Round up the Dissenters

[Chillicothe]

"The officer had no reason to shoot an unarmed woman. She posed no immediate threat to his life or health."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whew!!
This is such well-plowed ground that there is little new to say or even comment on.

Clearly, Babbitt's shooting is viewed by MAGAHats as unjustified, because: the officers didn't even know if she was armed; and, in fact, she was unarmed; and the officer didn't 'reasonably' believe he or the personnel he was charged to protect were in immediate danger.

Non-MAGAHats believe it was justified, because: Babbitt was among a group of insurrectionists who illegally and violently breached the Capitol building and she was pushing through a barricaded door while lawmakers were being evacuated.

From what little I have read, I come down on the side of" It was a "good shoot".

My own rationale lies here: This was an invasion of the Capitol by a throng of people openly attempting to prevent the Electoral College from engaging in its lawful functions so that their preferred candidate would be declared the winner of a presidential election. That fits neatly within almost any dictionary’s definition of “insurrection.” Babbitt was there illegally. She had been warned to stop, to back away and she refused that order. Instead, she advanced towards those officers commanding her to stop knowing a gun was brandished in her direction.

And importantly, as Byrd, the shooter, stated ----he was generally aware of the violent and chaotic situation in other portions of the Capitol. In his interview with NBC News, he described “hearing about the breaches of different barricaded areas, officers being overrun, officers being down,” as well as “reports of shots fired through the House main door onto the floor of the Chamber”.
(the reports of shots being fired later turned out to be false, but nevertheless it was information a reasonable officer would have considered at the time).

We know that there were eight separate breaches in the Capitol, and that some of those breaches involved insurrectionists armed with firearms, bats, and chemical sprays, and using flagpoles, fire extinguishers, and skateboards as weapons of opportunity. We know that officers were violently assaulted with weapons including with some of those weapons (e.g., chemical spray, a fire extinguisher and a TASER). We know that officers, by their own descriptions, were “grabbed, beaten,” “crushed ... between doors and bashed ... in the head.”

No report has surfaced that indicates Byrd knew specifically that officers were being beaten and TASERED, but he was aware of a chaotic danerous melee with 'officers down' occurring in locales on the other side of that barricaded doorway. And too, the mob that gathered in front of the Speaker’s Lobby, were clearly using a pole, a helmet, and their own hands and feet in an attempt to break through the barricaded door. Byrd witnessed that. In addition, to reports coming in on his earpiece. It was reasonable for an officer to believe there was an imminent danger to him and to the people he was charged to protect.

Then let me comment on the article that poster Batcat offers us as a rationale as to why it was a 'bad shoot'.

The authors take issue that the Speaker's Lobby was even important enough to protect with force....in their words, not important like a nuclear facility or military installation.

I demur.

The "protection" Officer Byrd was charged to provide wasn't merely to real-estate. He was there to protect the people's elected representatives, the legislators and their staffs. And he believed those people were right behind him....and vulnerable to a wild mob tearing them apart.

It's a canard to assert that it was only "a Lobby" he took an oath to protect.

 

[Batcat]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whew!!
This is such well-plowed ground that there is little new to say or even comment on.

Clearly, Babbitt's shooting is viewed by MAGAHats as unjustified, because: the officers didn't even know if she was armed; and, in fact, she was unarmed; and the officer didn't 'reasonably' believe he or the personnel he was charged to protect were in immediate danger.

Non-MAGAHats believe it was justified, because: Babbitt was among a group of insurrectionists who illegally and violently breached the Capitol building and she was pushing through a barricaded door while lawmakers were being evacuated.

From what little I have read, I come down on the side of" It was a "good shoot".

My own rationale lies here: This was an invasion of the Capitol by a throng of people openly attempting to prevent the Electoral College from engaging in its lawful functions so that their preferred candidate would be declared the winner of a presidential election. That fits neatly within almost any dictionary’s definition of “insurrection.” Babbitt was there illegally. She had been warned to stop, to back away and she refused that order. Instead, she advanced towards those officers commanding her to stop knowing a gun was brandished in her direction.

And importantly, as Byrd, the shooter, stated ----he was generally aware of the violent and chaotic situation in other portions of the Capitol. In his interview with NBC News, he described “hearing about the breaches of different barricaded areas, officers being overrun, officers being down,” as well as “reports of shots fired through the House main door onto the floor of the Chamber”.
(the reports of shots being fired later turned out to be false, but nevertheless it was information a reasonable officer would have considered at the time).

