|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Murder during a riot /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1629980331 Message started by WebsterMark on 08/26/21 at 05:18:51 |
|
Title: Murder during a riot Post by WebsterMark on 08/26/21 at 05:18:51 https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-police-lieutenant-who-killed-january-6-capitol-rioter-ashli-babbitt-finally-identified-1623166 |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/26/21 at 05:52:07 Unless it was ANTIFA and Trump was in power, then it would be a line of duty event. My question is would you, as in anyone besides me, jump through the window of a doorway that is barricaded in a building you do not hold title to, and no family or person within is in danger, that has people pointing guns at you? I would not. I consider the actions of the person shot to be 50% of this equation. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by WebsterMark on 08/26/21 at 06:35:28 It doesn’t appear she saw the gun and doesn’t appear he shouted a warning. Never say never, but no, I can’t imagine a situation where I would do that. I said when you get involved in something like that, you knowingly or unknowingly assume risk. It’s like riding a motorcycle. Our risk is higher and we accept that. However, we also assume and expect a certain level of civility. If we can send cops to jail for excessive force used and do it very publicly, not sure why this guy was given a pass behind closed door. Well everyone knows why, but still. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by oldNslow on 08/26/21 at 07:48:43 Quote:
This outcome was as predictable and as inevitable as the sun rising on the east side of my house each morning. The Capital Police are now recognized by anyone with two functioning brain cells as Nancy Pelosi's personal Gestapo. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by MnSpring on 08/26/21 at 08:13:44 Quote:
Could you provide the, proof, that she saw guns pointing at her, and that the people pointing the guns, said/announced, they were pointing guns ? |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/26/21 at 10:37:26 E,you can keep playing games. You know Afghanistan did Not buy the equipment And the killer hustled Out of a door, shot her, no time for her to see and respond. You have the resources,, find it. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/26/21 at 14:03:17 E,you can keep playing games. You know Afghanistan did Not buy the equipment This is fundamentally incorrect as there are multiple written agreements of arms purchase between the US and the recognized Afghan Government representatives. Now to be fair, some of it was given away as we were not going to haul back all of our 20 year old sh!t. When I was in Afghanistan we had to etch-in serial numbers provided by the DoD on specified equipment because the Afghan Government had purchased identical equipment. Specifically under the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act, by actions through the FMF (Foreign Military Financing) and I still have a copy of this particular arms agreement, as well as all of the assigned serial numbers from the DoD. Did you know the DoD hasn't even been maintaining those UH-60's for years? I could put you in direct contact with the President of the contracting firm that has been maintaining them, maybe he could enlighten you to who owns, and is paying for, those things to be airworthy. Could you tell me how many aircraft made it to Uzbekistan and who brought it there? I can, and guess who doesn't own any of it? The US Government. Why? Because they were sold to the Afghan Government and were removed by US trained Afghan military. What have you seen from all of your zero time in Afghanistan that would indicate the Afghan Government "did Not buy the equipment?" |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/26/21 at 14:08:11 Blah blah blah,, I don't buy it. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/26/21 at 14:13:50 You don't have to buy it. Obviously all of the decades of documentation on selling military equipment to Afghanistan has been faked. Bush literally doing press statements about it - wrong. Trump's statement's documented in WH archive, wrong. At the time - Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Jim Risch commenting on it - wrong. https://knoema.com/atlas/Afghanistan/Military-expenditure-as-a-share-of-GDP Wrong! But JoG, yeah he knows all of this is false and the US actually still owns all those things. Why would anyone think the US Government has not sold equipment to Afghanistan? |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/26/21 at 19:01:14 "It doesn’t appear she saw the gun and doesn’t appear he shouted a warning." So I watched the two videos of the shooting and I agree she may have not seen a firearm, and due to the noise may not have heard any warnings that may have been given. The gun was certainly drawn and pointed prior to the shooting, as the person who filmed one angle states he saw the weapon and attempted to warn her. That much is clear. As for the advancement this is a common tactic to make sure the round impacts it's intended target. This whole "he ran up on her" or "advanced on her" rhetoric is from people trying to make it sound worse or are uneducated as to how fire exercises work. The closer you are, the more accurate you are, the "slide-step" has been taught for years for this exact purpose. I don't know if the final line was those doors or not, nobody here does, so who knows if orders to stand that line were given or not. I still think if I crawl through a window that had to be smashed in I assume a degree of risk. As I said before, if this were an ANTIFA person the complaints and defense of the actions would be the same, just from opposite people. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by oldNslow on 08/26/21 at 19:32:28 You can watch the videos till h*ll freezes over, and You and JOG can argue back and forth about this and that for the same amount of time and you are completely missing the point. This was a bad shoot - she was not a threat - he was a bad cop - his record speaks for itself - affirmative action POS promoted because of his race not his competence or judgement. This was so plainly a political exoneration that I can't believe anyone is even surprised by it. Given the steaming load of manure surrounding everything the the Dems have said and done regarding the so called "insurrection" - "worse that 9/ll, existential threat to the country, bigger threat than Islamic fundamentalist Jihad, yada, yada, yada - what other result did anyone think was possible when the Capital Police investigated their own mistake? |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/26/21 at 19:42:11 "what other result did anyone think was possible when the Capital Police investigated their own mistake?" I do think a use of force investigation by an organization other than the Capitol Police should have been done. Again I don't know enough of the situation to say. Maybe they were told to hold that line - which means unarmed non-threats can not enter either, or maybe he just took a shot he didn't have to. Just because I don't think he rushed out of the blue doesn't mean I think he did the right thing. Just because I think if he shot an ANTIFA person we would have the opposite people complaining still doesn't mean I think he did the right thing. He very well could have been wrong, but that video isn't enough for me to say. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/26/21 at 21:52:50 This was a bad shoot - she was not a threat.. I'm not arguing against that at all. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by WebsterMark on 08/27/21 at 05:00:51 Eegore: As I said before, if this were an ANTIFA person the complaints and defense of the actions would be the same, just from opposite people. You can’t possibly believe that. When a drug dealer on death’s door died at the hands of a policeman we gave him a national funeral and then dozens of cities burned “in protest”. Nothing other than written objections and some legal challenges came out of Bryd killing her. Nothing else. Do you honestly think that if antifa had invaded the capital or the White House and an on armed antifa woman, a veteran to boot, was shot and killed, I’m sorry a black unarmed antifa veteran, was shot and killed by a white policeman who was then adjudicated anonymously and in private, you really don’t believe Washington DC and other cities would’ve burned? Have you been drinking? |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by oldNslow on 08/27/21 at 06:21:16 Quote:
That's the most utterly ridiculous statement I've heard in this whole discussion. The rules for the use of deadly force are exactly the same for the police as they are for civilians - because they ARE civilians. They are not troops engaged in combat with an enemy . Cops don't get to "Hold the line" by shooting unarmed people who they ( the cops) think MIGHT be a threat, and who they haven't positively identified as such.. He shot THROUGH the F*ckin Door for cryin' out loud. I doubt he even knew who the he*l he hit till it was all over. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/27/21 at 07:26:13 "Nothing other than written objections and some legal challenges came out of Bryd killing her. Nothing else. Do you honestly think that if antifa had invaded the capital or the White House and an on armed antifa woman, a veteran to boot, was shot and killed, I’m sorry a black unarmed antifa veteran, was shot and killed by a white policeman who was then adjudicated anonymously and in private, you really don’t believe Washington DC and other cities would’ve burned? Have you been drinking?" No. I think you are correct, what I am saying is the complaints and defense of the actions would be the same. Complaints being the verbal arguments that have enough substance to make no difference at all. Defense meaning the verbal comments defending the actions of the police officer. The physical actions would be more impactful on a larger scale. Larger means more, not the same or equal as you interpreted it last time I said that. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/28/21 at 12:32:00 That's the most utterly ridiculous statement I've heard in this whole discussion. The rules for the use of deadly force are exactly the same for the police as they are for civilians - because they ARE civilians. They are not troops engaged in combat with an enemy . This is incorrect. Similar to MnSpring indicating that law enforcement have a "duty to retreat" just as civilians do in certain states. This is untrue, law enforcement do not have the "exactly the same" rules for deadly force, for instance they can shoot a fleeing suspect, under certain circumstances, when a civilian can not. An established line of defense, in the US Capitol, has a different series of parameters, there is the possibility that a lawful order be given that nobody be allowed to pass a certain barrier. Again I am not saying this is what happened, or that the action was lawful, I am saying I am aware of certain procedures and I do not have enough information to say what the orders there were. He shot THROUGH the F*ckin Door for cryin' out loud. I doubt he even knew who the he*l he hit till it was all over. He shot her THROUGH a broken window frame. The bullet trajectory impacted no other surface between the barrel and her body. Your statement implies he shot blindly without line of sight through a solid door. There is a video of this, how are you assessing from that video footage that he didn't shoot directly at her as she was in the frame of a window - on - a door? John Sullivan, a.k.a. Jayden X - the man in the video warned her and then filmed it happen. Again because questioning a person's interpretation of an event seems, on this forum, for some reason to mean I am saying they are wrong - I am only asking why one would say he shot through a door when he shot through a window on a door. Just because you think he was wrong, and he could have been, doesn't mean you have to alter the facts to make him seem more wrong. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by oldNslow on 08/28/21 at 13:05:05 Quote:
