Ashli Babbitt repeatedly rammed her SUV into the car of her future husband's girlfriend, report says

  
Via:  sandy-2021492  •  4 months ago  •  305 comments


Ashli Babbitt repeatedly rammed her SUV into the car of her future husband's girlfriend, report says
 

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



A shli Babbitt was fatally shot by police on January 6 as she climbed through a window into the Speaker's Lobby during the Capitol insurrection.

Four years earlier, Babbitt repeatedly rammed her SUV into the vehicle of Celeste Norris, whose boyfriend of six years she was having an extramarital affair with,   the Associated Press reported .

Speaking publicly for the first time on the incident   with the Associated Press , Norris stated that she found out in 2015 that her longtime boyfriend Aaron Babbitt was cheating on her with his coworker, Ashli McEntee, who then went by the last name of her then-husband, Timothy McEntee.

When Norris found out about the affair, she told Timothy McEntee, which prompted the future Mrs. Babbitt to chase down and ram her vehicle just a few weeks later,   according to the Associated Press .

Deputies responded to the incident and Babbitt was issued a criminal summons on charges of reckless endangerment and malicious destruction of property, which were later updated to include reckless driving, negligent driving, and failure to control a vehicle's speed to avoid a collision, according to a case report from the Calvert County Sheriff's Office in Maryland, which was   obtained by the Associated Press .

While Norris obtained a peace order, legal protection for victims of abuse but who are not eligible to file for a protective order, Babbitt was acquitted by a judge on the criminal charges after admitting under oath that she had tried to portray the vehicular collision as an accident,   the Associated Press reported .

Norris obtained a second peace order in February 2017 against Babbitt, who she said had been harassing and stalking her,   according to the Associated Press . She wrote in her petition that she had been receiving repeated calls in the middle of the night from an unlisted number and that Babbitt had recently followed her home from work,   the Associated Press reported .

Ashli eventually   moved to San Diego , California, took over a local business, and married Aaron Babbitt after a divorce from her ex-husband was granted by the state of Maryland. 


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1  seeder  sandy-2021492    4 months ago

Some folks do choose strange heroes.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1  JBB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    4 months ago

Babbitt popularized neck piercings for rightwingers!

original

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  JBB @1.1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.2    4 months ago

If you don't want to discuss the topic, then scroll on by.

It's funny that you complain about this article even being here.  You know that every time you comment on it, you bump it higher on the front page, right?  Your trolling is having the exact opposite effect from your intentions.

However, I'd prefer actual discussion, not somebody who only stops by to say that nobody should be stopping by.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.2    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    4 months ago

I'll bet her 2 former husbands are relieved.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    4 months ago

Was she in the Air Force during this period? And if not, how the hell did she manage to enlist in the military?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3    4 months ago

I don't know, but good point.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Quiet
1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    4 months ago

C'mon now, who doesn't love them dsome psycho bitch who's into fatal attraction affaires, and bumper cars... ?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.5  1stwarrior  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    4 months ago

Time to move on - six year old news is a deal-breaker?

You're clogging up the download time of more important threads - if they're allowed to be posted.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.5.1  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5    4 months ago
"Time to move on - six year old news is a deal-breaker? You're clogging up the download time of more important threads - if they're allowed to be posted."

That's what you just said on another TG seed/article.

Maybe it's time you move on about saying it's time to move on.

Who's stopping anyone from posting???????????????????????????????

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.5.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5    4 months ago

Are you only gonna bitch at me and Sandy? There have been other seeds with many comments but did you show up to bitch?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.5.3  1stwarrior  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.5.2    4 months ago

Headed that way.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.5.4  devangelical  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5.3    4 months ago

get lost.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.5.5  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5    4 months ago

If they haven't been posted, how the fuck do you know they're more important? 

Magic 8 ball? 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.5.6  devangelical  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5    4 months ago
You're clogging up the download time of more important threads - if they're allowed to be posted.

boo hoo hoo, more maga persecution...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.5.7  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5    4 months ago

You don't have to comment, 1st.  Especially if you're only going to do so to troll.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.5.8  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.5.7    4 months ago

it's what he does...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2  Buzz of the Orient    4 months ago

Wow. What a cookie that one was.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3  Greg Jones    4 months ago

[Deleted]

I assume the topic is "hero's"

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @3    4 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @3    4 months ago
I assume the topic is "hero's"

a trumpster hero, more specifically...

a Q-maga martyr.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.1  JBB  replied to  devangelical @3.2    4 months ago

A holy martyr? Well, Babbit did have a holy neck!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Greg Jones @3    4 months ago

No it's not about sandwiches it's about cookies! 🍪

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 months ago

Wow.  When all else fails, go after the deceased.

    [deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4    4 months ago

Wow Jeremy, have you had your head in the sand while the backgrounds of EVERY victim of police violence have been drug through the mud? 

Goose, gander...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @4.1    4 months ago

Then lets talk about why the police were at those locations in the first place.  I'm pretty sure it wasn't because they wanted to be there.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.1    4 months ago

Oh let's DO Jeremy.

ONE police officer in particular, Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd. 

Is it your posit that Lt. Byrd didn't want to be barricaded in the Speaker's Lobby at Capitol having to defend members of the House of Representatives from an insurgent mob? 

If so, this is at least one thing that you and I can agree on. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @4.1.2    4 months ago
Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd

Ok.  What about the murderer?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Krishna  replied to  Dulay @4.1    4 months ago

Saucy comment there Dulay! :-)

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.3    4 months ago
Ok. 

Gee Jeremy, you said you wanted to talk about why the police were at those locations. Guess you've changed your tune. 

What about the murderer?

Once you acknowledge that you're deflecting, you'll have to tell me what murder you're talking about Jeremy? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    4 months ago
Removed for context

While it's true that George Floyd was a was an abusive person and heinous criminal for most of his life, his death has nothing to do with Ashli Babbit's.  Therefore, bringing it up is a little silly. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1    4 months ago

Some people here compare apples to oranges so often that they should open a fruit stand.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.2  gooseisback  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.1    4 months ago
Some people here compare apples to oranges so often that they should open a fruit stand.

Kind of like people comparing Ashli Babbit getting shot in cold blood to her hitting someone's car, like that somehow justifies it. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.3  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.2    4 months ago
in cold blood

During the commission of a crime is not "in cold blood".

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.4  devangelical  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.2    4 months ago

getting shot while trying to climb thru a busted out window pane in the entrance door of congress during a riot is in cold blood? if somebody climbs thru the window at my house, watch what happens next.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.1.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.3    4 months ago

Some people really need to stop relying on legalize from Trump U.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.6  JBB  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.2    4 months ago

Too bad Babbitt was encouraged in her violent delusions by Trump. She was breaking into the barricaded United States Congress. She needed serious mental help butt instead she was encouraged in her madness by Trump himself. Blame him. She got shot in commission of a serious crime. That one shot stopped the insurgents. Thank Goodness!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Krishna  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.2    4 months ago

Shot as she was breaking the law...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Krishna @5.1.7    4 months ago

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.9  gooseisback  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.3    4 months ago
During the commission of a crime is not "in cold blood".

"The Crime of trespassing", is now shoot to kill without warning. Imagine had a white police officer shot a black unarmed trespasser without warning. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @5.1.6    4 months ago
That one shot stopped the insurgents.

A fire hose, tear gas, or a few rounds of rubber bullets would have accomplished the same thing without killing anyone.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.11  gooseisback  replied to  Krishna @5.1.7    4 months ago
Shot as she was breaking the law...

Trespassing, is now shoot to kill. Please point that out in the criminal code. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.12  gooseisback  replied to  JBB @5.1.6    4 months ago
Babbitt was encouraged in her violent delusions by Trump
She needed serious mental 
she was encouraged in her madness by Trump
shot in commission of a serious crime

Is this just wishful thinking or do you have any proof of any of it? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.13  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.11    4 months ago

Moving goalpoasts, there, goose.  You said she was shot in cold blood.  She wasn't.  So you claim trespass.  It was more than simple trespass - it was breaking and entering and an attempt at insurrection.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.14  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.13    4 months ago

shots 2 thru 7 could have been in cold blood, technically...

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.1.15  Krishna  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1    4 months ago
Therefore, bringing it up is a little silly. 

A derail by "whaddaboudism".

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.16  gooseisback  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.13    4 months ago

Doesn't really fit Breaking and Entry, but she could have been charged with destruction of public property, does that carry with it  a shoot to kill.  Where did you come up with the "attempt at insurrection".  Who has been charged with Insurrection?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.17  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.16    4 months ago

Didn't fit "in cold blood", either.  Moving goalposts. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.18  gooseisback  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.17    4 months ago
Didn't fit "in cold blood", either.  Moving goalposts.

Sure it does.

in cold blood
[in cold blood]
DEFINITION
  1. without feeling or mercy; ruthlessly.
    "they were killed in cold blood"
    You can claim all the "goalposts" you want, just tell me which one carries a death sentence.
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.19  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.18    4 months ago

You have no idea what the officer felt.  If he were ruthless, he would have sprayed bullets at more than one person.

So, to back up your claim, you have to know the officer's state of mind, which you don't, and you have to show him to be ruthless.  He wasn't.

And yes, she was breaking and entering.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.20  gooseisback  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.19    4 months ago
He wasn't.

The same goes for you, you don't know what he was thinking.  I do know she was a female, she was unarmed, she posed no threat to him or anyone else when she was shot, he shot her without warning at pretty much point blank range. I would classify that as ruthless.  I also know this officer has a history of irresponsible behavior. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.21  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.20    4 months ago

Wasn't in cold blood - he was faced with a violent mob.  She was part of that mob.  You can argue his state of mind all day, and prove nothing.  She was proven to be part of a violent mob in the process of breaking and entering, threatening Congress and VPOTUS.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.22  gooseisback  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.21    4 months ago
She was part of that mob.

Really....the violent mob that was held back by three security guards until they were called away, that violent mob?  What violence was perpetrated against Officer Byrd? What threat did he face other than an unarmed female that he shot in cold blood. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.23  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.22    4 months ago

Even an unarmed mob can easily kill a person.

