Ashli Babbitt - Capitol Shooting Victim

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

small group of people banging and trying to break the glass of the doors while law enforcement was standing in front of them.

'small group...' Let's just say that all 180 people that have been charged so far were in that 'small group.' Doesn't seem so small to me when you are three, unarmed, woefully unequipped cops.

Law enforcement face to face with Babbitt’s small group stood down. A group of armed law enforcement was coming up behind or beside Babbitt from a stairwell.

See above, no small group.

Babbitt having no weapon.

Hindsight.

Separated from her shooter by distance.

Should he have walked up to her and shot her point blank?

With Babbitt making no threats of physical violence against anyone.

You can hear exactly what she is yelling (which she is yelling throughout the video)?
Image

With no one within arms reach that Babbitt could harm, she was shot in the neck. The shooter was in front and to the left of Babbitt. The shooter took the risk of shooting the law enforcement standing to Babbitt’s left, and the law enforcement team coming from the stairwell, and the person acting as a videographer without need.

All of those people were behind, and below her, with the shooter shooting up towards the ceiling through her neck.

Just answer one question, how was she not a potential threat, taking all the events of the siege up to that instant?

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

small group...' Let's just say that all 180 people that have been charged so far were in that 'small group.' Doesn't seem so small to me when you are three, unarmed, woefully unequipped cops.

How many were at the door with Babbitt when she was shot.

This is about the shooting of Babbitt. Not you trying to make Babbitt pay for everyone else’s sins.

Hindsight

Her hands are clearly visible with no means to be a credible and immediate threat to anyone because nobody was in her arms reach.

Should he have walked up to her and shot her point blank?

There was another guard with the shooter?

Posted this repeatedly. The shooter should have pushed her through during her attempt. Or made the attempt to detain her. If she escalated the situation use lethal as necessary to legitimately protect himself from immediate risk.

Other words. Abide by, being armed, how he was trained when confronting a person with no clear means to cause immediate harm, and empty hands.

You

You can hear exactly what she is yelling (which she is yelling throughout the video)?

Must not been an actual threat, or you would quote her.

You

All of those people were behind, and below her, with the shooter shooting up towards the ceiling through her neck.

And the shooter was in front of her. So anyone behind her was in the line of fire.

Just answer one question, how was she not a potential threat, taking all the events of the siege up to that instant

Again..

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

You're ignoring the basis of POTENTIAL THREAT which is stated in every single one of those ROEs.

How am I?

Are you referring to from homeland security

www.dhs.gov...

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

Notice the wording reasonable belief statement...

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

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?

Okay, you've answered my questions. thank
First, reasonable belief: You'll have to ask the shooter. I have reasonable belief as outlined through my previous posts. Thankfully I wasn't in his position, but would have perceived credible threat to me and those behind me.
Split second decision: How is this not a split second decision. She was coming through the door and in that instant he decided to fire.
Audio of mob: If you can find out what she didn't say, that would be great. I don't know what she did say and admitted it, was asking if you knew. I do know that those within the mob were yelling for violence.

And just to clarify, so we can stop going back and forth on this topic, it actually is illegal to enter the Capitol (specifically the House and Senate galleries) with a backpack.

Can you answer this question?
How was she not a potential threat, taking all the events of the siege up to that instant?

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Being a threat isn't good enough.

It must be objectively reasonable to believe a CREDIBLE, IMMINENT AND DEADLY THREAT exists to use deadly force

Every other government employee did not perceive this threat, hence why they didn't discharge there weapon

To be a good shoot this must be true:

Ability, Opportunity and Intent

Trespassing does not, in most jurisdictions, constitute intent to cause serious bodily harm or death

Surely you think Kyle Rittenhouse was justified then right? And the McCloskies? And almost every OIS where the PERP was black?

a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

All of those people were behind, and below her, with the shooter shooting up towards the ceiling through her neck.

I tried looking, and searching Babbitt and ceiling.

I could not conform your statement.

Can you cite your source.

I was taught to shoot center mass, or the chest in the military.

If she was at a point higher than her shooter, endless she was crouched down when crawling through the window, then it should have been easily to shoot her in the chest which is expected and standard.

Hearing he missed center body mass is very concerning.

Or Babbitt was shot while in a crouched or crawling position while climbing through a window waist high. Meaning only her head and neck were the only target of opportunity. That means the entrance wound when the bulletin hit Babbitt would be about the same hight off the floor as an average man’s hight.

But yes. If her mass center was not blocked by her head and neck because of being in a stooped / crouched/ crawling positions, the shooter was a very bad shot.

Body center mass offers a huge target full of vital organs like the heart and lungs, and items like the aorta compared to the neck.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

All of those people were behind, and below her, with the shooter shooting up towards the ceiling through her neck.

I tried looking, and searching Babbitt and ceiling.

I could not conform your statement.

Can you cite your source.

