Police offices involved in G. Floyd's death were suspended the next day--aftermorethan a month we still do not know who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

She was MURDERED no matter how you spin it.

No, she wasn't.

Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............

Why do you keep harping on the fact that she was unarmed? The police shoot unarmed people all of the time, often mistakenly, with no repercussions.

In their own words, many of the mob were there to attempt to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden as the next president of the United States, to "stop the steal" since Trump told them that they wouldn't have a country anymore if they didn't "fight like hell".

Don't forget the chanting of "Hang Mike Pence!" and what about the police officer they were trying to crush to death when they had him in a door way and were pushing against the door in unison.

Their attempt to disrupt the certification process nor was any of the other criminal activity resulting in harm to those attempting to defend the Capital a "simple trespass" particularly since several individuals died due to their activities, including a Capital police officer.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I'll clue you in on something - you all are arguing the wrong thing. Nobody was required to know or believe that an insurrection was taking place. All those officers needed to know is that there were multiple individuals, constituting a "mob", that was trying to breach an area they were defending. WHY they were there has nothing to do with it as long as they were there under NO LAWFUL authority AND their actions posed a threat to the officers and/or the individuals they were protecting.

Trespass on public property is rarely considered just cause to use lethal force. If the officer in question can show good reason to believe his victim posed an actual threat of serious bodily harm to someone he may have been justified but I'll believe that when and if I see it. The facts as I know them come nowhere near supporting that conclusion.

Yet there are plenty of U.S. Message Board members who believe that the McMichaels, the men who hunted down Ahmuad Arbery in their pickup truck for allegedly trespassing on a neighbor's property were entirely justified in their actions when they shot & killed him for not appreciating them confronting him and attempting to place him under citizen's arrest while pointing a shotgun at him. It wasn't even their property, nothing was taken yet they have tied themselves into pretzels trying to turn that "simple trespass" into a felony that would have given them the right to stop and detain him, at least in all of their minds. They're still in jail awaiting trial by the way although I can't recall if they're facing murder or manslaughter charges.

I don't see any of this as a simple trespass for no other reason than their stated goal was to "stop the steal" which implies they were there to attempt to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden as the next president of the United States and to keep Trump in office. However this doesn't really have any impact on the officer's responsibilities to protect our Congressional representatives from the mob outside of the chamber doors.

Right. So there we finally have it. You don't think their politics matched your own so they all deserved to be gunned down like dogs in the street for daring to disagree. How very unAmerican of you.

This is the second time you're completely misunderstood what I stated and my politics have never entered into my conversations here on this thread or most others on U.S. Message Board. Although I have stated it repeatedly you still don't seem to understand that my perspective has nothing to do with politics but only from the perspective of protecting others. I know what the laws are, I know what is legally allowable and unfortunately many of the members offering their opinions here are lacking even the most rudimentary understanding of our laws or legal system, as I was attempting to point out when I mentioned some of the comments posted in the Ahmaud Arbery case.

The fact that you erroneously believed me to be supporting the McMichaels chasing down Arbery and killing him in the streets shows you didn't understand my comment. Whether that was intentional or not I'm not to speculate.

So what would you do, if you were confronted by an unruly mob attempting to get their hands on people you were charged with protecting? What would you have done differently?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am some kind of stranger to dealing with violent people people and doing so in a legal and moral manner. I am not. I have been involved in one form or another all my adult life. I have been a soldier in combat required to deal with both friend and foe appropriately and make split second hugely important life and death decisions. I have worked as both armed and unarmed security. I have worked in mental institutions and faced assault including by the convicted criminally insane. I worked in a maximum security prison where I was more more than once involved with assaultive inmates and was on one occasion assaulted and taken hostage by armed inmates. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, dude. It has seemed highly important to at all times be aware of exactly what my responsibilities and legal limitations were and I seem to have done pretty well at it. If a person shoots an unarmed citizen the shooter must prove that he believed that person posed an immanent threat to himself or others or he should expect to spend a very long time in prison. And rightly so. A person is not a threat because you assume the person is part of a mob or an insurrection or a Monday afternoon knitting circle. Immanent threat is the key. And immanent means right now, right there and then. Doesn't matter if you think the person might pose a threat to somebody who is elsewhere later. The shooter in this instance was hired to provide security. He was there to stop and/or detain people who might trespass using the minimum force necessary.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

