There is no controversy over Babbett

[Concerned American]

Bottom line, an unarmed woman being moved along by the crowd should not have been shot. I can only coclude it was murder for intimidation. Cold blooded and planned.

A woman, who's "armed" status was unknown to the police, was part of a mob who had bashed open a window and were forcing their way into a chamber where people were being protected.

You seem to miss that part.

Just like you miss the point that st. george floyd was a violent thug with a lethal dose of drugs in his system.

 

[Concerned American]

Bottom line, an unarmed woman being moved along by the crowd should not have been shot. I can only coclude it was murder for intimidation. Cold blooded and planned.

A woman, who's "armed" status was unknown to the police, was part of a mob who had bashed open a window and were forcing their way into a chamber where people were being protected.

You seem to miss that part.

No warnings, she was unarmed, and the police IN THE ROOM saw no threat. You seem to keep missing that important part. Kind of like how you fail to do your job.

The police in the room with the crazy ***** punked out due to the large number of hostiles. The officer that euthanized her wasnt havent any of it.

Go try that in court. Sorry, you’re not ever going to find proof of your idiotic claims. Funny how those officers saw no threat.

No one is going to court facing criminal charges over shooting the *****. He was already cleared.

Not by any REAL investigation. The coward can still be charged. This isn’t over.

it's really doubtful that her husband will even win in civil court. but if he does - & only because of a trump humping judge presiding, not a penny will be from that cop's pocket.

If justice is served that cop will not finish his natural life.

 

[lantern2814]

Lantern and all the other retards are actually entitled to their opinion no matter how bass ackwards it is. I wonder whats going to happen when reality and their fantasy violently collide?

can't wait.

View attachment 503719

Now actively hoping for violence. Like a typical drunk.

lol... go back & read that carefully, moron.OM

Poor drunk. Called out on hoping for violence. Hope you get caught in the middle of it you POS.

wow - you aren't even trying. good luck with that line of bullshit.

Awfully defensive there drunky. Stating you can’t wait for a VIOLENT collision. Damn you’re stupid. More likely hitting the bottle early.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Bottom line, an unarmed woman being moved along by the crowd should not have been shot. I can only coclude it was murder for intimidation. Cold blooded and planned.

A woman, who's "armed" status was unknown to the police, was part of a mob who had bashed open a window and were forcing their way into a chamber where people were being protected.

You seem to miss that part.

You seem to miss there was just no reason to shoot her, period. You are condoning murder.

When should they shoot someone? When they are already overrun and the situation is out of control, and the mob has their hands on the remaining congressman? Just curious.

Apparently It's a good question, in this case however Ashli Babbitt was unarmed and the cop the cop shot her with no warning.
IMO he did not need to shoot her, and should at least have warned her. Negligent homicide IMO.

 

[Asclepias]

Bottom line, an unarmed woman being moved along by the crowd should not have been shot. I can only coclude it was murder for intimidation. Cold blooded and planned.

A woman, who's "armed" status was unknown to the police, was part of a mob who had bashed open a window and were forcing their way into a chamber where people were being protected.

You seem to miss that part.

No warnings, she was unarmed, and the police IN THE ROOM saw no threat. You seem to keep missing that important part. Kind of like how you fail to do your job.

The police in the room with the crazy ***** punked out due to the large number of hostiles. The officer that euthanized her wasnt havent any of it.

Go try that in court. Sorry, you’re not ever going to find proof of your idiotic claims. Funny how those officers saw no threat.

No one is going to court facing criminal charges over shooting the *****. He was already cleared.

Not by any REAL investigation. The coward can still be charged. This isn’t over.

it's really doubtful that her husband will even win in civil court. but if he does - & only because of a trump humping judge presiding, not a penny will be from that cop's pocket.

If justice is served that cop will not finish his natural life.

That crazy ***** already got her justice served.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The shooter never warned the deceased
In fact, he crept up and executed her without her ever seeing or hearing his candy ass.

I don't know that he "crept up", but it certainly appears the cop was off to the side and quickly shot her without warning the moment she started to get past the locked doors.

IMO, the cop should be charged with negligent homicide (a crime, despite what certain posters here apparently believe) at the very least.

Good thing no one with any intelligence values your opinion.

Bald face liar, say's what?

 

[Asclepias]

The shooter never warned the deceased
In fact, he crept up and executed her without her ever seeing or hearing his candy ass.