If someone were to break your window and were attempting to enter your home through it, would you not consider that person to be violent?  Or does that depend entirely on whether they vote blue or red?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.24  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.22    4 months ago
Really....the violent mob that was held back by three security guards until they were called away, that violent mob?

Better go back and watch that video again gooseisback.

They were weaponless, disheveled and very worried. 

The big mouth leading the mob promised them quarter if they just stepped aside.

The guard closest to Babbit could see SWAT assembling down the steps on his left side .

The three of them moved to the left wall, waiting for SWAT to start coming up the steps 

as Babbit fell at their feet.  

What threat did he face other than an unarmed female that he shot in cold blood. 

Why is it so important to you that it was a woman who had the balls to do what the men were afraid to?

Is there some unwritten protection for white women?

The threat was that his three uniforms had moved out of his sight and he could not see the SWAT team 

already on the steps coming to his aid. All Byrd could see was more tempered glass being broken out, pane by pane.

Karma's a bitch they say, 30 seconds made all the difference that day to Babbit.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.25  gooseisback  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.23    4 months ago
If someone were to break your window and were attempting to enter your home through it, would you not consider that person to be violent?

Why are you moving the goalpost? Byrd was hidden in wait  had he displayed himself with weapon drawn the mob as you call it would not have advanced.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.26  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.25    4 months ago
Byrd was hidden in wait  had he displayed himself with weapon drawn the mob as you call it would not have advanced.

Dude, if he was hiding 'in wait', why do we have video from the phones of the rioters?

He wasn't Waldo, nor was he quiet about his presence or his intention to shoot the first person who breached.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.27  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.25    4 months ago

This just...isn't true.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.28  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.23    4 months ago

that brought to mind a recent facebook funny i saw , someone is reaching through a mail slot , going to unlock a door , guy comes out with a mini ball bat ( tire thumper to truckers ) and as the person reaches for the lock , the guy swats the hand/arm HARD. caption was , that had to hurt because the person screamed like Tom from an old tom and jerry cartoon ...... and i was like james evans from the old good times TV show , bet they wont try that shit again ....

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.29  gooseisback  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.26    4 months ago
He wasn't Waldo, nor was he quiet about his presence or his intention to shoot the first person who breached.

Dude, three unarmed security guards held the mob away from the doors, please don't tell me how violent they were. Point to time in the video that Byrd ever displayed himself or you heard "him" say anything.  . 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.30  gooseisback  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.27    4 months ago
This just...isn't true.

This is what happened it's on video, Byrd NEVER displayed himself to the mob, he just stuck his gun out and shot! 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.31  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.29    4 months ago
Point to time in the video that Byrd ever displayed himself or you heard "him" say anything.  . 

Why is there video?  Was he hiding in plain sight? Are they magical hands without a person holding the gun in plain sight?

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.32  gooseisback  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.31    4 months ago
Why is there video?  Was he hiding in plain sight?

There's a video of his arm holding a gun, you never see him! There's no way Babbitt could have seen it from her point of entry until it was to late.   

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.33  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.20    4 months ago

Yes, because a barricaded door always indicates for people to just come right in and have some coffee and cookies, right.  If you have to break in, then you're breaking the law.  She broke the law with a violent mob behind her who wanted to attack our elected officials, and paid the ultimate price.  Her stupidity got her killed.  And how would the cop know she was unarmed.   

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.34  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.32    4 months ago
you never see him!

800

800

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.35  gooseisback  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.33    4 months ago
She broke the law

Yes, she broke the law, please give me some examples of other protestors at the Capital that day that were shot and killed.  Please give me an example of any law enforcement officer that "wasn't" in fear for his life that shot and killed someone. 

wanted to attack our elected officials

You have no idea of what she was going to do. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.36  gooseisback  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.34    4 months ago

As I said you see an arm. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.37  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.34    4 months ago

being that close just proves how restrained the officer was and proof that he probably just intended to wound her. she was definitely well within double tap range.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.38  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.30    4 months ago

You can hear people yelling "He's got a gun!", trying to warn her off.  He is visible through the glass from the side of the window occupied by the violent mob.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.39  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.32    4 months ago
There's a video of his arm holding a gun, you never see him!

You think they should have assumed it was a disembodied arm?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.40  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.36    4 months ago

I can recommend an optometrist, but I cannot go for you.

It is clearly a bald black man with a black mask wearing a dark suit, white shirt with cufflinks.

Clear as day.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.41  Trout Giggles  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.32    4 months ago

jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.42  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.35    4 months ago

Were other's trying to climb through the window of a barricaded door where our elected officials were?  If they weren't trying to cause harm to our elected officials, why would they try to get to the restricted areas where they were?  Should "Hang Mike Pence" and " Bring Nancy Pelosi out here now. We want to hang that f***ing b*tch" not be taken seriously? As I said, a barricaded door doesn't mean, come on in.  It was barricaded for a reason.  Once she was shot, the rest backed down which ended the immediate threat.  I stand by my comment that she got what she deserved.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.43  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.35    4 months ago

Watch one of the video rants she recorded while driving.

She intended harm to anyone who got in her way and clearly stated she would gladly die doing so.

Not that the officer knew any of that.

It was just a breach of security to him.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.44  gooseisback  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.40    4 months ago
It is clearly a bald black man with a black mask wearing a dark suit

The video is what 5 to 8 minutes long, tell me at what point were you aware of Officer Byrd?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.45  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.44    4 months ago

I wasn't there.

Were you?

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.46  gooseisback  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @5.1.42    4 months ago
Should "Hang Mike Pence" and " Bring Nancy Pelosi out here now. We want to hang that f***ing b*tch" not be taken seriously?

They were gone, watch the video. At the start you can see them filing out of the chamber by the time the security guards were called away the members were gone. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.47  gooseisback  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.45    4 months ago
Were you?

I watched the same video as you, who ever is shooting the video makes numerous pans back and fourth. Byrd was never visible until moments before his weapon appears and he fires. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.48  JBB  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.47    4 months ago

That is not true. Members of Congress were still within the chamber as can be seen right here.

original

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
5.1.49  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.46    4 months ago

So, they should just be allowed to break into the chambers, overwhelm the CP, and chase down our elected representatives where ever they went after they left the chambers.  Just because they had left the room, doesn't mean the mob wouldn't have hunted them down and killed them.  My Goddess, you people really are obtuse.  

Edited to say:  See, some of them were still there.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.50  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.47    4 months ago

TBH, I'm not sure why you're so stuck on this point.

Reasonable people would assume that, if they break windows to enter a government facility where they know they are not allowed to be, they might encounter armed guards of some type - security detail, police, soldiers, etc.  And if they continue to engage in those violent actions in areas where the presence of armed guards is likely, they risk being shot.  There is no need for those guards to reveal their entire bodies to allow the violent mob a chance to do them serious injury.

And "oh, they could only see his arm" has to be one of the silliest arguments I've seen in a while.  "I didn't know that arm holding that gun could actually shoot me!  I thought you had to see the whole person before the finger could move."  Jesus fucking Christ.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.51  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.46    4 months ago

How many were trapped in the gallery?

800

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.52  Trout Giggles  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.20    4 months ago

What does her being a female have to do with any of this?

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.53  gooseisback  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.52    4 months ago
What does her being a female have to do with any of this

She was 5'6" and weighted 130 LBs not exactly intimidating. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.54  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.53    4 months ago

Would she have been intimidating with a gun, a knife, or a bat?

Women are shot every year by police officers who are much smaller than she was.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.55  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.54    4 months ago

How many unarmed woman are shot by police every year? 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.56  gooseisback  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.54    4 months ago
Would she have been intimidating with a gun, a knife, or a bat?

Anyone with a gun, a knife or a bat can be intimidating. What's your point she was unarmed.  I don't know the stats for small women being shot by the cops but, I don't think there's all that many.  

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.57  gooseisback  replied to  JBB @5.1.48    4 months ago
That is not true.

Who says this is the hall way where she was shot.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.58  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.53    4 months ago

Wow, wtf is THAT supposed to mean?

Not that the officer knew it, but Babbitt was a 12 year AF vet with security training ( how ironic ) 

AFPC said later on Thursday that Babbitt deployed overseas on multiple occasions, including to Afghanistan in 2005, Iraq in 2006, and the United Arab Emirates in 2012 and 2014. Babbitt’s awards include the Iraq Campaign Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.
Woman shot and killed at Capitol was security forces airman, QAnon adherent (airforcetimes.com)

Maybe her size was an advantage when breaching that window because many of the men she was with

could not fit or would not risk it.

I don't care either way. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5.1.59  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.39    4 months ago
You think they should have assumed it was a disembodied arm?

*Effervescent snort*

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.1.60  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.58    4 months ago

She is a disgrace to the armed forces by violating her oath of service, which does not end even when you are no longer in.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.61  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1.59    4 months ago

I try to rein in the sarcasm, but there's only so much a woman can take.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5.1.62  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.61    4 months ago
I try to rein in the sarcasm, but there's only so much a woman can take.

That's one reason why I admire you so much.  You know when it's appropriate to spank out a little sarcastic relief.  It helps the rest of us too, especially when an over-abundance of dumbfuckery is afoot.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.63  Sparty On  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.60    4 months ago

Irrelevant in context.    

She served and was honorably discharged and that deserves the same respect as any other honorably discharge Vet.    Regardless of what might come after.

As a retired Vet with many years of service your attitude about that surprises me.   As the left wing partisan that you clearly are, it doesn’t.    Which is just sad in context with this discussion.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5.1.64  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.53    4 months ago
She was 5'6" and weighted 130 LBs not exactly intimidating.

She wasn't naked FFS.  With the heavy coat, backpack, hat, etc., I doubt he knew the exact size or gender of the person coming through the window.  What he did know what that an adversary was refusing to follow his commands, he recognized the threat that refusal presented, and then eliminated that threat.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.65  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.63    4 months ago
She served and was honorably discharged and that deserves the same respect as any other honorably discharge Vet.