I was taught to shoot center mass, or the chest in the military.

If she was at a point higher than her shooter, endless she was crouched down when crawling through the window, then it should have been easily to shoot her in the chest which is expected and standard.

4 Angles Video

Especially the top left you can see her above everyone else, going through the window, crouching through the window.

originally posted by: Skooter_NB

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

You

All of those people were behind, and below her, with the shooter shooting up towards the ceiling through her neck.

I tried looking, and searching Babbitt and ceiling.

I could not conform your statement.

Can you cite your source.

I was taught to shoot center mass, or the chest in the military.

If she was at a point higher than her shooter, endless she was crouched down when crawling through the window, then it should have been easily to shoot her in the chest which is expected and standard.

4 Angles Video

Especially the top left you can see her above everyone else, going through the window, crouching through the window.

A body does strange things and convulses when shot.

Now.

You claimed the shot was up at a path to carry it towards the ceiling. With no indication of angle.

Even a shot up 1 degree from level to the floor would eventually hit the ceiling if the building was long enough. Might take 300 or for hundred yards to raise elevation by six foot.

That is you hoping something is true

Vs my statement. Made in full without you cherry picking facts.

I tried looking, and searching Babbitt and ceiling.

I could not conform your statement.

Can you cite your source.

I was taught to shoot center mass, or the chest in the military.

If she was at a point higher than her shooter, endless she was crouched down when crawling through the window, then it should have been easily to shoot her in the chest which is expected and standard.

Hearing he missed center body mass is very concerning.

Or Babbitt was shot while in a crouched or crawling position while climbing through a window waist high. Meaning only her head and neck were the only target of opportunity. That means the entrance wound when the bulletin hit Babbitt would be about the same hight off the floor as an average man’s hight.

But yes. If her mass center was not blocked by her head and neck because of being in a stooped / crouched/ crawling positions, the shooter was a very bad shot.

Body center mass offers a huge target full of vital organs like the heart and lungs, and items like the aorta compared to the neck.


———-

Now. Can you cite from a source the actual trajectory of the bullet. You have prove in past posts you can cite and quote sources

What was the actual stated trajectory of the bullet, not your uneducated opinion and wishful innuendo. While ignoring that the shooter would by training be aiming for center body mass even if the head and neck were in the way.

No, I cannot cite a source. That is why I said several posts ago that most of this is opinion/conjecture until we have an actual report released. I am not sure what you are seeing differently in the videos than I. If you stop the video at 6 seconds, you can see that her head is a least a foot above everyone else and likely higher as the windows are level with the doors, at 8 feet high (or possibly taller, being everything in the Capitol is), and the border to the window is (estimating based on viewing the clips) has a six in border level with the windows on the door. So that said, her head is at 7.5 feet above the ground. Her neck is at least 7 feet above ground. Bottom right video at 3 seconds you have a man with a backwards black hat who, even with being a tall 6 feet 6 inches, has a foot of room to the top of the window frame, but it is likely much more given the low angle of the camera. This is all estimating on my part.

I understand military training... I have my own experience in multiple agencies. I understand trajectories, and that the statement 'towards the ceiling' could be true in any scenario, except if they were outside.

Additionally, the only ROE that we can find are related, but not exactly from, the Capitol Police. Through my research I have not found that they have any lethal force policy. That would be great if it could be had or existed.

At this stage I will wait for the reports to be released.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

And you do understand much video is shot in wide angle mode that distorts and records items out of natural proportions.





Added examples

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

And you do understand much video is shot in wide angle mode that distorts and records items out of natural proportions.

Added examples

Really?

The Iphone that the 'main' video was shot on has an equivalent of 26 mm lens. The most advanced GoPro is around 16 mm. At a center focus, there is little to no distortion, so her height in relation to the door and window is pretty true based on the angle of the video at the shot. I normally shoot on 18 mm lenses.

And with that argument... I will wait for the report. See you then

originally posted by: Skooter_NB
The Iphone that the 'main' video was shot on has an equivalent of 26 mm lens. The most advanced GoPro is around 16 mm. At a center focus, there is little to no distortion, so her height in relation to the door and window is pretty true based on the angle of the video at the shot. I normally shoot on 18 mm lenses.

And with that argument... I will wait for the report. See you then

What do you mean my “distortion”. Quality of lens and abnormalities in the len that actually causes distortions.

Or you referring to zooming from wide angle to close up which does change protective and distorts / changes relationships of space and objects as the amount of zoom changes. Or as wide angle increases.

The equivalent I know for SLR cameras is the 50 mm lens. It is the closes lens that takes pictures / records in the prospective closest to what the human eye perceives. . Anything below 50 mm is considered wide angle. The extreme end of SLR camera lenses is the 18mm fish eye. With there being more expense lenses that go below 18mm.