I don't know that he "crept up", but it certainly appears the cop was off to the side and quickly shot her without warning the moment she started to get past the locked doors.

IMO, the cop should be charged with negligent homicide (a crime, despite what certain posters here apparently believe) at the very least.

Good thing no one with any intelligence values your opinion.

Bald face liar, say's what?

I said your opinion isnt worth a shit.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Your definition literally says you are wrong. Homocide IS a crime, sometimes, and sometimes it isnt.

That's what he said, retard.

"Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense."

However, he did say "Homicide is not a crime".
Obviously some of the time it IS indeed a crime.

I tried to explain this to him multiple times. He never understands. Dont even bother pointing out the obvious to him, it just goes over his head every single time.

He'll just claim he never said what he clearly did.

You two are adorable. We all know what a homicide is. You’re just splitting hairs again. This one is even worse than your argument that she didn’t get a warning before she was shot.

All's you have to do is go back and read post #6, then to my first response (post #171) then follow our back and forth from there.
You will see that Aclepias specifically stated that the cop warned her before he fired. When I challenged his claim, he not only refused to post his proof, but he then went further and bobbed and weaved (lied) about what he had stated in his posts.

You won't bother to check however, because you have no balls to call him out when he is wrong and he has lied.

It’s a stupid argument. She was warned.

Whether it was a verbal warning or not isn’t important to me.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Your definition literally says you are wrong. Homocide IS a crime, sometimes, and sometimes it isnt.

That's what he said, retard.

"Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense."

However, he did say "Homicide is not a crime".
Obviously some of the time it IS indeed a crime.

I tried to explain this to him multiple times. He never understands. Dont even bother pointing out the obvious to him, it just goes over his head every single time.

He'll just claim he never said what he clearly did.

You two are adorable. We all know what a homicide is. You’re just splitting hairs again. This one is even worse than your argument that she didn’t get a warning before she was shot.

All's you have to do is go back and read post #6, then to my first response (post #171) then follow our back and forth from there.
You will see that Aclepias specifically stated that the cop warned her before he fired. When I challenged his claim, he not only refused to post his proof, but he then went further and bobbed and weaved (lied) about what he had stated in his posts.

You won't bother to check however, because you have no balls to call him out when he is wrong and he has lied.

It’s a stupid argument. She was warned.

Whether it was a verbal warning or not isn’t important to me.

It's not a stupid argument because it could mean the difference in whether the cop could be charged with negligence or even a more severe charge.

So far the powers that be are protecting their own, but it's obviously possible the cop could eventually be charged with a crime.

The poster claims the cop himself warned her before shooting her. Even when called out, he's failed to prove his claim, and now of course he's tried to lie his way out of his claims.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Your definition literally says you are wrong. Homocide IS a crime, sometimes, and sometimes it isnt.

That's what he said, retard.

"Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense."

However, he did say "Homicide is not a crime".
Obviously some of the time it IS indeed a crime.

I tried to explain this to him multiple times. He never understands. Dont even bother pointing out the obvious to him, it just goes over his head every single time.

He'll just claim he never said what he clearly did.

You two are adorable. We all know what a homicide is. You’re just splitting hairs again. This one is even worse than your argument that she didn’t get a warning before she was shot.

All's you have to do is go back and read post #6, then to my first response (post #171) then follow our back and forth from there.
You will see that Aclepias specifically stated that the cop warned her before he fired. When I challenged his claim, he not only refused to post his proof, but he then went further and bobbed and weaved (lied) about what he had stated in his posts.

You won't bother to check however, because you have no balls to call him out when he is wrong and he has lied.

It’s a stupid argument. She was warned.

Whether it was a verbal warning or not isn’t important to me.

It's not a stupid argument because it could mean the difference in whether the cop could be charged with negligence or even a more severe charge.

So far the powers that be are protecting their own, but it's obviously possible the cop could eventually be charged with a crime.

The poster claims the cop himself warned her before shooting her. Even when called out, he's failed to prove his claim, and now of course he's tried to lie his way out of his claims.

He’s not going to be charged and you’re splitting hairs over something that’s not important.

 

[Lastamender]

Your definition literally says you are wrong. Homocide IS a crime, sometimes, and sometimes it isnt.

That's what he said, retard.

"Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense."

However, he did say "Homicide is not a crime".
Obviously some of the time it IS indeed a crime.

I tried to explain this to him multiple times. He never understands. Dont even bother pointing out the obvious to him, it just goes over his head every single time.

He'll just claim he never said what he clearly did.

You two are adorable. We all know what a homicide is. You’re just splitting hairs again. This one is even worse than your argument that she didn’t get a warning before she was shot.

All's you have to do is go back and read post #6, then to my first response (post #171) then follow our back and forth from there.
You will see that Aclepias specifically stated that the cop warned her before he fired. When I challenged his claim, he not only refused to post his proof, but he then went further and bobbed and weaved (lied) about what he had stated in his posts.

You won't bother to check however, because you have no balls to call him out when he is wrong and he has lied.

It’s a stupid argument. She was warned.

Whether it was a verbal warning or not isn’t important to me.

It's not a stupid argument because it could mean the difference in whether the cop could be charged with negligence or even a more severe charge.

So far the powers that be are protecting their own, but it's obviously possible the cop could eventually be charged with a crime.

The poster claims the cop himself warned her before shooting her. Even when called out, he's failed to prove his claim, and now of course he's tried to lie his way out of his claims.

He’s not going to be charged and you’re splitting hairs over something that’s not important.

The fact you say Babbitt's death is unimportant lacks the empathy you nitwits are famous for. I mean the virtue signaling that you do. I am speaking of a group, not just you.

 

[toobfreak]

And crazy negroes on drugs and committing crimes get shot all the time. You ever going to stop whining about that?

Put more simply, you are OK with murdering a person who poses no visible threat, carrying no visible weapon, aiming to kill them not simply maim and stop them or scare them away for simple misdemeanor trespassing? Why didn't they simply fire at the ceiling? Or at a kneecap? Ever occur to you that a few gunshots into the ceiling might have been enough to stop or scare away most or all of these people without taking anyone's life?

You are in your home, an unknown number of hostile people have invaded, you have your family barricaded behind you, and you are armed and facing the door where the mob has broken it down and the first person enters. You have seconds to make a decision. What do you do?

I GET YOUR POINT, Mrs. C, but there is one problem:

• Ashli and the Capitol cop were not in their home,
• It was not an unknown invasion force,
• They were not there for unknown reasons,
• And there was no family involved.

I'm not trying to be obtuse but this was the Capitol, these were American citizens, they were only fighting so hard to get in because the government had tried so hard to keep them out, AFTER lying to them and refusing to address any of their questions or concerns for months.

I can only tell you that I would not have done things that way on EITHER side had I been there.

The Capitol protest was wrong coming from every side no matter how you look at it, yet it was PERFECTLY PREDICTABLE and expected considering the events that leads up to it, which the democrats, politicians and media hold most of the blame for.

Yet as usual, rather than LEARN from the experience to avoid it happening again, the Biddum Admin and democrats seem hell bent in trying to make the election flaws which lead to the event a PERMANENT FIXTURE in all future elections!

I guarandumtee you that if that happens, 1/6 will not be the last and will be a cake walk compared to what happens if another election is run again the way 2020 was.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Your definition literally says you are wrong. Homocide IS a crime, sometimes, and sometimes it isnt.

That's what he said, retard.

"Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense."

However, he did say "Homicide is not a crime".
Obviously some of the time it IS indeed a crime.

I tried to explain this to him multiple times. He never understands. Dont even bother pointing out the obvious to him, it just goes over his head every single time.

He'll just claim he never said what he clearly did.

You two are adorable. We all know what a homicide is. You’re just splitting hairs again. This one is even worse than your argument that she didn’t get a warning before she was shot.

All's you have to do is go back and read post #6, then to my first response (post #171) then follow our back and forth from there.
You will see that Aclepias specifically stated that the cop warned her before he fired. When I challenged his claim, he not only refused to post his proof, but he then went further and bobbed and weaved (lied) about what he had stated in his posts.

You won't bother to check however, because you have no balls to call him out when he is wrong and he has lied.

It’s a stupid argument. She was warned.

Whether it was a verbal warning or not isn’t important to me.

It's not a stupid argument because it could mean the difference in whether the cop could be charged with negligence or even a more severe charge.

So far the powers that be are protecting their own, but it's obviously possible the cop could eventually be charged with a crime.