... that continues to honor their oath to defend the constitution. she didn't. tough shit.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.66  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @5.1.65    4 months ago

Nah, the really tough shit is you’ve got nothing to say about.    Nothing cogent in relation to her honorable discharge.     Nothing at all.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1.67  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.60    4 months ago

Many former service members have taken part in political demonstrations, some of which turned violent. There’s always somebody around to say that they, in particular, are a disgrace to the uniform, the flag, or some oath, but they have as much right to protest as anyone else.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.68  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.67    4 months ago
but they have as much right to protest as anyone else.

Some would say more .....

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.69  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.67    4 months ago
protest as anyone else

Protest, yes.

Break and enter, no.

Attempt to prevent the certification of an election that was in accordance with the Constitution, no.

She went way beyond protest.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.70  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.69    4 months ago
Attempt to prevent the certification of an election that was in accordance with the Constitution

the inconvenient truth separating this riot from all the other false equivalencies offered...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1.71  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @5.1.70    4 months ago

It’s actually not even relevant.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.72  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.29    4 months ago
Point to time in the video that Byrd ever displayed himself or you heard "him" say anything. 

Was he the only officer visible in that film?

A man from New Jersey spoke to a journalist and said he was an eyewitness. He had a bloody hand. “We had stormed into the chambers inside, and there was a young lady who rushed through the windows. A number of police and Secret Service were saying get back, get down and get out of the way,” he said.

He continued, “She didn’t heed the call. As we kind of raced up to grab people and pull them back, they shot her in the neck. She fell back on me. She started to say she was fine, it’s cool. Then she started moving weird and blood was coming out of her neck and mouth and nose. I don’t know if she’s alive or dead anymore.”

Ashli Babbitt: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

They were warned.  She ignored. She paid the ultimate price.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.73  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.66    4 months ago

Did you read the seeded article?

Check her background?

4yrs Active, 2 years in the reserve, 6 in NG.

Her legal troubles above started in 2015

She was only an E4 after 12 years?

12 ribbons is impressive, I know retired officers with less candy.

She retired in 2016 before she was convicted of anything.

Sounds like grounds for a General discharge not honorable

Sounds like favorable treatment but what do I know?

Once separated she was served with another restraining order.

In my experience, an honorable discharge isn't a terrific way to judge character

especially 5 years after the fact when she clearly is repeating Qanon themes

on Twitter January 05

“Nothing will stop us….they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours….dark to light!” she wrote.

Just food for thought, there are plenty of people here who have honorable discharges that you

obviously can't stand, so why bend over backwards to defend this one? 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.74  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.60    4 months ago
She is a disgrace to the armed forces by violating her oath of service, which does not end even when you are no longer in.

says you 

care to show any legal presedent of that with someone whom has filled any and ALL  service obligation and not receiving any pay of any kind for retirement or disability ? 

 you cant . so that dog doesnt hunt .

 many military member will finish out their enlistments and get out for any number of reasons , one of which is they will not follow the orders of the CIC elected . politics definitely plays a part .

 As far as i am concerned , that oath of enlistment was filled when they issued a complete  discharge from service after my reserve commitment was ended , past oaths filled and released from by discharge are NON binding in the present .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.75  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @5.1.72    4 months ago
They were warned.  She ignored. She paid the ultimate price.

and that is why i  side with she was NOT murdered , nor is she a victim , if she is she is the victim of both her own stupidity and ignorance .

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.76  Split Personality  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.74    4 months ago

Appreciate your service.

The oath is to the Constitution.

I guess there are a few schools of thought.

The oath was taken seriously and lasts as long as the Constitution does

or the person lives

or until the person doesn't care any more.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.77  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @5.1.73    4 months ago
She was only an E4 after 12 years?

Doesnt surprise me actually , especially in the USAF, one simply has to understand how they promote .

Anything after E-4 when i was in , was tested , with a limited number of slots for promotion open , thats why some cycles one would need a higher test score , than others , add in the factor of what career field one tested in . As an SP i might have to get a higher score than say amed  field person . depended on turnover in the career field as well.

 Want to make rank? you do that on active duty because the turn over is somewhat consistant , the reserves there is a larger pool testing AND they can literally sit there for years even just on paper , same goes for the NG , they have limited number of slots for promotion and the attrician rate is much lower  so lower number of authorized slots for specific ranks , coupled with people again sitting on the rolls testing , rank is harder to come by .

 Keep in mind my service years were so called "peacetime " from 82 thru 92 , that also makes a difference since during time of war there is a need for rank in the ranks when things get dispersed and spread out . different conditions .

 There are other ways to make rank , such as going below the zone , meaning a troop that is so shit tight and squared away they are in a rank they are being wasted  with limited authority and responsability . and step promotions , for those individuals that are like the below the zones , but are continually working in a position and doing the job that requires a higher pay grade , which brings me to the old saying , above my paygrade, we have all heard it , well thats one of the ways commanders can use their discretion and make it equal to your pay grade .

 IF i missed anything , im sure some of the other vets here will correct it .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.78  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @5.1.76    4 months ago

It could be any number of things , people and things as situations change . things do evolve .

 nothing says a person cant see something being twisted or perverted to fit any agenda , thing is enlisted members are NOT members of the modern day SS, once in always in until they die .

 Enlisted oaths are to the constitution , but they also state to follow orders of officers appointed , to fail to follow orders is a judgment call because the order has to be lawful , and that leaves the enlisted person something to think about , because they can follow orders and still be held criminally liable , nuremburg ( sp ) did away with the i was following orders out , but if they fail to follow orders and they turn out to have been lawful , they themselves end up in dutch .

 Now the commisioning oath for officers , that one is solely to the constitution , something not afforded the enlisted class , nor can it be afforded to them .

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.79  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.77    4 months ago

The AF has an ''up or out'' rule of 10 years for an E 4. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.80  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @5.1.76    4 months ago
Appreciate your service.

Now this is most likely just a quirk with me , people may feel better thanking a vet for their service or saying it was appreciated , and that is all well and good .

 personally i will not thank a vet for their service, instead , i will welcome them home , and say glad they made it home .

Too me , too many that served in vietnam , were never welcomed home , let alone thanked , and many over the course of this countrys history , never made it home  to live out their lives .

 To me the greatest show that what they did meant anything  , is to welcome them home and let them know you are glad that they are home .

But hey , im strange like that , i weight which would be more important to a vet , being thanked , or being told welcome home . 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.81  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @5.1.79    4 months ago

wasnt that way when i was in, the up or out rule didnt kick in until one hit E-5 , after that they could stay 20   but i can see why , but she made it in 4 years active with the rest of her time  NG and reserves  , which is or was  about normal , keep in mind the AF has 2 enlistments 4 years , and 6 years , i did one of each and had just signed for the second 6 with plans to finish 20 with the 4  and made it to E-5 and had just tested for E-6 when i decided to take the RIF, i also was in during the E-4 split , and made NCO status at the end of 3.5

  SRA  E-4 was basically still an airman but in training incase they decided to stay and be an NCO. they did away with that split to my understanding .

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.82  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.73    4 months ago

You will never hear me disparage honorable service.    Never.    What comes after can be a totally different ball of wax but what comes after, does not negate the prior designated honorable service.    That’s how I differ from the haters here.    I’m also relatively sure some the folks here who did serve separated via terms other than honorable.     A couple sound like Big Chicken Dinner eating specials to me.

That said, personally I feel the honorable discharge standards used by the military are set too low.    Basically you get an honorable discharge if you don’t fuck up too bad.    Honorable to me denotes above and beyond.    Just getting by doing the bare minimum is a General Discharge IMO.    Nothing wrong with a GD, it’s just not a HD.

I suspect Babbit probably would have gotten a GD following standards like that.    She seems the type that might have been a less than a top shelf airman.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
5.1.83  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.36    4 months ago

As I said you see an arm. 

320

Are you blind?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
7  Veronica    4 months ago

Wow, just another peaceful tourist.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
7.1  Krishna  replied to  Veronica @7    4 months ago
Wow, just another peaceful tourist.

In case anyone's forgotten it, here's the actual video:

GOP Congressman Says Capitol Riot Resembled "Tourist Visit" And Denies It Was An Insurrection

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) questioned witnesses during a House Oversight hearing to examine delays in the response to the riot at the US Capitol on January 6th which resulted in 5 deaths, including of one Capitol Police Officer, and said we should not label the people who breached the Capitol in an attempt to target members of the federal government and stop the counting of ballots in a free and fair election as insurrectionists.

That specific comment by Rep Clyde begins at about 1:12 into the video): 

You know if you didn't know the TV footage was a video from January the 6 you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Krishna @7.1    4 months ago

What footage did he watch?

What the fuck is that brown strap under his tie?  Is that some kind of holster?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
8  Hal A. Lujah    4 months ago

Kind of like how Donald Trump repeatedly rammed his toxic reputation into the integrity of his future constituents’ party.  Except that his future constituents would keep begging for him to continue doing it.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
9  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    4 months ago

I've never seen a photo of Ashli Babbitt until now.  That's the face of a woman that would kick your ass without any provocation whatsoever.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
9.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9    4 months ago

She has the face that only a blind mother could love.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
9.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9    4 months ago

You should watch her on video!

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
9.2.1  Veronica  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9.2    4 months ago

Wow.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.2.2  Kavika   replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9.2    4 months ago

Now that is a bizarre rant.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
9.2.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9.2    4 months ago

First, this nut is driving and spends more time looking at her phone than she does looking at the road.  Secondly, I wouldn't surprise me in the least if one of her Trump-supporting buddies fired the fatal bullet just to forever silence her nails-on-a-chalkboard voice, 'cause dayum...I'm hearing impaired and still annoyed af by her screeching rant. 

And PS:  Who is she to carry on about cleaning up fecal matter?  Oh, that's right, she didn't have an opportunity to see her pals shit on the floor and smear it all over the walls in the Capitol building like a bunch of pervs marking their territory.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
9.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9.2.3    4 months ago
she didn't have an opportunity to see her pals shit on the floor and smear it all over the walls in the Capitol building like a bunch of pervs marking their territory.