Bottom line. Unless filmed in 3-D with lenses the same distance apart as the human eyes, and in a focal length comparable to the human eye. There will be distortion and miss proportion of objects.

Now. The bottom line.

The world is three dimensional. When recorded and viewed as a two dimensional video, all sense of depth is lost. All depth relationships of objects becomes distorted and out of proportion.

Thus. Why you can make images like these..





————-

So. Nice try in that you tried to make a BS argument stick.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Anther example.

I love watching Mist swirl and the currents.

But when viewed as a two dimensional image, all sense of depth is lost. So those delicate and intricate swirls I can see by eye in the three dimensional world just becomes a white block in a two dimensional image.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

This Image Shows How Camera Lenses Beautify or Uglify Your Pretty Face

gizmodo.com...

You can see how the deformation works in this Eastwood's series, who took the same photo with a wide range of optics, going from a 350mm to 19mm. Eastwood moved the camera to frame the subject in exactly the same position so you could clearly see the effect.

The shorter the focal length, the more field of you view you can capture. With something like a 15mm fish eye lens or the 19mm that Eastwood used, the effect is really obvious. Your face would be extremely deformed, like the rest of the environment. But as you go up, the distortion gets more subtle. Sometimes this distortion can make a face prettier than it actually is. Sometimes the effect makes a face uglier. Since this subtler distortion is not obvious, your mind just buys the image thinking that this is what the person looks like.

So. It’s not only a matter of quality of the camera. It’s also what point the camera is focused on. The distance of objects from the camera, and the distance those objects are from the point the lens is focused on. And how much zoom, or wide angle is applied.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

This is also a really good example



The camera might be really good with zero “distortion”. Because on a 2-D picture “removing depth of filled information”. It looks like the person would have to aim down from the position of his hand if the person wanted to shoot the top of the Eiffel tower.

I think you missed the point of what I said, or I misunderstood what you were saying. For the center point of a wide angle or fish eye, there will be little to no distortion especially in these commercial lenses. Not a BS argument. Just a fact. This has nothing to do with focal length in regards to depth of field. Her head and the window frame are at the same depth of field.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Skooter_NB

This Image Shows How Camera Lenses Beautify or Uglify Your Pretty Face

gizmodo.com...

You can see how the deformation works in this Eastwood's series, who took the same photo with a wide range of optics, going from a 350mm to 19mm. Eastwood moved the camera to frame the subject in exactly the same position so you could clearly see the effect.

The shorter the focal length, the more field of you view you can capture. With something like a 15mm fish eye lens or the 19mm that Eastwood used, the effect is really obvious. Your face would be extremely deformed, like the rest of the environment. But as you go up, the distortion gets more subtle. Sometimes this distortion can make a face prettier than it actually is. Sometimes the effect makes a face uglier. Since this subtler distortion is not obvious, your mind just buys the image thinking that this is what the person looks like.

So. It’s not only a matter of quality of the camera. It’s also what point the camera is focused on. The distance of objects from the camera, and the distance those objects are from the point the lens is focused on. And how much zoom, or wide angle is applied.

This is exactly what I was saying, that the center has little to no distortion, which is addressed in the whole article. And as she is going through the window frame it is the center of the video shot.

There are other angles, that I referred to, in regards to placing her in the space. But when I comes to the center of the image that is where she was at the same depth of field as the window frame.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

The more I think about it. Don’t you find it odd the reaction team that showed up down range of the person who shot Babbitt was there to escort the unarmed officers who stood face to face with Babbitt when they stood down.

But you claim the law makers were in immediate danger. But no reaction teams were sent to bolster thei protection of the lawmakers?

originally posted by: Skooter_NB
I think you missed the point of what I said, or I misunderstood what you were saying. For the center point of a wide angle or fish eye, there will be little to no distortion especially in these commercial lenses. Not a BS argument. Just a fact. This has nothing to do with focal length in regards to depth of field. Her head and the window frame are at the same depth of field.

You have the meta data from the actual camera and the video to know what object the camera was focused on. Or you just making stuff up again?

And you don’t know what amount of wide angle is being applied.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Skooter_NB
I think you missed the point of what I said, or I misunderstood what you were saying. For the center point of a wide angle or fish eye, there will be little to no distortion especially in these commercial lenses. Not a BS argument. Just a fact. This has nothing to do with focal length in regards to depth of field. Her head and the window frame are at the same depth of field.

You have the meta data from the actual camera and the video to know what object the camera was focused on. Or you just making stuff up again?

And you don’t know what amount of wide angle is being applied.

I don't know all of the cameras, why I stated the sizes of two of the most popular wide angle portable lenses. We know for a fact that Jake Sullivan was using an iphone, hence me stating the mm.

You're citing gizmodo articles about depth of field and wide angle lenses for selfies. The depth of field doesn't matter on these videos. It isn't about focus or focal length, it's about distortion in the lens moving away from the center focal point.