Ashli Babbitt - Capitol Shooting Victim

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

As I said, it's my opinion on that. I simply feel that the duties of certifying a national election in our Capitol is different than armed protestors at the Michigan Capitol. Both of those were not examples of a quadriplegic threatening to kick someone to death (apples and oranges). The officers that moved out of the way had armed backup coming from below the stairs and behind the doors that were being breached. Have you watched the video? Have you seen the terror on those kids' faces? They knew there were armed guards coming from behind and below.

Not looking to change any opinions, but I believe that the officer was in the right to shoot her, not knowing if she was armed or not and to defend the certification (again, she had a backpack, which for all we know could've had a bomb in it). All those people should never have been in there in the first place, and were destroying federal property and threatening people in our nation's capitol. I believe it was a justified shooting (and so does the government).

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Ok.

To use lethal force, Babbitt had to indicate she was an immediate threat to a persons body and / or life. And had a means to carry out that threat.


Who was Babbitt an immediate threat to, and what credible means did she have to carry out that threat.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

Ok.

To use lethal force, Babbitt had to indicate she was an immediate threat to a persons body and / or life. And had a means to carry out that threat.


Who was Babbitt an immediate threat to, and what credible means did she have to carry out that threat.

Hell if I'll ever know, but to me, from the video, she was the first one to attempt to get into that hallway which (now we know) had just been cleared of lawmakers. I'd fear for my life if I was behind that door and saw a mob bursting through. For all they know she was an immediate threat to those through those doors, and they had no credible means to carry out anything, that they knew. Hindsight is 20/20.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You are changing the subject.

To use lethal force, Babbitt had to indicate she was an immediate threat to a persons body and / or life. And had a means to carry out that threat.

Who was Babbitt an immediate threat to, and what credible means did she have to carry out that threat.

So Babbitt was shot because she was an inconvenience?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

You are changing the subject.

To use lethal force, Babbitt had to indicate she was an immediate threat to a persons body and / or life. And had a means to carry out that threat.

Who was Babbitt an immediate threat to, and what credible means did she have to carry out that threat.

So Babbitt was shot because she was an inconvenience?

She was shot because she was breaking through a door into a public building where there were people fearing for their lives. She just happened to be the one through the door first. If she ended up having a weapon in her bag would this be a different conversation? I never said she was an inconvenience. That would be disgusting. She was a possible threat. People died. The cop thought there were other shots being fired. Cops were being beat with flagpoles, crowbars, extinguishers and other blunt objects. There were tasers and knives on these rioters. You're telling me that if that melee was occuring you wouldn't have the fear of bodily harm?

Was the Capitol cop that was killed murdered by a weapon that the insurgents brought with them?

Did the woman that was trampled to death by the mob get killed by a lethal weapon?

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

fearing for their lives.

The people had armed escorts. And were cleared of the area Babbitt entered.

What credible threat did unarmed Babbitt pose a threat to. You cannot list what credible threat she posed. And you cannot name to whom.

You

If she ended up having a weapon in her bag would this be a different conversation? I

Again. The law enforcement standing face to face with her did not seem to concerned what was in her backpack. If she was a credible threat, they would not have stood down.



There is one of two things I think really happened.

One. A lawmaker had secret material in an area that was no rated for secret material. Lethal force is authorized to prevent people from unlawfully obtaining secret material. That the first possible coverup.


Possibility two. A lawmaker gave an unlawful order to shot who came through that door. And told the officer who shot Babbitt to ignore their training m, procedures, and rules of engagement.

Before you think that is a “lawful” shooting. Please cite when lethal force is authorized to prevent trespassing in a federal building.



And this is being glossed over to prevent an investigation into what law maker gave the unlawful order.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

And it wasn’t the lawmakers “fearing” for their lives that shot Babbitt. It was a trained armed “cop” with strict rules on how to engage unarmed persons.

originally posted by: neutronflux
It was a trained armed “cop” with strict rules on how to engage unarmed persons.

You ever post those 'strict rules' that the Capitol Police have to follow or are you strawman posting again?

That was rhetorical because we all know you didn't.

originally posted by: Skooter_NB
originally posted by: neutronflux
"Who was Babbitt an immediate threat to, and what credible means did she have to carry out that threat."

Hell if I'll ever know, but to me, from the video, she was the first one to attempt to get into that hallway which (now we know) had just been cleared of lawmakers. I'd fear for my life if I was behind that door and saw a mob bursting through.

If you watched the video, then you also know that there were many SWAT right behind her, and they didn't seem worried about her at all. That video is very very disturbing, and the guy that shot her should go to jail for life.

ETA: she shouldn't have been there, and definitely shouldn't have been kicking at the door, but she didn't deserve to be shot and murdered point blank by a coward either.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
It was a trained armed “cop” with strict rules on how to engage unarmed persons.

You ever post those 'strict rules' that the Capitol Police have to follow or are you strawman posting again?

That was rhetorical because we all know you didn't.

