Ashli Babbitt - Capitol Shooting Victim

a reply to: neutronflux

Irrelevant since you still haven't posted the ROE's for the Capitol Police after having lied about who they report to.

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.

I guess we all have different thoughts about how someone could be a threat.

How does a crowd with no visible weapons pose a threat to anyone? www.nytimes.com...
www.nytimes.com...

And for your compare and contrast:
DHS Use of Force
DOJ Use of Force

2. Because this standard is “not capable of precise definition or mechanical
application,” its “proper application requires careful attention to the facts and
circumstances of each particular case.”3 The reasonableness of a LEO’s use of
force must be judged “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,
rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”4 In determining whether the force
a LEO used to effect a seizure was reasonable, courts allow for the fact that LEOs
are often forced to make split-second judgments, in circumstances that are tense,
uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux

Irrelevant since you still haven't posted the ROE's for the Capitol Police after having lied about who they report to.

If I lied. Then quote the statement that is a lie.

So. I lied in that the DOJ gets to police Homeland Security for violations of civil rights?

originally posted by: neutronflux
If I lied.

You lied about who the Capitol Police report to because you don't know the facts.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Your missing the point. And ignoring context.

Again...

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.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
If I lied.

You lied about who the Capitol Police report to because you don't know the facts.

So you cannot quote where I actually lied.

Got it.

:

originally posted by: neutronflux
So you cannot quote where I actually lied.

You lied every time you had the Capitol Police reporting to the Department of Justice because you didn't bother checking the facts in your effort to also not supply their ROE's which you made up as well.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

Your missing the point. And ignoring context.

Again...

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.

Sorry, it wasn't up to me, it was up to the officer who shot.

And keep ignoring my questions as well. Or the fact that the Use of Force for three different agencies that I posted all clearly say that it is up to the officer to assess the situation and use force as the situation progresses. Stated right there in the DOJ listing, 20/20 hindsight, yes maybe she shouldn't have been shot as she wasn't found to have a weapon, but how were they to know then and there after a breach of a federal building by a mob yelling for violence?

Lawmakers were clear of the area, yes, by less than a minute. In the clear video you see them at the end of the hallway shuffling out right before the shooting.

And what other people died by weapons brought in from the crowd? None.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Where did I make such a statement?

Not here?

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.

Nor, not here.

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.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

So, you have no proof that Babbitt was a credible threat. And she was not in a stance or armed that would suggest she was a threat to the officer.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

So, you have no proof that Babbitt was a credible threat. And she was not in a stance or armed that would suggest she was a threat to the officer.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Where did I make such a statement?

Not here?

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.

Nor, not here.

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.

ROE Post

Should they have interviewed every person storming the Capitol and asked if A) Do you intend on destroying public property and B) Do you intend to harm anyone?

No I do not have any evidence because it isn't needed. What is needed is the officer to believe that she was a threat. Which based on everything that happened that day one can believe.

When you have people outside yelling these things, what do you assume? They are just going to come in and treat everyone nicely?

On January 6th, during the storming of the United States Capitol, Powell made good on that threat. Videos show her, wearing a pink hat and sunglasses, using a battering ram to smash a window and a bullhorn to issue orders. “People should probably coördinate together if you’re going to take this building,” she called out, leaning through a shattered window and addressing a group of rioters already inside. “We got another window to break to make in-and-out easy.”

Source

If Quantico were being breached and overrun by a mob would it be fine for the LEO there to just let them go by and possibly hurt civilians or take sensitive material? We have video of people taking pictures of lawmakers paperwork.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

I guess you should ask the law enforcement that literally stood face to face with Babbitt, and then stood down once the lawmakers were moved from the area.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

I guess you should ask the law enforcement that literally stood face to face with Babbitt, and then stood down once the lawmakers were moved from the area.

I'd be happy to, but don't have that access.

What about the two other people that were killed without there being a credible threat?

originally posted by: Skooter_NB

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

I guess you should ask the law enforcement that literally stood face to face with Babbitt, and then stood down once the lawmakers were moved from the area.

I'd be happy to, but don't have that access.

What about the two other people that were killed without there being a credible threat?

You realize the argument this summer it was illegal to use tear gas by UN standards against rioters.

So the real argument is it’s ok to shoot Trump Supporters.

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

That's nice, it has nothing to do with the Capitol Police despite your untruthful insinuations.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Skooter_NB

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

I guess you should ask the law enforcement that literally stood face to face with Babbitt, and then stood down once the lawmakers were moved from the area.