We know that there were eight separate breaches in the Capitol, and that some of those breaches involved insurrectionists armed with firearms, bats, and chemical sprays, and using flagpoles, fire extinguishers, and skateboards as weapons of opportunity. We know that officers were violently assaulted with weapons including with some of those weapons (e.g., chemical spray, a fire extinguisher and a TASER). We know that officers, by their own descriptions, were “grabbed, beaten,” “crushed ... between doors and bashed ... in the head.”

No report has surfaced that indicates Byrd knew specifically that officers were being beaten and TASERED, but he was aware of a chaotic danerous melee with 'officers down' occurring in locales on the other side of that barricaded doorway. And too, the mob that gathered in front of the Speaker’s Lobby, were clearly using a pole, a helmet, and their own hands and feet in an attempt to break through the barricaded door. Byrd witnessed that. In addition, to reports coming in on his earpiece. It was reasonable for an officer to believe there was an imminent danger to him and to the people he was charged to protect.

Then let me comment on the article that poster Batcat offers us as a rationale as to why it was a 'bad shoot'.

The authors take issue that the Speaker's Lobby was even important enough to protect with force....in their words, not important like a nuclear facility or military installation.

I demur.

The "protection" Officer Byrd was charged to provide wasn't merely to real-estate. He was there to protect the people's elected representatives, the legislators and their staffs. And he believed those people were right behind him....and vulnerable to a wild mob tearing them apart.

It's a canard to assert that it was only "a Lobby" he took an oath to protect.

Well I suppose if it was right to shoot Babbitt then the other officers would have been right to shoot a number of the other protestors too.

But they didn’t.

Perhaps because it was NOT right to shoot Babbitt.

Justified Shooting or Fair Game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt Makes Shocking Admission

Here is my column in The Hill on the recent interview of Lt. Michael Byrd who was the hitherto unnamed Capitol Hill officer who shot Ashli Babbitt on January 6th. The interview was notable in an a…

jonathanturley.org

 

[Chillicothe]

"Well I suppose if it was right to shoot Babbitt then the other officers would have been right to shoot a number of the other protestors too. But they didn’t. Perhaps because it was NOT right to shoot Babbitt."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, as far as the "rightness" of the shoot.
I'll leave that to authorities who are far far more familiar with such occurrences.
And, from what I read, those authorities seemingly support my own interpretation....i.e. ....it was a righteous shoot.

So, now persuaded that my own interpretaion is correct (tho alway open to new information)....but convinced I am right by what I could see on the telly with my own eyes, and then that observaton validated by authorized, experienced and responsible reviewers......well, with that, let us all agree that the person most responsible for Babbitt's death........is Babbitt.

If she hadn't chosen to join a violent mob......would she be dead?
If she hadn't chosen to support a violent mob battering down that barricade.....would she be dead?
If she hadn't chosen to charge towards those officers through a violently opened breach.....well, would she be dead?

May her family find peace from the tragic death and the unfortunate naivete' that caused her to choose to leap towards the muzzle of a gun.....after being loudly commanded not to.

 

[Batcat]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, as far as the "rightness" of the shoot.
I'll leave that to authorities who are far far more familiar with such occurrences.
And, from what I read, those authorities seemingly support my own interpretation....i.e. ....it was a righteous shoot.

So, now persuaded that my own interpretaion is correct (tho alway open to new information)....but convinced I am right by what I could see on the telly with my own eyes, and then that observaton validated by authorized, experienced and responsible reviewers......well, with that, let us all agree that the person most responsible for Babbitt's death........is Babbitt.

If she hadn't chosen to join a violent mob......would she be dead?
If she hadn't chosen to support a violent mob battering down that barricade.....would she be dead?
If she hadn't chosen to charge towards those officers through a violently opened breach.....well, would she be dead?

May her family find peace from the tragic death and the unfortunate naivete' that caused her to choose to leap towards the muzzle of a gun.....after being loudly commanded not to.

I am not saying that I agreed with the riot. I am all for peaceful protests not riots, However if the cops are not allowed to shoot violent rioters who are burning down their precinct with them in it, I can’t see why one cop should be allowed to kill a woman who was in no way threatening his life or health.

SPD: Rioters tried to trap officers inside burning precinct using rebar and concrete

Seattle police officers were forced to kick their way out of an East Precinct exit door Monday night, after rioters jammed it with boards and rebar, and attempted to seal the door closed with quick-dry cement.

www.kiro7.com

 

[DBA]

"Trump was known to..........................."