That happened when she fell backwards bleeding out and the front line paper warriors shit themselves

when they realized this was no game, that this was serious as death.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
9.2.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kavika @9.2.2    4 months ago
Now that is a bizarre rant.

What I found really funny is right at the end she screams "I am woke!".

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
9.2.6  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @9.2.2    4 months ago
Now that is a bizarre rant.

Yes... and that is also a truly bizarre person! jrSmiley_5_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9.2    4 months ago

Was that some kind of meth fueled rant?  Or your typical trumpturd supporter?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.2.8  devangelical  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9.2    4 months ago

what a pathetic Q-maga wack job.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9.2.3    4 months ago

She appears to be doing about 50 as she spends most of her attention looking into the camera. Shes lucky she didnt kill someone or run into something. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.2.10  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.9    4 months ago

too bad she didn't drift across the center line.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10  Sparty On    4 months ago

So I guess she deserved to be shot in the head and murdered by po-po.   /s

Classic left wing logic

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
10.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sparty On @10    4 months ago

Ashli Babbitt's friends have said she often spoke about her willingness to die for a cause she believed in.  That's exactly what happened on 6 January 2021, so why be upset about it?  

source

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
10.1.1  squiggy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10.1    4 months ago

“…so why be upset about it?  “

Why the celebration?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10.1    4 months ago
willingness to die for a cause she believed in.

I guess you didn’t serve.    
Every Vet who served accepted that or should have.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.2    4 months ago

her veteran status was negated when she reneged on her oath to defend the constitution.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @10.1.3    4 months ago

Nope, she was honorably discharged and no longer subject to the UCMJ.     her honorable discharge can not be revoked after the fact.    [deleted]

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
10.1.5  Krishna  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10.1    4 months ago
Ashli Babbitt's friends have said she often spoke about her willingness to die for a cause she believed in.  That's exactly what happened on 6 January 2021, so why be upset about it? 

Just like the olde sayin':

Be careful what you wish for . . . 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  squiggy @10.1.1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
10.1.7  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.2    4 months ago
I guess you didn’t serve.

No, I didn't.  But I can tell you that I think of my brother, who died serving this country, every, single day.  We didn't have a body to bury, but we did get a few boxes of personal items that I still keep with me after 43 years.  Anything else you are curious about?

Every Vet who served accepted that or should have.

Then apparently, she still lived by the code.  It would seem that I am dealing with her death better than you are.  

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
10.1.8  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  squiggy @10.1.1    4 months ago
Why the celebration?

I don't see anyone celebrating.  Please point them out.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10.1.7    4 months ago
No, I didn't.  But I can tell you that I think of my brother, who died serving this country, every, single day.  We didn't have a body to bury, but we did get a few boxes of personal items that I still keep with me after 43 years.  Anything else you are curious about?

Sorry to hear about your brother.    You are far from alone in carrying such a burden but it has little to do with my comment.    The military isn’t summer camp.    People die, especially during wartime.    That is just the reality of it.    Your snarky response at the end is not helpful at all in this discussion

Then apparently, she still lived by the code.  It would seem that I am dealing with her death better than you are.  

Nah, I just don’t justify it as somehow more acceptable than say how George Floyd was killed.   You do, even if you don’t admit that you do.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
10.1.10  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.9    4 months ago
Nah, I just don’t justify it as somehow more acceptable than say how George Floyd was killed.   You do, even if you don’t admit that you do.

Two entirely different scenarios, however I have been extremely vocal about my feelings for George Floyd.  He was a skank of a man who should have spent more than 12 years in prison for a home invasion robbery of a little old lady that had absolutely nothing of value in her tiny little house.  He was a man that spent most of his life strung out on drugs, robbing people to obtain the money to buy drugs, or in prison for multiple burglaries, strong-arm robberies, drug sales, illegal weapons possessions and on and on and on.  However, did he deserve to die for passing a fake $20 bill in a drugstore where he was hoping to score prescription narcotics under a fake name?  No.  BUT, it is still his own fault he is dead.  That's just how I feel about a man that spent his entire life hurting people for his own selfish needs, and then being given wings and a halo that he didn't deserve. Even his own family hated the sight of him because of his continuing criminal behavior.  But we all learned that there is lots of forgiveness when the possibility of a multi-million-dollar civil settlement pops up in the mix.  The whole thing was sickening to me.  And if you think I didn't reap the shit from my friends here for having the opinions that I did about that entire mess, you would be wrong.  I have also repeatedly stated in my comments regarding this very matter that if BLM activists wanted to put a face on one of their cause de jour pedestals, Breonna Taylor would have been way more appropriate than George effing Floyd.

As for this:

Sorry to hear about your brother.    You are far from alone in carrying such a burden but it has little to do with my comment.    The military isn’t summer camp.    People die, especially during wartime.    That is just the reality of it.

You say sorry, and then try to minimize the pain I feel by reminding me of others who share the same burden I do?  I have felt more pain for the suffering of others than I have ever felt for myself, which judging by your participation on this site is clearly a concept about which you know nothing.  

[ deleted ]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10.1.10    4 months ago

awwww .... sorry you are having such a hard time accepting reality and my sincere condolences.     Telling, very telling.    As is the pass you got on the coc violation.

Standard “double standard” moderation we’ve come to expect here on NT.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
10.1.12  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.11    4 months ago

No double standard. I just took care of that ticket. Carry on.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1.12    4 months ago
[deleted]

[continued meta]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.2  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @10    4 months ago

too bad she was shot in the chest, huh?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
10.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  devangelical @10.2    4 months ago

If she had been shot in the head, the bullet would have only found an empty space.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
10.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  devangelical @10.2    4 months ago

Shoulder...................left shoulder

An officer inside the Speaker’s Lobby fired one round from his service pistol, striking Ms. Babbitt in the left shoulder, causing her to fall back from the doorway and onto the floor. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.2.2    4 months ago

bummer, he was close enough to have gone for the head shot...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.3  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @10    4 months ago

She was neither shot in the head OR murdered. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @10.3    4 months ago

Opinions do vary.    Murdered for sure, allegedly not shot in the head.    Should have known better than to think that keystone cop was a good enough shot for that.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
10.3.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @10.3.1    4 months ago
Murdered for sure, allegedly not shot in the head.

Murder: noun - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

When exactly would this officer have had time to find out who it was breaking through the door and 'meditate' on killer her thus making it "premeditated" or "unlawful"?

So factually, by definition, she was definitely NOT murdered. The officer was doing his job and had the legal right and authority to use deadly force against those who were refusing to listen to officers commands and continued to attempt to break in indicating they were not peaceful protestors and had violent intentions towards those the officer was protecting. Babbitt was also unknown to the officer other than her continued refusal to follow capital police instructions prior to her being shot so it's literally impossible for this to have been "premeditated".

It seems the only way one could rationalize this as murder would be to have their heads stuffed so deep in the right wing alternate universe that logic no longer applies, where up is down, white is right, cops are great when killing unarmed black men who dare to run or not follow police instructions but evil 'deep state' minions when they kill a violent right wing white conservative extremist who was illegally breaking into the capital building and threatening elected officials in an attempt to prevent them from doing their constitutionally mandated duty of certifying a Presidential election.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.3.3  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.3.2    4 months ago

I guess he was trying to shoot her in the leg and just wound her eh?  
It was premeditated.    
Regardless, he killed her.    No doubt about that.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.3.4  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @10.3.1    4 months ago
Opinions do vary.

Yet FACTS don't and your comments aren't based on FACTS. 

 Murdered for sure, allegedly not shot in the head.

You alleged that she was shot in the head Sparty. Care to share your source for that allegation? 

Should have known better than to think that keystone cop was a good enough shot for that.

So, is your issue that he shot her or that he didn't shoot her in the head? Pick one. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
10.3.5  Krishna  replied to  Sparty On @10.3.1    4 months ago
than to think that keystone cop was a good enough shot for that.

C'mon...seriously...Is that the best you can do...?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.3.6  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @10.3.4    4 months ago

Yawn .... still you have nothing of merit to say here.

SOSDD

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.3.7  Sparty On  replied to  Krishna @10.3.5    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.3.8  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @10.3.6    4 months ago

Well gee Sparty, few could possibly live up to the high standard your comment sets. /s

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.3.9  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @10.3.8    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
10.3.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @10.3.6    4 months ago

I don't understand why you just can't discuss things with Dulay [deleted.] You did make a sarcastic comment about Babbitt being shot in the head. It's pointed out that she wasn't and then you continue down the troll hole flinging poo.

I'm trying here, Sparty but you make it so difficult

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.3.11  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.10    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
10.3.12  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @10.3.4    4 months ago

I dare him to go up against those "keystone cops" on a shooting range.  They would hand his ass to him.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
10.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @10    4 months ago

I guess they wanted her drug through the streets like Mike Durant.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.4.1  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.4    4 months ago

Pretty much the same mentality at play here ......

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
10.4.2  Krishna  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.4    4 months ago
I guess they wanted her drug through the streets like Mike Durant

We can all make random guesses...but why not stick to the actual facts?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
10.4.3  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @10.4.2    4 months ago
I guess they wanted her drug through the streets like Mike Durant
We can all make random guesses...but why not stick to the actual facts?

hey...I can play!

I guess...hmmm let me see..Oh yes...I guess that when she heard so many of the perps keep shoutin' "hang Mike Pense" she thought it was a great idea...hecl, I could also guess she was chanting that making it obvious she was bent on committing murder!

(Just a guess, of course...like you, I wasn't there at the time).

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
10.4.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Krishna @10.4.2    4 months ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.4.5  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.4.4    4 months ago

You've got it so backwards.  Never seen you provide a fact about anything, EVER.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
10.4.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @10.4.5    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.4.7  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.4.6    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
10.4.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @10.4.5    4 months ago

He has none.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11  Tacos!    4 months ago

It’s amazing - and scary - how a person’s politics makes it ok to shoot an unarmed person.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.1  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @11    4 months ago

It's not her politics, Tacos.  It's the fact that she was breaking into the Capitol Building as part of a violent insurrection attempt.

