Why did McCarthy Give Tucker Carlson Exclusive Access to J6 Footage?

[Isilwen]

Except there were 3 police officers in front of that door who moved out of the way and allowed Babbitt to attempt to climb through the window and there was a tactical team right behind her that attempted to provide first aid after she was shot. One lone officer decided to use deadly force. Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ashli Babbitt at U.S. Capitol

You know, this video isn't helping your side any. Did you even hear what they were saying to the officers?

Basically, what he said is we saw what happened outside, people were hurt. If you don't move, you will be hurt too. It was three officers, against a mob that is basically saying move, or get hurt. The guy talking to the officers said we will clear a path so you can get out safely. Should they have stood there and gotten trampled? The mob was going to go right over them.

 

[Bradskii]

I didn’t absolve her of fault, the situation was one person coming through a window, one unarmed, small framed woman, deadly force was not justified. The officer said in an interview that he couldn’t see her hands. You can’t just make an assumption that someone is armed. The tactical team was coming to stop the other protesters, the parameters for the use of deadly force were not met. As to whose fault it was Babbitt made the decision to go through the window even though a gun was drawn and she would be responsible for that decision if she was alive but that doesn’t make it a good shooting.

No shooting is a good shooting. But aren't you absolutely astounded that considering the violence of that day, and where it occured that there weren't very many more deaths? You should say a prayer each day thanking that the police showed such restraint. Heroes aren't necessarily the ones who fight back and meet violence with violence. They are sometimes those who risk their lives to prevent violence.

They did an astounding job in the circumstances. This shameful episode could have easily ended in a bloodbath.

I'm sickened by the posts that try to paint these men and women as somehow complicit, trying desperately to lessen the guilt of those that shamed America.

 

[BPPLEE]

You know, this video isn't helping your side any. Did you even hear what they were saying to the officers?

Basically, what he said is we saw what happened outside, people were hurt. If you don't move, you will be hurt too. It was three officers, against a mob that is basically saying move, or get hurt. The guy talking to the officers said we will clear a path so you can get out safely. Should they have stood there and gotten trampled? The mob was going to go right over them.

I don’t have a “side”. It was a bad situation but it was a bad shooting. The officer said in an interview he couldn’t see her hands. He panicked. I feel sorry for him but he was wrong. He has to live with what he did that’s probably enough punishment.

 

[BPPLEE]

No shooting is a good shooting. But aren't you absolutely astounded that considering the violence of that day, and where it occured that there weren't very many more deaths? You should say a prayer each day thanking that the police showed such restraint. Heroes aren't necessarily the ones who fight back and meet violence with violence. They are sometimes those who risk their lives to prevent violence.

They did an astounding job in the circumstances. This shameful episode could have easily ended in a bloodbath.

I'm sickened by the posts that try to paint these men and women as somehow complicit, trying desperately to lessen the guilt of those that shamed America.

The police were doing their job and I would hate to be put in the situation this officer was in but if this had occurred at a BLM protest he would be in jail. He panicked. But he has been cleared and no one cares so there’s no need to argue about it. When someone pulls a gun and you ignore it you bear some of the responsibility even if they were wrong. But as you pointed out there were people doing far worse and the police showed restraint.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yeah, it looks odd to you doesn't it, because you'd always use a male pronoun when referring to a random person. It's the way your mind works. Obviously, because if I'd have said 'he' you would never have thought to ask why I assume an inept political student is male.

Says more about you than me or the ability of political students.

I'm still curious as to why you would refer to an inept student has a "she". When you think of someone who is inept, do you automatically assume that it must be a woman?

 

[Aldebaran]

Sure, you could spin it that way.

She was shot, and she shouldn't have been doing what she did either. It was really her own fault. Sad that she was shot, but still her own fault.

However, it sure stopped that particular mob from breaching through those door windows.

Ok, so victim-blaming is suddenly fashionable--even when killing is done to simply send a message to a "mob".

 

[Bradskii]

I'm still curious as to why you would refer to an inept student has a "she". When you think of someone who is inept, do you automatically assume that it must be a woman?

No. But you'd assume a generic individual would be referred to as 'he'.

It's obvious that you haven't noticed, but in my few thousand posts here I generally use the term 'they' to remain gender neutral ('a good student would say it's red as THEY would have studied the matter'). It's grammatically plural but English doesn't have a singular pronoun that's gender neutral (like usted in Spanish). But it suits most of the time.

Sometimes it sounds clunky so I will then use he or she at random. When I do I try to use them with the same frequency.

As I said, the fact that it looks odd to you is a reflection of your automatic assumption that using the female pronoun as opposed to the male has some hidden meaning. There is none. But it did serve to indicate your position that 'he' is entirely normal and using 'she' must 'mean something.'

Again, it doesn't. But thanks for your insight into your views on gender equality.

 

[BPPLEE]

No. But you'd assume a generic individual would be referred to as 'he'.

It's obvious that you haven't noticed, but in my few thousand posts here I generally use the term 'they' to remain gender neutral ('a good student would say it's red as THEY would have studied the matter'). It's grammatically plural but English doesn't have a singular pronoun that's gender neutral (like usted in Spanish). But it suits most of the time.

Sometimes it sounds clunky so I will then use he or she at random. When I do I try to use them with the same frequency.

As I said, the fact that it looks odd to you is a reflection of your automatic assumption that using the female pronoun as opposed to the male has some hidden meaning. There is none. But it did serve to indicate your position that 'he' is entirely normal and using 'she' must 'mean something.'

Again, it doesn't. But thanks for your insight into your views on gender equality.

There sure does seem to be a lot of focus on pronouns lately

 

[Bradskii]

Ok, so victim-blaming is suddenly fashionable--even when killing is done to simply send a message to a "mob".

She is being blamed for attempting to break through a door which would have given the mob closer access to elected officials. She has to take responsibility for her actions. They got that far by force of numbers but there was a point where they would be physically stopped. By force. This was it. I guarantee that if anyone was still dumb enough to try to break that door down then they would have been shot as well. But I think everyone at that point thought 'Ye god's, what are we doing...'

Unfortunately it took the death of woman to bring them to their senses. That this wasn't some patriots sticking it to the Dems. This was exceptionally serious. Life and death serious.

 

[Aldebaran]

No. But you'd assume a generic individual would be referred to as 'he'.

It's obvious that you haven't noticed, but in my few thousand posts here I generally use the term 'they' to remain gender neutral ('a good student would say it's red as THEY would have studied the matter'). It's grammatically plural but English doesn't have a singular pronoun that's gender neutral (like usted in Spanish). But it suits most of the time.

Sometimes it sounds clunky so I will then use he or she at random. When I do I try to use them with the same frequency.

As I said, the fact that it looks odd to you is a reflection of your automatic assumption that using the female pronoun as opposed to the male has some hidden meaning. There is none. But it did serve to indicate your position that 'he' is entirely normal and using 'she' must 'mean something.'

Again, it doesn't. But thanks for your insight into your views on gender equality.

No need to be defensive, although I can see how it might seem necessary.

 

[BPPLEE]

She is being blamed for attempting to break through a door which would have given the mob closer access to elected officials. She has to take responsibility for her actions. They got that far by force of numbers but there was a point where they would be physically stopped. By force. This was it. I guarantee that if anyone was still dumb enough to try to break that door down then they would have been shot as well. But I think everyone at that point thought 'Ye god's, what are we doing...'

Unfortunately it took the death of woman to bring them to their senses. That this wasn't some patriots sticking it to the Dems. This was exceptionally serious. Life and death serious.

Sorry but she wasn’t breaking a door down. She was climbing through a broken out window. She could have been stopped without a lot of effort from the other side and the tactical team was seconds away. It may be the case that they didn’t have to shoot anyone because of what had happened but that still doesn’t justify the shooting

 

[Isilwen]

Ok, so victim-blaming is suddenly fashionable--even when killing is done to simply send a message to a "mob".

Victim? You think she's a victim?

She wasn't a victim. She got shot breaching a barricaded door where she was warned not to enter.

The spin is strong with you.

 

[BPPLEE]

Victim? You think she's a victim?

She wasn't a victim. She got shot breaching a barricaded door where she was warned not to enter.

The spin is strong with you.

She was climbing through a window. She was guilty of trespassing. She didn’t deserve the death penalty for that. Sure she bears some of the responsibility but her death wasn’t necessary. It wouldn’t have been hard to stop her from going through that window and the tactical team was seconds away

 

[Aldebaran]

Victim? You think she's a victim?

She wasn't a victim. She got shot breaching a barricaded door where she was warned not to enter.

The spin is strong with you.

She was an unarmed woman who did not have lethal force to use, and yet it was used on her--by a cop, no less.
So now you're doubling down on victim-blaming.
The cop had the ability to simply push her back through the door. No need to kill her.

 

[Bradskii]

No need to be defensive, although I can see how it might seem necessary.

That's not a defence. It's an explanation.

 

[Isilwen]

She was an unarmed woman who did not have lethal force to use, and yet it was used on her--by a cop, no less.
So now you're doubling down on victim-blaming.
The cop had the ability to simply push her back through the door. No need to kill her.

No, I'm pushing back on your assertation that she was a victim.

She was not a victim.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's not a defence. It's an explanation.

I asked you a question, and you spent most of your "answer" blaming me for asking.
That's being defensive.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, I'm pushing back on your assertation that she was a victim.

She was not a victim.

She was the victim of unnecessary force by a police officer

 

[Aldebaran]

No, I'm pushing back on your assertation that she was a victim.

She was not a victim.

If the cop had been white, and Babbitt had been a black protester for a liberal cause, she would be labeled as the victim. But the roles were reversed.

 

[Bradskii]

I asked you a question, and you spent most of your "answer" blaming me for asking.
That's being defensive.

And I wasn't blaming you. I was pointing out why you asked a rather nonsensical question based on your inability to accept that gender pronouns used as they were in this case can refer to male and female. Again, if I'd used a male pronoun you wouldn't have questioned it. If your question made any logical sense, you would have. That was never going to happen. So it wasn't, ipso facto, logical.

It's a short lesson in not making assumptions based on gender.

And here endeth the lesson.