Ashli Babbitt - Capitol Shooting Victim

originally posted by: Skooter_NB

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.

I already addressed much of your “question” on Jan 7.

Might try reading through the whole thread....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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: neutronflux

You find those Capitol Police ROE's yet?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux

You find those Capitol Police ROE's yet?

Quote that post where you imagined I lied yet.

Please by all means. Cite DOJ or Homeland Security documents to prove I am wrong in some way.

You just going to be lazy. And keep posting the same falsehoods.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

By the way. Use of lethal force was cited by Skooter_NB. Is that false.

And I walked point by point why the Babbitt shooting was not a justifiable use of lethal force. Is that false.

With Skooter_NB providing not rebuttal from my last outline of arguments and facts. Is that false.

Let this sink in...

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( claim I believe was made by Skooter_NB ) law enforcement that stood down and walked away from Babbitt without being attacked or assaulted bares testament to that fact.

a reply to: neutronflux

Your opinions are not a factor, did you find the Capitol Police ROE's?

I think the conversation is just going to continue going in circles; it honestly boils down to whether the officer who shot perceived her as a threat, per the ROEs that I listed earlier from the Maryland Police, DOJ and DHS. Again, it is about the officer assessing potential threat. We saw from before that a mob can kill without even having to brandish any arms. If more people had gotten through who knows what potential violence could have occurred as the mob was shouting for blood. There also, according to the cited ROE, does NOT need to be violence beforehand. It is up to the officer to assess the situation and act accordingly. He took everything that occurred up to that point, the breaching of barricade, destruction of doors/windows and entryways, forced entry and pushing of officers, beating of officers, chanting of violence, and decided to shoot.

I'm glad I didn't have to decide in that moment. I believe he made an honest decision. You don't, and that is that.

Let the authorities do the investigation. They will come to a conclusion.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

honestly boils down to whether the officer who shot perceived her as a threat,

Your the one that cannot cite who she was a threat to? And how.

Funny you ignored?

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( claim I believe was made by Skooter_NB ) law enforcement that stood down and walked away from Babbitt without being attacked or assaulted bares testament to that fact.


ROEs?
Something like this?

How about the actual context?

www.dhs.gov...


Department Policy on the Use of Force

B. De-escalation
To ensure that DHS LEOs are proficient in a variety of techniques that could aid them in appropriately resolving an encounter, DHS Components shall provide use of force training that includes de-escalation tactics and techniques.
C. Use of Safe Tactics
DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public, and that minimize the risk of unintended injury or serious property damage. DHS LEOs should also avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.
D. Additional Considerations
1. DHS LEOs are permitted to use force that is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. This standard does not require LEOs to meet force with equal or lesser force.
2. DHS LEOs do not have a duty to retreat to avoid the reasonable use of force, nor are they required to wait for an attack before using reasonable force to stop a threat.
E. Warnings
1. When feasible, prior to the application of force, a DHS LEO must attempt to identify him- or herself and issue a verbal warning to comply with the LEO’s instructions. In determining whether a warning is feasible under the circumstances, a LEO may be guided by a variety of considerations including, but not limited to, whether the resulting delay is likely to:
a. Increase the danger to the LEO or others, including any victims and/or bystanders;
b. Result in the destruction of evidence;
c. Allow for a subject’s escape; or
d. Result in the commission of a crime.
2. In the event that a LEO issues such a warning, where feasible, the LEO should afford the subject a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply before applying force.


Snip

IV. Less-Lethal Force and Less-Lethal Devices
A. All DHS Components employing LEOs shall have appropriate written policies and procedures regarding the use of authorized control tactics or techniques; authorized less-lethal devices; and necessary training and certifications—both initial and recurring.
B. DHS Components shall conduct less-lethal use of force training no less than every two years and incorporate decision-making and scenario-based situations in these training programs.
C. DHS LEOs are prohibited from carrying any unauthorized less-lethal device for duty use.
D. LEOs shall demonstrate proficiency, in accordance with established Component standards, for each less-lethal device that they are authorized and certified to carry. If a certification or valid waiver expires, a LEO is prohibited from carrying that device for duty use until he or she meets the requirements for recertification on that device.
V. Warning Shots and Disabling Fire
A. General Prohibition
Except in the limited circumstances described in Section V.B., “Exceptions,” DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms solely:
1. As a warning or signal (“warning shots”) or
2. To disable moving vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or other conveyances
(“disabling fire”).
B. Exceptions
1. Warning Shots
a. Maritime Law Enforcement Operations: Authorized U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel conducting maritime law enforcement operations may use warning shots only as a signal to a vessel to stop, and only after all other available means of signaling have failed. Such warning shots are classified as less-lethal force.

Snip

Deadly Force
A. General Guidelines
1. As with any use of force, a LEO’s use of deadly force must be reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him or her at the time force is applied.
6As a use of deadly force, this is not mere “disabling fire,” which by definition is not intended to cause bodily injury. 6

2. A DHS LEO may use deadly force only when the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person.7
a. Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape.8

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Concerning that Babbitt posed no physical threat to the law enforcement that stood face to face with her. That Babbitt made no threats of harming anyone physically. Did not physically harm the unarmed law enforcement standing face to face with her.

