Officer Sicknick suffered strokes and died of natural causes, DC medical examiner says

Aldebaran said:

Being an unarmed woman on the other side of a door and climbing through the window, it sure looked like the police had plenty of opportunity to use less lethal methods, such as a taser, or pepper spray. To use a firearm against an unarmed woman seemed excessive.

Click to expand...

What was the protesters going to say to the Congress people whom they wanted to speak to in such a bother that they broke into the building to do so?

Aldebaran said:

That would be for each individual person to decide for themselves.

Click to expand...

So the guards who were sworn go “protect” our legislators should’ve just waved them on in? So the mob could “talk”?

Handmaid for Jesus said:

Wasn't the storming of the Capitol building considered domestic terrorism and an attack/insurrection against the government of the U.S.? So participants would be domestic terrorist right? I don't think the police knew whether she was violent or not since she was in the company of the lawless ones. If she was not violent, what was she doing there? The police were protecting our lawmakers which these terrorists were threatening to kill. Anyone who was in with the terrorists was probably considered to be violent and a threat to the lawmakers.

Click to expand...

Go back a few domino's. The capital security forces, although forewarned, were unprepared.

St_Worm2 said:

the angry mob was 1. unarmed

Click to expand...

This is false. They were indeed armed.

2. killed no one that day.

Click to expand...

See above. It was an attempted assassination, and over 100 police officers were injured.

Just to be clear, NO ONE should have broken into the Capitol, period. That said, I'd still like to know the "official" reason that an unarmed woman was shot and killed (especially when no one else was .. as many made it much further into the Capitol than she did).

Click to expand...

As stated above, she was leading an armed, violent crowd in an attempt to assassinate elected officials.

Aldebaran said:

Being an unarmed woman on the other side of a door and climbing through the window, it sure looked like the police had plenty of opportunity to use less lethal methods, such as a taser, or pepper spray. To use a firearm against an unarmed woman seemed excessive.

Click to expand...

Aldebaran said:

Read post #20 again.

Click to expand...

You’re wasting your time here, you need to get to the DOJ and tell them this!

St_Worm2 said:

but my interest was in knowing why he felt that he had to do so There were many, many others there that day, so what was she doing/why was she considered to be such a threat (an unarmed 35 year woman) that the officer in question felt lethal force needed to be used against her?

Click to expand...

A) given that a substantial portion of people who participated likely had concealed weapons permits...there was no way of knowing if the person in question was unarmed or not.

B) if you saw someone breaking the window of your house and trying to get in when they weren't supposed to be there, would you be trying to resort to "less-lethal means"?, or would you handle business?

From my own personal perspective, if someone showed up at my door this very moment (with a gang of thugs behind them), busted out the glass, and started trying to get in when they're not invited...I'd have used a similar approach as the officer did in that situation...

- a verbal warning to stop what they're doing and leave the property
- if they keep persisting, a sterner (and much louder) verbal warning with my gun drawn
- if they keep persisting after that.......




This is a double-standard where some people on the right lose me on the topic of policing.

If the narrative for other police shootings is going to be "if they would've complied, they wouldn't have been shot", then that standard needs to be applied consistently.

Every single person who made as far as the interior of the Capitol building refused to obey multiple lawful orders from multiple officers on that day.

Not calling you out in particular, because I'm not familiar with your stance on other police shootings that have happened...

But I've noticed the double-standard where, for other high-profile police shootings that have taken place, the officer playing a game of "lethal hokey pokey" with the perp, issuing numerous conflicting commands, and then wasting the person when they mess up is written off as "they should've followed orders"...yet, because Babbitt happens to agree with them politically, the sentiment seems to be "she should've been given a 9th chance to obey a lawful command before resorting to lethal force"

Aldebaran said:

A police shooting is usually easier to justify when the offender is also armed, or is attempting to take the officer's weapon. A case like that just happened where a 16 year old black kid with a knife attacked another kid while cops were trying to take control. Cop opened fire and killed the black kid. Protesters appeared on cue, as always.

Click to expand...

But this isn't about what "the protestors" do in response to other events...

There's going to be a certain subset of "woke" people who react anytime there's a police shooting when the cop is white and the perpetrator is black...that's to be expected.

This is about expecting consistent standards from the group that's claiming to be objective. The "defund the police" crowd isn't claiming to be objective...they're pretty open about their bias (no matter how misinformed it is)

There have been several instances of police shootings where the perp is unarmed, but were subject to force, up to and including lethal force, where people have said "if they just would've followed orders, police wouldn't have shot them"


With regards to Ashley Babbitt, how many chances should they have given her before using force?

If you're a law enforcement officer, and you ask them to stop, and they don't...and then you ask them to stop again in a more forceful manner, and they still don't, and then you draw your firearm, point it at them, and tell them stop, and they still don't...what's left to do at that point?
(especially when they have an angry mob of hundreds of people at their side)

Say "pretty please"?
Or offer to buy them ice cream if they calm down?

Each of the people involved in the capitol riots were given numerous chances to stop what they were doing and walk away...and would've likely enjoyed anonymity and not faced repercussions.