I was in the military, and going off the rules dictated by the department of justice.


Do you have any proof the authorization of lethal force is that much more different for Capitol police.

originally posted by: neutronflux
I was in the military, and going off the rules dictated by the department of justice.

That's nice, maybe you can throw some more irrelevant strawmen in, call me when you post the ones for the Capitol Police.

Again, I don't have evidence of shooting for a trespass. This was not a trespass. This was a breaking and entering. Additionally, and we all know this, the Capitol police were completely out of their element and unprepared for anything like this. The people who had armed escorts can still be terrified and worried they will die. She (or anyone beyond that door) was a credible threat. There is no way around it. What angry mob isn't a threat?

You also didn't answer my questions about your fear in that situation?

The cop that was murdered was killed by a weapon that was not brought with the person.

The woman that was trampled didn't have someone brandishing a weapon in her face.

You can believe that this is some glossing over. Honestly if it were your first scenario regarding secret information, than how is that any glossing over? That is clear national defense.

I'm not looking to change any opinions, that doesn't happen regularly, but if you could not put yourself in those peoples' shoes I see their fear maybe you would understand or at least feel some of the terror that was inflicted. The fact that there was only one shooting is beyond me.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

The thread is about Babbitt. Not what about isms

Breaking and entering. You are now confusing different laws.


Standing watch on a military post, I could not simply shoot a person trespassing, and considering lots of people on the day of Babbitt’s shooting were allowed to enter the Capitol building like the precedence set with police giving up precincts....

Lethal force was authorized

If you tried to detain an individual that physically tried to escape.

To prevent the stealing of secret material.

To prevent stealing of nuclear material.

Prevent the theft of weapons.

To prevent critical equipment from being sabotaged

To prevent immediate and credible threat of bodily harm or death to a person or persons. And there was no special distinction vs a private or a base commander.


There are special exceptions. Like lethal force is authorized for trespassing at Area 51. But it’s clearly posted repeatedly along the property.

Dbl post by accident

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

The thread is about Babbitt. Not what about isms

Breaking and entering. You are now confusing different laws.


Standing watch on a military post, I could not simply shoot a person trespassing, and considering lots of people on the day of Babbitt’s shooting were allowed to enter the Capitol building like the precedence set with police giving up precincts....

Lethal force was authorized

If you tried to detain an individual that physically tried to escape.

To prevent the stealing of secret material.

To prevent stealing of nuclear material.

Prevent the threat of weapons.

To prevent immediate and credible threat of bodily harm or death to a person or persons. And there was no special distinction vs a private or a base commander.


There are special exceptions. Like lethal force is authorized for trespassing at Area 51. But it’s clearly posted repeatedly along the property.

This wasn't just trespassing in my opinion. And to me (and to the authorities) there was credible threat.

Again, people died, and not from weapons that were brought in.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Ok. So it’s back to.....

To use lethal force, Babbitt had to indicate she was an immediate threat to a persons body and / or life. And had a means to carry out that threat.

Who was Babbitt an immediate threat to, and what credible means did she have to carry out that threat.

So Babbitt was shot because she was an inconvenience?

And it wasn’t the lawmakers “fearing” for their lives that shot Babbitt. It was a trained armed “cop” with strict rules on how to engage unarmed persons.

originally posted by: neutronflux
It was a trained armed “cop” with strict rules on how to engage unarmed persons.

You find those rules yet?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

Ok. So it’s back to.....

To use lethal force, Babbitt had to indicate she was an immediate threat to a persons body and / or life. And had a means to carry out that threat.

Who was Babbitt an immediate threat to, and what credible means did she have to carry out that threat.

So Babbitt was shot because she was an inconvenience?

And it wasn’t the lawmakers “fearing” for their lives that shot Babbitt. It was a trained armed “cop” with strict rules on how to engage unarmed persons.

Yep, circles, I'll have the same answers.

She was a threat to anyone beyond that door; not a searched back pack, not knowing what was in pockets, after several minutes of attempts at breaching the door. As I stated before, people were killed with weapons that they didn't bring with them. If the whole of that mob got through no one knows what other loss of life there could have been.

Not an inconvenience, a threat to anyone beyond that door and an invader of a public building. Stop using the word inconvenience, as that is not what I stated. To kill anyone because of an inconvenience is sickening.

We don't know who this cop is, what his background is, etc. The three guards at the door were clearly minimally trained, young guards. The cop who shot seemed to have more tactical training and used that to determine the threat.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
It was a trained armed “cop” with strict rules on how to engage unarmed persons.

You find those rules yet?

Have anything to contradict the Department of Justice would have different authorization for lethal force for capital police VS my real life experience being an armed guard in the military.

Or. How about if you think I am wrong. You do the work to show you have a credible stance.

originally posted by: Skooter_NB
Yep, circles, I'll have the same answers.

That's the MO, citing non-relevant factoids and trying to roll it into a circular argument, "Show me that a purple unicorn named 'Fred' was permitted to shoot the rioter as per the Geneva Convention".