1) A person is not a threat because you assume the person is part of a mob or an insurrection or a Monday afternoon knitting circle. Immanent threat is the key. 2) And immanent means right now, right there and then. Doesn't matter if you think the person might pose a threat to somebody who is elsewhere later. 3) The shooter in this instance was hired to provide security. 4) He was there to stop and/or detain people who might trespass using the minimum force necessary

1) If I can see the mob either directly, on TV (as many of us saw it) or via intel, then it's not an assumption.
2) I know what imminent means, I posted as much 2 days ago, in context:

​

Citation​

...When your job is to protect a particular person or group of individuals from imminent threats (meaning the threat is happening RIGHT NOW), the only place a trial has in the scenario is determining whether or not your response was justified under the law, including the use of lethal force in defense of one's self or others, IF a trial is deemed warranted. AFTER THE FACT.​

​

3/4) So now you're stating that the person who shot AB was a hired security guard whose only purpose for being there was to stop and/or detain people who might trespass using the minimum force necessary? An armed security guard who was not authorized to use his weapon? I'm asking and not assuming because this is what I read about the shooter in question:

The United States Capitol Police is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States charged with protecting the United States Congress within the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its territories​

​

and

[snipped]​

​

Ms. Babbitt, 35, participated in one of a handful of mob attacks that nearly reached members of Congress during the hours long siege of the Capitol on Jan. 6. She and fellow rioters hammered at the doors separating them from the House chamber as lawmakers evacuated.​

​

As Ms. Babbitt tried to jump a barrier and enter the speaker’s lobby through a broken window, the Capitol Police lieutenant shot and killed her. While officials have not provided a full accounting of Ms. Babbitt’s fatal encounter, it was caught on video and widely shared on social media.​

​

But footage, combined with witness accounts, seems to show that the lieutenant, who has not been named, was left alone to confront a mob. The lieutenant has been on administrative leave pending the results of the investigation into the shooting and was interviewed by investigators last week.​

​

Dustin Sternbeck, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Police Department, said “it would be premature” for the department “to make any comment that any conclusion had been reached.” The Justice Department and the Capitol Police said their agencies did not comment on active investigations.​

​

Civil rights prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office opened a formal, federal excessive force investigation into Ms. Babbitt’s death in the days after the Capitol riot, a “routine, standard procedure whenever an officer deploys lethal force,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said when the investigation was announced.​

​

Lethal force is deemed legally justified if an officer has an “objectively reasonable” fear of serious harm to themselves or others. Two people familiar with the lieutenant’s account suggested that he would argue that he had acted to protect lawmakers from harm. Five people died during the assault on the Capitol and in the immediate aftermath.​

​

In death, Ms. Babbitt has become a martyr like figure for far-right extremist groups that have long supported former President Donald J. Trump, many of whom came to the Capitol to prevent the official certification of President Biden’s Electoral College victory, including white nationalists and militia members. She could continue to serve as a rallying cry for Mr. Trump’s supporters if the officer is not charged.​

Ms. Babbitt, who served in the Air Force and the Air National Guard for more than a dozen years, was seen on video in the moments before her death wearing a Trump flag like a cape.​

​

Her social media accounts were filled with messages of support for Mr. Trump, as well as QAnon conspiracy theories.

“Nothing will stop us,” she said on Twitter the day before she and supporters of Mr. Trump attacked Congress. “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!”​

Inquiry Has Not Found Evidence to Charge Officer in Rioter’s Death at Capitol

 

[Turtlesoup]

She was MURDERED no matter how you spin it.

No, she wasn't.

Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............

If you care to think that they can, I say then that we should give cops machine guns and let them mow down all of the blm anti fa terrorists.

"Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............"

She was trespassing on a federally restricted building. Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.

Idiot, I said she trespassed.

 

[Crepitus]

She was MURDERED no matter how you spin it.

No, she wasn't.

Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............

If you care to think that they can, I say then that we should give cops machine guns and let them mow down all of the blm anti fa terrorists.

"Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............"

She was trespassing on a federally restricted building. Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.

