Sean

The Question the Cowards don't Want you to see..

  
By:  Sean Treacy  •  Op-Ed  •  7 months ago  •  97 comments

The Question the Cowards don't Want you to see..

As part of its ops campaign on behalf of the Democratic Party the mainstream media dragged up the misdeeds of the late Ashli Babbitt to smear her on the anniversary of her death. During the January 6th riot, the tiny, unarmed Ms. Babbitt was shot by a Capitol Police Officer who was not criminally charged for the shooting.   Following  media cues, the ghouls came out to celebrate her death, show how big and tough they are by wishing that more Americans were gunned down, and vociferously defended the police officer who shot the unarmed woman, because she was breaking the law and that's enough reason to kill her.

The truly curious aspect of this is that so many of the people who defend the shooting of a tiny, unarmed woman were the most vociferous in claiming that Michael Brown, a 6'4 292 pound man, was "murdered" by police after Brown physically attacked a smaller police officer, tried to take his gun and was charging at him at the time he was fatally shot. A fair minded person would wonder how that can be justified, but sadly those who lack any sort of principles and simply decide if a police shooting is justified based upon the victim's  status of ally don't  worry about  having consistent standards.  Hypocrites, sadly, lack principles and need safe spaces to keep from being exposed.

So for all those who non  hypocrites who aren't afraid of discussion, feel free to explain how your  principles apply to the police shootings of Brown and Babbitt

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1  author  Sean Treacy    7 months ago

The Brown shooting was obviously a text book case of a justified police shooting, which is why Officer Wilson was never charged despite hostile government organizations doing their best to justify charges.  Babbitt is a much closer call, but I can see the decision not to charge the officer because of the surrounding circumstances of a riot.

What makes no sense are those claimed for months and years on end that Brown was murdered now justifying the shooting of Babbitt.  It's indefensible. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1    7 months ago
What makes no sense are those claimed for months and years on end that Brown was murdered now justifying the shooting of Babbitt.

When someone uses the word ' murder ' they must be convinced that the killing was done unlawfully and premeditated.    If someone claims that they are not using the colloquial meaning of the word ' murder ' but rather the legal one, then they must wait until a particular degree of murder is adjudicated to get the legal finding.

Ultimately this becomes very simple.   If someone was unlawfully killed in a premeditated act then they were murdered.   And if the case is adjudicated then the findings will determine if murder was committed and to which legal degree.

murder ≡ The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.   
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.1  author  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1    7 months ago

murder ≡ The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Yes, exactly. And some people, including members of Congress, claim Brown was murdered. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.1    7 months ago

As I noted, this is not complicated.

It is not news that some (many?) will use emotive language for partisan purposes.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.3  author  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    7 months ago
It is not news that some (many?) will use emotive language for partisan purposes

Did I, or anyone else, claim otherwise? I'm not sure what strawman you are attacking, but "emotive language " isn't really relevant to the topic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.3    7 months ago
Did I, or anyone else, claim otherwise?

Not that I know of.   Does someone have to make a claim before someone makes a point?

I'm not sure what strawman you are attacking, but "emotive language " isn't really relevant to the topic.

The reason you are not sure is because there is no strawman from me.

The word 'murder' is one of many used by partisans to advance their causes.   It is an 'emotive' word.   Your blog brings up the comparison of calling Brown vs Babbitt 'murder'.

And your blog is clearly implying partisan hypocrisy.  

The quote you offered was me noting that the partisan use of emotive language is not new.   And since this is partisan one should not be surprised if a partisan finds one killing 'murder' but another not based on political factors.  

The use of emotive language is not new and the hypocrisy of emotive language is not new.   I do not know about you, but I fully expect it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.5  author  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.4    7 months ago

 And since this is partisan one should not be surprised if a partisan finds one killing 'murder' but another not based on political factors.  .  

Great. We agree that those who believe the Brown killing unjustified and the Babbitt justified are simply engaged in partisan hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.5    7 months ago
Great. We agree that those who believe the Brown killing unjustified and the Babbitt justified are simply engaged in partisan hypocrisy. 

The Brown killing was not determined to be unlawful and premeditated.   Neither was the Babbitt killing.   Neither have the facts that cause the killing to be deemed murder in the colloquial sense or the legal sense.