You know this how? And you are implying that the Capital police have a different set of standards for the use of deadly force than any other police agency in the entire country ? Because congresspersons and Senators are O so much more important than the folks that elected them maybe? If so, you know that, how? Quote:
Because the window was a part of the door. How big was the window in relation to the rest of the door? How much could he actually see? What, who, was he aiming at? You can talk this rubbish all you want but you can't change the fact that this was not a legally justified shooting, or that this guy got a pass for purely political reasons. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/28/21 at 13:40:30 doesn't mean you have to alter the facts to make him seem more wrong. Correct! Because there IS no greater Wrong. And he is congratulating himself for his great courage. I wish he was white and she was black.. Watching the left do a fifty G about face would be a hoot. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/28/21 at 14:01:52 You know this how? And you are implying that the Capital police have a different set of standards for the use of deadly force than any other police agency in the entire country ? Because congresspersons and Senators are O so much more important than the folks that elected them maybe? If so, you know that, how? On 07/28/20 at 09:44:36 hrs. I posted about this very subject, 163 days before Ashley Babbitt was killed. I stated I work with Federal agencies, and in this specific situation I am evaluating the ethics of an exercise designed around Federal Police response to large scale protests. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1595954676/0 And you are implying that the Capital police have a different set of standards for the use of deadly force than any other police agency in the entire country ? No. I am saying your assessment that police have the "exact same" operational parameters regarding deadly force as "civilians" is wrong. All police not just Capitol Police. These of course vary by State. There is no universal "deadly force" law for civilians in the US so how you can even evaluate that all police share the "exact same" criteria is fundamentally flawed because there is no "same" if you cross State lines. You disagree, you know this is incorrect how? "How big was the window in relation to the rest of the door? How much could he actually see? What, who, was he aiming at?" Did you watch the two videos? I can only assess that you need to ask that question because you never looked for yourself. I could have someone create a scale of the window size to door ratio and give you a near exact number, but anyone can clearly see those windows are around 40% of that door size and her body was inside that frame. How are you assessing that when he moved towards her and discharged his weapon at that distance that he could not see her inside that window frame? "You can talk this rubbish all you want but you can't change the fact that this was not not a legally justified shooting, or that this guy got a pass for purely political reasons." Yeah I already said this was a possibility, but I can't control what you hear, I can only control what I say. Just because I ask you how you are assessing that he could not see who he shot, and think your sentence structure combined suggests he shot THROUGH a solid door with no line of sight does not mean I am placing a value on his decision. It means I think you might be altering the facts. Even if we agree, I'd rather use truth than manipulation to make my point. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by oldNslow on 08/28/21 at 14:36:35 there is nothing in that 7/28 thread that has anything whatever to do with any exception for the Capitol Police regarding the commonly accepted standard for a legal justification for the use of legal force. Which applies to everyone - police or not. Byrd panicked and shot an unarmed female who was not a threat to him or anyone else. Bad shoot. He got a pass because he's black and because there is no possible way that the plain fact that the only person that was killed as a direct result of this so called "insurrection" was killed by an agent of the government was ever going to become the real story instead of the nonsense that Pelosi , the rest of the weasels in congress, and their media lackeys have been pushing right from the start. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by MnSpring on 08/28/21 at 14:46:21 Quote:
Please explain, how you posting that you are now playing with 'Breakaway' bottles, (movie props), Proves that Capital Police can shoot and kill, anyone, (Without the slightest hint of any kind of threat) only, because they are about to cross a line. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/28/21 at 14:50:59 exception for the Capitol Police regarding the commonly accepted standard for a legal justification for the use of legal force. That wasn't the topic of that thread, but that thread indicates 163 days prior that I work in this field and that there are ethical concerns. So how do I know? I've been there and have had to sit through PowerPoint after PowerPoint of legalese in regards to use of force by Federal Agencies. Admittedly I am typically just making exercise alterations and waiting for us to begin training, but I have to sit there, I have to go through the process. "Byrd panicked and shot an unarmed female who was not a threat to him or anyone else." This very well could be true. I however am willing to accept that my limited degree of information makes me uncapable of declaring that absolute fact. I do not know for instance if they were told to not let anyone through that door under line of defense. Yes Capitol Police (and others) have used that term in policy. No it is not the same implementation as the US Military. How are you assessing that when he moved towards her and discharged his weapon at that distance that he could not see her inside that window frame? |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Serowbot on 08/28/21 at 15:25:39 I see at least three guns pointed just feet from that door. Stupid woman thought this was some kind of game. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by oldNslow on 08/28/21 at 15:53:43 6076617C64717C67130 wrote:
So, in your world, doing something stupid is punishable by death? I'm glad I don't live in that world. I would have been up against the wall with my last cigarette hanging out of my mouth a long time ago. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/28/21 at 16:03:09 Please explain, how you posting that you are now playing with 'Breakaway' bottles, (movie props), Proves that Capital Police can shoot and kill, anyone, (Without the slightest hint of any kind of threat) only, because they are about to cross a line. I never said it "proved" anything nor was I asked for proof. You can pretend that I was "playing with" breakaway bottles but anyone that reads that thread will know that those are used for training with Federal police forces in regards to large scale protests. The actual topic. Jan 6th was a large scale protest, Federal police were present. That's what I have been involved in the training for, and questioned the ethics of the training methods. Oldnslow asked how I knew, and my reference was I had already indicated I have done this type of training long before this event ever happened. I knew because I had already seen the methods. How do you know what is conducted in the training? The problem is you guys are equating my knowledge of a term to a statement of right or wrong, as usual. If I ask a question I am not telling you you are wrong, I am asking you a question. It's called adult conversation. So I make a post questioning the quality and ethics of Federal training before this event and you guys get all defensive because I think maybe he was following bad policy. Now you want to debate if that policy even exists, as if that somehow changes the fact I think it's bad policy. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by oldNslow on 08/28/21 at 16:16:27 Quote:
I'm not. I asked a question: " How much could he actually see? What, who, was he aiming at?" At her? If so he shot an unarmed person who was not a threat to him or anyone else in the chamber. Or did he just point his gun at the door and pull the trigger. In either case he was in the wrong. How wrong - anywhere from a breach of training, protocol or legal justification for the use of deadly force all the way to negligent homicide IMO. Or somewhere else in between those two extremes. But total exoneration of all culpability? No one not blinded by partisan ideological considerations or agenda could reach that conclusion. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/28/21 at 17:31:31 First you said: He shot THROUGH the F*ckin Door for cryin' out loud. I doubt he even knew who the he*l he hit till it was all over. So without evidence, even though it is widely available, you stated he shot blindly THROUGH a door. Then you asked if this was even correct. See why I debate the accuracy of certain assessments around here? You want to question what I know. I know I watched the videos before go around claiming this guy is shooting THROUGH doors not knowing if he even hit anyone. I'm ok talking about the decision to shoot and if it was a sound and legal judgement, but I am not ok with people using complacency, manipulation or lies as evidence. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by oldNslow on 08/28/21 at 17:54:06 Can you determine, without a doubt, from the video. if Byrd carefully aimed at Ashli Babbit and hit exactly where he was aiming, or if he just blindly "shot through the crappity smack'n door( I didn't say "blindly" in my post by the way - you added that) and happened to hit her instead of one of the other people that were near her. It doesn't matter either way as far as Byrd's culpability goes as far as I'm concerned, in either case he was wrong, but I can play this game too. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/28/21 at 18:22:42 Can you determine, without a doubt, from the video. No. I actually have admitted from the beginning that I do not know enough to say. You however claim things, then ask if they are true. Can anyone on any video, or in person, without a doubt know what another human sees, how careful they are, and what part of the body they were aiming for? Is your question, as posed, answerable in any situation, right or wrong, in any circumstance ever? All I can say is you have a lot to say about this and won't even look at the evidence. So you ask questions you can get the answer to yourself, then assume this guy is using poor line-of-sight methods, or at least imply it. Watch the videos, look at the distance and fire-angle and you tell me what you think. What I do know is you so far have refused to use widely available evidence. Looking at the advancement footwork, posture, distance, line of sight, weapon-to-target elevation, and fire line geometry I would say no, he would not have hit anyone else - had a clear line of sight, and was aware of his target and what was beyond. My evidence is two videos of the event and yours is what? If Babbitt was a guy crawling through that window with a bomb strapped to his chest and a pistol in his hand this would be considered a textbook shot from a physical engagement perspective. So instead of trying, without evidence, to make it seem like this guy was some buffoon firing THROUGH doors not knowing if he hit anyone, just use actual real facts and assess if he made the correct decision. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by MnSpring on 08/29/21 at 07:50:02 Quote:
Which policy do you think is 'bad' ? The policy of upholstering his gun ? The policy of carrying it ? The policy of the speed he walked/ran to the door ? The policy of aiming the gun ? Or the policy of shooting and killing a person, who showed no threat/physical harm, to him or those around him ? |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by MnSpring on 08/29/21 at 08:07:49 Quote:
Your right. (not in exact words) Just that you saying: Quote:
Just that the above statement, 'implied'. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/29/21 at 19:14:23 Which policy do you think is 'bad' ? The policy of upholstering his gun ? No. The policy of carrying it ? No. I think police should carry. The policy of the speed he walked/ran to the door ? No. This is most likely not in policy. The policy of aiming the gun ? No. Or the policy of shooting and killing a person, who showed no threat/physical harm, to him or those around him ? Yes. I said that already multiple times. But since I am not "lock-step" complaining about it, but debate the obvious inaccuracies of certain interpretations by those using zero evidence it can only mean I disagree with everything and not only the part I said I think is inaccurate and only that part with the exclusion of all other parts. As I said - because I wonder if a specific order was given people here want to act like I said the action was appropriate - even though 163 days prior I stated clearly I think there is poor implementation of policy that can lead to these events. Hypersensitivity to any comment outside of absolute agreement leads to nonsense like this. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/29/21 at 19:18:11 Your right. (not in exact words) Just that you saying: Quote: Eegore wrote on Yesterday at 14:50:59: " ... So how do I know? I've been there and have had to sit through PowerPoint after PowerPoint of legalese in regards to use of force by Federal Agencies. ... " Just that the above statement, 'implied'. If I ask you how do you know gun safe law for authorized gun dealers was introduced in MN and you tell me it is because you contributed to the implementation of that law - is that "proof?" No. I would not think you implied "proof" I would think you are answering my question. My question that did not ask for "proof". |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by WebsterMark on 08/30/21 at 09:22:18 Byrd: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So he fired? Shouldn’t the Secret Servcie Officers on the line outside The White House that night when protestors were pushing at the fence have just opened up on them all because they “could not fully see their hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” ? |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by MnSpring on 08/30/21 at 09:27:23 Perhaps if your numerous, arguments/posts/questions, didn’t sound a whole lot like, Defending, this person’s actions. Following posts would be in a different tone. 78585A524F583D0 wrote:
1636343C2136530 wrote:
09292B233E294C0 wrote:
0C2C2E263B2C490 wrote:
18383A322F385D0 wrote:
6545474F5245200 wrote:
Here are some questions concerning your involvement with the: 1636343C2136530 wrote:
Did you read/hear/see a copy of a Capital/Federal police ‘policy’, that stated, perimeters for the order of a, ‘ Hold The Line ‘ policy ? Did you give your impute on, keep/remove/modify a ‘ Hold The Line ‘ policy ? Did you recommend a, removal, (if one existed) or a keep the same/increase, of the, ‘ Hold The Line ‘ Policy ? [i]NOTE: These are questions only, they are not a statement of a policy. |
|
Title: Re: Murder during a riot Post by Eegore on 08/30/21 at 10:29:57 Perhaps if your numerous, arguments/posts/questions, didn’t sound a whole lot like, Defending, this person’s actions. Following posts would be in a different tone. Asking if you would jump through a window with guns pointing at you is not saying the action is correct. You may not hear that but what my words say is that a human that jumps through a window with guns pointing at them runs a higher risk of being shot than one's who don't. Stating that a gun was drawn prior to her entry in a window is fact. When people say guns were not visible they are wrong, multiple guns were visible, even from her line of sight. You might think that means I am saying the action was correct - but what my words say is that multiple guns were visible prior to her being shot. My evidence is two videos but if people watch them they can't go around saying "probably" this and "probably" that. When I say maybe they were told to hold the line I do not mean that the action was correct. You may hear that, but my actual words say that a possibility exists that they were instructed to do this. People can say this is not true and ask for "proof" even though they offer zero "proof" themselves and won't even watch the videos. When I say if Babbitt was a guy crawling through that window with a bomb strapped to his chest, I do not mean to say I think the action is correct. You may hear that but my words indicate otherwise. I mean that the mechanical actions that Oldnslow questions without evidence, while refusing to look at them himself, are from a technical aspect a textbook action. "Did you read/hear/see a copy of a Capital/Federal police ‘policy’, that stated, perimeters for the order of a, ‘ Hold The Line ‘ policy ? Yes. Did you give your impute on, keep/remove/modify a ‘ Hold The Line ‘ policy ? No. Did you recommend a, removal, (if one existed) or a keep the same/increase, of the, ‘ Hold The Line ‘ Policy ?" No. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |