the face.' But if they pull a gun on you, that's permissible."

Wenker also said the threat against someone has to be imminent — as in a person could be harmed within seconds unless they do something. A threat of being beaten the following day doesn't warrant a preemptive strike under Arizona law.

And if someone — a burglar, for example — attacks a person in a place where they're not allowed, self-defense is not a justifiable claim.

"Once you do get to that point where you pull the trigger, it does have to be reasonable, and you do have to be facing an imminent threat of death," Wenker said. "So you can't just say, 'Oh, I'm going to shoot you if you don't leave,' and then basically use that as an excuse to lower the bar to allow you to shoot them."

...
Jordyn Raimondo, an assistant attorney general at the Arizona Attorney General's Office, said she considers the same factors as defense attorneys when judging whether a self-defense response was appropriate.
....
Richelsoph said people often ask him if they can shoot someone who hopped the fence into their backyard. He cautioned against using deadly force unless absolutely necessary.

"Those kinds of questions, you really shouldn't be eager to shoot somebody," Richelsoph said. "The purpose of the self-defense laws are to protect yourself if you're in danger or somebody you care about is in danger."
...
"If the police shoot the bad guy, they're not going to have any problems," Richelsoph said. "If you shoot the bad guy, there's going to be potential problems for you whether you're justified or not."

Self Defense and Arizona Attorneys

This is for Ashli.

a reply to: Cigarettes

No accountability for the cowardly democrat subhuman that took this actual person's life

Still proud of those patriots

a reply to: MapMistress
Pretty stupid.

So patriot Rittenhouse is in custody for putting a few deadly threat arsonist mob antifa bottom feeder pedophiles in the ground

But this patriot AF vets murder isn't avenged?

Sickening. The murder of this patriot was inexcusable under all circumstances. The defensive use.of force by Rittenhouse was fully justified and a good shoot as proven in the videos

Maybe the dirt bag who ate a fire extinguisher was involved who knows

originally posted by: JBurns
No accountability for the cowardly democrat subhuman that took this actual person's life

originally posted by: JBurns
Maybe the dirt bag who ate a fire extinguisher was involved who knows

The irony of calling the two law enforcement officers that while you have a Thin Blue Line flag in your avatar is juicy and delicious.

Same mentality that was displayed by the turd blossoms who were beating that cop with a flagpole while singing the National Anthem.

a reply to: JBurns

Inexcusable? No.

Avoidable. Yes.

I tend to find that by not talking part in seditious riots attempting to storm the seat of government that I don't get shot and killed.

You should maybe try that sometime. Might save your life (if your blood pressure doesn't get you first!)

a reply to: JBurns
Obviously your avatar is for show only and you have no idea of point of lethal force. Once she tried to get into the chamber use of lethal force is authorized by the boys in blue who you sarcastically salute in your avatar.

originally posted by: UniformKilo
a reply to: JBurns
Obviously your avatar is for show only and you have no idea of point of lethal force. Once she tried to get into the chamber use of lethal force is authorized by the boys in blue who you sarcastically salute in your avatar.

Based on what?

That leaves the door completely unguarded; the officer fires once into the crowd

www.dailymail.co.uk...

That is an illegal act.


Maybe some conservatives were just applying congresswoman Maxine Waters tactics......

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents," Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building, according to video of the event.

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: JBurns

That leaves the door completely unguarded; the officer fires once into the crowd

www.dailymail.co.uk...

That is an illegal act.


Maybe some conservatives were just applying congresswoman Maxine Waters tactics......

What is illegal? She was the first person to attempt to get through a door that the crowd broke down in an attempt to halt government business. Additionally, at the end of the hallway were lawmakers, representatives of the entire nation, that were defenseless save for the cops who were standing between the rioters and them. Should Babbitt have, before going in, announced that she was there to not murder anyone? Sorry, but when people storm a public building the cops have a right to defend it. Do you not have the right to defend your home if someone illegally enters and you are unable to ascertain how far they will go with violence?

a reply to: Skooter_NB

It's apparently not illegal, the person who shot her isn't going to be charged.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Skooter_NB

It's apparently not illegal, the person who shot her isn't going to be charged.

Exactly my point. Not sure why anyone who values their right to the 2A and self defense would say otherwise.

a reply to: Skooter_NB


You

What is illegal? She was the first person to attempt to get through a door that the crowd broke down in an attempt to halt halt government business.

Like a long list of past disruptions at the Capitol?

What is the force action plan for the Capitol, and what is listed as when lethal force is authorized?

Additionally, at the end of the hallway were lawmakers, representatives of the entire nation, that were defenseless save for the cops who were standing between the rioters and them.

One unarmed person was a threat to a group? With an armed escort?