Like I said @1.1, this is simple if people would take off the partisan blinders and simply look at the facts.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @1    7 months ago

Spot on Sean, spot on

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2  Greg Jones    7 months ago

The same ghouls are probably very happy that veteran police officer Kim Potter was found guilty of unintentional accidental manslaughter, while they are outraged a negligent truck driver whose actions killed four ends up with just 10 years...probably be paroled in 5. 

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
3  squiggy    7 months ago

Babbitt's  shooting was justified because seven years ago she bent two cars.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4  Tacos!    7 months ago

On the surface, there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy with the public opinion of these cases - i.e.: this killing is ok, but this other one isn’t. But calling it hypocrisy, I think, assumes that people are considering the facts and simply ignoring their own stated beliefs.

So I wish it were only simple hypocrisy, but I don’t think that’s what is going on with these high profile cases. I think partisan politics shapes the outrage or the lack of it. People were outraged about Michael Brown because he was a black man shot by a white cop and they have the political agenda of reducing excessive police force. I support that agenda, but not to the absurd point of imagining that a man literally in the act of attacking and trying to disarm a cop is not an imminent threat.

But with Ashli Babbitt - an unarmed woman incapable of even reaching the cop who shot her - Democrats are literally glad she was shot for the sole reason that she supported Trump. I don’t believe it has anything to do with alleged violent intent or any level of criminal behavior. Someone shot a Trumper, so they celebrate. 

That means a discussion based on reason or the law is off the table.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4    7 months ago
I don’t believe it has anything to do with alleged violent intent or any level of criminal behavior.

Attempting to breach a locked AND barricaded door mere feet from the US congress IS violent intent and criminal behavior. [Deleted]

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    7 months ago

Really John? Breaking a door is justification for killing someone?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.1    7 months ago

Isnt breaking your front door justification for you shooting and potentially killing the person who does it? 

I am shocked that so many conservatives think a violent mob should have been allowed to waltz into Congress. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.1    7 months ago

Why didnt Ashley Babbit stop when she saw the entrance to the House chamber was locked and barricaded?  Why didnt she go somewhere else and "protest"? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    7 months ago

Why didn't every liberal across america go somewhere else and "Protest" "Peacefully" instead of breaking down a lot more than doors... Yet killing one of those is murder... Especially when they are clearly beating someone to death...

Don't sidestep the question John, IS breaking a door justified cause to kill someone?

IS IT?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.1    7 months ago
Breaking a door is justification for killing someone?

it is in colorado. we call it the make my day law.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.4    7 months ago

So because black lives matter a violent mob should have been allowed to enter the US Congress and do god knows what? 

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
4.1.8  GregTx  replied to  devangelical @4.1.5    7 months ago

Yeah we have kinda something like that here in Texas. We call it the you dumb sumbitch law.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    7 months ago

Sidestepping again John?

IS breaking a door justification for killing someone?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.9    7 months ago
IS breaking a door justification for killing someone?

Depends on the circumstances. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.11  author  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    7 months ago
ing your front door justification for you shooting and potentially killing the person who does it? 

Did the police officer live there? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.11    7 months ago

Sean , the door to the Speakers lobby was barricaded and locked. Peaceful protesters would have left at that point and "protested" somewhere else. Instead they bashed in part of the door. Do you want Congress to have no serious security?  It is incredible that so many on the right think the mob should have been let in. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.13  Nowhere Man  replied to  devangelical @4.1.5    7 months ago
it is in colorado. we call it the make my day law.

I suspect it's the same as here in Washington, someone comes through your door and is making you afraid for your life yo can do what needs to be done... Which means what I'm asking John isn't apples to apples with any self defense law....

Did the cop fear for his life from a little woman with no weapons? I highly doubt that...

So the question becomes is breaking a door justification for killing someone? because all the statutes in the various states requires a threat to life or a reasonable belief in such as a required element to prove justification... 

So was the cop in fear of his life from an unarmed very small woman? if he was then what your arguing should be discussed... But that wouldn't say much about the cop would it....

He shot the woman for breaking a door... chances are he wasn't afraid for his life, cause if he claims that he will probably lose his job...

So is breaking a door justification for killing someone...

