An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow a goverment. A riot is an attempt to get attention to a cause. Learn the difference

How do you know she didn't comply? Just asking because I don't think the circumstances of her death have been revealed, at least I haven't heard anything.

No warning given to my knowledge. Opened fire in an unarmed woman. If she had been black it would have been “racism!” from a cop even if he was black himself.

That is sort of what I thought. There were two other Capitol police officers who were seen on camera moving a safe distance away before the one cop opened fire on her. To me it was murder. None of the rioters were armed. She posed no threat to any of the cops. They just shot her.

One showed an officer drawing them in and down corridors.

She had a backpack.

You saying an unarmed person can't be threatening?

She had a backpack.

You saying an unarmed person can't be threatening?

Not sure why my comment was downvoted. Just stating a fact and asking a reasonable question.

Maybe my reasonable question and factual statement hurt someone's feelings?

Was Ashli acting a manner that made that officer fear for his life? My guess is no, not in the least.

An unarmed person can be threatening but only if they exhibit threatening behavior.

The police do have a little more leeway when it comes to discharging their weapon but even so, if a person is not exhibiting aggressive or threatening behavior to to cop or another person then they must use non-lethal weapons to subdue them.

Cops are not required to shoot to kill, like you suggested. Private citizens, who are being threatened with deadly force, are strongly recommended to use lethal force and shoot to kill. The reason why is because the left has so completely screwed up our legal system that if you just injure the guy he can countersue and the state may bring charges against you. You're just better off, legally speaking, if you shoot to kill. Plus if the guy is determined to kill you, then wounding him won't stop him.

She was acting in a manner that threatened the lives of others.

That is also a reason often used for police to open fire. What does it not apply here?

Cops are absolutely required to shoot to kill. But not for any of the bullshit reasons you stated. The instruction Manuel for how police operate is to bring a suspect down with as many rounds as is needed. In other words, they keep firing until they hit the ground. That is usually a deadly outcome.

Babbitt was shot one time. Only once.

The officer aimed for the torso. He got her between the shoulder and the neck. Just above the heart. Again, if you own a gun, and not some CoD knuckleheads punk, like most of those who were at the Capitol Riot, you’d know that you typically aim for the torso because it is the easiest part of the body to hit due to it’s size to the limbs and the head. He shot her once. That was all that was needed.

Further, it succeeded in not only pacifying Babbitt, but the moronic angry crowd that never hesitated when seconds earlier a gun had been idtentified through the window thru were casually smashing, like I guess thugs do when they visit the Capitol.

Perhaps Babbitt was just trying to get away from these thugs. One wonders why she did not simply utilize the exit of the stairs behind her. The one that police later come up behind just as she falls.

Unless, of course, her intent was to cross the threshold where armed officers stood with guns pointed.

What did she think would happen?

What did the mob think would happen?

I’ll tell you. These entitled thugs thought the police would allow those imbeciles who pretend with their blue lives matter and support our troops nonsense to disrupt, harm, if not kill our representatives because they already thought our country had been taken away from them.

That democracy had already expired by the time they entered the Capitol. But the 2020 election fraud was just the false flag these raging yahoos had been guffawing over and over for years. A school shooting here, an unarmed civilian shot by cop there - no big deal. But some entitled millionaire’s son who never worked a day in his life with zero governing experience loses an election after a major mishandling of a health crisis?

Yeah, that’s the reason to get angry and demand “real” change.

Give me a break.

You saying shooting someone pointing a taser at you isn’t a threat? That’s what leftists said about one famous “police violence” case. If that’s not a threat wearing a back pack certainly is it. Or are you saying wearing a hoodie is a threat as well?

Answer my question first and then I'll respectfully answer yours.

“Find me one instance where a black man shouldn't have been shot by police officers then we'll talk about whether or not you really thought Babbit was not threatening.”

I don’t define police shootings as justified or not based on race. There have been a few where less lethal or patience would have worked. Ideally the only time someone should be shot is when they are armed and threatening and there is no other choice regardless of skin color. It is a permanent action that can’t be taken back. Certainly some consideration must be given to situational stress and human reaction. Not even robots perform Flawlessly.

