---

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

Secolobo said:

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

YellowPot_97 said:

She was climbing through a broken window of a barricaded door in the US Capital building.
How anyone is defending her is beyond me.

---

WestTexasAg said:

I think this is a fair point. It shouldn't matter the skin color, sex, etc. You can't attempt to breach the US Capital. That being said, it is odd that they have kept this under wraps. Then again, I guess its really not. We all know it would be all over the news if the cop was white and the girl was black.

---

Oak Tree said:

Who kept it under wraps? Republicans, Democrats, the media?

---

While the media in majority of cases today is a villain and shill for the Dems, in this case, they could only know if they had been told. It seems that Pelosi and McConnell kept it under wraps--- whoever would have received the report from the security forces. Since not CP, there is no guarantee the outgoing CP Chief would have been told either. For who kept it under wraps, simply identify who would have known, and go from there.

Biggest problem with all of this, is the lack of transparency. The use of force report needs to be released, so the explanation for the use of force is public. USCP is making this situation much worse, but that is a police issue across the country.

If the officer was protecting a person or persons, then his use of force is justifiable. If he was just protecting property, then that would unjustified. Since he is not being charged, I assume the former is the case.

Lots of tin foil hat responses on this thread. And if you haven't read graham V Connor or at least know the graham factors, your comments on the justification of the shooting are based on ignorance.

Would the shooting fall under a "Stand Your Ground" type of thing?

No Spin Ag said:

---

Would the shooting fall under a "Stand Your Ground" type of thing?

---

No. Not a home, and there was definitely room to retreat.

As long as we are good to shoot unarmed protestors that stop my car and seem to be trying to break a window or otherwise enter it, then ok. Oh, and keep my name out of the news for 6 months as well. Somehow that standard doesn't seem to be the same.

Hell the guy in Austin had an AK pointed at him and his car surrounded by protesters and still got indicted and all he was doing was dropping off a ride share passenger.

It still really bothers me that Byrd is with the group at the main entrance door on the entire opposite (north) side of the chamber at roughly the same time.(see the curved seats) and not near the Speaker's podium and south wall which is the north wall of the Speaker's Lobby, at whose SE corner Babbit is being shot at. All in the 2:35-2:44 range.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Hell the guy in Austin had an AK pointed at him and his car surrounded by protesters and still got indicted and all he was doing was dropping off a ride share passenger.

---

Exactly. It's ridiculously one-sided and entirely racially motivated

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Would the shooting fall under a "Stand Your Ground" type of thing?

---

nortex97 said:

No. Not a home, and there was definitely room to retreat.

---

Swing and two misses. Stand your ground laws aren't only for a persons home. And they specifically say you don't have to retreat.

That being said, they still aren't applicable in this situation, just not because of your reasoning.

Are you thinking of castle doctrine?

Question to nothing in particular: Can any think of a reason that blame would be assigned to one officer rather than another? In a case like this what difference would it make. But the architectural obstacles seem very considerable. If he remains in view in the video at that House crowd at the door, it gets really dicey.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

No Spin Ag said:

---

Would the shooting fall under a "Stand Your Ground" type of thing?

---

nortex97 said:

No. Not a home, and there was definitely room to retreat.

---

InfantryAg said:

Swing and two misses. Stand your ground laws aren't only for a persons home. And they specifically say you don't have to retreat.

That being said, they still aren't applicable in this situation, just not because of your reasoning.

Are you thinking of castle doctrine?

---

I don't know, I don't recall that doctrine, that just came to mind because I was reminded of the George Zimmerman case and how because he believed the use of deadly force was necessary. The law was talked about a lot around that time, but I just read it was just that he believed the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or harm.

That's why I asked is this might be seen in a similar situation, legally at least.

titan said:

---

Question to nothing in particular: Can any think of a reason that blame would be assigned to one officer rather than another? In a case like this what difference would it make. But the architectural obstacles seem very considerable. If he remains in view in the video at that House crowd at the door, it gets really dicey.

---

Good question, and although I can't think of anything - that doesn't mean there isn't. That's why I do think that we should be given the answers to the many "whys" people on both sides have. We don't have to like the answers, and I'm sure most won't, but at least we would be given an answer.

nortex97 said:

---

---

I appreciate her service.

Since she's seen active duty, she probably knows what would happen to someone on post trying to access a secured and barricaded area without authorization.

Especially via unconventional means, like kicking in a window.

---

titan said:

---

Question to nothing in particular: Can any think of a reason that blame would be assigned to one officer rather than another? In a case like this what difference would it make. But the architectural obstacles seem very considerable. If he remains in view in the video at that House crowd at the door, it gets really dicey.

---

No Spin Ag said:

Good question, and although I can't think of anything - that doesn't mean there isn't. That's why I do think that we should be given the answers to the many "whys" people on both sides have. We don't have to like the answers, and I'm sure most won't, but at least we would be given an answer.

---

Exactly. Do not trust the process now. Especially when this isn't a `witness claimed' thing -- the video evidence puts him at the north House entrance door group trying to hold that line. At that very same time the group with Sullian and Babbit breaks off and rounds two corners of the building to end up in the SE corner behind the House. We have only a black (or even just dark skinned) hand holding the gun to prove him shooting Babbitt vs the former evidence. How did he get to the southern side of the Speaker's Lobby from inside the House on the far side?