Some here have chosen to see her as either a hero or a martyr.  She was neither.  She was a criminal, several times over.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1    4 months ago

All participants in the capitol insurrection are criminals. They're lucky they all weren't shot. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1    4 months ago

I’m not just speaking of her politics. I’m also speaking of the politics of people who react to the incident.

I would have no problem with her being arrested and charged with a crime. I just haven’t seen that she needed to be shot at that moment. Other people are literally glad she was shot.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.1    4 months ago

You’re making my point very effectively for me by advocating that police shoot someone for the sole reason that they were committing a crime. It’s hard to think of a take more out of line with American concepts of justice.

For consistency’s sake, I would expect you to advocate for overturning the conviction of Kimberly Potter.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.3    4 months ago

I guess police shootings are only unacceptable if the "victim" is someone who has committed previous crimes, has active warrants, or run from police.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.4    4 months ago

I mean the standard is supposed to be that using a firearm is necessary to safe the shooting officer’s life or the life of another under an imminent threat. It’s not supposed to be because the person being shot has some kind of history. But even if that were the standard, there is no way the officer who shot this woman would have had such knowledge.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.5    4 months ago
I mean the standard is supposed to be that using a firearm is necessary to safe the shooting officer’s life or the life of another under an imminent threat.

That was not only the case but the officers were verbally warning her not to advance.  She defied him.

He showed restraint by only firing once.

The result was that the assault on that particular point ended. Immediately.

It’s not supposed to be because the person being shot has some kind of history. But even if that were the standard, there is no way the officer who shot this woman would have had such knowledge.

100% in agreement.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.6    4 months ago
That was not only the case but the officer was verbally warning her not to advance.  She defied him. He showed restraint by only firing once.

So anyone who approaches a police officer and doesn't follow orders deserves to be shot?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.7    4 months ago
So anyone who approaches a police officer and doesn't follow orders deserves to be shot?

Of course not.

That seems to only apply to conservatives.

Otherwise, it is police brutality!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.3    4 months ago

An insurrection against the government is a little more than just a crime. It's practically treason.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.1.10  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.2    4 months ago

I'm not glad she was shot, but I'm not sorry, either.  She wasn't the martyr some have tried to make of her.  She was a violent person, and she participated in violent crimes that led to her violent death.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.1.11  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.4    4 months ago
I guess police shootings are only unacceptable if the "victim" is someone who has committed previous crimes,

She had committed previous crimes, Tex.  She rammed a woman's car with her own.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1.11    4 months ago

See 11.1.8

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.1.13  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.7    4 months ago
So anyone who approaches a police officer and doesn't follow orders deserves to be shot?

Of course not.

If you think that is equivalent to what happened inside the Capitol 

I guess there is no point continuing this conversation

  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.1.14  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.7    4 months ago

Nobody said that. You're being disingenuous...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1.15  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.6    4 months ago
He showed restraint by only firing once.

... remarkable restraint. how many instances have there been where LE empties their guns?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.2    4 months ago
I would have no problem with her being arrested and charged with a crime.

When was Lt. Byrd supposed to arrest her?

How many times does someone have to be told to STOP before force is used?

How many more would have come through the window, moved the blockade and flowed through the Speakers Lobby after the members who were fleeing? 

It's amazing how many think they can question the judgement of an officer who is being attacked by violent a mob. The ONLY one responsible for Babbit's death is Babbit. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.9    4 months ago
An insurrection against the government is a little more than just a crime. It's practically treason.

The cop who shot her doesn’t get to kill people for that reason. You are describing a conviction and sentence of death. That is not his role. He is not the prosecutor; nor is he jury, judge, or executioner.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.18  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.13    4 months ago
If you think that is equivalent to what happened inside the Capitol 

We are going off your description of events:

the officer was verbally warning her not to advance.  She defied him.

For that, you said he showed restraint by only shooting her in the neck one time. I guess she and her family should send a “Thank You” note to the cop?

You also made clear that she was assaulting a place and not a person.

The result was that the assault on that particular point ended. Immediately.

So, cops should shoot anyone who improperly approaches a public building or tries to break in? Do you know how many politically liberal protestors that would include? We’re talking thousands.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.19  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1.10    4 months ago
She wasn't the martyr some have tried to make of her. 

You won’t see me calling her a martyr. I just think there should be the same kind of independent investigation of this shooting that we would see with any other shooting. I think the public should be defaulting to outrage over the shooting of an unarmed person just like they usually do - when the politics suits them.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @11.1.15    4 months ago
remarkable restraint

Yeah, getting shot in the neck only once isn’t so bad. jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.17    4 months ago

Lt. Byrd is an armed Capitol Police Officer Tacos. His job is to protect the people in the Capitol and the Capitol itself. He used his informed and professional judgement and ended the threat.

Lt. Byrd stood 'at the ready' behind that barricade for many long moments while a mod threatened, smashed, and destroyed its way through the Speaker's Lobby door. He gave them lawful orders which Ashli Babbit chose to ignore. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @11.1.16    4 months ago
When was Lt. Byrd supposed to arrest her?

I don’t know. How many other people did he arrest? Was he expected to arrest anyone? I honestly don’t know what his official mission was and I don’t know what official policies regulated his behavior. Shouldn’t we know that?

Do you think that if it’s inconvenient to arrest someone, cops should just open fire?

How many times does someone have to be told to STOP before force is used?

You tell me. Is it once? And then we start shooting people?

How many more would have come through the window, moved the blockade and flowed through the Speakers Lobby after the members who were fleeing?

No way to know. What if it was 1? Shoot that person, too, I guess. How about 100? Shoot ‘em all? 10,000? You still want to shoot them all? Maybe they should have gone to grenades.

And for what? Breaking into a building? Is there any number of civilians dead that would be too much for you?

It's amazing how many think they can question the judgement of an officer who is being attacked by violent a mob.

Right. Because no one should ever question the judgment of an officer. Kimberly Potter will be glad to hear that. So will Derek Chauvin.

So, to clarify, do you think Babbitt was shot because a mob was entering the building? Or because they were attacking a police officer? Those are two different things. 

How many times did Ashli Babbitt attack this cop? What weapons did she use on him? (Hint: you’re looking for a “round” number that rhymes with “shmero.” 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.22    4 months ago
I don’t know. How many other people did he arrest? Was he expecte to arrest anyone? I honestly don’t know what his official mission was and I don’t know what official policies regulated his behavior. Shouldn’t we know that?

Gee, if you really wanted to know, I'm pretty fucking sure that you could have garnered that information in the last YEAR since the event. 

Do you think that if it’s inconvenient to arrest someone, cops should just open fire?

You tell me. Is it once? And then we start shooting people?

No way to know. What if it was 1? Shoot that person, too, I guess. How about 100? Shoot ‘em all? 10,000? You still want to shoot them all? Maybe they should have gone to grenades.

And for what? Breaking into a building? Is there any number of civilians dead that would be too much for you?

I've had enough dealings with juvenile snarky comments. 

I'm disappointed, I thought that you could do better Tacos. Guess not.

Right. Because no one should ever question the judgment of an officer.

Strawman. 

Carry on. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @11.1.21    4 months ago
His job is to protect the people in the Capitol and the Capitol itself.

So, why didn’t cops shoot these people 6 months earlier?:

original

original

This shit went on for a week. Cops got out of the way and otherwise let these people destroy whatever they felt like destroying. They lit fires. They destroyed property. They threatened the lives of all sorts of people. Didn’t get shot for it, though.

He used his informed and professional judgement and ended the threat.

Why can’t we question that judgment? Why can’t we have a transparent, independent investigation into whether or not the shooting was actually justified?

How many times have we seen stories of cops shooting unarmed people for failing to follow orders, and America or some community was outraged? But it happens to a MAGA nut and everyone stands up and cheers.

This seed is all about her character, not what she was actually doing. What we think of her personally or politically is irrelevant. Standards don’t mean anything if they don’t apply the same to all people.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.26  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @11.1.23    4 months ago
Gee, if you really wanted to know, I'm pretty fucking sure that you could have garnered that information in the last YEAR since the event. 

So, it’s okay for you to ask questions, but not me? Mmkay

Everything else from you is attacks. I guess you’re done discussing the topic. Have a nice day.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.27  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.25    4 months ago

Yes I am aware that “investigation” exists. I do not find it informative, independent, or transparent. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.1.28  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.27    4 months ago

and apparently you did not read it.

have a happy 2022.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.1.29  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.24    4 months ago

Whataboutism?

800

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.30  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.29    4 months ago

Nope.

what·a·bout·ism
/ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/
noun
BRITISH
1. the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
I have addressed the issue head on by focusing on the fact that Babbitt was unarmed (this is not even in dispute) and my opinion that the investigation into the matter was a kind of rubber stamp affair. I have also observed that for many people, politics determines where they come down on the matter of whether or not the shooting was justified.
.
For me personally, it’s an unsettled question with legitimate grounds for skepticism.
.
In response to claims that the use of force complied with accepted norms and rules, I have to tried to examine the validity of that claim by comparing it to similar situations (no comparison is perfect) where force was used and disapproved of, or could have been used but wasn’t.
.
None of that is Whataboutism.
 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.31  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.28    4 months ago
apparently you did not read it

If you read it and you think there is a portion of it worth examining, you are free to quote it here.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.17    4 months ago
The cop who shot her doesn’t get to kill people for that reason. You are describing a conviction and sentence of death. That is not his role. He is not the prosecutor; nor is he jury, judge, or executioner.

The cop is supposed to protect the capitol. He's up against an angry insurgent engaging in a violent act with a probable intent to cause harm. The cop's actions are wholly justified.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
11.1.33  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.22    4 months ago
So, to clarify, do you think Babbitt was shot because a mob was entering the building? Or because they were attacking a police officer? Those are two different things.  

