No gun no shot?
Absolutely.
No gun no shot?
Absolutely.
Not the standard.
The application of the reasonable person standard is what applies measured against the law and the Capitol Police policies and training for just such a situation, not you saying âno gun, no shootâ. And the reasonable person standard says that she was the lead person breaching a law enforcement barricade at the head of a riotous mob and after receiving reports over the radio of shots fire (which only later proved false) and the mobs demonstrated use of violence and weapons constituted a reasonable belief that the mob would cause death or serious bodily injury to either the officer or the civilians he was protecting.
WW
LOL monkey doing what adults do to a basketball.
Cops are not reasonable persons.
Iâd be in jail for what Byrd did.
He didnât murder the unarmed girl in Texas.
Understood. You said âIâd be in jail for what Byrd did.â You are in Texas correct, hence the Texas Penal Code post.
Iâve also posted the D.C. Code for the application of the reasonable standard as it would apply to Lt. Byrd which you said doesnât apply to law enforcement.
So the reasonable person standard doesnât apply, yet Iâve showed the code that does both for you and Lt. Byrd.
But you have a nice night. Going to the airport to pick up my daughter how has a couple of days leave since the Air Force sent her back from Germany to CONUS for some training she has to receive.
WW
And yet, it is not the legal standard for police - or the general public as a whole, for self defense.
Which I believe you are well aware of.
Police dealing with citizens have a lower bar than soldiers fighting terrorists on the battlefield.
And we donât live in a police state.
Police dealing with citizens have a lower bar than soldiers fighting terrorists on the battlefield.
Yes. Is this news to you?
And we donât live in a police state.
That depends on how you define your terms. Just like everything else.
That depends on how you define your terms. Just like everything else.
You just did. Thanks.
And you still donât know what she was going to do. You can make up things you want to have happened but your dreams are not facts.
You would have a point if she was pounding the cowards head on the floor.
Itâs funny it see you in one post defend a thug who was pounding another thugs head on the pavement.
But than you go on and defend a man much like zimmerman and want to give him a metal.
The only thing that is the same in both events is your need to have the one you believe might be a conservative be the evil person.
And you still donât know what she was going to do. You can make up things you want to have happened but your dreams are not facts.
Climbing though a broken window during a trespassing event, itâs pretty obvious she was just an innocent bystander. Innocent and pure of thought.
Allan
Now we are getting somewhere.
Why one could almost say they coerced her to go first.
That mob was only a dozen people vs 8 cops.
No, he shot the first rioter
âŚwhile he laid in waitâŚand thatâs why itâs murder.
Well⌠this isnât good
Judicial Watch received 532 pages of documents from the DC Metropolitan Police concerning the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol on Jan. 6.
I donât see any new information in that article. Except for a Judicial Watch spokesman quote.
Well⌠this isnât good
Who said âno good reasonâ?
Well⌠this isnât good
A little hearsay evidence from judicial watch is good for the soul.
Just like chicken soup.
Allan