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.
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.
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.
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.
#1 Not “pretending”, the shooting was justified under the circumstances.
#2 What I posted was not the “department policy”, it is the law in from the D.C. Statutes and clearly laid out the reasonable person standard that applies.
I know some want to ignore the totality of the circumstances that day and replace logic with emotions, I don’t know if their motivation is because someone had the testicular fortitude to stand up to Trump** supporters that were rioting and had demonstrated the willingness to use violence and were some in the group were in possession of improvised melee weapons or if it’s simply misplaced emotion and ffffeeellliiinnngggsss because Ms. Babbitt was female.
There is one person responsible for the death of Ms. Babbitt that day, and that is Ms. Babbitt for her poor choice to participate in a riotous mob that had demonstrated a willingness to use violence and used improvised melee weapons to breech a law enforcement barricade. Through her actions she presented a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to law enforcement and others on the other side of the barricade.
Reality is what is, not what you think it should be.
…and where was the murderer in this picture you speak of? Was he standing right behind those barricades, gun drawn, standing firm, warning those on the other side not to come through, fearlessly protecting those lives he was charged with…or was he hiding, lying in wait, secretly planning to murder the first person to come through, regardless of whether or not they are armed or pose a physical threat to himself?
