Prosecutors: No charges for officer in Capitol riot shooting

[SummerMadness]

Prosecutors: No charges for officer in Capitol riot shooting

Federal prosecutors will not charge a police officer who shot and killed a woman as she climbed through the broken part of a door during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

 

[High Fidelity]

Good.

 

[SummerMadness]

Good.

I really don't see how they could come to any other conclusion. Like most terrorists, Babbitt died for a lie.

 

[SummerMadness]

I just realized something. The Capitol attack was carried out by antifa pretending to be Trump supporters. Why are so many on the right defending antifa so hard? What brought about the change of heart?

 

[98cwitr]

I just realized something. The Capitol attack was carried out by antifa pretending to be Trump supporters. Why are so many on the right defending antifa so hard? What brought about the change of heart?

Because she wasn't antifa.

 

[SummerMadness]

Sure - the same people who are condemning the shooting would have been claiming that "the police had no way of knowing if she had a gun" and "if only she'd obeyed police orders, she'd be alive"

Exactly, she should have complied.

You broke down multiple barriers and went through the window of a barricaded door with armed police officers and you expected a different outcome?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Exactly, she should have complied.

You broke down multiple barriers and went through the window of a barricaded door with armed police officers and you expected a different outcome?

Everyone should comply with police orders. There would be fewer people shot by the police.

 

[stevil]

Everyone should comply with police orders. There would be fewer people shot by the police.

Lethal force is to be used when there is a strong perception of physical harm otherwise.
Lethal force is not to be used if a person simply fails to obey police commands.

 

[jgarden]

Senator Ted Cruz and Enrique Tarrio, National Chairman of "the Proud Boys" together in the upper left photo!

I just realized something. The Capitol attack was carried out by antifa pretending to be Trump supporters. Why are so many on the right defending antifa so hard? What brought about the change of heart?

Let's not forget that it was Enrique Tarrio, the current National chairman of "The Proud Boys," who co-sponsored a Senate resolution with Republician Senator "Lying Ted" Cruz (Trump's nickname, not mine) to declare "Antifa" a "domestic terrorist organization!"

How ironic that on January 6th, it was members of "The Proud Boys" that have been identified as the "domestic terrorists" in the vanguard when it came to overwhelming the Capitol police and forcing their way into the building!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, what world do you live in? Russia, North Korea, China???

Police can use lethal force only if someone's life is in immediate and immanent danger.
Same as anyone that holds a gun for self defence.

They cannot shoot and kill for refusing to pull over a car, or refusing to put hands behind their head, or even for running away, or for driving away in your stolen car.
Shooting is an absolute last resort and is not for non compliance, but only for self defence or defence of others if there is immediate lethal danger.

Or if they believe their lives are threatened.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You're correct, she wasn't rioting and looting, she was storming a building and endangering the lives of people in the midst of others who were rioting and looting. She was part of a group chanting for the killing of elected officials and she attempted to enter the space where these officials were being protected. She was doing more than rioting and looting, she was deliberately and purposely endangering the lives of innocent civilians.

Have you been keeping up on this? If the purpose of the intrusion was to harm people lots of people would have been harmed. The purpose of the incursion was to place true patriots in the 'people's house' as a demonstration of support for the Constitution. It was an "in your face" parade.

 

[Triumvirate]

Have you been keeping up on this? If the purpose of the intrusion was to harm people lots of people would have been harmed. The purpose of the incursion was to place true patriots in the 'people's house' as a demonstration of support for the Constitution. It was an "in your face" parade.

Traitors aren't true patriots. Threaten the VPOTUS, you tend to get shot. Babbitt isn't special, nor are the fascists propping her up.

 

[stevil]

Or if they believe their lives are threatened.

Which is not at all what you previously claimed
"The police have a mandate to use whatever force is necessary to gain compliance."

That was just silly talk.

 

[disciple Clint]

They were trying to get into the room where the VPOTUS was. The police hardly made an egregious call.

Most of the BLM cases that raised the most ire do not, strangely, involve imminent threats to the life of the Vice President - this might be a little complicated, so let me know if you need me to explain it more simply.