Tacos, these people weren't tourists out for a stroll or school kids on a field trip.  The violent mob had already entered the building.  By the time Ashli Babbitt reached the area where she would be shot, the extreme violence had been underway for well over an hour.  During that time, multiple officers had been injured to the point of needing emergency medical assistance, several areas of the Capitol were filled with insurrectionists, a hanging scaffold had been constructed on Capitol grounds, and chants of "Hang Mike Pence!" could be heard throughout the building.  Ashli Babbitt and her comrades were yards away from the chamber where the election confirmation had been taking place.  How in the hell were the police officers supposed to respond to what was happening?  You sound like Officer Byrd should have put on a pot of coffee, set out some snacks, and said, "Come on in and let's discuss this rationally."   

You also stated in your comment #11.1.19: I think the public should be defaulting to outrage over the shooting of an unarmed person just like they usually do...  The majority of the public hasn't agreed with you and the year-long indifference to Ms. Babbitt's death proves it. Besides, there are too many videos out there showing that she created her own peril by defying Capitol Police directives.  When a law enforcement officer says, "Stop or I will shoot!", he's not just dicking around.  That goes double for those who have sworn to protect not only the hallowed grounds of our democracy, but the representatives within.  

The United States Capitol Police has the primary responsibility for protecting life and property, preventing, detecting, and investigating criminal acts, and enforcing traffic regulations throughout a complex of congressional buildings, parks, and thoroughfares. The Capitol Police has primary jurisdiction within buildings and grounds of the United States Capitol Complex. It also has concurrent jurisdiction with other law enforcement agencies, including the United States Park Police and the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, in an area of approximately 200 blocks around the complex. Officers also have jurisdiction throughout the District of Columbia to take enforcement action when they observe or are made aware of crimes of violence while on official duties. Additionally, they are charged with the protection of members of Congress, officers of Congress, and their families throughout the entire United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia. While performing protective functions, the Capitol Police have jurisdiction throughout the entire United States.  Source

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.1.34  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.24    4 months ago
Standards don’t mean anything if they don’t apply the same to all people.

Yet you know full well that it is NOT, it's a historical fact. 

College 'kids' and NFL/MLB/NBA fans trash and burn to celebrate their teams win, decade after decade. It's rare that there are arrests. 

The fact that you try to conflate overwhelmingly peaceful social justice protests to a violent attack IN the Capitol of the United States merely proves to me that you have no intention of discussing this in good faith. 

Carry on. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.1.35  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.26    4 months ago
So, it’s okay for you to ask questions, but not me? Mmkay

Another strawman. Well done...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.27    4 months ago

What further information do you need?

Who would you like to do an investigation?

Oh and since the event is on tape, what are you claiming is being withheld? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.37  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.7    4 months ago

That depends

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.38  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.32    4 months ago
The cop is supposed to protect the capitol.

Yeah? So then how come nobody shot these people?

original

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.39  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.38    4 months ago

It's unreal the lengths some go to - to defend such traitors and scumbags.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.40  Tacos!  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @11.1.33    4 months ago
How in the hell were the police officers supposed to respond to what was happening?

Well, I don’t know what all their options were at the moment, but here are some suggestions for non-lethal crown control weapons that are commonly used:

Tear gas, pepper spray, Tazers, stun guns, stun batons, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, pepper balls, foam, flash bangs (stun grenade), sonic weapons, water cannon, malodorants (stink weapons), blister agents, even sleep gas.

When a law enforcement officer says, "Stop or I will shoot!", he's not just dicking around.  That goes double for those who have sworn to protect not only the hallowed grounds of our democracy, but the representatives within.

And yet these people managed to avoid being shot:

original

That ground doesn’t seem so hallowed - at least not hallowed enough to open fire.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.41  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.39    4 months ago

You might not have noticed that I haven’t “defended” anything Babbitt did. I can think her behavior was criminal - I do and have said so - and also question whether or not it was necessary to kill her for it.

Hundreds of other people there were engaging in the same criminal behavior, but they weren’t killed for it. And in court, they aren’t being sentenced to death - not even Life in prison. Nothing close to death.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.42  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.41    4 months ago

Sure you have defended the traitor Babbitt, repeatedly.  She got what she deserved.  The rest of the traitorous scum behind her turned tail and ran once this scummy bitch got what was coming to her.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.43  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.42    4 months ago
Sure you have defended the traitor Babbitt, repeatedly.

I said her behavior was criminal. How do you figure that’s a defense?

She got what she deserved.

So, I think they have arrested about 700 people. Should we just dispense with trials and shoot them, too?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
11.1.44  MrFrost  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @11.1.33    4 months ago
By the time Ashli Babbitt reached the area where she would be shot, the extreme violence had been underway for well over an hour. 

Bingo... 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1.45  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.38    4 months ago
Yeah? So then how come nobody shot these people?

I don't know. They should have been.

but here are some suggestions for non-lethal crown control weapons that are commonly used:

Crowd control is for before they reach the capitol. Once they forced their way in, non-lethal options should have been off the table.

Should we just dispense with trials and shoot them, too?

Isn't that how traitors are dealt with? By firing squad?  Of course, this being America, we have to go through the motions of due process. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
11.1.46  Krishna  replied to  devangelical @11.1.15    4 months ago
.. remarkable restraint. how many instances have there been where LE empties their guns?

And many cases where they actually shot someone..jrSmiley_5_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.47  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.44    4 months ago
"By the time Ashli Babbitt reached the area where she would be shot, the extreme violence had been underway for well over an hour."

"Bingo... "

Whatshisname watched it all happen for over 2-1/2 hours before he said ANYTHING.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.48  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.43    4 months ago

moving-goalpost.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
11.1.49  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.9    4 months ago

There is no practically about it.  It totally was.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1.50  Gordy327  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @11.1.49    4 months ago

I was trying to be nice.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
11.1.51  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.50    4 months ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1.53  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.20    4 months ago
Yeah, getting shot in the neck only once isn’t so bad.

another 6 inches of elevation and the Q-maga comrades down the hall would have been wearing her home...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.1.54  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.48    4 months ago

Where the questions I asked too complicated? Or are the obvious answers too embarrassing?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
11.1.55  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.1    4 months ago

They may not be so lucky next time.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
11.2  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @11    4 months ago

Well, fortunately that sort of thing is extremely rare..

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
11.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @11    4 months ago

I don't know if you own firearms or not, but if you do, what would you do if all of a sudden 100 crazed armed people suddenly stormed your house with the intent of harming you or your family?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @11.3    4 months ago

If someone breaks into my house, I assume they are willing to harm me. I can’t afford to assume otherwise. I have no backup. No help. No safe haven. This cop had options I don’t have.

all of a sudden 100 crazed armed people

100? I’d run if I could and call the cops.

By the way, Ashli Babbitt wasn’t armed. It made enough difference to you for you to make the hypothetical crazed people armed. We obviously agree that being attacked by armed people warrants an armed response. 

But even if was just 1, I would try really hard not to shoot them if it was at all avoidable.

Mobs break into buildings - public and private - all the time. In fact, it happened a lot in 2020 and cops just let it happen. I have friends who had a mob break into the store they run and gut the place. They were terrified. Cops did nothing.

In fact, a mob like this literally chased an entire Seattle police precinct from their own building and controlled the neighborhood for weeks.

And nobody shot them for it.

I’m just saying it looks like a double standard - or no standard.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.3.2  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.1    4 months ago

Sorry for your black and white purity standards

but I don't think allowing the Capitol or the WH being swarmed by rioters that just beat down and injured

140 cops should be allowed in the national capitol.

As far as arrests in Seattle goes, how many people were arrested in DC on January 6 ?

15 at first

465 more and counting over a 4 month period

Seattle had hundreds arrested, detained and released because there were no jail cells available in the city 

or the two county jails on Covid lock down.

As space became/becomes available Seattle has rearrested and jailed the worst of the worst.

Apples and oranges whataboutism.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.3.3  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.1    4 months ago
I’m just saying it looks like a double standard

it looks more like false equivalencies...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @11.3.2    4 months ago
Sorry for your black and white purity standards

And I’m sorry you chose to go personal rather than just discuss the topic. Have a nice day.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.3.5  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @11.3.3    4 months ago
it looks more like false equivalencies...

I can go with that. Some have tried to equate what Babbitt was doing to a home invasion. I would call that a false equivalency because it could be argued that Babbitt was protesting in the public square.

They have also tried to equate it to armed people attacking a police officer even though Babbitt was neither armed nor specifically attacking the officer.

Either would be a false quivalency.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
11.3.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.1    4 months ago

If any others try that shit again in two days, they will never be that unhappy again.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.3.7  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.4    4 months ago

Sorry you feel that was personal.

You've drawn a line in the sand you cannot defend in my opinion.

You realize the Lt who shot Babbitt was listening to the radio about the collapse of the Capitol police

and all the calls for ambulances for wounded officers?  He had every right to feel threatened, as he was listening

to cries for help form other officers.

Babbits prior history has nothing to do with her being shot, it has everything to do with why she was there.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.3.8  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.5    4 months ago

Trump's insurrection was premised on the belief that Trump would all no defenses...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
11.3.9  cjcold  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.5    4 months ago

Babbit was armed. How do you think she broke the hardened glass?

I would consider a pipe to be a deadly weapon and respond accordingly.

This peaceful tourist brought a lead pipe to a peaceful rally?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.3.10  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @11.3.7    4 months ago
He had every right to feel threatened, as he was listening to cries for help form other officers.

I don’t question that he felt threatened. However, not every threat warrants deadly force as a response. Furthermore, Babbitt is not personally responsible with her life for what a cop is hearing on the radio. Unless she personally represented a clear and imminent threat to his life or the life of someone else, I don’t see the justification for killing her.

Wack her with a baton. Fire tear gas at her. Shoot her with a rubber bullet. Give her a dose of pepper spray. Turn a fire hose on her. Taze her.

Any one of those techniques could have been employed instead of a bullet to the neck.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.3.11  Tacos!  replied to  cjcold @11.3.9    4 months ago
Babbit was armed. How do you think she broke the hardened glass?

I would consider a pipe to be a deadly weapon and respond accordingly.

This peaceful tourist brought a lead pipe to a peaceful rally?

You are the first person I have seen claim that she had a weapon of any kind, much less a pipe specifically. Is that from a source or something you saw?

Here is a link to video of that moment.

In the video, Babbitt can be seen, but I see no weapon in her hands. Also, she is not the one who broke the windows. The men up front broke the windows initially by simply punching them with their fists. They then finished the job with hands, feet, and wooden flag pole.

Before Babbitt started to climb through the window, there had been three officers blocking the crowd. The men in the crowd can be heard saying that they just want in and they do not want to hurt the officers. The officers then leave.

The cop who shot Babbitt is behind the still-closed doors as she attempts to climb through the broken glass.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.3.12  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.10    4 months ago
Wack her with a baton.

Over all the chairs in front of the door?

Fire tear gas at her.

The front guard had exhausted their tear gas and still the crowd pushed through.

Shoot her with a rubber bullet.

Really? The House protection detail with rubber bullets?

Give her a dose of pepper spray. Turn a fire hose on her. Taze her.

Ridiculous. Were the tables turned would it be OK for the assault to do the same to the police?

Oh never fucking mind...they already pepper sprayed and tased a lot of officers to reach that point inside.

Any one of those techniques could have been employed instead of a bullet to the neck.

BS.  There was no bullet to the neck.

He aimed center mass at a person about to lunge.  The bullet struck her in the left upper chest

travelling right to left it nicked the left superior vena cava and the throat

possibly the left lower carotid resulting in the pictures showing

the SWAT paramedic keeping pressure on her upper chest at the entrance wound,

384

but she was exhaling blood through her mouth, slow but sure e xsanguination.

Does it really help to keep saying she was shot in the neck?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.3.13  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @11.3.12    4 months ago
The front guard had exhausted their tear gas and still the crowd pushed through.

Do you mean outside? Where it easily dissipates?

The House protection detail with rubber bullets?

Sure. Why not?

Ridiculous. Were the tables turned would it be OK for the assault to do the same to the police?

What? Tables turned how, exactly? Cops breaking into their homes? Cops breaking into Congress? Citizens shooting at police? WTF are you talking about?

she was exhaling blood through her mouth, slow but sure e xsanguinatio

Meaning what? It’s her fault the bullet killed her?

Does it really help to keep saying she was shot in the neck?

Clearly you have trouble accepting it or you wouldn’t object to it. Some part of you knows death was more of a punishment than her actions warranted. You just can’t bring yourself to admit it. Why? My guess (as I said yesterday) is politics.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.3.14  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.13    4 months ago
What? Tables turned how , exactly? Cops breaking into their homes? Cops breaking into Congress? Citizens shooting at police? WTF are you talking about?

I think I was pretty clear on that.

Meaning what? It’s her fault the bullet killed her?

Where was she?  Trespassing, participating in a political riot, threatening the lives of Congressmen and specifically looking for Mike Pence while destroying public property and attempting to access a secure area guarded by a man with a gun pointed at her, with several more at the end of that hallway?

She put herself in harms way thinking no one is going to shoot a white woman,  She was wrong.

Clearly you have trouble accepting it or you wouldn’t object to it.

Nope, I just have some medical experience and being shot below the clavicle isn't being shot in the neck.

Call me a stickler for details. 

Some part of you knows death was more of a punishment than her actions warranted.

In your opinion. btw

No one has a problem when a man breaks into a business and the owner shoots him dead.

As S. Philly gun store owner kills potential looter, customers line up for firearms at other dealers (inquirer.com)

You just can’t bring yourself to admit it. Why? My guess (as I said yesterday) is politics.

And there YOU go being all personal and making judgements again.

I would ask you if you would be just as upset if the victim was a non white, non veteran male

but I suspect you will just continue to cherry pick my comments and defend your position at all costs. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.3.15  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @11.3.14    4 months ago
I think I was pretty clear on that.

You are obviously mistaken. If it was pretty clear, I wouldn’t have had to ask you to clarify. What a weird thing to argue over. Is it really so hard to clarify just your remarks so that you can be understood? Asking for that is not some kind of character attack.

 Call me a stickler for details.

She’s dead. She was shot and now she’s dead. How’s that for a detail?

No one has a problem when a man breaks into a business and the owner shoots him dead.

So why not shoot everyone there?

I would ask you if you would be just as upset if the victim was a non white, non veteran male

I don’t know that I’m upset. I’m questioning. I’m skeptical. But yes, I absolutely would. I would also be upset (or whatever) if she were a progressive liberal. Police shooting an unarmed person should always draw our highest scrutiny. Does that help you in some way?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.3.16  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.15    4 months ago

Maybe this will help you 

• People shot to death by U.S. police by weapon carried 2021 | Statista

The good news is that the unarmed category is declining.

I get disgusted when a cop harasses someone over something stupid like jaywalking 

or a traffic stop for tinted glass or air fresheners on the inside mirror that ends in a civilian death.

Grown ass people breaking and entering should know better, so, no I don't give a second thought to 

Ashlie Babbit or Kahleef Brown shot while breaking the law deliberately, knowing the dangers full well.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.3.17  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @11.3.14    4 months ago
"but I suspect you will just continue to cherry pick my comments and defend your position at all costs."

When that's all you got, you go for it.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.3.18  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.15    4 months ago
So why not shoot everyone there?

You posted pictures of the Senate chambers and asked that same question. 

So, you seem to be saying that your issue is that Babbitt should really be just one of the many insurrectionist casualties of the riot.

Hell, Officer Eugene Goodman should have just shot all those 'unarmed' insurgents who chased him through the Capitol. He could have taken down a least 10 before he ran out of ammo.

The Officer who asked the Q Shaman to leave the Senate Chamber should have just blown him away. 

Stack them up like cord wood. 

Then Babbitt's death would make so much more sense. /s

Ya, that's the ticket. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
11.3.19  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.13    4 months ago
Meaning what? It’s her fault the bullet killed her?

No, it's her fault she was there in the first fucking place. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.3.20  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @11.3.19    4 months ago

Yup.  If she wasn't there with the rest of the trumpturd incited mob - it wouldn't have ever happened!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
11.3.21  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Split Personality @11.3.14    4 months ago

She had said prior that she would die for her beliefs.  She got what she wanted.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
11.3.22  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Split Personality @11.3.12    4 months ago

Bullets can fragment and travel in the body.  It happened with Reagan and it did also with that traitor.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.3.23  Split Personality  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @11.3.22    4 months ago

As I said, more likely the bullet hit a rib and the resulting rib and bullet bits travelled through at least the left carotid and her throat;

when she hit the floor she said "I'm fine, it's cool", immediately began expressing blood from her mouth and just as quickly lost

consciousness.

If the trajectory of the bullet were a fraction to the left she would be wearing tank tops for the rest of her life to show off the scar.

Sadly, that's not what happened.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.3.24  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @11.3.23    4 months ago

she's a lot more valuable to the righting radicals now...

babbitt-003.png?itok=MZ8mAUyY

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
11.4  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @11    4 months ago
It’s amazing - and scary - how a person’s politics makes it ok to shoot an unarmed person.

Good point...no normal person would ever do that. No average person...and certainly no cop has ever done that. ..only a total miscreant (giyf) . . . like this moron.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
12  Hal A. Lujah    4 months ago

I see a lot of defense here for Ashli Babbitt, insinuating that other alternatives should have been used.  I’m curious at what their threshold is when a line of hundreds of violent insurrectionists are standing on the other side of a freshly broken barricade separating them from members of Congress?  How many psychotic “hang Mike Pence” insurrectionists need to get through the barricade before it’s ok to start firing a gun on them?  What a stupid situation to be defending. Are you thinking that the small number of LE could have just stopped each one as they passed through the barricade against multiple lethal warnings and read them their Miranda rights and gently handcuffed them?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
12.1  Krishna  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @12    4 months ago
How many psychotic “hang Mike Pence” insurrectionists need to get through the barricade before it’s ok to start firing a gun on them?

Well...maybe they were jus' playin' around...and really loved Mike Pence dearly...didn't want to injure him at all!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
12.1.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @12.1    4 months ago

Well...maybe they were jus' playin' around...and really loved Mike Pence dearly...didn't want to injure him at all!

Or...maybe not?

Capitol mob built gallows and chanted ‘Hang Mike Pence’

512

 A noose is seen on makeshift gallows as supporters of US President Donald Trump gather on the West side of the US Capitol in Washington DC on January 6, 2021. – Donald Trump’s supporters stormed a session of Congress held today, January 6, to certify Joe Biden’s election win, triggering unprecedented chaos and violence at the heart of American democracy and accusations the president was attempting a coup. (Photo by Andrew CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP) (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)

 
 
 
RU4Real
Freshman Silent
13  RU4Real    4 months ago

The hypocrisy is rampant.  Some of you are up in arms of the officer shooting this lunatic, I mean innocent sweet woman, but at the same time drag the protestors killed and wounded by Rittenhouse, or other victims of cops killing them, through the ringer.  Why is it this woman's past sacred, can't be talked about, doesn't matter, is of no concern yet the pasts of others are brought up to help justify their death by cop / vigilante?  Why all of a sudden she is the poster child of cops being evil, shooting just to shoot, being judge, jury and executioner.  Martyr??? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

She clearly broke the law, wouldn't heed the officer's commands, he truly feared for his life, and he dealt with the threat per his training.  Aren't those the same things many of you guys repeat over and over again in other police-involved shootings?

Second Amendment . A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not just, I can go out and get a gun and shoot.

This was a good shoot and she was put down as necessary.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
13.1  JBB  replied to  RU4Real @13    4 months ago

Babbitt was mentally I'll but instead of those around her insisting she get help Trumpers encouraged her?

It is sad her madness resulted from her Trumpism...

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
13.2  Split Personality  replied to  RU4Real @13    4 months ago

Excellent point, the Rittenhouse trial put the victims on trial to justify the outcome to the cheers of many here.

Babbit's past was just as irrelevant to the investigation that determined it was a "good shoot".

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
14  MrFrost    4 months ago

She was a criminal, she was shot while lunging at a cop and she is dead. I have no problems with it. Case closed. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
14.1  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @14    4 months ago
she was shot while lunging at a cop

That is a fantasy. She was not close to the cop when he shot her and she was not “lunging at him.” She was part way through a tiny opening in a door that had glass (broken out) in the top half. As soon as she was shot, she fell backward to the side of the door opposite where the cop was. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
14.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @14.1    4 months ago

She was the tip of the spear, who was fearless in the face of a legitimate and lethal threat.  Not making an example of her would be letting everyone know that their evil plan is working, and everyone should feel comfortable following suit to search out their targets.  Good riddance to the piece of trash.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
14.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @14.1.1    4 months ago
She was the tip of the spear

Don’t let people tell you that you lack a sense of humor.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
14.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @14.1    4 months ago
She was part way through a tiny opening in a door that had glass (broken out) in the top half.

Weird behavior for a, "tourist". 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
14.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @14.1.3    4 months ago

Yeah, I never called her a tourist, so I don’t know what you’re talking about by putting quotation marks around that word as if I had said it.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
14.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @14.1.4    4 months ago

Yeah, I never called her a tourist, so I don’t know what you’re talking about by putting quotation marks around that word as if I had said it.

I didn't say you did, but she has been to referred to as such. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
14.1.6  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @14.1.2    4 months ago

Don’t let people tell you that you lack a sense of humor.

It’s odd how sometimes you seem reasonable and [deleted]  Imagine if the hundred insurgents around Ashli did not turn back as a reaction to a gun being fired on the first one to pass through the barricade.  Imagine if security just sat there and let it happen because they were so severely outnumbered, and members of congress were subsequently taken into their custody, and possibly killed.  Under those circumstances you would probably be the first to make the entirely reasonable charge that it was the fault of security for not using the weapons at their disposal to stop the breach.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
14.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @14.1.6    4 months ago
It’s odd how sometimes you seem reasonable

I'm always reasonable. That means I support my statements with logic and reason. It does not mean I have to agree with you all the time. If you think the only reasonable people are those who agree with you, then you don't know what it means to be reasonable.

Imagine if security just sat there and let it happen because they were so severely outnumbered,

Some of them did let it happen. There were three guys blocking the crowd until they literally just walked away.

and members of congress were subsequently taken into their custody, and possibly killed.

We actually do have to imagine this part because it didn't happen.

I have stated that I think the proper standard for deadly force is defense of self or others. If it came down to an imminent deadly threat to actual people, then yes, by all means open fire. But they hadn't reached that point when Babbitt was shot. In fact, the crowd was clearly reticent to harm even the three security guards that were blocking their way, and they had a lot of opportunity.

What force should have been used instead? Well, we have seen that law enforcement has many non-lethal options at their disposal.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
14.1.8  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @14.1.7    4 months ago

I said sometimes you are reasonable, I did not say that the only times you are reasonable are when I agree with you.  Sometimes I’m pleasantly surprised by your insights even though I don’t necessarily agree with them.  In this case, however, you are defending an idiot, plain and simple.  This person was completely unstable and pressed her luck straight to her grave.

We actually do have to imagine this part because it didn't happen.

Yeah, that’s what imagine means.  In the functional world we use our imaginations to determine the logical conclusions of our choices.  If you ever find yourself on the business dnd of a cop’s gun and he’s telling you not to do what you’re about to do, you might want to use your imagination.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
14.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @14.1.8    4 months ago
In this case, however, you are defending an idiot, plain and simple.

No.  He's not.

Pretending that anybody who corrects your erroneous information is somehow "defending" something is one of the more egregious bullshit hyper-emotional trends in leftist batshittery today.

If your point has any validity, you shouldn't need to make shit up.

The fact is that this woman was killed while actively participating in an unlawful riot.   That's enough.

Fabricating foolishness simply distracts and weakens your position.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
14.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @14.1.8    4 months ago
In this case, however, you are defending an idiot, plain and simple.

I agree with you that she was an idiot, but I am not defending her. Had she lived, I would hope she would get serious jail time. My concern is over whether or not this was a fair, reasonable, and necessary use of deadly force. Not all lawbreakers get shot.

Here, a cop shot an unarmed woman who was trying to climb through a broken door. She wasn’t even far enough through that she could fall toward the cop. She fell backward. He could have just as easily run up to her, punched her in the nose, and accomplished the same thing.

She might not even have made it through on her own. Given a few more seconds, she might have given up the attempt.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
14.1.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @14.1.10    4 months ago

Not all lawbreakers get shot.

Maybe LE was too lenient and should have shot far more people - would that make it more legit to you?  Considering that so many of them were viciously attacked by this conglomerate of subhuman sleaze they certainly would have been justified in doing so. 

He could have just as easily run up to her, punched her in the nose, and accomplished the same thing.

Try using your imagination and visualize that happening - meanwhile a column of drone subhumans pours through the same opening, attacking LE with pointy tipped American flag poles and calling the black cops niggers.  That is the reality of their experience on Jan. 6.

She might not even have made it through on her own. Given a few more seconds, she might have given up the attempt.

This exchange is getting deep and desperate on your end.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
14.1.12  devangelical  replied to  Jack_TX @14.1.9    4 months ago
The fact is that this woman was killed while actively participating in an unlawful riot.   That's enough.

it was enough for rittenhouse to get off, wasn't it?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
14.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @14.1.11    4 months ago
Maybe LE was too lenient and should have shot far more people - would that make it more legit to you?

I think it’s clear I would not endorse that. Nevertheless, it would at least have had the virtue of consistency.

a column of drone subhumans pours through the same opening

Have you seen the video? No column of humans was going to pour through that opening. She couldn’t even get through it on her own.

This exchange is getting deep and desperate on your end.

That’s quite a presumption. I have nothing to be “desperate” about.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
14.1.14  Jack_TX  replied to  devangelical @14.1.12    4 months ago
it was enough for rittenhouse to get off, wasn't it?

Exactly.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
14.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @14    4 months ago
she was shot while lunging at a cop

Don't know what video you watched but she hadn't even made it through the window yet and was just starting to climb up to do so. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
14.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @14.2    4 months ago
through the window yet

YET.. She was trying to, yes? Yep. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @14.2.1    4 months ago
"she hadn't even made it through the window yet and was just starting to climb up to do so."

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
14.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @14.2.1    4 months ago

Yes she seemed to be trying. Watch again. She was struggling and if you think it's so easy going through a window that still had shards of glass all around it, next time you lock your keys in the house and have to break out a window, let us know how easy it is and how long it takes. 

Thanks in advance.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.2    4 months ago
"Watch again. She was struggling and if you think it's so easy going through a window that still had shards of glass all around it around it, next time you lock your keys in the house and have to break out a window, let us know how easy it is and how long it takes."

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Some folks aren't helping their case. . . . . . LOL!

It's not easy when you're attempting a failed coup.  It's a struggle.  

LOL!

[deleted

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
14.2.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.4    4 months ago

If you are going to respond to me, respond to me. Quit with the fucking childish games.

[deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
14.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @14.2.3    4 months ago
Yes she seemed to be trying. Watch again. She was struggling and if you think it's so easy going through a window that still had shards of glass all around it, next time you lock your keys in the house and have to break out a window, let us know how easy it is and how long it takes. 

Interesting you should use that analogy.. And how would you react if someone busted out the window in your home and was trying to get in? 

I would respond with overwhelming force, I don't take chances with my life or those of my family. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @14.2.6    4 months ago
"Yes she seemed to be trying. Watch again. She was struggling and if you think it's so easy going through a window that still had shards of glass all around it, next time you lock your keys in the house and have to break out a window, let us know how easy it is and how long it takes."

"Interesting you should use that analogy.. And how would you react if someone busted out the window in your home and was trying to get in? 

I would respond with overwhelming force, I don't take chances with my life or those of my family."

Very very interesting.  Notice no response????????????????????????????????????????????

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
14.2.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @14.2.6    4 months ago

I presented the same scenario to another poster.  They bobbed and weaved and then ran away.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15  Tessylo    4 months ago

Don't know what video some folks watched but Babbitt was clearly a threat and clearly a danger and clearly warned - she got exactly what she deserved.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16  Tessylo    4 months ago

While this was all going on, whatshisname sat on his big fat ass watching what he incited for several months and spurred them on to at his 'rally' before hand - while his domestic terrorist mob did whatever they pleased for over two and a half hours.   For 187 minutes big fat ass watched it all unfold - 'they're doing this for me!'

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
17  devangelical    4 months ago
repeatedly rammed her SUV into the car of her future husband's girlfriend

funny, I had her pegged as driving the bus...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
17.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  devangelical @17    4 months ago
funny, I had her pegged as driving the bus...

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Moose Knuckle
Freshman Participates
18  Moose Knuckle    4 months ago

Ashley Babbitt is guilty of being white. Otherwise her past history would certainly not be a defense for her death. So shallow some are.

[deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
18.1  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Moose Knuckle @18    4 months ago

Yeah, this was totally about race /s

She played stupid games, and won a stupid prize.  And then was made into a martyr by some.  She is not worthy of that status, and never was.

The rest is off topic.  Please confine yourself to the topic.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
18.2  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Moose Knuckle @18    4 months ago

She's guilty of breaking and entering with a violent mob behind her trying to chase down our elected officials.  She wasn't there to hand out lollipops.  

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If other people's pasts can be brought up, then so can hers.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
19  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
19.1  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Sean Treacy @19    4 months ago

Removed for context - sandy 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
19.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @19.1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
19.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @19.1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
19.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @19.1    4 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
19.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @19.1.3    4 months ago

[Further reposting of the same deleted comment will result in points toward suspension.]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
19.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @19.1.4    4 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
20  devangelical    4 months ago

bwah ha ha ha.... loser...

 
 

Who is online

Texan1211
Vic Eldred
Ender
squiggy


42 visitors