The insurrection committee is killing Trump and his Cult

[woodwork201]

From a previous post:

Sunday at 8:29 PM


"If you are certain of that, please post the text of the statute. I'd like to read it." sear

-------------------------
In your above quoted assertion, you defined the parameter that constitutes "committing trespass".

That's what I was asking you.

So if not by standard of statute, then by what other here-to-fore unspecified standard do you assert so definitively:
woodwork201 said: "Only when they passed locked barriers or barricades did they commit trespass."

Federal law on the topic:

36 CFR § 2.31 Trespassing, tampering and vandalism.

(a) The following are prohibited:


(1) Trespassing. Trespassing, entering or remaining in or upon property or real property not open to the public, except with the express invitation or consent of the person having lawful control of the property or real property.

DC law on the topic:

An individual (without legal authority) who enters or attempts to enter any public building or other property against the will of the lawful occupant or of the person lawfully in charge of the property or remains on the property against the will of the owner or lawful occupant, can be charged with this misdemeanor.

Entering an open-to-the-public space in a building is not trespassing. Entering the restricted space or any space against the orders of the legal authority over the building is.

 

[woodwork201]

Here's my issue with what happened at the Capital in regards to Ashli Babbitt, Woodwork. I've watched the videos of the prelude to the shot being taken and I'm troubled by what I saw from the Capital Police. It appears to me that they were inviting someone to break that door down and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The Police standing in front of the door all leave without a struggle. There is an entire stairwell to the right of the door filled with Police in tactical gear and they don't intervene at all. Yet the hallway beyond the door is essentially emptied of everyone...giving the impression that the doorway was the last barrier before the protesters would reach the chamber. Why is that? Why does the officer hide out of sight until the window is broken and only then come out pointing his gun and firing without warning? Who was running that shit show? Who was giving the orders that day?

Your example of someone being shot breaking into your home would become a different story if you were trying to lure some of the neighborhood thieves into breaking in by giving the impression that nobody was home while you hid in waiting...waiting to shoot them as they did break in. That's the impression I got from the videos that I saw. It looked to me like the Capital Police gave the impression that they were abandoning their posts and the way was clear for the protesters to enter the legislative chamber but then they emerged from hiding to shoot to kill. Like I said...it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Here's a video showing the shooting.

New videos capture fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol siege

Babbitt, 35, was among several supporters of the president who overpowered police and breached the US Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election in favor o…

nypost.com

The police didn't leave but they were greatly outnumbered. Had they pulled and used their guns in that very close quarters environment, their guns would likely have been taken from them and used against them and the police in the corridor behind the barricade. That the police outside the barricade didn't shoot the rioters doesn't mean that the police behind the barricade, where there were elected officials standing, didn't have the authority or need to shoot the rioters.

Babbit was entering the barricaded region where there were several members of Congress under the protection of the Capitol Police. They had no other choice except to shoot to stop the threat.

 

[Oldestyle]

Here's a video showing the shooting.

New videos capture fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol siege

Babbitt, 35, was among several supporters of the president who overpowered police and breached the US Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election in favor o…

nypost.com

The police didn't leave but they were greatly outnumbered. Had they pulled and used their guns in that very close quarters environment, their guns would likely have been taken from them and used against them and the police in the corridor behind the barricade. That the police outside the barricade didn't shoot the rioters doesn't mean that the police behind the barricade, where there were elected officials standing, didn't have the authority or need to shoot the rioters.

Babbit was entering the barricaded region where there were several members of Congress under the protection of the Capitol Police. They had no other choice except to shoot to stop the threat.

With all due respect WHY did they have no other choice? Why didn't they have something non lethal to dissuade protesters from advancing? Why no pepper spray? Why no flash bang grenades? Why no batons? You have degrees of aggression by protestors that should be met by degrees of response by the Police. When you go from simply telling people no...to shooting them without warning then my question will always be WHY? What happened to the degrees of response? What happened to the warning that shots would be fired to kill? There was a discussion taking place on the side of the doors BEFORE the three Police Officers left...was it made clear to the protesters that if they did breach that doorway that they would be fired upon? If not...why not? You used the analogy of someone breaking into your house earlier. Having actually been in that situation before I can tell you what you SHOULD be doing and that's telling them that you do have a weapon and you will be shooting to kill if they enter the house! That's what you do if you don't want to take someone's life. If you DO want to take someone's life then you wait in hiding and pull the trigger without warning. That's a choice. There was a choice made in the Capital shooting and I'm not satisfied we know who made that choice and why!

 

[woodwork201]

With all due respect WHY did they have no other choice? Why didn't they have something non lethal to dissuade protesters from advancing? Why no pepper spray? Why no flash bang grenades? Why no batons? You have degrees of aggression by protestors that should be met by degrees of response by the Police. When you go from simply telling people no...to shooting them without warning then my question will always be WHY? What happened to the degrees of response? What happened to the warning that shots would be fired to kill? There was a discussion taking place on the side of the doors BEFORE the three Police Officers left...was it made clear to the protesters that if they did breach that doorway that they would be fired upon? If not...why not? You used the analogy of someone breaking into your house earlier. Having actually been in that situation before I can tell you what you SHOULD be doing and that's telling them that you do have a weapon and you will be shooting to kill if they enter the house! That's what you do if you don't want to take someone's life. If you DO want to take someone's life then you wait in hiding and pull the trigger without warning. That's a choice. There was a choice made in the Capital shooting and I'm not satisfied we know who made that choice and why!

You absolutely do not have degrees of aggression met by degrees of response. If you get in a fight with someone who is capable of killing you, which is how the Capitol Police had to view the rioters as a whole and not just Ashli Babbitt, would you meet push with push, slap with slap, punch with punch, and gunshot with... oh, wait; you don't get to respond in kind to gunshot; you're dead.

When your job is to protect someone, you don't respond in kind, tit-for-tat. You stop the threat. Period. Before Babbitt climbed through the window, it was protest, although clearly illegal and violent protest. There was room for some tolerance and limited response. Crossing the barrier into the space where the Congressmen they were there to protect were being protected ended any option for limited response.

Let's be clear; the Capitol Police were not waiting in hiding. They were in plain site and moved to cover as the breach became eminent. The cop that did the shooting had his gun drawn and pointed at the rioters, clearly demonstrating his intent to shoot. Babbitt ignored that very visible threat. What would you expect when a cop has a gun pointed at you and you keep coming?

Having guns drawn and pointed at them was a clear message to the rioters that if they came through the barricade they would be shot. The problem is, the rioters thought they were messing with the DC police or the Minneapolis police. They thought it was a bluff. When you call someone's bluff, you accept the risk that you might be wrong; you might lose.

Imagine had the rioters in May/June of 2020 entered the White House. Would you have expected the Secret Service to shoot or to allow them free run? What if they had gotten within view of the First Family or even the President before he was rushed to the bunker? Should the Secret Service shoot or should they threaten?

I believe it is intellectually dishonest for anyone to claim that Babbitt should not have been shot. I know conservatives wish it was different but, in my opinion, even while they cry out about her shooting I believe they have a part of them telling themselves that it was a legitimate shooting.

 

[Oldestyle]

You absolutely do not have degrees of aggression met by degrees of response. If you get in a fight with someone who is capable of killing you, which is how the Capitol Police had to view the rioters as a whole and not just Ashli Babbitt, would you meet push with push, slap with slap, punch with punch, and gunshot with... oh, wait; you don't get to respond in kind to gunshot; you're dead.

When your job is to protect someone, you don't respond in kind, tit-for-tat. You stop the threat. Period. Before Babbitt climbed through the window, it was protest, although clearly illegal and violent protest. There was room for some tolerance and limited response. Crossing the barrier into the space where the Congressmen they were there to protect were being protected ended any option for limited response.

Let's be clear; the Capitol Police were not waiting in hiding. They were in plain site and moved to cover as the breach became eminent. The cop that did the shooting had his gun drawn and pointed at the rioters, clearly demonstrating his intent to shoot. Babbitt ignored that very visible threat. What would you expect when a cop has a gun pointed at you and you keep coming?