Idiot, I said she trespassed.

You know, for the "party of law and order" you mother fuckers really don't know diddly shit about how the law works.

Let's say you rob a bank, a prospect I do not consider unlikely since you are a devotee of Cheeto Jesus. On your way out the door the off duty cop working as security takes a shot at you, misses, and strikes the teller in the head, killing her instantly.

Who's going up for her murder and why?

 

[Turtlesoup]

She was MURDERED no matter how you spin it.

No, she wasn't.

Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............

If you care to think that they can, I say then that we should give cops machine guns and let them mow down all of the blm anti fa terrorists.

"Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............"

She was trespassing on a federally restricted building. Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.

Idiot, I said she trespassed.

You know, for the "party of law and order" you mother fuckers really don't know diddly shit about how the law works.

Let's say you rob a bank, a prospect I do not consider unlikely since you are a devotee of Cheeto Jesus. On your way out the door the off duty cop working as security takes a shot at you, misses, and strikes the teller in the head, killing her instantly.

Who's going up for her murder and why?

Oh aren't you clueless---------I'm an independent idiot-------I hate the republican party and only find them to be the lesser of the two evils when compared to the dem party who most all should be on trial for treason at this point. Oh btw, I'm an atheist----------and have been since well before being an atheist became cool. I am only fiscal conservative----and more socially liberal as I am pro abortion not to be confused with pro choice.

Bank robber was committing a felony......any deaths that occur during the commission of felony in many if not most states would mean that the bank robber could be charged with murder. Trump giving a speech is not a felony so if you think you are going to try to intertwine the two and think I DOn't understand the legal difference, you are sadly mistaken again.

 

[Crepitus]

-I'm an independent idiot

Well, you've got the "idiot" part right but what you are is a tRumpling who is embarrassed to admit it.

The rest of that post is just nonsensical deflection.

 

[Turtlesoup]

-I'm an independent idiot

Well, you've got the "idiot" part right but what you are is a tRumpling who is embarrassed to admit it.

The rest of that post is just nonsensical deflection.

OH I absolute support Trump, but not the republican party.

 

[Crepitus]

-I'm an independent idiot

Well, you've got the "idiot" part right but what you are is a tRumpling who is embarrassed to admit it.

The rest of that post is just nonsensical deflection.

OH I absolute support Trump, but not the republican party.

Huh? What do you think a "devotee of Cheeto Jesus" is, Kid?

 

[9thIDdoc]

1) A person is not a threat because you assume the person is part of a mob or an insurrection or a Monday afternoon knitting circle. Immanent threat is the key. 2) And immanent means right now, right there and then. Doesn't matter if you think the person might pose a threat to somebody who is elsewhere later. 3) The shooter in this instance was hired to provide security. 4) He was there to stop and/or detain people who might trespass using the minimum force necessary

1) If I can see the mob either directly, on TV (as many of us saw it) or via intel, then it's not an assumption.
2) I know what imminent means, I posted as much 2 days ago, in context:

​

Citation​

...When your job is to protect a particular person or group of individuals from imminent threats (meaning the threat is happening RIGHT NOW), the only place a trial has in the scenario is determining whether or not your response was justified under the law, including the use of lethal force in defense of one's self or others, IF a trial is deemed warranted. AFTER THE FACT.​

​

3/4) So now you're stating that the person who shot AB was a hired security guard whose only purpose for being there was to stop and/or detain people who might trespass using the minimum force necessary? An armed security guard who was not authorized to use his weapon? I'm asking and not assuming because this is what I read about the shooter in question:

The United States Capitol Police is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States charged with protecting the United States Congress within the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its territories​

​

and

[snipped]​

​

Ms. Babbitt, 35, participated in one of a handful of mob attacks that nearly reached members of Congress during the hours long siege of the Capitol on Jan. 6. She and fellow rioters hammered at the doors separating them from the House chamber as lawmakers evacuated.​

​

As Ms. Babbitt tried to jump a barrier and enter the speaker’s lobby through a broken window, the Capitol Police lieutenant shot and killed her. While officials have not provided a full accounting of Ms. Babbitt’s fatal encounter, it was caught on video and widely shared on social media.​