Poster Bob in #192 offers us a dense but articulate post filled with insightful perspective.
I applaud it as a 'on-the-other-hand' corrective for so many of the Rightfield histrionics that get aired out on this venue.

A hat-tip to Bobob.

There are two definitions for "dense" and the one you aren't referring to here is more apropos.

 

[Chillicothe]

"There are two definitions for "dense" and the one you aren't referring to here is more apropos"

I kinda thought I'd get a bite by baiting with that 'dense' adjective.
So, that's a bazinga. (Better folks than me would say 'affirmation'.)

So you be you, good poster DBA.
But, let us move beyond my petty smugness.

Poster Bob's effort stood a head taller than the normal amusements we see on this venue.

You can stick with your Funk & Wagnall's.....'brainless'.

But I'll simply stick to: Closely compacted with thoughful pertinent perspectives..... and gravitas.

And for that, good poster DBA, you and my avatar should be grateful.

So a hat-tip to poster Bob.

 

[DBA]

I kinda thought I'd get a bite by baiting with that 'dense' adjective.
So, that's a bazinga. (Better folks than me would say 'affirmation'.)

So you be you, good poster DBA.
But, let us move beyond my petty smugness.

Poster Bob's effort stood a head taller than the normal amusements we see on this venue.

You can stick with your Funk & Wagnall's.....'brainless'.

But I'll simply stick to: Closely compacted with thoughful pertinent perspectives..... and gravitas.

And for that, good poster DBA, you and my avatar should be grateful.

So a hat-tip to poster Bob.

The fact that you aren't capable of discerning between mindless hyperbole and opinion goes a long way toward explaining why both you and Bob fall in line with the rest of the under 21 crowd that get their new news from Instagram and Twitter and the childlike adults who blindly follow the MSM.

 

[j-mac]

I kinda thought I'd get a bite by baiting...

That's all you ever do....

 

[Bobob]

Well I suppose if it was right to shoot Babbitt then the other officers would have been right to shoot a number of the other protestors too.

But they didn’t.

Perhaps because it was NOT right to shoot Babbitt.

Justified Shooting or Fair Game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt Makes Shocking Admission

Here is my column in The Hill on the recent interview of Lt. Michael Byrd who was the hitherto unnamed Capitol Hill officer who shot Ashli Babbitt on January 6th. The interview was notable in an a…

jonathanturley.org

That they "didn't" is not relevant. Perhaps, if they "did," fewer officers would have been injured or dead.

 

[Batcat]

That they "didn't" is not relevant. Perhaps, if they "did," fewer officers would have been injured or dead.

How do you feel about cops under attack shooting BLM and Antifa protestors who are busy throwing rocks, frozen water bottles and Molotov cocktails. If that was allowed there would definitely be far fewer officers injured or dead.

A citizen can use lethal force for self defense if he has a reasonable fear that an attacker could seriously injure or kill him. If some fool was throwing Molotov cocktails at me I would definitely fear for my life or health and I believe I would be legally within my rights to shoot him.



Note: I am not in favor of shooting protestors)

 

[Bobob]

How do you feel about cops under attack shooting BLM and Antifa protestors who are busy throwing rocks, frozen water bottles and Molotov cocktails. If that was allowed there would definitely be far fewer officers injured or dead.

A citizen can use lethal force for self defense if he has a reasonable fear that an attacker could seriously injure or kill him. If some fool was throwing Molotov cocktails at me I would definitely fear for my life or health and I believe I would be legally within my rights to shoot him.



Note: I am not in favor of shooting protestors)

Agreed. I favor police shooting protesters if they become violent. I do not favor a person, who is not police, walking into a violent protest with a weapon. That is simply asking for trouble. Stay the hell away from violent protests.

 

[Chillicothe]

That's all you ever do....

Ummm ?????
Can you show us whatof you assert?

 

[Batcat]

Agreed. I favor police shooting protesters if they become violent. I do not favor a person, who is not police, walking into a violent protest with a weapon. That is simply asking for trouble. Stay the hell away from violent protests.

Well at least you are not a hypocrite.

I also agree with you comment about staying away from riots. All too often a mob creates a mind of its own, riots and goes too wild. Smart people avoid mobs. If you are in a peaceful demonstration and it looks like it is headed for a riot — get the hell out.

 

[Rigby5]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whew!!
This is such well-plowed ground that there is little new to say or even comment on.