And that’s where Black Lives Matter sincerely doubts that every situation where every police shooting is justified and is skeptical that it was not about race.

How you feel about Babbitt is how they feel.

And because you cannot understand that what you feel is the same thing they feel, you will continue to hate them.

And I feel truly sorry for you.

We are all the same. We are all human beings.

No one is perfect.

We can only try to be.

An unarmed person may be threatening depends on the situation, the person and point of view. The video doesn’t show her being especially threatening. Her hands are in plain sight she isn’t shouting death to Congress or anything else. No warning at all from the officer.

Find me one instance where a black man shouldn't have been shot by police officers then we'll talk about whether or not you really thought Babbit was not threatening.

Answer the question instead of just downvoting and deflecting.

Yes or no.

Is a barricade a warning?

No a barricade is not a warning it is a barrier. So Define barricade in your mind. Is a cop behind his patrol car door barricaded? If so is that a warning? The answer is no it is a improvised defensive position but it does not say you will be shot if you approach. So if you believe the officer was justified because he was behind a barricade and she was entering his line of sight, then you must also believe the same about the cop behind his patrol car door who shoots the unarmed man that advances towards him too, right.

"I would describe anyone rioting as violating the law and subject to arrest. I don’t think that rioting justifies murdering rioters, period. Now if martial law is declared then that is a different case. Using tear gas, Bataan’s, shields, rubber bullets etc. against rioters is perfectly acceptable in my book as well."

That would've been the job of the Capitol police who were outside. Instead, they let the rioters in. It is unlikely the security inside were equipped with such things. Hence the need of a makeshift barricade.

With that compromised, or on the verge of compromise, a gun was likely all that was afforded to them.

You're referring to the Michael Brown case.

He was shot while running away. Then turned around, after he was shot, and charged the cops. In police training, that means they were going to keep shooting until he either hit the ground or kneeled.

According to eyewitnesses, he put his hands up, and then simultaneously charged.

The situation is not applicable because Ashli Babbitt was "charging" before she was shot. Michael Brown was not. It is possible Brown wouldn't have charged the officer at all if he was not shot.

Independent investigators found the 'hands up' claim by the eye witness testimony was found to be was inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence.

Regardless, if Brown was charging the officers, even if unarmed, then yes. I believe the officer was right to shoot until he was on the ground or complied with the officers. But only because he charged at the officer. Not because he ran away.

Of course, you must disagree if you think the officer at the Capitol wasn't justified for shooting Babbitt just for charging a barricade then you must also believe the cop who shot Michael Brown was also not justified.

Am I correct? Or are you the hypocrite you're so persistently and failing to label me?

No I’m not specifically referring to any case so answer the question regarding barricades instead of deflecting. And Ashli Babbitt wasn’t “charging” anywhere. She can plainly be seen climbing into the broken window in a almost casual manner and being shot before she can set foot on the other side. Her move in no way was a charge, that’s an obvious exaggeration.

I did answer you. I'll put it in all caps.

"Regardless, if Brown was charging the officers, even if unarmed, then YES. I BELIEVE THE OFFICER WAS RIGHT shoot [Michael Brown] until he was on the ground or complied with the officers. But only because he charged at the officer. Not because he ran away."

So, would you describe the angry and rioting mob that was destroying public property that she was a part of as just casually breaking the glass? And casually disrupting our governmental proceedings? And just casually threatening the lives of our representatives for purely political reasons?

The question was, are barricades a warning and if so are cops behind their patrol car doors behind a barricade?

I would describe anyone rioting as violating the law and subject to arrest. I don’t think that rioting justifies murdering rioters, period. Now if martial law is declared then that is a different case. Using tear gas, Bataan’s, shields, rubber bullets etc. against rioters is perfectly acceptable in my book as well.

