Ashli Babbitt - Capitol Shooting Victim

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

Yeah we're getting nowhere....

I'll see you when we can read the report on the shooting.

originally posted by: Skooter_NB

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

Yeah we're getting nowhere....

I'll see you when we can read the report on the shooting.

Oh. You don’t like facts?

One. You do understand a digital camera for example can be used to bring an item on the bottom right corner of the frame into sharp ficus. And the center of the frame is not the target of the camera’s focus.

Two...

Around this time, the departing officers were met by colleagues wearing helmets and armed with rifles, who had arrived from a stairwell behind Babbitt and the rioters, according to other video posted to social media. These officers began evacuating the officers who had guarded the door down the stairs.

With help from someone who hoisted her up, Babbitt began to step through a portion of the door where the glass had been broken out. An officer on the other side, who was wearing a suit and a surgical mask, immediately shot Babbitt in the neck. She fell to the floor.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Don’t you find it odd you claim lawmakers were in immediate danger.

But the reaction team that arrived “ These officers began evacuating the officers who had guarded the door down the stairs.”

If the law makers were actually in immediate danger, why was the reaction team not sent to protect the lawmakers.

Evidently the law makers you claim were in so much danger, the guards at the door stood down. And a reaction team was sent to escort and and have law enforcement exit the area. If the lawmakers were in immediate danger, why not send a reaction team to respond to the threat? Instead of standing down the guards and the door, and exit the area?

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Don’t you also find it odd there is no mention of security command post at the Capitol?

With video surveillance of the Capitol.

Wonder what the logs and transcripts from the command post, nerve center for Capitol security will reveal.

It is so odd “they knew” to stand down two guard standing with Babbitt, and send a reaction team to escort them out?

But “they” didn’t know about your supposed immediate threat to lawmakers lives and well being? And no reaction team was sent to meet your supposed threat?

The situation is stranger and stranger....

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Skooter_NB

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

Yeah we're getting nowhere....

I'll see you when we can read the report on the shooting.

Oh. You don’t like facts?

One. You do understand a digital camera for example can be used to bring an item on the bottom right corner of the frame into sharp ficus. And the center of the frame is not the target of the camera’s focus.
[/Quote]

No, just realized after pages that this is futile.

And just to clarify, the center of the image is the point of little distortion. It isn't about focus. It's about the physical properties of the actual lens. She is in the center of the frame so there is little to no distortion. You cannot change the physical center of the lens or the point where the fish eye is centered. That will always be the point of the physical point where the elements are most convex (99% of the time that is the center). Depending on your f stop you'll have different depth of fields. All of these cameras usually automatically go to the maximum f stop to maximize the focus of the entire frame.

The center of your frame, where Babbitt and the door were, has minimal to no distortion, and has nothing to do with what is in focus, which for all these is the maximum depth of field. No one was going for any artsy bokeh shots.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Let’s list facts.

We have no security footage.

We have no logs or transcripts from the security command center.

You claim the lawmakers were in immediate danger, and feared being physically assaulted, yet no response team was called to deal with “Babbitt’s mob”. But there was communication with someone that told the law enforcement standing face to face with Babbitt to stand down. And a reaction team with rifles was routed to escort the officers told to stand down. You would think the priority would be routing the reaction force with rifles to the lawmakers if your supposed claim the lawmakers were in immediate danger from Babbitt.

So there is no explanation why law makers supposedly in immediate danger from “Babbitt’s mob” could not call for support. And the law enforcement acting as a human shield face to face with Babbitt were stood down.

With no explanation why the lawmakers did not receive priority protective oversight, and why there was no “eyes” on them to monitor the situation in the age of cell phones and digital surveillance.

Oh. Was there a call by any of the law makers or the person that shot Babbitt for additional support to the capital police command center since you insist they were in immediate danger.

People were assaulted that day with no lethal force applied? But Babbitt with no evidence of actually physically assaulting anyone was shot dead.

The Officers face to face with Babbitt were able to stand down and move away without being physically assaulted.

Babbitt clearly had no weapons in her hands.

Her hands were clearly visible.

Her hands were encumbered.

The two officers on the other side of the door opposite Babbitt made no attempt to repel or detain Babbitt as she was at her must vulnerable while climbing through the window.

You claim she was a threat because she had a backpack. Not any different than a person wearing a jacket.

People are arrested everyday with backpacks without being shot.

Babbitt never reached for her backpack when shot.

The shooter never made the command for Babbitt to remove the backpack.

The officers literally standing face to face with Babbitt did not seem too concerned with the backpack, those in command did not seem too concerned with Babbitt, and the order was given to stand down.

You claim the shooter had to shot towards the ceiling. Claiming what? Babbitt raised up full body while climbing over? The shot should have landed body mass center. But hit the neck? Which probably indicates Babbitt was in more of a crawling position when going through the window. Her head and neck in the way of targeting body mass center.

The whole think stinks...


—————-

I am sticking with my gut feeling on this. The investigation is designed to cover up two possibilities.

One:

A lawmaker left classified / secret material in an area which by law or regulation warrants loss of a security clearance, fines, and criminal charges. Lethal force is authorized to keep anyone from unlawful obtaining state secrets.

Or two: a lawmaker threaten the shooter’s career, and gave an unlawful order to shoot whoever came through that door no matter the situation.