I know you all want to change the discussion into something other than it's basic tenant because you don't want to address the basic question...

The common sense answer... A woman was murdered on Capitol Hill by the cops at a non violent demonstration.... Well at least a lot less violent than what was going on nationwide in almost every major city...

But all of that is ignored for the sake of putting people away to years in prison for trespassing...

Talk about hyperbolic reaction.... and we are the insane ones...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.14  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.10    7 months ago
Depends on the circumstances. 

Was the cop in fear of his life? did he live there, was it his home? the answer is no to both of those...

So what justification he had for killing her? trespassing? property damage?

Was he justified?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.15  author  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.12    7 months ago

t is incredible that so many on the right think the mob should have been let in

I find it incredible that breaking down a door in a public building is now automatic grounds to kill people.

Just so we are clear, you would have been fine with the police killing hundreds of demonstrators in 2020 for attacking barricades and such?  This shoot em all and let god sort em out mentality from the left sure came out of nowhere. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.16  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.15    7 months ago
This shoot em all and let god sort em out mentality from the left sure came out of nowhere. 

it certainly did... but let someone from the other side attempt to use or espouse such a philosophy...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.13    7 months ago
He shot the woman for breaking a door..

That is a ridiculous comment. He shot her because she was an immediate threat to members of the US House of Representatives. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
4.1.18  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.17    7 months ago
immediate threat to members of the US House of Representatives. 

In what way?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.19  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.17    7 months ago
That is a ridiculous comment. He shot her because she was an immediate threat to members of the US House of Representatives. 

If that's the case, why didn't he shoot a lot more than just her? isn't it the standing claim that they all were a threat?

the claim doesn't pan out logically John, if she was a threat sufficiently to justify shooting her then why weren't a lot more, (much more intimidating personages) shot as well?

If her death was justified, wasn't a lot more deaths just as justified?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.19    7 months ago

You are just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks. No luck. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.19    7 months ago
If her death was justified, wasn't a lot more deaths just as justified?

Logically, yes.

Just don't expect an admission from the left.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
4.1.22  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.12    7 months ago
Peaceful protesters would have left at that point

And "mostly peaceful protesters" would have set fire to the building.

 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.23  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.20    7 months ago
You are just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks. No luck. 

And you still default to the old standby, denial, illogical rejection and nothing in answer to a simple question....

At least you haven't changed any My friend... {chuckle}

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.17    7 months ago
He shot her because she was an immediate threat to members of the US House of Representatives. 

They were nowhere in sight. Was she going to use the Force on them?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.13    7 months ago
So is breaking a door justification for killing someone...

If you were in my home as a guest and intentionally broke one of my closet doors, I would escort your ass off my property.   But I would not shoot you.   Depending on your reaction, I might have to call the police to help escort you out.   

Now, on the other hand, if you broke down a door in the Capitol building during an armed insurrection (unlawful breaking and entering), then you put yourself in a situation where you might indeed just get shot.

Context.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.24    7 months ago

And that capitol cop knew where all the House members and other personnel were at that moment? 

It is beyond bizarre that some of you think a mob should have been allowed to enter the US congress. This country has gone nuts. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.1.27  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    7 months ago

Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, St. Louis, New York, etc.. - massive burnings, damage to property while "peacefully" protesting for many MONTHS - and WTF has been done with those "peaceful protestors" who threatened lives and property????  NOTHING, absolute NOTHING.

Duel standards?  Yeah - loud-mouthed Dems/Libs get a pass and no one else does.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.28  Sparty On  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.27    7 months ago

Yeah, we know what would happen to a property owner in one of those cities that shot and killed a rioter/looter/protestor that broke through their door.    They would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law not let go scot-free.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.1.29  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.25    7 months ago

She didn't break anything...she was attempting to climb through an already broken window.

Watch the video of the event. The protestors were not "armed".

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.29    7 months ago

Babbitt was part of an armed insurrection that did break and enter the Capitol.    And some of the protesters most certainly were armed.   Or are you going to argue that ALL of them had to be armed in order to qualify as an 'armed insurrection'?    jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

Anyone who was part of that insurrection has placed themselves into a position to be shot.

See?


