Biden's approval tops 60 percent in new poll ... totally beating Donald Trump's approval at the same time of tenure

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
She was an unarmed woman. Apparently she flunked Terrorism 101.

Unarmed.
If she flunked terrorism that's her own stupid fault. Most criminals are stupid. According to her, she was there to start a revolution. You can't ignore the facts just because it suits you Seth.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
What matters is that, at the moment the officer fires a gun at a person, the officer has a reasonable belief that that specific person is posing an immediate threat of death or life-threatening injury
Would you make this argument for the cop, if the woman(Babbitt) was unarmed and alone trying to storm the Capitol Building? Of course not! So this is not about any unarmed woman being a threat to an armed man. This is about one armed terrified Capitol Policeperson, who fired his weapon into a mob of protestors, because he was scared shitless. And, simply thought that he was going to die if the mob got in. Even during the White Night Riots in SF, we never fired our weapons into the crowd of rioters. Even when being pelted with bricks and bottles, by thousands of angry gays, who actually had a legitimate grievance against City Hall.

This cop had a legitimate reason to be in fear for his life. However, his actions could have been a death sentence to the other officers with him. The protesters also, might have had the same reasonable belief that a specific person(s) was posing an immediate threat of death or a life-threatening injury to them as well. Thus, also acting in self-defense. Self- defense is instinctual, and is not a legal mandate. All that is relevant, is was the action legally justified?

This argument of, "reasonable belief of imminent death/great bodily injury", has far too broad a meaning, is totally subjective, and is almost impossible to disprove. This is why in cop shootings, since 2005, only 42 cops have ever been convicted of murder/manslaughter!!

 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
If she flunked terrorism that's her own stupid fault. Most criminals are stupid. According to her, she was there to start a revolution. You can't ignore the facts just because it suits you Seth.
None of that matters. The only thing that matters is if she - her specifically - was a lethal threat at the moment she was shot. She was unarmed. She was trespassing. There are no reports that she had assaulted anyone.

What you guys are ignoring is that I separate issues.

I was outraged by the invasion of the Capitol.
I hold Trump responsible for it.
He lost my support that day. You know that.

That is one issue.

The use of deadly force by domestic police is a separate issue. I don't think you guys are able to wrap your heads around that.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
None of that matters. The only thing that matters is if she - her specifically - was a lethal threat at the moment she was shot. She was unarmed. She was trespassing. There are no reports that she had assaulted anyone.
Yep.

Thankfully that particular terrorist didn't get the opportunity.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
 

Squire

Active member
All the insurrectionists were lucky because cops need very little cause to shoot to death. All they have to claim is fear they are 'at risk' of harm.
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
She was an unarmed woman. Apparently she flunked Terrorism 101.

Unarmed.
BULLSHIT Seth!


I think the armed mob that she ran with qualifies her as armed

a bunch of rabid yokels, climbing walls, smashing windows, beating cops with fire extinguishers..... (when they weren't crushing their heads in doors), hanging nooses and shouting kill pence ........ for hours....... could qualify as more deadly than your precious AR-15

it was like something out of WWZ..... (charming delightful zombie movie that)
 
Last edited:
Top