Do you have any evidence to indicate that she was any threat to anyone? For all we know she may have been trying to find a place to hide from the violent crowd. She had no weapons, a simple verbal command to stop, would have been sufficient, if not she could have easily been restrained without resorting to deadly force.

 

[SummerMadness]

The military was deployed, if the Capitol Police had properly prepared based on the intelligence that was available to them this likely would have never reached the unfortunate level it did.

Better preparation would have prevented the terrorist attack, luckily the police were still able to protect legislators and their staff from the violent mob. Babbitt and her ilk were a violent mob, she endangered the lives of innocent people.

 

[Jimmy D]

OK now provide some proof that Babbitt was a danger to anyone,

Why? SummerMadness didn’t shoot her. It was a cop in a high pressure situation making a split second decision, not unlike the cop who shot that thirteen year old.

Im sure if it was you though you’d have kept your gun holstered and pondered the moral implications, political climate, the background and personal history of the transgressor, and the threat they pose.

 

[disciple Clint]

Why? SummerMadness didn’t shoot her. It was a cop in a high pressure situation making a split second decision, not unlike the cop who shot that thirteen year old.

Im sure if it was you though you’d have kept your gun holstered and pondered the moral implications, political climate, the background and personal history of the transgressor, and the threat they pose.

SummerMadness made a statement about the character of an unarmed shooting victim, that statement is unsupported it requires evidence, if uncalled for disparaging comments are going to be made about people who have no criminal record and have honorably served our nation in the military it is only responsible to justify those statements with evidence or retract them. what I would have done is not the issue, so I am not going down any rabbit holes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which is not at all what you previously claimed
"The police have a mandate to use whatever force is necessary to gain compliance."

That was just silly talk.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police has described use of force as the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1].

Overview of Police Use of Force | National Institute of Justice (ojp.gov)

Deadly force is sometimes applied when attempting to gain compliance from an unwilling suspect if the officer believes his life or that of others is endangered.

 

[SummerMadness]

SummerMadness made a statement about the character of an unarmed shooting victim, that statement is unsupported it requires evidence, if uncalled for disparaging comments are going to be made about people who have no criminal record and have honorably served our nation in the military it is only responsible to justify those statements with evidence or retract them. what I would have done is not the issue, so I am not going down any rabbit holes.

Unsupported evidence? She was storming a building in the midst of a riot. She does not need to have a weapon in her hand to be dangerous; she was part of a violent mob that was breaking through a barricaded area that was protecting legislators and staff. Her language: "Nothing will stop us....they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!" You could argue that this is just a verbal flourish, except for the whole part about physically storming the Capitol.

As for whether she had a criminal record, that is irrelevant. She was arrested and charged with a crime previously, but that is not relevant to what she was doing during the Capitol attack. She was shot for endangering the lives of people honorably serving our nation. You're trying to play up her service, while dismissing others service. And if her service meant anything to her, she would recognize that attempting to overturn an election is the antithesis of what this country stands for. All challenges to the results of the election had their day in court and they came to the same conclusion: it was a free and fair election.

She attempted to overthrow our government because she did not like the results, that's un-American. Bringing up her past military service makes her actions even worse because she not only betrayed the country, she betrayed her oath of service. The first item in the oath, civil and military, is to defend the US Constitution, which she clearly did not do that day.

 

[stevil]

The International Association of Chiefs of Police has described use of force as the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1].

Overview of Police Use of Force | National Institute of Justice (ojp.gov)

Deadly force is sometimes applied when attempting to gain compliance from an unwilling suspect if the officer believes his life or that of others is endangered.

Oh my.

Let's untangle this for you.

Lethal force is never used to get an unwilling subject to comply.
Lethal force is only acceptable if the officer or others lives are endangered, only as a matter of saving lives. Never in order to get the unwilling subject to comply.


From the article in your link
"Law enforcement officers should use only the amount of force necessary to mitigate an incident, make an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force, and lethal force."

"Use of force is an officer’s last option — a necessary course of action to restore safety in a community when other practices are ineffective."

The mitigate an incident or protect themselves from harm bits apply to lethal force, where incident means lives are threatened.
The making arrest bit does not apply to lethal force. They are not allowed to shoot someone for resisting arrest.