Is it true I posted that lethal force is not authorized to disperse a crowd? Is that a false statement concerning lethal force is not authorized to disperse a crowd.


Why did the cops literally standing face to face with Babbitt stand down if she was still a credible threat to anyone?


You

Should Babbitt have, before going in, announced that she was there to not murder anyone?

She was unarmed with her hands encumbered with climbing through the window of the door. Law enforcement had every right to push her back through the window. But not with lethal force. Unless she escalated the situation.

And I believe the “group” Babbitt was trying to “get to” was removed from the area before Babbitt climbed through the door window. Is that a false statement.

Sorry, but when people storm a public building the cops have a right to defend it.

List one building lethal force was authorized to defend this summer. Including armed police precincts. That set a precedence this summer.


Now list when “cops” have the right to use lethal force on an unarmed person.

You

Do you not have the right to defend your home if someone illegally enters and you are unable to ascertain how far they will go with violence?

Apples and oranges as this summer proved.

Law enforcement with clear rules for lethal force, like lethal force is not authorized to disperse crowds , and being in a federal building with rules to prevent excessive force is very different than home defense laws.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB


You

What is illegal? She was the first person to attempt to get through a door that the crowd broke down in an attempt to halt halt government business.

Like a long list of past disruptions at the Capitol?

What is the force action plan for the Capitol, and what is listed as when lethal force is authorized?

Additionally, at the end of the hallway were lawmakers, representatives of the entire nation, that were defenseless save for the cops who were standing between the rioters and them.

One unarmed person was a threat to a group? With an armed escort?

Is it true I posted that lethal force is not authorized to disperse a crowd? Is that a false statement concerning lethal force is not authorized to disperse a crowd.


Why did the cops literally standing face to face with Babbitt stand down if she was still a credible threat to anyone?


You

Should Babbitt have, before going in, announced that she was there to not murder anyone?

She was unarmed with her hands encumbered with climbing through the window of the door. Law enforcement had every right to push her back through the window. But not with lethal force. Unless she escalated the situation.

And I believe the “group” Babbitt was trying to “get to” was removed from the area before Babbitt climbed through the door window. Is that a false statement.

Sorry, but when people storm a public building the cops have a right to defend it.

List one building lethal force was authorized to defend this summer. Including armed police precincts. That set a precedence this summer.


Now list when “cops” have the right to use lethal force on an unarmed person.

You

Do you not have the right to defend your home if someone illegally enters and you are unable to ascertain how far they will go with violence?

Apples and oranges as this summer proved.

Law enforcement with clear rules for lethal force, like lethal force is not authorized to disperse crowds , and being in a federal building with rules to prevent excessive force is very different than home defense laws.

All valid points, and I'm no expert in laws concerning when possibly armed insurgents are invading a public building. I think it must just be opinion, but the Capitol and local official buildings themselves are apples and oranges. Additionally, as we've seen today the cop did not know the extent of the arms that the rioters were in possession of, and even stated that he was under the impression that shots had already been fired, and as far as anyone knew there could've still been lawmakers in any of those following corridors or rooms. We know that Pence was only 30 seconds away from Douglas Jensen going up the stairway with a knife he was clutching in his pocket.

Those Capitol police that moved aside were unarmed and faced with a massive crowd intent on destruction and violence.
One person, possibly armed (and who was just beyond a door that was bashed in, with a backpack on her back which hadn't been searched) could be a threat to groups of people... we see that yearly with mass shootings. In that split second the cop chose the decision to shoot one person, and based on video and accounts, it seems like that was thankfully all that was needed to deter any further violence. A cop died from injuries sustained that day from being beat by a fire extinguisher.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

possibly armed insurgents

Abbott was no armed.

She showed no signs of having a weapon while her hands were encumbered.

What threat did she make to anyone, what means did she have to carry out a credible threat, and against who within arms or legs reach?

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

Those Capitol police that moved aside were unarmed and faced with a massive crowd intent on destruction and violence.

Is that how law enforcement works when tasked with protecting “ lawmakers, representatives of the entire nation”?

Because the guys were keeping the “ massive crowd “ evidently at bay because Abbitt did not try to climb through the window until they moved.

Do you really think the law enforcement standing face to face with Babbitt would stand down if they believed Babbitt was a credible threat to “ lawmakers, representatives of the entire nation”?

And to be a credible threat you have to make a threat, and have the means to carry out that threat.

Example. You cannot use lethal force against an unarmed quadriplegic that threatens to kick you to death.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

Capitol and local official buildings themselves are apples and oranges.

Why?

Back to the police precincts that were overran. I assume they had armories, or at least weapons stored on site?

Preventing the unlawful obtaining of weapons, or preventing a situation where weapons can be unlawfully taken is a lawful use of lethal force.