It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ashli Babbitt - Capitol Shooting Victim
page: 14share:
originally posted by: neutronflux
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.
FFS, the Capitol Police don't report to the Department of Justice, they report to the Department of Homeland Security.
Your 'real life' experiences aren't relevant unless you worked for the Capitol Police and you can't even be bothered to know the actual facts.
edit on 3-2-2021 by AugustusMasonicus because: dey terk er election
a reply to: Skooter_NB
You
Wtf?
These are the basic rules for lethal force.
“ 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.”
Lethal force is not authorized to disperse a crowd.
Is that false.
There is no distinction between crowd or “riot” in that lethal force was is not authorized to disperse a crowd.
Now. “What” lawful use of lethal force did the “cop” fall under to justify the slaying of Babbitt.
The correct answer is none.
You
Yep, circles, I'll have the same answers.
Wtf?
These are the basic rules for lethal force.
“ 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.”
Lethal force is not authorized to disperse a crowd.
Is that false.
There is no distinction between crowd or “riot” in that lethal force was is not authorized to disperse a crowd.
Now. “What” lawful use of lethal force did the “cop” fall under to justify the slaying of Babbitt.
The correct answer is none.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: neutronflux
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.
FFS, the Capitol Police don't report to the Department of Justice, they report to the Department of Homeland Security.
Your 'real life' experiences aren't relevant unless you worked for the Capitol Police and you can't even be bothered to know the actual facts.
Ok? Homeland security cannot creat its own “lawful use of deadly” force.
And doesn’t the DOJ have jurisdiction over anyone US law falls under.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB
You
Yep, circles, I'll have the same answers.
Wtf?
These are the basic rules for lethal force.
“ 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.”
Lethal force is not authorized to disperse a crowd.
Is that false.
There is no distinction between crowd or “riot” in that lethal force was is not authorized to disperse a crowd.
Now. “What” lawful use of lethal force did the “cop” fall under to justify the slaying of Babbitt.
The correct answer is none.
Sorry you think that way. Wasn't about dispersing a crowd (although it certainly helped). I'm not involved in the investigation, just watching the multiple videos, knowing others died not as a result of any lethal weapon being brought in, and being a normal human being who knows fear.
And just for added context from what we do know about the investigation:
The Justice Department said in announcing the investigation that it was following routine procedure for whenever a police officer uses deadly force by having the Washington Metropolitan Police Department examine the shooting. The police investigators have made an initial determination that charges against the officer aren’t warranted, the people said, adding that Justice Department officials haven’t yet made a final determination on the matter. The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington is leading the broader investigation into the riot and prosecuting the more than 150 cases that have resulted to date.
The officer, a lieutenant, was essentially serving as a potential last line of defense between the rioters and members of Congress, thus providing some justification for his actions and falling well short of the standard necessary to charge a police officer with a civil-rights violation for a shooting, the people said.
“That’s where he drew the line in the sand,” a fellow Capitol Police officer said, adding that the lieutenant, whose police powers have been suspended, is expected to return to his previous status, though he is afraid of being retaliated against by Trump supporters.
www.wsj.com...[e ditby]edit on 3-2-2021 by Skooter_NB because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: neutronflux
And doesn’t the DOJ have jurisdiction over anyone US law falls under.
I just told you who the Capitol Police report to. You need it posted again?
Keep up with your strawmen though since it's working so well.
a reply to: Skooter_NB
And you cited nothing concerning when lethal force is authorized.
And petty much how I though this would shake out. There will be no language the shooting of Babbitt was justified. The language will be more along the lines it’s not the shooters fault.
And you cited nothing concerning when lethal force is authorized.
And petty much how I though this would shake out. There will be no language the shooting of Babbitt was justified. The language will be more along the lines it’s not the shooters fault.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: neutronflux
And doesn’t the DOJ have jurisdiction over anyone US law falls under.
I just told you who the Capitol Police report to. You need it posted again?
Keep up with your strawmen though since it's working so well.
Ok. And is it false statement the DOJ has jurisdiction over all that fall under US law.
a reply to: neutronflux
Keep asking irrelevant questions, let us know when you find the ROE's for the Capitol Police who don't report to the Justice Department like you tried to pawn off on everyone.
Keep asking irrelevant questions, let us know when you find the ROE's for the Capitol Police who don't report to the Justice Department like you tried to pawn off on everyone.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB
And you cited nothing concerning when lethal force is authorized.
And petty much how I though this would shake out. There will be no language the shooting of Babbitt was justified. The language will be more along the lines it’s not the shooters fault.
Capitol Police Lethal Use Policy
Here is the closest I could find.
In fact from the brief searches I could make, apparently the Capitol Police does not have a clear cut policy on Lethal Force and that it comes down to the officer making the decision in the moment for fear of life/self defense and defense of those around them.
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
If the department of the homeland security violins civil rights, wouldn’t it be up to the DOJ to prosecute.
So. Is it false by extension. The DOJ dictates to homeland security if there policies are inline with civil rights or not.
