Wisconsin native. "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."--GKC "Liberalism is the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal" --G K Chesterton "The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
He's a murderer.
The Capitol police officer who fatally shot Ashli Babbitt during the January 6 Capitol riot said his actions showed 'utmost courage' and that he 'saved countless lives.' ..
The murderer then "shed a tear".
It is good to remember that murder and lies go hand-in-hand. No reason at all to believe his story about 'giving commands.'
7 comments:
It was self-defense. In rejecting charges in the Babbitt case, the Justice Department statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it noted that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It stressed that this element requires a showing of “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.” If the officer intended to shoot Babbitt, it would not likely meet the standard for a justified shooting under governing cases like Tennessee v. Garner (1985).
Pray tell, let us assume she got through, was not shot, opened up the doors for the rest of the amped up crowd, who then rushed in. What should the police do then? Furthermore, assume that amped up crowd actually got their hands on a member of Congress. Would they, in your mind, be justified in physical action, i.e. pushing, shoving, punching, etc. against he or she? Why?
Not self-defense, pal.
The Fed "investigation"--whitewash--was a "civil rights" game.
What he did was a criminal act. There was ZERO justification for his shoot; neither he, nor anyone else, was in deadly harm's way, NOR threatened with "grave physical harm."
Even a blind man could respond to your asinine hypothetical: you push the woman back OUT of the window. You do not fire to kill.
Nice try. Got something better--like the admission you're *dead* wrong?
Having a badge doesn't entitle one to murder.
But let's play with your drama-scenario: you're walking past my home and I think you may be going to break and enter.
So I shoot your ass right then and there.
That's not "murder." That's protecting my wife and children, see?
But it wasn't murder, nor a white wash. The police officers behind the door, as well as the Congress Critters, were in deadly harm's way and threatened with grave physical harm, as evident by cops on the grounds who had been threatened and beaten, as well as the crowd who were bashing in the doors to get to another restricted area. What do you think was their intent, to simply talk? The woman shouldn't have been there in the first place.
""you're walking past my home and I think you may be going to break and enter. So I shoot your ass right then and there. That's not "murder." That's protecting my wife and children, see?"
Not quite. The law doesn't work that way. There's something called intent and motivation and circumstances.
If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
LIsten, you enjoy playing cowboy on the Interwebs. And it chaffes you that weren't at the insurrection on January 6.
I have no time to waste on you. Hope you are paid by the word, pal.
It was murder. He was not threatened. He one else was threatened. He's a fucking coward with a badge.
Jeeeze dad....you anonymous commentor is a real A-hole, and he's had a busy week at your place. But he's got a consistent track record; always wrong (and rambling long-winded)....so he's got THAT goin' for him.
No, it wasn't murder, it was self defense. The Capitol Police were decidedly threatened by the crowd, especially considering that cops were injured and died there at the hands of the crowd.
What do you think was the intent of the crowd once they got through that barricaded door?
Post a Comment