Having guns drawn and pointed at them was a clear message to the rioters that if they came through the barricade they would be shot. The problem is, the rioters thought they were messing with the DC police or the Minneapolis police. They thought it was a bluff. When you call someone's bluff, you accept the risk that you might be wrong; you might lose.

Imagine had the rioters in May/June of 2020 entered the White House. Would you have expected the Secret Service to shoot or to allow them free run? What if they had gotten within view of the First Family or even the President before he was rushed to the bunker? Should the Secret Service shoot or should they threaten?

I believe it is intellectually dishonest for anyone to claim that Babbitt should not have been shot. I know conservatives wish it was different but, in my opinion, even while they cry out about her shooting I believe they have a part of them telling themselves that it was a legitimate shooting.

The Officer who shot Babbitt is out of sight to the left of the doorway. There are ZERO Officers with guns drawn in that hallway beyond the doors when the three Officers in front of the doors walk away! Ashli Babbitt is trying to break the right door's window and very well never saw that Officer coming from the left with his gun drawn. Her only warning was the protesters shouting "Gun!" If there had been Officers on the other side of those doors in plain sight with guns drawn and it was made clear that breaking through the doors will result in shots being fired then I wouldn't have the same feeling of unrest over what I saw!

As for your analogy with the White House protest? Your scenario begs more questions than it answers! President Trump WAS rushed to the bunker and it was done BEFORE there was an escalation of violence by the protesters! So why weren't the members of Congress evacuated in the same way? Who made the call for them to stay in a place where violent protesters had made it quite clear they intended to gain entrance to? Was it the same idiot who didn't take the threat seriously in the first place? Who didn't allow Capital Police to have pepper spray or flash bang grenades? Who didn't use the National Guard to bolster protection? The excuse being given for using deadly force is that it HAD to be done to protect members of Congress! So explain why those members were still IN the Capital building at that point!

I was struck by one comment you made...that the protesters thought they were dealing with the Police in Minneapolis and DC! My question is this...did the Capital protesters think that THEY would be treated the same way that protesters in liberal riots had been treated for several years? Protesters in those riots weren't shot without warning. Why was Ashli Babbitt? When those three Officers stepped aside, leaving the doors unguarded with an empty hallway beyond were the conservative protesters lulled into believing that THEY would be allowed to do the same things as their liberal counterparts with the same level of response?

 

[Oldestyle]

And I totally disagree with your claim that you don't have degrees of response as a Police Officer! That's nonsense. I can't pull my gun and shoot you if you start arguing with me over a traffic stop because you might shoot me! You're not even in the right to Taser me or use pepper spray at that point. You don't have the right to up the degree of response until I've done something that would deem that appropriate and you sure as hell don't do that without announcing loud and clear that you're GOING to do that!

 

[woodwork201]

The Officer who shot Babbitt is out of sight to the left of the doorway. There are ZERO Officers with guns drawn in that hallway beyond the doors when the three Officers in front of the doors walk away! Ashli Babbitt is trying to break the right door's window and very well never saw that Officer coming from the left with his gun drawn. Her only warning was the protesters shouting "Gun!" If there had been Officers on the other side of those doors in plain sight with guns drawn and it was made clear that breaking through the doors will result in shots being fired then I wouldn't have the same feeling of unrest over what I saw!

As for your analogy with the White House protest? Your scenario begs more questions than it answers! President Trump WAS rushed to the bunker and it was done BEFORE there was an escalation of violence by the protesters! So why weren't the members of Congress evacuated in the same way? Who made the call for them to stay in a place where violent protesters had made it quite clear they intended to gain entrance to? Was it the same idiot who didn't take the threat seriously in the first place? Who didn't allow Capital Police to have pepper spray or flash bang grenades? Who didn't use the National Guard to bolster protection? The excuse being given for using deadly force is that it HAD to be done to protect members of Congress! So explain why those members were still IN the Capital building at that point!

