Trump Supporters Gathering in D.C. - Mayor Readies for Those ‘Seeking Confrontation’

#3,501
#3,501
clarksvol00 said:
Anyone willing to opine on what would have happened if this was a BLM protest that got out of hand and stormed the White House to "talk" to Donny?

By the way... But Obama!
Click to expand...
So, you agree that the cop would be charged with first degree murder if the lady was a black Obama supporter? And, the DOJ would step in and charge him with violating her civil rights, and D.C. would give her family $10 million?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y9 Vol and C-south
#3,502
#3,502
1972 Grad said:
So, you agree that the cop would be charged with first degree murder if the lady was a black Obama supporter? And, the DOJ would step in and charge him with violating her civil rights, and D.C. would give her family $10 million?
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything of the sort. I dont have enough facts to know what happened. I do know that no matter what the intentions were they had stormed the Capitol and it should have been protected in the same manner the White House would have been.
 
#3,505
#3,505
The young San Diego woman shot and killed by police Wednesday during the breach at the Capitol, served our country in the Air Force for more than a decade. She survived several tours overseas.


Her uncle, who lives in Spring Valley, can't believe what happened to his 35-year-old niece, Ashli Babbitt who called Ocean Beach home.

"She died at a young age. She did many tours in Afghanistan for our country and shot by someone in our country...." said Mazziott.

Her uncle tell us that she has four brothers who all live in San Diego, along with her parents and grandfather.

Her uncle says she was fanatical about our democracy.

And for those who are calling her a domestic terrorist, this is how he wants her to be remembered.

_116390321_ehrditpuyaaz8sj.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol and tnmarktx
#3,509
#3,509
Grand Vol said:
Funny you mention political bias. There is a non political motive on my answers today as I'm looking at the shooting itself rather than what's behind it. The only thing that would make this exchange more surreal would be @Rasputin_Vol or @DEFENDTHISHOUSE coming in here and defending the cops...

Anyway...

Basically, the standard for such things, and @lawgator1 can confirm (don't know if he will), is the "objective reasonableness" standard and judging the actions from the officer's perspective. Having been in high stress (and far more violent as mentioned) situations like this, tensions would be high, communications/information spotty at best and even fear could creep in. So, I'm kind of surprised there was only one shooting.

Anyway, taking those factors into account, I still have to judge the "threat" by three standards prior to using deadly force:

Intent - was her intent to cause harm or death to others? This one has a slight gray area so long as the officer can explain why he perceived her to be threatening

Capability - did she have the capability of inflicting harm or death on others. She had no weapons, so, this one certainly wasn't met

Opportunity - was she in a position to cause harm or death to others? She was attempting to climb through the window, so this one is really thin. Plus, she hadn't made it through. Now, one of the arguments someone will make is "she was advancing towards the officer." Which is complete BS because he advanced laterally towards her before shooting. I.E. he was putting himself in a position to have to use force. Which brings me to my next point...

Were all other measures of force used or could be used prior to enjoying deadly force? He was a plainclothes USCP officer, so I don't know if they have less than lethal capabilities in that uniform. The problem comes in that if all you have is a hammer (firearm) all problems look like nails. I don't blame the officer necessarily for that since carrying a bunch of LTL items in a suit isn't practical.

But the three biggest things that stand out to me are:

That lobby had a whole hoop of uniformed officers already inside. If she was a "threat" why didn't they take issue with it from their side?

No warnings were given, regardless of the useless video PJ wants to post where someone "claims" they were given fair warning. First day of investigator school it was hammered into our heads "eye witness accounts are beyond useless in these situations." Something a lot of people refuse to understand or belive these days. It's not what you hear from a third party, it's what you can prove through evidence.

And last, but not least, the advancement of said cop towards the threat. The video is quite clear. He takes two steps towards her, fires a single shot, then retreats back to his position. Why is this important?

Because if a known threat was coming through that door, he put himself at greater risk by exposing his body to open/broken windows before taking the shot. You can clearly see him on the videos moving out of a somewhat covered position to take the shot. If this crowd was as "violent" as some let on and you suspected them to be armed, you never, never remove yourself from cover and expose your flank like that.

Long winded answer to a complicated question and removing the political angle. But in my mind, using knowledge and known facts, this was not a valid shoot at all.