​

But footage, combined with witness accounts, seems to show that the lieutenant, who has not been named, was left alone to confront a mob. The lieutenant has been on administrative leave pending the results of the investigation into the shooting and was interviewed by investigators last week.​

​

Dustin Sternbeck, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Police Department, said “it would be premature” for the department “to make any comment that any conclusion had been reached.” The Justice Department and the Capitol Police said their agencies did not comment on active investigations.​

​

Civil rights prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office opened a formal, federal excessive force investigation into Ms. Babbitt’s death in the days after the Capitol riot, a “routine, standard procedure whenever an officer deploys lethal force,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said when the investigation was announced.​

​

Lethal force is deemed legally justified if an officer has an “objectively reasonable” fear of serious harm to themselves or others. Two people familiar with the lieutenant’s account suggested that he would argue that he had acted to protect lawmakers from harm. Five people died during the assault on the Capitol and in the immediate aftermath.​

​

In death, Ms. Babbitt has become a martyr like figure for far-right extremist groups that have long supported former President Donald J. Trump, many of whom came to the Capitol to prevent the official certification of President Biden’s Electoral College victory, including white nationalists and militia members. She could continue to serve as a rallying cry for Mr. Trump’s supporters if the officer is not charged.​

Ms. Babbitt, who served in the Air Force and the Air National Guard for more than a dozen years, was seen on video in the moments before her death wearing a Trump flag like a cape.​

​

​

Her social media accounts were filled with messages of support for Mr. Trump, as well as QAnon conspiracy theories.​

​

“Nothing will stop us,” she said on Twitter the day before she and supporters of Mr. Trump attacked Congress. “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!”​

Inquiry Has Not Found Evidence to Charge Officer in Rioter’s Death at Capitol

"But the officials warned on Monday that the investigation by the city’s police force, the Metropolitan Police Department, was not complete and that no recommendation had been made to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, which would prosecute the officer."

What part of "...not complete..." and "... no recommendation had been made..." do you not understand? It also states plainly that the US attorney's office is responsible for deciding if charges are to be pressed and what the appropriate charges should be. Not you; not me; and certainly not the NYT; and not the MPD.

"Lethal force is deemed legally justified if an officer has an “objectively reasonable” fear of serious harm to themselves or others."

And this is where I believe your defense of the capitol asshoe falls apart. To whom did she pose an immanent threat and how? That is the crux of the matter. In the matter of an unarmed woman it will be very hard to prove she had both intent and ability.

 

[ClaireH]

I'll clue you in on something - you all are arguing the wrong thing. Nobody was required to know or believe that an insurrection was taking place. All those officers needed to know is that there were multiple individuals, constituting a "mob", that was trying to breach an area they were defending. WHY they were there has nothing to do with it as long as they were there under NO LAWFUL authority AND their actions posed a threat to the officers and/or the individuals they were protecting.

Trespass on public property is rarely considered just cause to use lethal force. If the officer in question can show good reason to believe his victim posed an actual threat of serious bodily harm to someone he may have been justified but I'll believe that when and if I see it. The facts as I know them come nowhere near supporting that conclusion.

Yet there are plenty of U.S. Message Board members who believe that the McMichaels, the men who hunted down Ahmuad Arbery in their pickup truck for allegedly trespassing on a neighbor's property were entirely justified in their actions when they shot & killed him for not appreciating them confronting him and attempting to place him under citizen's arrest while pointing a shotgun at him. It wasn't even their property, nothing was taken yet they have tied themselves into pretzels trying to turn that "simple trespass" into a felony that would have given them the right to stop and detain him, at least in all of their minds. They're still in jail awaiting trial by the way although I can't recall if they're facing murder or manslaughter charges.

I don't see any of this as a simple trespass for no other reason than their stated goal was to "stop the steal" which implies they were there to attempt to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden as the next president of the United States and to keep Trump in office. However this doesn't really have any impact on the officer's responsibilities to protect our Congressional representatives from the mob outside of the chamber doors.

Right. So there we finally have it. You don't think their politics matched your own so they all deserved to be gunned down like dogs in the street for daring to disagree. How very unAmerican of you.