Now, explain to me how being part of a mob that breaks and enters the Capitol of the USA is NOT putting oneself in a position to be legally shot.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.31  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.30    7 months ago

By your definition, every rioter/looter breaking into buildings, of the many mobs of the summer of discontent in 2020, could have been legally shot with no legal repercussions.   just like this capital cop.    

Works for me .....

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.32  author  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.30    7 months ago
abbitt was part of an armed insurrectio

If it was an insurrection, why was no one charged with engaging in an insurrection?  

Remember what you said about emotive language earlier?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.31    7 months ago

I stated the Capitol of the USA.    If you were to follow my point then it would be fair to extend this to any public building intended to conduct important functions of the government.

So, to be clear, if you break and enter into the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, White House, Capitol, Supreme Court building, etc. and similar buildings in each of the states and cities, etc. you do indeed run the risk of being legally shot.

The 'legal repercussions' depend on the specifics of the situation.   So no general statement there.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.32    7 months ago
If it was an insurrection, why was no one charged with engaging in an insurrection?  

I swear, if not for the lame nit-picking (and mostly wrong at that) many here would not have anything to say.

Just use the dictionary: 

Insurrection  A violent uprising against an authority or government.

This is why dictionaries exist ... to provide the meaning behind the usages of English words so that every little word need not be debated.

Nobody has to be charged for the above colloquial definition to apply.

Remember what you said about emotive language earlier?

Remember what I said about using the English dictionary and not inventing your own meaning?    The word insurrection is not emotive, it accurately describes what took place.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.35  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.33    7 months ago

Nice rationalization.

There is no more sacred soil, than any Americans privately owned business or home.    Certainly not less sacred than any government building.

Its not different and to somehow try to justify that it is, is just unamerican.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.35    7 months ago

What rationalization?   I made no rationalization.   Where on Earth do you think you see a rationalization and of what?

There is no more sacred soil, than any Americans privately owned business or home.    Certainly not less sacred than any government building.

WTF are you babbling about?   I made no comparison to private businesses @4.1.33.   My comment focused on public buildings because this discussion is about a public building and the law is more clear on breaking and entering public buildings — especially those where important functions of the government are conducted.

Its not different and to somehow try to justify that it is, is just unamerican.

Again, WTF are you talking about?   Try to stay with what I wrote instead of inventing a public vs. private comparison, picking a position for me and then calling me unAmerican based on the position you have invented.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Expert
4.1.37  Kathleen  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.31    7 months ago

If someone did that, I bet they would be arrested. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.38  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.36    7 months ago

I can’t dumb it down any further for you.  

You rationalize that one could expect to be shot (legally) by breaking into a public/government building but apparently not for private buildings.   I don’t rationalize that there is a difference between the two when related to violent rioters/looters/protestors.

Hopefully now you can understand WTF I was talking about.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.39  Sparty On  replied to  Kathleen @4.1.37    7 months ago

No doubt about it.    They certainly wouldn’t get away scot-free like this kapital keystone kop

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.38    7 months ago
You rationalize that one could expect to be shot (legally) by breaking into a public/government building but apparently not for private buildings.  

Apparently??  You dream up a comparison between public and private buildings for me because I did not include private buildings in my examples and then invent some unknown, unstated rationalization for me.   And your use of 'apparently' is tacit admission that I did indeed NOT make such a comparison.   You dreamed it up.

I spoke of public buildings because we were talking about Babbitt.   Had this been a break-in to Tesla headquarters or someone's home I would have used examples appropriate to the situation.

But that is not the case.   This is a case of breaking into a public, government building.   Ergo my examples.

Stand up and deal with my comments with intellectual honesty instead of hiding behind bullshit you invent and attribute to me.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.41  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.40    7 months ago

lol quit trying to bullshit your way to another fake debate win.     My correlate between the two is spot on as detailed.

Once again you lose and try to fake like you actually won something.

Pretty damn sad Tig, pretty damn sad

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.41    7 months ago

Obviously you are just trolling (yet again).

You invent an argument for me,  invent a 'rationalization' for me and now claim you won the 'debate'.

It is pathetic, Sparty, and I just cannot imagine why someone would stoop to this level of intellectual dishonesty. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.43  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.42    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.43    7 months ago

More crystal clear evidence that you are simply trolling.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.45  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.44    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
4.1.46  SteevieGee  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.1    7 months ago
Really John? Breaking a door is justification for killing someone?