EDIT: it was the Capitol Police that shot, not the Metro PD. I was mistaken since the Metro PD gave a briefing on it.
Click to expand...
This is a very reasonable post and explained well. I do however disagree with a few points. 1. Intent. No way can the Policeman know intent. It's not possible. He does know he has been charged with protecting the people in that building. 2. Capability. Again, he has no way of knowing whether she is armed, has a bomb on her person or anything else. While the probability is low, he has no way of knowing. 3. Opportunity. Her opportunity for causing harm greatly increases if she makes it through to the corridor and she is evidently determined. The investigation should determine whether she was warned or not. The statement about what the officer could see is speculation because there is no video from his perspective. Maybe his vision is block by other protesters/rioters or whatever you want to call them. His advancement toward the woman is troubling. Maybe he wasn't trained properly or failed to follow his training. I agree this part is troubling. It was a terrible situation and shouldn't have happened but it did and I don't think the man intended to do anything except protect the people he was charged with protecting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Rickyvol77
#3,518
#3,518
What is interesting is listening to Trump's first Chief of Staff talk about the man. If you ever get the chance to hear him discuss his time there, listen to it. It's very scary how a person like this could rise in popularity enough to be the leader of our nation. We should be glad there are men there to try and help keep him in check. The GOP needs to take control back of their party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40 and luthervol
#3,519
#3,519
Orange Maniac said:
This is a very reasonable post and explained well. I do however disagree with a few points. 1. Intent. No way can the Policeman know intent. It's not possible. He does know he has been charged with protecting the people in that building. 2. Capability. Again, he has no way of knowing whether she is armed, has a bomb on her person or anything else. While the probability is low, he has no way of knowing. 3. Opportunity. Her opportunity for causing harm greatly increases if she makes it through to the corridor and she is evidently determined. The investigation should determine whether she was warned or not. The statement about what the officer could see is speculation because there is no video from his perspective. Maybe his vision is block by other protesters/rioters or whatever you want to call them. His advancement toward the woman is troubling. Maybe he wasn't trained properly or failed to follow his training. I agree this part is troubling. It was a terrible situation and shouldn't have happened but it did and I don't think the man intended to do anything except protect the people he was charged with protecting.
Click to expand...

Yes, intent is very easy to prove or disprove. "I'm going to kill them!" is a classic example of known intent. Or in the process of attacking our attempting to attack someone.

She was not showing intent when the shot was fired.

As for the capability, this is a real tricky point. Too many people get involved with the "what if" situations like "maybe she's an MMA goddess!" or "she could have a bomb on her!" Which draws the next question of "what led you to believe this?"

You can't go on the "what if" in instances like this. It's a slippery slope and you really don't want Law Enforcement being able to make the "well maybe" arguments in regards to use of deadly force.

And your opportunity doesn't stand because you can't say "she'll eventually be in a position to cause harm." If that's the case, everyone coming through the doors of the Capitol could have been shot. Again, this is a "what if" scenario and an officer can't say "well, I thought she might be a threat later on."
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Y9 Vol
#3,522
#3,522
jaybird_1981 said:
So we are to believe a president that has kept us out of foreign wars better than any in recent memory is going to kick off WW3 on his way out?
Click to expand...

Part of Nancy's scare tactic or she's rambling while borderline intoxication. Who knows anymore.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, MemphisVol77 and jaybird_1981
#3,523
#3,523
utvolpj said:
Interesting choice of words
Click to expand...

Fortunately, back in the 1775 - 1782 time frame, we had a rather large number of people who were fanatical about our democracy.

I doubt if this will be the next "Shot Heard 'Round the World", but it would appear that the echo has carried quite a distance at this point.

Certainly, her service to her nation far surpasses anything that the whole of the Antifa crowd have done.

Be nice if we could at least bury her with her honor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, MemphisVol77, RavinDave and 3 others
#3,524
#3,524
McDad said:
Inconsistent with what @MontyPython posted earlier.

Are we discussing same video and same person's explanation?
Click to expand...

This is the same dude, same video.

Look, it happened. There's no evidence of a deep fake video here. The cops were probably threatened with bodily harm and - being outnumbered like 100:1 - made the self-preservation move to just move the F out of the way. Can't say I blame them, but it was a dereliction of duty.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top