She wasn't gunned down in the street. She was shot breaking thru a locked door into the House chamber with other rioters.....whoever tried to climb thru first was going to be shot......but I guess you are cool with the riot and supportive of the domestic terrorists.

You know that’s the thing -why didn’t that rent-a-cop, while aiming his gun at the doors for at least 5 minutes but seemed more like 10, shout out one single warning? In reviewing the clip and listening closely to the audio, he had plenty of time to make his intentions known. He should have shouted “First person through the doors gets a bullet!” It didn’t happen, yet he had plenty of time to do so while they were banging on the doors. That rent-a-cop was standing right inside the first room on the left- you had to look to the side to see his gun sticking out into the hallway and would have been heard. When one of the rioters did finally see the gun and yelled out, “Hey! There’s a gun!”, there was still no verbal warning whatsoever from the rent-a-cop to confirm.

I think that’s why they’re not releasing information-they know he stayed mute while pointing his gun the whole time ready while having sufficient time to give multiple warnings but chose to stay mute.

Like most people, all I want is justice regardless of the outcome, but I do think this cop needs to be at least psychologically examined (likely he is without it being publicized) for why he felt the need to suddenly shoot (doors still in tact meaning only one at a time could have begun to crawl through the broken glass) after staying so quiet when he had many minutes (10 at least-more?) to fire in the air or at a minimum let them know that he was prepared to shoot. It didn’t happen.

 

[busybee01]

Nothing less than outrageous. The American people deserve better than this.

The democrats preach coming together but they practice nothing more than hatred for their political opponents.

Such hypocrites.

Police Officers Involved in George Floyd's Death Were Suspended the Next Day - After More than a Month We Still Don't Know Who Shot Ashli Babbitt | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

In May of 2020 George Floyd died in Minneapolis during an arrest. One police officer kneeled on his neck for 8 minutes. The gruesome death led to protests around the country and the four policemen involved were fired the day after Floyd's death.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The officer committed no crime so there is no reason to know his name. Especially if he would be subject to death threats by Trump supporters.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Nothing less than outrageous. The American people deserve better than this.

The democrats preach coming together but they practice nothing more than hatred for their political opponents.

Such hypocrites.

Police Officers Involved in George Floyd's Death Were Suspended the Next Day - After More than a Month We Still Don't Know Who Shot Ashli Babbitt | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

In May of 2020 George Floyd died in Minneapolis during an arrest. One police officer kneeled on his neck for 8 minutes. The gruesome death led to protests around the country and the four policemen involved were fired the day after Floyd's death.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The officer committed no crime so there is no reason to know his name. Especially if he would be subject to death threats by Trump supporters.

The Michigan Star | The Star News Network

themichiganstar.com

 

[Crepitus]

She was MURDERED no matter how you spin it.

No, she wasn't.

Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............

If you care to think that they can, I say then that we should give cops machine guns and let them mow down all of the blm anti fa terrorists.

"Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............"

She was trespassing on a federally restricted building. Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.

Idiot, I said she trespassed.

You know, for the "party of law and order" you mother fuckers really don't know diddly shit about how the law works.

Let's say you rob a bank, a prospect I do not consider unlikely since you are a devotee of Cheeto Jesus. On your way out the door the off duty cop working as security takes a shot at you, misses, and strikes the teller in the head, killing her instantly.

Who's going up for her murder and why?

9thIDdoc can you not answer?

Did you not understand the question?

What's funny about it?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Nothing less than outrageous. The American people deserve better than this.

The democrats preach coming together but they practice nothing more than hatred for their political opponents.

Such hypocrites.

Police Officers Involved in George Floyd's Death Were Suspended the Next Day - After More than a Month We Still Don't Know Who Shot Ashli Babbitt | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

In May of 2020 George Floyd died in Minneapolis during an arrest. One police officer kneeled on his neck for 8 minutes. The gruesome death led to protests around the country and the four policemen involved were fired the day after Floyd's death.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The officer committed no crime so there is no reason to know his name. Especially if he would be subject to death threats by Trump supporters.

"The officer committed no crime..."

You have a right to claim to believe that. The rest of us have a right to believe you're an idiot and that the man is guilty as sin. The only thing that would change any one's mind is if he were exonerated in a court of law by proven fact presented and tested there. Anything less would be considered a deliberate whitewash by a rogue illegitimate government.

 

[9thIDdoc]

She was MURDERED no matter how you spin it.

No, she wasn't.

Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............

If you care to think that they can, I say then that we should give cops machine guns and let them mow down all of the blm anti fa terrorists.

"Yes she was....cops don't get to shoot unarmed people simply because they trespased............"

She was trespassing on a federally restricted building. Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.

Idiot, I said she trespassed.

You know, for the "party of law and order" you mother fuckers really don't know diddly shit about how the law works.

Let's say you rob a bank, a prospect I do not consider unlikely since you are a devotee of Cheeto Jesus. On your way out the door the off duty cop working as security takes a shot at you, misses, and strikes the teller in the head, killing her instantly.

Who's going up for her murder and why?

9thIDdoc can you not answer?

Did you not understand the question?

What's funny about it?

If you would like me to answer a question you might consider asking me one.
But, yes, I do find most of your comments hilarious.

 

[beagle9]

Property crimes are not capital crimes. An insurrection is.

All crimes have a right to trial, few have the penalty of death. Liberals usually scream and run crying at the thought of a criminal being executed. Then there's your special kind of stupid.

"All crimes have a right to trial,"

You cant have a trial if the criminal is dead.

Is the shooter dead?

Listen closely:
The.
Shooter.
Is.
Not.
The.
Criminal.
He.
Is.
A.
Cop.
Preforming.
His.
Duty.

If only the left agreed with you when cops are placed into dangerous situation's that causes them to either kill or possibly be killed.

Yes, yes, yes, we know about rogue cop's also, but don't you wish that the mobs had that much sense or ability to separate the two ??.

 

[beagle9]

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

Maybe also consider a class in reading comprehension, just a suggestion.

What I said is that when your job is to protect people and I'm not talking about the average police officer, I'm speaking of the officers who were in the Capital on January 6th who presumably were receiving intel from their colleagues and/or superiors that the Capital was under attack by a mob of people, that you are legally allowed to make a determination that lethal force is warranted in order to protect yourself and/or others, the trial only comes after the fact and only if someone believes the shooting/death was unwarranted.

Hell the police do this ALL OF THE TIME with much less cause to shoot and kill many of the people they do. In most cases, they are never required to stand trial because the shootings are usually deemed justified even when they don't actually comply with what our laws state.

Protecting yourself from an unarmed woman in the next room. Just laying out the ground work for how I can judge the next big city riot.

If the woman ignores commands to cease advancing and the officer(s) believe she is a threat, particularly if she is a part of a mob of what, perhaps 20 or more individuals who just broke a window in order to gain access to a barricaded area, then yes, she and anyone else risks being shot and possibly killed.

Just remember these justifications the next time a cop shoot's a suspect on the street, wherefore you now unconditionally back the blue because you actually weren't there, nor do you have any solid proof to offer, yet you clear the cop because it was an alledged Trump supporter. No matter that she was unarmed, and yes she was in the building, but was the kill justified ?? We'll never know, and you will never know, but you can sure speculate can't you ???

Everyone saw the video. She was told to back up. She willingly allowed herself to be lifted so she could jump through the window. She got her crazy ass shot. End of story.

During all those months of street riots in all those cities; how many times was a “protestor” shot by police for crawling through a broken window.?

Why do you ask? Are you saying that jumping through a window to attack someone in congress is the same as jumping through a window to steal some Nikes from Footlocker?

False equation and you know it, now do better.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

-I'm an independent idiot

Well, you've got the "idiot" part right but what you are is a tRumpling who is embarrassed to admit it.

The rest of that post is just nonsensical deflection.

OH I absolute support Trump, but not the republican party.

Trump is the Republican Party, why do you think these cowards fall at his feet. We all know you are a simple minded Trump Humper, your posts prove that everyday.

 

[beagle9]

"When they broke the glass in the back, the [police] lieutenant that was there, him and I already had multiple conversations prior to this, and he didn't have a choice at the time," Mullin added. "The mob was going to come through the door, there was a lot of members and staff that were in danger at the time."

That crazy ***** deservedly got shot.

You keep saying that, but you don't know that.