So a police officer who has his gun drawn and is using his patrol car door as a barricade may shoot at will on anyone who advances towards him. You can rationalize it however you want, but your inconsistency belies that you think it’s ok based on her race and political affiliation.

"What tragic event was Ashli Babbitt taking advantage of?"

Ashli Babbitt is the tragic event people want to take advantage of.

"I will never believe the integrity of the 2020 election wasn’t compromised regardless of Trump."

Trump did nothing to stop the supposed compromise because it wasn't compromised. He just said if he didn't win it was rigged. And you fell for it.

"Mass mailed ballots and irregularities"

Are not proof of massive fraud.

"...widespread use of suppression polls predicting huge losses for Republican candidates who actually won by wide margins."

Like the same that projected Hillary to win in 2016? Democrats learned their lesson.

"There was never a more crooked national election in our history."

Not according to every auction and investigation into the 2020 election. Especially by conservative and Republican candidates. Unless you're saying, "There was never a more crooked national election in our history," with "Republican candidates who actually won by wide margins." It stands to reason with your perspective that those wins are also in jeopardy of integrity as well. Unless, of course, and this makes far more sense, the large majority of people -who are moderates- voted for Republicans locally and Biden. Much as I did.

"As to your assessment and political slant. I could care less."

Yet here you are. Replying to me.

"You may be a Rino that identifies as a Democrat or a Man who identifies as a woman."

I don't identify as anything other than an American with some things I may be liberal about and some things I'm conservative. Regardless, locally speaking, I am a registered Republican.

"You do you it’s 2022."

Thank you.

"Everyone who disagrees with you is a Trumper and a racist?"

Never said that. But people who argue against the facts seem to hold a general political bias for Trump. Which makes no sense to me.

"Gee sounds very lefty to me."

Disliking Trump doesn't make me a lefty.

"People like you are more contemptible than commie progressives."

But I'm not rioting for any cause. I just vote and argue with people I may disagree with on somethings.

"Stay on your knees and take what you get."

If I were on my knees, I'd let you and people like you have the final say... now wouldn't I?

The fact you think anyone needed Trump to tell them the Dems were rigging the election is hilarious and like most fools you underestimate your opponents. Any thinking person could see the Dems were doing everything possible including inciting riots and passing laws to mail unsolicited ballots that could be exploited. You believe no one thought it before Trump said it. Ridiculous.

There is a difference in shooting someone on the street and shooting the person in front of an angry mob.

Apparently we didn’t watch the same tape. She is in a hallway of people milling around and included police officers. Someone broke out the window and she decided to climb thru. Dumb decision but not an action that merits execution.

No more of a shame than the leftist organized rioting throughout 2020

Yes, rioting in every case is not justified.

Those protesting throughout 2020 and those who protested at the Capitol, and did not enter the building while windows were being broken, or were trying to leave when it happened, are the real victims here.

Of course, I think the worst people to you were the cowards who did not pick up Ashli Babbitt after she was shot and continue what they began regardless of her death.

Or yourself... for not having the guts to be there.

Of course, if you had been there and you did continue even when Babbitt was shot.

You would've died too.

Happily, I suppose.

If you truly believe you lost your country due to the 2020 election.

You didn't.

The difference between you and Babbitt? You can learn from her mistake.

Or the mistakes of her fellow "patriots" who let her die in vain.

No the worst people to me are those who want to use tragic events for political gain. Their shreiking harpy Allie’s who inflate and exaggerate their propaganda are worthy of scorn as well.

Your fantasies about me dying at the gates are hilarious, but they do expose your nature. People like you who believe you must parrot the party line or your a racist. People like you who believe you must hate your country or your this or that are contemptible domestic enemies of this country and it’s people. You use race to and political views decide justice and that’s a major flaw. If Ashli Babbitt was black you would be calling for the officer to be pilloried hypocrite.

Because people milling about tend to break things? It was an angry mob, my dude. You don't peacefully protest if you truly believe your elections are rigged. You get mad, you kill, you fight.

Unless, of course, you either really don't believe that the elections were rigged or you don't believe in fighting for your country.

Which is it?

Have you seen the tape? many angles available. Doesn’t look like a violent riot in that hallway. Angry mob like the Shaman guy? We’re the Portland rioters and angry mob of rioters or just “protesters”

Have you seen the tape? many angles available. Doesn’t look like a violent riot in that hallway. Angry mob like the Shaman guy? We’re the Portland rioters and angry mob of rioters or just “protesters”

I’ll answer your question.

Yes.

And obviously if Shaman guy is there then the whole thing is a joke, right?

It’s no big deal that people were demanding Pence’s head.

A guy tries to maintain a republic after people tried and failed to vote him in and then they call for his head.

It’s a damn shame.

No more of a shame than the leftist organized rioting throughout 2020

"No the worst people to me are those who want to use tragic events for political gain."

Like Ashli Babbitt.

"Your fantasies about me dying at the gates are hilarious"

But I don't I said I want you to learn from Ashli Babbitt's mistake.

You can't do that dead. I'm merely pointing out what I perceive to be YOUR motives. If I'm in error, then feel free to correct me. I noticed that you have not. So I continue to believe my assessment of your character.

"If Ashli Babbitt was black you would be calling for the officer to be pilloried hypocrite."

But I wouldn't. I just proved that by pointing out the very case YOU should've put to me with Michael Brown. Both officers in their respective shootings were justified given the circumstances.

Hell, if you were even right about my political leanings, you'd know that Ashli Babbitt voted for Obama. Twice, I believe. A thing I never once did. But since you, and many like you, continue to think I'm a liberal - then that is DEFINITELY something I would've done. Why would I want a person who was capable of voting for Obama dead for political gain if I were a liberal?

Unless, of course, you're the one making the exaggerations of what is I want. What I would've wanted was for people like Ashli Babbitt, and yourself, who continue to believe Trump's lie that he won to stop believing that fantasy. And in the fantasy that democracy in this country has been usurped in some form or fashion.

At least, not without factual evidence to back up your highly unlikely and very fantastical claims.

What tragic event was Ashli Babbitt taking advantage of? A Fraudulent election? You can deny it all you want. I will never believe the integrity of the 2020 election wasn’t compromised regardless of Trump. Mass mailed ballots and irregularities in coordination with admitted media manipulation and widespread use of suppression polls predicting huge losses for Republican candidates who actually won by wide margins. There was never a more crooked national election in our history.

As to your assessment and political slant. I could care less. You may be a Rino that identifies as a Democrat or a Man who identifies as a woman. You do you it’s 2022. Everyone who disagrees with you is a Trumper and a racist? Gee sounds very lefty to me. Rinos are crap and just the good cop side of the Democratic bad cop game run by the powerful. People like you are more contemptible than commie progressives. Stay on your knees and take what you get.

She was climbing a barricade with guns drawn on her.

It bears repeating considering I only stated a fact and was downvoted by it.

Same as a suspect advancing towards officers with guns drawn barricaded behind their patrol cars doors. Ok to shoot to kill?

You shoot to kill in every situation you discharge your weapon.

You'd know that if you listened to the dialogue between the police and the public.

Or if you actually owned a gun.

Ok so ok to kill if they advance on a barricaded officer? Knit picking a saying because you need to avoid an answer that will expose your hypocrisy.

alright, here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_IxT2ei9gU

Note how the description says, right off the bat, "one of the darkest days in american history"

You wanted a source? didn't you? the sources you apparently want are just as reliable anyways.

PS: "the worst event in the history of this nation" and "one of the darkest days in American history" do mean the same thing in this context

You posted a link, not information.

&

No

you only said a single relevant word, "source?" you ASKED for a link, not for information.

and explain the difference then, in this context, in a way that's actually meaningful to your argument.

"you only said a single relevant word, "source?" you ASKED for a link, not for information."

Read that till the meaning of your own words sink in.

you... asked for information FROM a link? Is *that* your new argument? well the information is in the link! go visit it! I'm not the one you should be asking to give the information when the link to that very information is RIGHT THERE.