The poster claims the cop himself warned her before shooting her. Even when called out, he's failed to prove his claim, and now of course he's tried to lie his way out of his claims.

He’s not going to be charged and you’re splitting hairs over something that’s not important.

The fact you say Babbitt's death is unimportant lacks the empathy you nitwits are famous for. I mean the virtue signaling that you do. I am speaking of a group, not just you.

I didn’t say her death is unimportant. I said the way she was warned is unimportant.

 

[Lastamender]

Your definition literally says you are wrong. Homocide IS a crime, sometimes, and sometimes it isnt.

That's what he said, retard.

"Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense."

However, he did say "Homicide is not a crime".
Obviously some of the time it IS indeed a crime.

I tried to explain this to him multiple times. He never understands. Dont even bother pointing out the obvious to him, it just goes over his head every single time.

He'll just claim he never said what he clearly did.

You two are adorable. We all know what a homicide is. You’re just splitting hairs again. This one is even worse than your argument that she didn’t get a warning before she was shot.

All's you have to do is go back and read post #6, then to my first response (post #171) then follow our back and forth from there.
You will see that Aclepias specifically stated that the cop warned her before he fired. When I challenged his claim, he not only refused to post his proof, but he then went further and bobbed and weaved (lied) about what he had stated in his posts.

You won't bother to check however, because you have no balls to call him out when he is wrong and he has lied.

It’s a stupid argument. She was warned.

Whether it was a verbal warning or not isn’t important to me.

It's not a stupid argument because it could mean the difference in whether the cop could be charged with negligence or even a more severe charge.

So far the powers that be are protecting their own, but it's obviously possible the cop could eventually be charged with a crime.

The poster claims the cop himself warned her before shooting her. Even when called out, he's failed to prove his claim, and now of course he's tried to lie his way out of his claims.

He’s not going to be charged and you’re splitting hairs over something that’s not important.

The fact you say Babbitt's death is unimportant lacks the empathy you nitwits are famous for. I mean the virtue signaling that you do. I am speaking of a group, not just you.

I didn’t say her death is unimportant. I said the way she was warned is unimportant.

Pardon me.

 

[Likkmee]

Not to people with guns.

Why?

He never heard of the German army being decimated by hoards of Russian peasants armed with knives and pitchforks.

People with guns should never fear them?

It is unbelievable to me that they are defending this mob as harmless simply because they did not carry guns in with them.


Most Lynch mobs don’t need guns.

How do you know?

History. Mob violence preceded firearms.

History. Mob violence preceded firearms.

So did hate and lies, and that is all you got.

what lies?

The insurrection that wasn't for starters. Babbitt did nothing that warranted her murder. Condoning murder is what scumbuckets do.

So what was it? A group of tourists?

You agree then, that if a mob breaks down your door, and you have your family barricaded behind you, you have no right to shoot them?

it was a protest. Way back in the 60s----even I attended protests. No one got shot

At what is a protest no longer a protest? When they start assaulting police? When they smash windows and doors to get? When they roam the halls looking for Pence? When the drag an officer down the stairs and beat him nearly to death with a pole? When they steal stuff and loot?

Keep in mind, if that is “just a protest”...then your outrage over the Floyd protests and riots becomes a joke.

. . . actually?

I agree with you.

But? I believe we are all one. We are one nation, under god, indivisible, and only united can we stand.

Nefarious forces would seek to create narratives. . . for profit, and for power, that are not entirely true.


It is the elite, and their toadies that are dividing us.

When does a protest become a riot? And when is a riot an insurrection? When is an insurrection a revolt? When is a revolt a revolution?

. . . and who are "they?" Just as treating the crowds and the individual actors in these crowds, in this instance is. . IMO, disingenuous, it was the same for the Floyd protests. Most of those who supported the Floyd protests made those distinctions and could see those differences. . yet no one seems to want to do so in this instance here. . .

Isn't it just possible, that all those folks roaming the Capitol, since it was not a coordinated "conspiracy," all had different motives? They all had different reasons for being there, and different desired outcomes?


. . . and isn't possible, just possible, that the establishment media, and the political elites have an agenda, to create a narrative out of the whole thing, regardless of the motives of the individual participants?

Indivisible ? You're a seriously confused (NT-TBD- Maybe)

 

[WEATHER53]

Bottom line, an unarmed woman being moved along by the crowd should not have been shot. I can only coclude it was murder for intimidation. Cold blooded and planned.

