Anyone who pays attention to the news knows that the ABC affiliate in Minneapolis (Channel 5) had video of the shooting (go to 5:00 in this post) from an excellent angle. It was above the ground and from the front of the car, unlike the home video used by the Leftists.
So why didn't Channel 12--another ABC affiliate--use that video?
Maybe they didn't want you to see it, as it showed the woman's attempt to run over the ICE agent very clearly.
It's not what they tell you. It's also what they DON'T tell you.
EXTRA: Pursuant to an egregious lie in the combox, here's a significant picture:
15 comments:
She didn’t try to run him over. Her wheels were turned. She was trying to flee the scene. He was a step away from the side and easily could have moved.
There was no reason for the officer to even have his gun out as she wasnt posing a real threat to anyone.
This is the Asley Babbit Rorschach test. There are so many parallels between the situations. Both women disobeyed a direct order from an armed officer and moved towards them.
If the police officer truly thought his life was in danger, then he had cause to shoot. But in the MN situation, he also put himself in a position in front of that vehicle. Its pretty obvious hat woman was never trying to run him over, she was trying to leave after blocking traffic and impeding the officers.
A frame-by-frame analysis of video showed otherwise, Dad29. The SUV did move toward the ICE agent as he stood in front of it. But the agent was able to move out of the way and fire at least two of three shots from the side of the vehicle as it veered past him.
Now, to be objective (unlike Dad29), if there
is a bullet hole in the windshield from the front, that would tend to support the officers' contention he was about to be run down. But the bullets came from the side windows, which means the car already passed the officer and he was not in immediate danger. No justification for the use of deadly force.
So, the narrative that she was “running them down” is straight up disinformation.
LIAR.
ONE bullet hole was in the windshield, lower left-hand corner.
She put that thing into D, turned the wheels toward the officer standing in front of the car, and mashed the gas.
By the way: all he had to do to 'escape' her problem was comply. NO officer would have shot her if she stepped out of the vehicle at their request.
The murderer-CapCop in DC did NOT 'warn' Babbitt before pulling his gun and executing her while she was trapped in the window.
“ONE bullet hole was in the windshield, lower left-hand corner.”
Right. An exit bullet by the officer on the driver’s side as he pumped lead onto her.
“She put that thing into D,”
She backed up first.
“turned the wheels toward the officer standing in front of the car”
Yes and then he pumped leas into her when he was on the side of her.
“and mashed the gas.”
When her body went limp, yes. The officer was out of the way then.
“By the way: all he had to do to 'escape' her problem was comply.”
All the officer had to do was not pu his gun out and shoot her.
“NO officer would have shot her if she stepped out of the vehicle at their request.”
You don’t know that.
“The murderer-CapCop in DC did NOT 'warn' Babbitt”
Actually he did warn her.
“before pulling his gun and executing her while she was trapped in the window.”
You mean shot her in self defense. Remember, there was a violent crowd behind her. Why were they trying to get into a restricted area in the first place?
So many lies you tell. So little time.....
"An exit hole"..........You know this because you inspected the hole and determined directionality? Or are you just making it up?
"She backed up"........So what? She did NOT obey the order to get out of the car; then she slammed it into "D" and mashed the gas.
"..pumped lead .....while...." But FIRST from the front. That's called self-defense--and one shoots until the target is no longer a threat. Basic stuff.
The officer was enforcing the law. You have a problem with the law, don't you?
The CapCop murdered Babbitt without any verbal warning. And the crowd was not dangerous.
But let's play along with you!! I'm fair!!
“The murderer-CapCop in DC did NOT 'warn' Babbitt”
Actually he did warn her.
“before pulling his gun and executing her while she was trapped in the window.”
You mean shot her in self defense.
Shot her in self-defense, eh? Just like in Minneapolis, eh?
Choose one, dipwad.
Yes, it was self defense for the DC cop. And there were warnings. The violent mob she was in was told repeatedly by law enforcement to vacate the premises. And witness statements indicate they heard Lt. Byrd yelling and screaming commands to get back and stop. A man standing next to Babbitt raised his hand to signal compliance. Why did she ignore it and instead climb through the window?
“.You know this because you inspected the hole and determined directionality? Or are you just making it up?”
The officer was not directly in front of the car. He shot at her. It came from the side. A bullet exited the window.
"She backed up"........So what?”
Backing up and turning the wheels away from the officer shows the intent to leave the scene. It does not justify deadly force.
“She did NOT obey the order to get out of the car;”
“then she slammed it into "D" and mashed the gas.”
Right, when she got shot and her limp body hit the accelerator. He shot her on the side.
“The officer was enforcing the law.”
“ You have a problem with the law, don't you?”
Should she have fled the scene? Nope. Does her action justify the use of deadly force as seen on the video? Nope.
“The CapCop murdered Babbitt without any verbal warning.”
He did give warnings.
“And the crowd was not dangerous”
Bashing objects by a violent mob to get into a restricted area when told previously and repeatedly is dangerous.
Looks like your narrative about Babbitt is being shot to pieces as well.
There is a vast difference in fact between the murder of Ashley and the self-defense slaying of this MN woman.
For a fact-and-legal takedown of your propaganda, see: https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/minneapolis-is-not-even-a-close-call
The author admits the legal definition of an aggravated felony in this context is subject to interpretation of the video evidence and the officer's state of mind, which are part of the ongoing investigation led by the FBI.
However, you have said that the FBI cannot be trusted. So what they come up with, you’ll just ignore it. Good for you.
Post a Comment