One set of rules. Not special blue laws.
Yes, that is the problem that posters here continue to use “no gun, no shot” as the prevailing legal condition when it clearly is not. People will continue to post that despite it being incorrectly applied.
I’m fine with that. You may want to contact…
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
#1 So will a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury or death to self or others be the standard you want to apply to civilians and law enforcement,
#2 Will it be that deadly force is not authorized unless the person has a firearm or explosive device visible prior to the use of deadly force.
That means that if someone breaks into a house at night:
- Under #1 the homeowner can exercise their 2nd Amendment right to defend themselves when a reasonable person would perceive a threat.
- Under #2 the homeowner cannot exercise their 2nd Amendment right unless they turn on the lights and the person breaking into their home clearly has a firearm visible.
A reasonable person would not shoot an unarmed woman.
a reasonable person who is there to protect the elected officials of the United States who are conducting official gov’t business such as voting in a new President, is charged with ensuring their safety as the last line of defense against individuals who are screaming to hang the vice president and murder folks in congress to get their way… should have just let Bobbitt through and anyone else who wanted to go through after her to allow them into the chamber to commit their acts of insurrectionist terrorism, amirite? Oh wait, he should have ensured to ask her to fill out a questionnaire on if she was armed or not before taking action. Right? She was caught doing something VERY illegal as part of a mob who were doing things that were very illegal and threatening to kill members of congress.He made the right call. There’s a phrase that keeps being used… “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” Bobbitt played a stupid game. She got her prize. The funny part is Trump said he’d march right along with them and like a chicken, he escaped in his limo to go watch it on TV instead LOL. I really don’t understand why folks are rallying around this guy.
I know you want to pull the emotional and feelings thread with the “unarmed woman” manta, but it doesn’t work upon real examination of the fact.
A police officer holding the blue line against a riotous mob that had just demonstrated violence by breeching a law enforcement barrier with improvised melee weapons that presented a clear and present danger of serious bodily injury or death to him- or her-self while mere feet from the entrance to the House Chamber.
Yes a “reasonable” person would be justified for using lethal force in such a situation.
It is sad that Ms. Babbitt put herself into a position where she made a poor choice that day that resulted in her death.
I know you want to make that ■■■■ bag a defender of the Temple of 'Mocracy, but it doesn’t work on examination of the body.
No serious much less lethal threat from the victim. The simple truth is Lt. ■■■■ Bag panicked and killed an unarmed, defenseless citizen and got away with it.
I know you want to be emotional and I try to respect your ffffeeelllliiinnngggssss - since you didn’t qualify with the “(C)” on you.
But the reality is a police officer was holding the blue line against a riotous mob that had just demonstrated violence by breeching a law enforcement barrier with improvised melee weapons that presented a clear and present danger of serious bodily injury or death to him- or her-self and to others while mere feet from the entrance to the House Chamber.
The shooting of Ms. Babbitt resulted from her poor choices that day.
If she was a perceived threat. Yes they would.
Here’s a famous incident.
41 shots directed at an unarmed man.
41 shots at an unarmed man - OK.
1 shot at a member of a mob that demonstrated violence to breech a law enforcement barrier presenting a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer and others - not OK.
I would be in prison.
Cops are not “reasonable” people.
What do you think “justified” means?
Thank you for that. Clearly, by that protocol for the use of deadly force, this shooting was not justified. There was no deadly weapon, there was no threat of serious bodily injury or death, there was no reasonable reason to believe that an immediate use of force was necessary to protect anyone, and … all other means to deal with the situation were not exhausted. Case closed.
Who said “no good reason”?
Appreciate you sharing your opinion, which doesn’t seem to be shared by those who investigated.
You mean the cover up?
How was it covered up?
Ms. Babbitt being part of a riotious mob that had demonstrated a willingness to use violence and used improvised melee weapons to breech a law enforcement barricade, which presented a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to law enforcement and others on the other side of the barricade was broadcast world wide for all to see.
The media covered up her actions be broadcasting the video of her breeching the barricade. Ahhhh no.
By pretending there was justification to shoot her, when the department policy (which you provided) clearly shows there was not.
None of the rest of your post provides justification either. It doesn’t matter one iota what may or may not have been going on in the rest of the building. The cop only shot one person … Ashli Babbitt.
It’s always the cover up that gets them.