Clearly, Babbitt's shooting is viewed by MAGAHats as unjustified, because: the officers didn't even know if she was armed; and, in fact, she was unarmed; and the officer didn't 'reasonably' believe he or the personnel he was charged to protect were in immediate danger.

Non-MAGAHats believe it was justified, because: Babbitt was among a group of insurrectionists who illegally and violently breached the Capitol building and she was pushing through a barricaded door while lawmakers were being evacuated.

From what little I have read, I come down on the side of" It was a "good shoot".

My own rationale lies here: This was an invasion of the Capitol by a throng of people openly attempting to prevent the Electoral College from engaging in its lawful functions so that their preferred candidate would be declared the winner of a presidential election. That fits neatly within almost any dictionary’s definition of “insurrection.” Babbitt was there illegally. She had been warned to stop, to back away and she refused that order. Instead, she advanced towards those officers commanding her to stop knowing a gun was brandished in her direction.

And importantly, as Byrd, the shooter, stated ----he was generally aware of the violent and chaotic situation in other portions of the Capitol. In his interview with NBC News, he described “hearing about the breaches of different barricaded areas, officers being overrun, officers being down,” as well as “reports of shots fired through the House main door onto the floor of the Chamber”.
(the reports of shots being fired later turned out to be false, but nevertheless it was information a reasonable officer would have considered at the time).

We know that there were eight separate breaches in the Capitol, and that some of those breaches involved insurrectionists armed with firearms, bats, and chemical sprays, and using flagpoles, fire extinguishers, and skateboards as weapons of opportunity. We know that officers were violently assaulted with weapons including with some of those weapons (e.g., chemical spray, a fire extinguisher and a TASER). We know that officers, by their own descriptions, were “grabbed, beaten,” “crushed ... between doors and bashed ... in the head.”

No report has surfaced that indicates Byrd knew specifically that officers were being beaten and TASERED, but he was aware of a chaotic danerous melee with 'officers down' occurring in locales on the other side of that barricaded doorway. And too, the mob that gathered in front of the Speaker’s Lobby, were clearly using a pole, a helmet, and their own hands and feet in an attempt to break through the barricaded door. Byrd witnessed that. In addition, to reports coming in on his earpiece. It was reasonable for an officer to believe there was an imminent danger to him and to the people he was charged to protect.

Then let me comment on the article that poster Batcat offers us as a rationale as to why it was a 'bad shoot'.

The authors take issue that the Speaker's Lobby was even important enough to protect with force....in their words, not important like a nuclear facility or military installation.

I demur.

The "protection" Officer Byrd was charged to provide wasn't merely to real-estate. He was there to protect the people's elected representatives, the legislators and their staffs. And he believed those people were right behind him....and vulnerable to a wild mob tearing them apart.

It's a canard to assert that it was only "a Lobby" he took an oath to protect.

Wrong.

The rioters THOUGHT the election was being defrauded, so even though I do not agree with them, their actions were not even criminal, much less insurrection.
They thought they were the good guy vigilantes.

The shooter did not warn Ashi at all.
The warnings you hear come from other rioters, and you can see the shooter, Michael Bryd, never opened his mouth.

The reality is the 2 cops who previously were blocking door, stepped aside and let Ashli through, and the only reason he would have done that is if all the congress people had left.

And if you look at the trajectory of the bullet that hit Ashli, you can see that if it has missed by a fraction of an inch, then it likely would have hit one of these 2 cops. Police were the backdrop that Bryd was shooting at.
That is dangerously illegal and completely wrong.

If Bryd wanted to protect congress people so badly, then he should have gone over to the House entrance and protected that in a coordinated effort.
Instead he was isolated off in an empty room off to the side of the Speaker's Lobby.
That was REALLY stupid.

 

[Rigby5]

Agreed. I favor police shooting protesters if they become violent. I do not favor a person, who is not police, walking into a violent protest with a weapon. That is simply asking for trouble. Stay the hell away from violent protests.

The problem is the government often does illegal things.
We try to ignore them if possible, because there is no safe choice and you hope things get fixed soon.
But we really should not avoid violent protests when government is excessively criminal.
For example, the war in Vietnam was totally unacceptable.
With free fire zones, strategic hamlets, bombing the north, etc., it was a war crime and against US law as well.
That is also true with Desert Storm and the invasion of Iraq.
As well as asset forfeiture, the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, etc.
All totally illegal.