That Babbitt is clearly seen not holding any type of weapon that would be a threat to the armed law enforcement agents that shot her.

The law enforcement officer didn’t even have a situation to de-escalate concerning Babbitt posing or presenting herself as a threat to that law enforcement agent.

So. The officer shot a women that was unarmed. Babbitt made no threats of physically harming anyone. Did not physically harm the unarmed law enforcement standing face to face with her. And had no means to harm an armed law enforcement agent. No person was with in arms reach for Babbitt to be a threat to.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public,

Consider law enforcement was on the same side of the door as Babbitt. There was a person using a video camera not part of the “mob”. And that a law enforcement team was coming up behind/ beside Babbitt.

The law enforcement agent that shot Babbitt also fails at the call to “ incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public,”

I honestly don't know how many times I could rewrite this. I have specified several times. She was part of a violent mob, was coming into a corridor that just had lawmakers in it, could have been possibly armed and wasn't searched. Again, it is up to the officer to assess the situation. There was plenty that happened that day up to that moment to make anyone behind that door think there was a threat. If there wasn't a threat they wouldn't have evacuated the building. Sorry if my definition of a threat is different than yours.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public,

Consider law enforcement was on the same side of the door as Babbitt. There was a person using a video camera not part of the “mob”. And that a law enforcement team was coming up behind/ beside Babbitt.

The law enforcement agent that shot Babbitt also fails at the call to “ incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public,”

At that stage the mob had entered both sides of the building. The entire place was being evacuated. I think they were well beyond trying to get it under control. The videos of the entire incident clearly show cops being beat, being pushed, and being forced violently out of the way to enter the building by a mob that outnumbered them.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

At that stage the mob had entered both sides of the building.

You mean allowed to enter with no or little opposition.

If lethal force was to be used. It should have been then.

And that has nothing to do with Babbitt being a threat to anyone when she was shot.


You

The entire place was being evacuated.

Ok.

You

I think they were well beyond trying to get it under control

What does that have to do with Babbitt not giving any indication of being a physical threat to the unarmed law enforcement that stood down?

You

The videos of the entire incident clearly show cops being beat, being pushed,

Did Babbitt beat or push a cop?

and being forced violently out of the way to enter the building by a mob that outnumbered them.

Did “Babbitt’s mob” do that to the the law enforcement standing face to face with Babbitt?

Did Babbitt give any indication of being an immediate threat to anyone standing around her when she was shot.

Honestly I'm not looking to change your opinion, that obviously isn't going to happen. A last word, which is the point of all the text above and the ROE regarding lethal force, Potential. To answer all those other questions I'll leave this.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Am I keeping to the facts concerning the actual shooting of Babbitt.

Your the one that keeps changing the subject, and what about Isms.

When your ready to talk about the subject of this thread. Start with addressing this.

and being forced violently out of the way to enter the building by a mob that outnumbered them.

Did “Babbitt’s mob” do that to the the law enforcement standing face to face with Babbitt?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

Am I keeping to the facts concerning the actual shooting of Babbitt.

Your the one that keeps changing the subject, and what about Isms.

When your ready to talk about the subject of this thread. Start with addressing this.

and being forced violently out of the way to enter the building by a mob that outnumbered them.

Did “Babbitt’s mob” do that to the the law enforcement standing face to face with Babbitt?

I don't know how you think I am changing the subject. The event needs to be taken as a whole. The officers need to assess the situation, and that situation involved violence and calls for murder.

I don't know what videos you are watching that don't show forced entry or threatening actions.
From right at the shooting:

Video

From outside, breaching barricades and through the doors of the Capitol.


If you don't believe that there could have been the POTENTIAL for continued violence once more people go through that door then you are kidding yourself. If you look at maps of the Capitol you can see the penetration the mob made. There are only so many places you could go after getting to that point. The actual shooting of Babbitt was during this violence, with potential for a hell of a lot more.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Dude, he's just going to keep giving you strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the topic.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Skooter_NB

Dude, he's just going to keep giving you strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the topic.

I know, I've only got about 2 posts left in me...
How about this nice peaceful entry into the Capitol?

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

don't know how you think I am changing the subject. The event needs to be taken as a whole.

Then start with...

and being forced violently out of the way to enter the building by a mob that outnumbered them.

Did “Babbitt’s mob” do that to the the law enforcement standing face to face with Babbitt?

Your trying to justify the shooting of Babbitt by pinning things on her with no care what she actually did, or if she was an actual threat to anyone.

While the repeating game is being played.....

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( claim I believe was made by Skooter_NB ) law enforcement that stood down and walked away from Babbitt without being attacked or assaulted bares testament to that fact

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Skooter_NB

Dude, he's just going to keep giving you strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the topic.

You just get $issed because I use and cite facts with logic.

All you can do is make sad little personal attacks.

originally posted by: neutronflux
You just get $issed because I use and cite facts with logic.

Actually, you got caught implying the Capitol Police reported to the DoJ.