If a violent mob is breaking down my door I'm going to kill as many as I can not just one.  I don't have to wait until they get all the way in.  I think the police here showed restraint and the killing of Babbitt stopped them from entering the room, likely preventing much more violence.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.1.47  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.19    7 months ago
If that's the case, why didn't he shoot a lot more than just her? isn't it the standing claim that they all were a threat?

Don't ask questions like that.  It requires the use of common sense.  Something surely lacking for those who think the cop was justified.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.2  author  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @4    7 months ago
hat means a discussion based on reason or the law is off the table.

That's 100% true. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Tacos! @4    7 months ago
But with Ashli Babbitt - an unarmed woman incapable of even reaching the cop who shot her - Democrats are literally glad she was shot for the sole reason that she supported Trump. I don’t believe it has anything to do with alleged violent intent or any level of criminal behavior. Someone shot a Trumper, so they celebrate.  That means a discussion based on reason or the law is off the table.

That is the truth, 100% agreement here...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.3.1  devangelical  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.3    7 months ago

bullshit. anyone that breached the capitol on that day should have been dropped by LE. her being a Q-nut and a trumpster was a double bonus.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.3.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  devangelical @4.3.1    7 months ago
bullshit. anyone that breached the capitol on that day should have been dropped by LE. her being a Q-nut and a trumpster was a double bonus.

WE already know, you would like anyone that disagrees with you politically dead...

But of course if I said anything like that about any liberal it would be deathwishing...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.3  Sparty On  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.3.2    7 months ago

Spot on, on both accounts ..... and that’s how they roll on the NT

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.3.4  author  Sean Treacy  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.3.2    7 months ago

like anyone that disagrees with you politically dead...

The constant  violent imagery is creepy and disturbing. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    7 months ago

The author has been reduced to perpetual what about ism. 

Ashley Babbitt was attempting to breach a locked and barricaded door 20 feet from the US House chamber. The officer who shot her showed his gun in plain sight for seven seconds before pulling the trigger. She was part of an effort to overthrow the US government. 

Instead of asking why was this one rioter shot we should be asking why more werent. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1  author  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5    7 months ago

John, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you adamant that Wilson murdered Brown? 

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
5.1.1  MonsterMash  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1    7 months ago
John, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you adamant that Wilson murdered Brown?

That's different, Wilson was shot be a white cop, that's murder. Babbitt was shot by a black cop, that makes it justified homicide [deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  MonsterMash @5.1.1    7 months ago
That's different, Wilson was shot be a white cop, that's murder. Babbitt was shot by a black cop, that makes it justified homicide  Removed for context - sandy

th?id=OIP.H88mh4oSF65knneiZVXa6wHaEn&w=156&h=170&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&dpr=1.25&pid=3.1&rm=2

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
5.1.3  MonsterMash  replied to  MonsterMash @5.1.1    7 months ago

My mistake, I meant to say BROWN was shoot by a white cop. The cops last name was Wilson 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1    7 months ago

Crickets .....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5    7 months ago
Instead of asking why was this one rioter shot we should be asking why more werent. 

Didn't someone suggest that very thing to you, and you just ignored it?

Here it is again:

If her death was justified, wasn't a lot more deaths just as justified?

And your sparkling repartee:

You are just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks. No luck. 

Doesn't really sound like you want a conversation about it.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
5.2.1  Gazoo  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2    7 months ago

Lol, bam!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2    7 months ago

Tex, you are not in my league. Now or ever. I dont answer a lot of your questions because they are not worth the breath. 

How many rioters went through the doorway? If more than one had gone I expect more than one would have been shot.  Or did you want the cop to shoot through the door? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.2    7 months ago
Tex, you are not in my league. Now or ever.

True enough, I'm major league and you are the bush leagues, so certainly nothing to argue there.

I dont answer a lot of your questions because they are not worth the breath. 

Sorry, JR, I read the posts and used them. There is absolutely NOTHING in my post you can logically object to, and damn precious little you could illogically object to, although apparently that seems to not be a deterrent to you.