The message is “protesting against us is not allowed”

 

[WEATHER53]

Bottom line, an unarmed woman being moved along by the crowd should not have been shot. I can only coclude it was murder for intimidation. Cold blooded and planned.

She got what she deserved. Her Darwin Award trophy is in the mail.

She deserved murder? No one deserves that.

She shouldn’t have tried to breach the barricaded part of the building with an angry mob behind her.

Her death is unfortunate. But play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

She was not warned. No one said they would shoot. MURDER.

She was getting through a barricade directly in front of an armed officer pointing a gun at them. The people were yelling that there was a gun. If she didn’t know she was putting her life in danger, then she’s not very smart.

That is not how events transpired

 

[Godboy]

Your definition literally says you are wrong. Homocide IS a crime, sometimes, and sometimes it isnt.

That's what he said, retard.

"Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense."

However, he did say "Homicide is not a crime".
Obviously some of the time it IS indeed a crime.

I tried to explain this to him multiple times. He never understands. Dont even bother pointing out the obvious to him, it just goes over his head every single time.

He'll just claim he never said what he clearly did.

You two are adorable. We all know what a homicide is. You’re just splitting hairs again. This one is even worse than your argument that she didn’t get a warning before she was shot.

All's you have to do is go back and read post #6, then to my first response (post #171) then follow our back and forth from there.
You will see that Aclepias specifically stated that the cop warned her before he fired. When I challenged his claim, he not only refused to post his proof, but he then went further and bobbed and weaved (lied) about what he had stated in his posts.

You won't bother to check however, because you have no balls to call him out when he is wrong and he has lied.

It’s a stupid argument. She was warned.

Whether it was a verbal warning or not isn’t important to me.

If only you people took black crime this seriously.

 

[WEATHER53]

Bottom line, an unarmed woman being moved along by the crowd should not have been shot. I can only coclude it was murder for intimidation. Cold blooded and planned.

She got what she deserved. Her Darwin Award trophy is in the mail.

She deserved murder? No one deserves that.

She shouldn’t have tried to breach the barricaded part of the building with an angry mob behind her.

Her death is unfortunate. But play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

She was not warned. No one said they would shoot. MURDER.

She was getting through a barricade directly in front of an armed officer pointing a gun at them. The people were yelling that there was a gun. If she didn’t know she was putting her life in danger, then she’s not very smart.

She was probably thinking that it could not happen in America. It did. It was murder.

The investigators disagree. They think it was a justified shooting. I agree with them.

This was their own investigation of themselves so a naturally impartial non vested entity will most likely arrive at an impartial decision that is different
Right now they are hiding and desperately trying to prevent that.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Your definition literally says you are wrong. Homocide IS a crime, sometimes, and sometimes it isnt.

That's what he said, retard.

"Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense."

However, he did say "Homicide is not a crime".
Obviously some of the time it IS indeed a crime.

I tried to explain this to him multiple times. He never understands. Dont even bother pointing out the obvious to him, it just goes over his head every single time.

He'll just claim he never said what he clearly did.

You two are adorable. We all know what a homicide is. You’re just splitting hairs again. This one is even worse than your argument that she didn’t get a warning before she was shot.

All's you have to do is go back and read post #6, then to my first response (post #171) then follow our back and forth from there.
You will see that Aclepias specifically stated that the cop warned her before he fired. When I challenged his claim, he not only refused to post his proof, but he then went further and bobbed and weaved (lied) about what he had stated in his posts.

You won't bother to check however, because you have no balls to call him out when he is wrong and he has lied.

It’s a stupid argument. She was warned.

Whether it was a verbal warning or not isn’t important to me.

It's not a stupid argument because it could mean the difference in whether the cop could be charged with negligence or even a more severe charge.

So far the powers that be are protecting their own, but it's obviously possible the cop could eventually be charged with a crime.

The poster claims the cop himself warned her before shooting her. Even when called out, he's failed to prove his claim, and now of course he's tried to lie his way out of his claims.

He’s not going to be charged and you’re splitting hairs over something that’s not important.

On a legal basis, I think it is important.

Regardless, you are proving you are not man enough to admit Aclepias was wrong to say the cop warned her. Where I come from, we either admit we made a mistake, or we show proof of our claims, or we simply say it's our opinion.
The poster has failed in each case, and you have failed to call him out.