If the department of the homeland security violins civil rights, wouldn’t it be up to the DOJ to prosecute.
So. Is it false by extension. The DOJ dictates to homeland security if there policies are inline with civil rights or not.
originally posted by: Skooter_NB
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB
And you cited nothing concerning when lethal force is authorized.
And petty much how I though this would shake out. There will be no language the shooting of Babbitt was justified. The language will be more along the lines it’s not the shooters fault.
Capitol Police Lethal Use Policy
Here is the closest I could find.
In fact from the brief searches I could make, apparently the Capitol Police does not have a clear cut policy on Lethal Force and that it comes down to the officer making the decision in the moment for fear of life/self defense and defense of those around them.
That’s bs. Especially concerning dealing with an armed persons.
And just a quote from the Maryland book, stating potential for injury and no requirement of injury:
a. Self-Defense of Defense of Another - deadly force is permissible in selfdefense, or to defend another person who is being unlawfully attacked,
from death or serious bodily injury.
(1) There is no requirement that an actual specific injury be inflicted. It
is, however, required the potential for such an injury must be
present and the threat must be imminent.
(2) Officers may continue to use deadly force as long as the suspect
attempts to inflict serious injury and indicates a willingness to do so.
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: Skooter_NB
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB
And you cited nothing concerning when lethal force is authorized.
And petty much how I though this would shake out. There will be no language the shooting of Babbitt was justified. The language will be more along the lines it’s not the shooters fault.
Capitol Police Lethal Use Policy
Here is the closest I could find.
In fact from the brief searches I could make, apparently the Capitol Police does not have a clear cut policy on Lethal Force and that it comes down to the officer making the decision in the moment for fear of life/self defense and defense of those around them.
That’s bs. Especially concerning dealing with an armed persons.
That's what my search turned up. If you can find something better let me know.
a reply to: neutronflux
You find those rules yet? Must be tough twisting and turning in the wind like you are right now after being caught making things up and trying to pawn that off on everyone in the thread.
You find those rules yet? Must be tough twisting and turning in the wind like you are right now after being caught making things up and trying to pawn that off on everyone in the thread.
originally posted by: Skooter_NB
And just a quote from the Maryland book, stating potential for injury and no requirement of injury:
a. Self-Defense of Defense of Another - deadly force is permissible in selfdefense, or to defend another person who is being unlawfully attacked,
from death or serious bodily injury.
(1) There is no requirement that an actual specific injury be inflicted. It
is, however, required the potential for such an injury must be
present and the threat must be imminent.
(2) Officers may continue to use deadly force as long as the suspect
attempts to inflict serious injury and indicates a willingness to do so.
Ok. What lawmaker was being physically attacked by what means by Babbitt.
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: Skooter_NB
And just a quote from the Maryland book, stating potential for injury and no requirement of injury:
a. Self-Defense of Defense of Another - deadly force is permissible in selfdefense, or to defend another person who is being unlawfully attacked,
from death or serious bodily injury.
(1) There is no requirement that an actual specific injury be inflicted. It
is, however, required the potential for such an injury must be
present and the threat must be imminent.
(2) Officers may continue to use deadly force as long as the suspect
attempts to inflict serious injury and indicates a willingness to do so.
Ok. What lawmaker was being physically attacked by what means by Babbitt.
Potential.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux
You find those rules yet? Must be tough twisting and turning in the wind like you are right now after being caught making things up and trying to pawn that off on everyone in the thread.
Find anything to contradict that Homeland Security has to abide by the same regulations dictated by the DOJ to protect civil rights.
edit on
3-2-2021 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed
originally posted by: neutronflux
Find anything to contradict that Homeland Security has to abide by the same regulations dictated by the DOJ to protect civil rights.
No, you find it since you're making the claims Captain Strawman.
originally posted by: Skooter_NB
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: Skooter_NB
And just a quote from the Maryland book, stating potential for injury and no requirement of injury:
a. Self-Defense of Defense of Another - deadly force is permissible in selfdefense, or to defend another person who is being unlawfully attacked,
from death or serious bodily injury.
(1) There is no requirement that an actual specific injury be inflicted. It
is, however, required the potential for such an injury must be
present and the threat must be imminent.
(2) Officers may continue to use deadly force as long as the suspect
attempts to inflict serious injury and indicates a willingness to do so.
Ok. What lawmaker was being physically attacked by what means by Babbitt.
Potential.
And Exactly how does an armed women with her hards encumbered pose a physical threat to an armed officer.
Is it false lawmakers were clear of the area.
The law enforcement standing face to face with Babbitt did not seems to think she was a threat when they stood down.
edit on 3-2-2021 by
neutronflux because: Added and fixed
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: neutronflux
Find anything to contradict that Homeland Security has to abide by the same regulations dictated by the DOJ to protect civil rights.
No, you find it since you're making the claims Captain Strawman.
Then homeland security does fall under the DOJ in that DOJ gets to police the department of homeland security to ensure homeland security does not violate civil rights.
Got it.