You say one thing in one post and then contradict yourself in another. That is all you, not me, bud!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.3    7 months ago

You are not worth the time. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.4    7 months ago

Expected stance after being called out.

yawn, typical nonsense.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.5    7 months ago

The old never admit defeat when defeated gambit.

Classic!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.2.7  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.3    7 months ago
you are the bush leagues,

I was thinking more Pop Warner

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @5.2.7    7 months ago

Ah, I didn't want to mix baseball and football!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7  author  Sean Treacy    7 months ago

I notice No one has attempted to square their  belief that micheal brown was “murdered” and that Babbitt was justifiably shot.

anyone on this site at the time knows how fervent the defenders of brown were. Shocking to see so many of those same people support the killing of an unarmed woman.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8  author  Sean Treacy    7 months ago

256

Lucky for the people trying to break into the Supreme Court during Kavanaugh's swearing in, the guards weren't as bloodthirsty as some progressives or they would have been shot. 

Or the protesters who snuck into the Senate and confronted Jeff FLake in an elevator...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    7 months ago

Those are perfectly acceptable to our friends on the left, as they were righteous liberal protestors!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9  CB     7 months ago

Well, I was hoping to add something to this discussion, but felt exhausted half-way through reading comments. So, I'm out. Blah!

Actually no! (I just stroded back to the top of the page and got a look at the article picture.) I am emotionally pissed now. How dare anybody compare what happened to Michael Brown with Ashley Babbitt's ridiculous attempt to 'breach' a clearly barricaded ("secured") chamber in one of the most secured "houses" on this planet.

It is miserably ridiculous to be this 'sick' about not telling the truth and making proper distinctions. It's a new year:  RESET your minds to want truth and to do good people! Let your old tired political SHIT go already!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9    7 months ago

Looks to me like Brown and Babbitt broke the law.

Both killed by LEO.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.1  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    7 months ago
Both killed by LEO.

True. That may be were this comparison rightly should end. What say you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.1.1    7 months ago

Well, I have never tried to say anything else about Babbitt. I have seen many progressives who were bitching like crazy about Brown and how unjust it all was. Usually from the same folks who were cheering Babbitt's death while mourning Brown's death.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.3  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.2    7 months ago

Then, EXPLAIN to those individuals why these separate cases are not the same. Apples and Oranges.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.1.3    7 months ago

Which individuals are you going on about now?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.5  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.4    7 months ago
I have seen many progressives who were bitching like crazy about Brown and how unjust it all was. Usually from the same folks who were cheering Babbitt's death while mourning Brown's death.

Decipher the meaning for yourself. I need not say more. RESET ALREADY. It's a new year! LONG LIVE 2022!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.1.5    7 months ago
Decipher the meaning for yourself. I need not say more. RESET ALREADY. It's a new year! LONG LIVE 2022!

That's a very, very strange post in response to what I wrote.

In case you didn't know (obvious!), I KNOW what I wrote and it is in plain English, so nothing to "decipher" there.

Unless you are assigning cryptic messaging from those mourning one's death and cheering for the other, your post makes zero sense.

Maybe you should try to plainly write instead of the little cryptic cutesy stuff. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.6    7 months ago

With that, there is nothing more for me to add on this thread. Bye.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.1.7    7 months ago
there is nothing more for me to add on this thread.

True enough.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
9.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  CB @9    7 months ago
RESET your minds to want truth and to do good people! Let your old tired political SHIT go already!

WE already understand truth, what political shit you want us to let go of?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Nowhere Man @9.2    7 months ago
WE already understand truth, what political shit you want us to let go of?

Any part that doesn't advance progressive liberal goals?

Just a guess!

LOL!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.2  CB   replied to  Nowhere Man @9.2    7 months ago

Nowhere Man, you clearly come from a conservative point of view about issues (and what you will allow yourself to accept). Let me ask you this: Why do you describe Michael Brown as 'hulking'? Why describe Ashley Babbitt as a 'featherweight'?  Why choose such leading imagery? It is your intention to have us emo.

And still the cases are dissimilar.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.2.2    7 months ago
Why do you describe Michael Brown as 'hulking'?

Duh. 6 feet 4 inches and well over 250 pounds.

Why describe Ashley Babbitt as a 'featherweight'? 

Duh again. 5 feet 2 inches,115 pounds.

See any difference there?