I'd be happy to, but don't have that access.

What about the two other people that were killed without there being a credible threat?

You realize the argument this summer it was illegal to use tear gas by UN standards against rioters.

So the real argument is it’s ok to shoot Trump Supporters.

Still not answering my questions. And no, it's not okay to shoot anyone unless they are a threat.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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

That's nice, it has nothing to do with the Capitol Police despite your untruthful insinuations.

Again. If homeland security violated civil rights, would the DOJ over see the case.

Is it false that homeland security would no create and implement any procedures or regulations the DOJ found or advised violated civil rights.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

What question did I not answer.

Am I not clear enough stating that lawmakers left the area before Babbitt claimed through the window. Is that a false statement.

Am I not clearly stating the law enforcement literally standing face to face with Babbitt did not see Babbitt as a credible threat, so they stood down while a group of armed law enforcement arrived on the same side of the door as Babbitt.

Was I not quite clear Babbitt gave no indication of being a physical threat to any person, was unarmed, and additionally had her hand clearly encumbered when shot.

While you cannot cite how she was an immediate threat to any one’s body or life, and you cannot state what threat she posed, and what threat she could carry out being unarmed.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

What question did I not answer.

Am I not clear enough stating that lawmakers left the area before Babbitt claimed through the window. Is that a false statement.

Am I not clearly stating the law enforcement literally standing face to face with Babbitt did not see Babbitt as a credible threat, so they stood down while a group of armed law enforcement arrived on the same side of the door as Babbitt.

Was I not quite clear Babbitt gave no indication of being a physical threat to any person, was unarmed, and additionally had her hand clearly encumbered when shot.

While you cannot cite how she was an immediate threat to any one’s body or life, and you cannot state what threat she posed, and what threat she could carry out being unarmed.

I can cite, and have cited, how she was a threat. No search, a backpack, amongst a mob which had already shown violence and destruction.

In the ROE listed above, three different agencies, all say that the officer needs to make a split second decision in assessing the threat.

2. Because this standard is “not capable of precise definition or mechanical
application,” its “proper application requires careful attention to the facts and
circumstances of each particular case.”3 The reasonableness of a LEO’s use of
force must be judged “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,
rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”4 In determining whether the force
a LEO used to effect a seizure was reasonable, courts allow for the fact that LEOs
are often forced to make split-second judgments, in circumstances that are tense,
uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.

During the events of 1/6, would it be unreasonable to believe that a mob was intent on harm and destruction after storming the Capitol?

Should they have interviewed every person storming the Capitol and asked if A) Do you intend on destroying public property and B) Do you intend to harm anyone?

How do you justify the fact that Babbitt, while not brandishing any weapons, was not a threat? Two other people died that day from people who didn't bring or brandish any weapons (one cop via fire extinguisher, and one trampled). At least one, the woman who was killed, was killed by no one who had a weapon, just a mob. The same mob that was behind Babbitt and would have followed her through the window. Those were both examples of unarmed people causing bodily harm. Additionally, someone who was armed with a knife, was unknown to have had it on him at the time. So if he was shot it would've been with the same intel that the cops had on Babbitt, just knowing after the fact that he was armed, so would that have been different?

Again, according to the ROE that were posted earlier, what is needed is the officer to believe that she was a threat. Which based on everything that happened that day one can believe. Is that unreasonable?

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

I can cite, and have cited, how she was a threat.

How, being unarmed against armed law enforcement.

No search, a backpack.

It’s not against the law to have a backpack.

She never reached for her back pack.

The law enforcement that stood face to face with her were not concerned with her back pack, and stood down.

Did she make any credible threat against anyone’s body or life. No.



Her hands were clearly visible.

amongst a mob which had already shown violence and destruction.

Again. Babbitt was face to face with law enforcement. Did she ever threaten them, or physically attack any person with the intent to cause bodily harm. No. The fact the unarmed law enforcement that stood down and walked away from Babbitt bares testament to that fact.

In the ROE listed above, three different agencies, all say that the officer needs to make a split second decision in assessing the threat.

There was no split second decision. The office was armed. They were separated by space. She made no sign of threatening persons bodily. Nobody was within the area of her reach. She was busy climbing through the window. Her hands were clearly visible. She never reached for her backpack. She was not an immediate threat to anyone by any reasonable standard, and there is no reasonable argument the officer that shot her had to make a split second discussion when Babbitt is clearly seen having no weapons in her hands with nobody in arms reach to attack.


So. Who did Babbitt physical attack to warrant lethal force against her?