I was struck by one comment you made...that the protesters thought they were dealing with the Police in Minneapolis and DC! My question is this...did the Capital protesters think that THEY would be treated the same way that protesters in liberal riots had been treated for several years? Protesters in those riots weren't shot without warning. Why was Ashli Babbitt? When those three Officers stepped aside, leaving the doors unguarded with an empty hallway beyond were the conservative protesters lulled into believing that THEY would be allowed to do the same things as their liberal counterparts with the same level of response?

The Capitol Police didn't have reinforcements because Nancy Pelosi didn't allow it. Blame Pelosi but don't blame the cops. Pepper spray or flash bang grenades are not the tool when people break into protected areas where someone is protecting the life of another. Are you a gun controller, too? Should I give up my guns at home and get pepper spray or flash-bang grenades to use on someone climbing in my window? You do understand, don't you, that those would have the same effect on me as they would on the attacker? Then the attacker coming in the window second would kill me because I'd be dazed but they missed the grenade.

The idea that the police would use flash-bang grenades to defend against attacking rioters is ludicrous. They did everything they could to not harm the rioters but Ashli Babbett was the first to cross the line that should not have been crossed.

The cops weren't hiding. Watch the video. As early as 20 seconds you can see the cop is in plain site from the door. The video angle is further to the left and even from that angle you can see his arms and gun out. Those rioters further right, to the door and the window Ashli Babbett came in, had an even better view of him. He wasn't hiding; they knew he was there with a gun.




As for the rioters versus the cops that were on the same side of the barricade, those cops were right in the reach of rioters who were reaching right past the cops to break the doors and windows. Were those 3 or 4 cops supposed to get in a fist fight with dozens of rioters? Were they supposed to pull their guns on rioters who were yelling to take their guns and yelling to kill the cops with their own guns? There was nothing they could do except move to the side; they were overwhelmed by the violent rioters.

In another post, maybe another thread - I don't remember, I mentioned that had the cops shot the first two or three Antifa rioters they would never have had to shoot another one because there would never have been another Antifa or BLM rioter. The Ashli Babbett shooting proves my point. The Capitol Police shot the first rioter coming across the barricade toward protected Congress members. There was no second rioter that tried to come through. That ended it. That's how you end a riot.

You talk about Trump being taken to the basement. Well Congress was in session when the rioters came into the capitol. They were rushed to the central hallways and the doors were barricaded with furniture. I don't know for sure but I've never seen a bunker like the President's in the Capitol for Congress. The police did what they could. Babbitt was the first to cross the line. And the last.

 

[woodwork201]

And I totally disagree with your claim that you don't have degrees of response as a Police Officer! That's nonsense. I can't pull my gun and shoot you if you start arguing with me over a traffic stop because you might shoot me! You're not even in the right to Taser me or use pepper spray at that point. You don't have the right to up the degree of response until I've done something that would deem that appropriate and you sure as hell don't do that without announcing loud and clear that you're GOING to do that!

Arguing wasn't one of the conditions in your post or mine. It was a discussion of violence. But if you put your hands on a cop, hit him, kick him, beat him with a pipe or a bat, the right response by the cop is to put two rounds in center of mass and a third round in your head. Or, depending on the heat of the situation and the cop's ability to take aim and shoot, maybe they just take the quicker route of dumping a mag into center of mass. Either way, if you put your hands on a cop doing his duty then you not only have it coming, it's the right thing for the cop to do. No; it's not escalation of force or degrees of response. It's stop the threat.

When the threat is dozens of rioters ignoring your plainly visible gun and the furniture barricading the doors, the security glass, and every other demand of the police to stop advancing, you assume the threat is deadly and the opening response needs to be deadly. More deadly than is the threat. I think the rest of the rioters are lucky they didn't get shot because the cops should have killed all of them beating on the glass and doors.

Many of us here support President Trump and support the peaceful protest. I certainly do. I do not support the violent rioters.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

But it is O.K that the petrifiedPelosi, the hater of Trump can call for an investigation ?

Actually No.

If a hater launches it, he can have friends be a part of it.

And that amounts to a whole bunch of nothing.

 

[MadChemist]

And that amounts to a whole bunch of nothing.

Except that it describes the kangaroo court that is taking place.

Wake up.