Wait a second --- Devil's Advocate on own question here. A mis-captioned picture can easily account for it, if after shooting her, he THEN entered the House chamber and ran to the north side. This could be checked by analysts. By this meaning, if his House picture is after 2:44, not before.

So are you saying byrd was following policy and approved protocol?

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

titan said:

---

Question to nothing in particular: Can any think of a reason that blame would be assigned to one officer rather than another? In a case like this what difference would it make. But the architectural obstacles seem very considerable. If he remains in view in the video at that House crowd at the door, it gets really dicey.

---

No Spin Ag said:

Good question, and although I can't think of anything - that doesn't mean there isn't. That's why I do think that we should be given the answers to the many "whys" people on both sides have. We don't have to like the answers, and I'm sure most won't, but at least we would be given an answer.

---

titan said:

Exactly. Do not trust the process now. Especially when this isn't a `witness claimed' thing -- the video evidence puts him at the north House entrance door group trying to hold that line. At that very same time the group with Sullian and Babbit breaks off and rounds two corners of the building to end up in the SE corner behind the House. We have only a black (or even just dark skinned) hand holding the gun to prove him shooting Babbitt vs the former evidence. How did he get to the southern side of the Speaker's Lobby from inside the House on the far side?

Wait a second --- Devil's Advocate on own question here. A mis-captioned picture can easily account for it, if after shooting her, he THEN entered the House chamber and ran to the north side. This could be checked by analysts. By this meaning, if his House picture is after 2:44, not before.

---

All good points. I won't hold my breath that we'll get the answers we want, at least any time soon, but they still should come out.

---

nortex97 said:

---

---

Anonymous Source said:

I appreciate her service.

Since she's seen active duty, she probably knows what would happen to someone on post trying to access a secured and barricaded area without authorization.

Especially via unconventional means, like kicking in a window.

---

She doesn't know anything; she is dead.

He probably knows about the rules as to when deadly force is authorized, though.

Agreed. For the moment can just stay with this:

Quote:

---

If he remains in view in the video at that House crowd at the door, it gets really dicey.

---

That clip looks like from a video. If it is, and its the video of the 2:35-ish onward stand at the House door, he bettere not be in it during the first nine minutes. It may simply be a scene minutes later that keep showing him with them in those articles. But it would mean he just shot her and then crossed the hall to enter the House and hustle over to the north door. But the Sullivan video might show that if it goes on past where they clip off her being shot.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

nortex97 said:

---

---

Anonymous Source said:

I appreciate her service.

Since she's seen active duty, she probably knows what would happen to someone on post trying to access a secured and barricaded area without authorization.

Especially via unconventional means, like kicking in a window.

---

nortex97 said:

She doesn't know anything; she is dead.

He probably knows about the rules as to when deadly force is authorized, though.

---

If she didn't know in advance that kicking in a window to attempt to breach a secured area COULD end up costing her her life, then why are we shedding tears for someone so ****ing stupid?

She didn't kick in the window. That's adding embroidery. She foolishly climbed through an already breached window frame. It was protest inertia --- seen all the time in Democrat Occupy riots. At no time in fact did she break into anything, it was closer to the legal term of trespassing probably to legal eagle terms. And such details matter when talking legalities rather than common sense.

OK. "Crawling through" rather than "kicking in."
Doesn't change much.

Anonymous Source said:

---

OK. "Crawling through" rather than "kicking in."
Doesn't change much.

---

Jan 6 "deadly insurrection" putting "democracy at risk" was needed so that the coup d'etat finale could look like this on Jan 20

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzHEW1-agOYLGN-Mtc_B6pjHTsT8jflC1U4g&usqp=CAU

It wouldn't have been a good look if 81 million votes, most popular politician in history with a voter mandate for Marxism and control, had no one show up at the inauguration.

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

OK. "Crawling through" rather than "kicking in."
Doesn't change much.

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

It absolutely does in a court-room. That's the whole point. A legal argument is being debate here. That's why terms like "was it a good shoot" or not are being used as well.

Anonymous Source said:

---

OK. "Crawling through" rather than "kicking in."
Doesn't change much.

---

oh no said:

---

Jan 6 "deadly insurrection" putting "democracy at risk" was needed so that the coup d'etat finale could look like this on Jan 20

?width=465&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=ccafdad278de35657cbfd971ed13de42

It wouldn't have been a good look if 81 million votes, most popular politician in history with a voter mandate for Marxism and control, had no one show up at the inauguration.

---

That actually makes a great deal of sense. (Your picture didn't show, but presumably it is the sparse Inauguration scene). Since they knew in advance it would be that way, they had to create a cover for it being that way. Certainly worth throwing into consideration.

---

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Would the shooting fall under a "Stand Your Ground" type of thing?

---

nortex97 said:

No. Not a home, and there was definitely room to retreat.

---

InfantryAg said:

Swing and two misses. Stand your ground laws aren't only for a persons home. And they specifically say you don't have to retreat.

That being said, they still aren't applicable in this situation, just not because of your reasoning.

Are you thinking of castle doctrine?

---

No Spin Ag said:

I don't know, I don't recall that doctrine, that just came to mind because I was reminded of the George Zimmerman case and how because he believed the use of deadly force was necessary. The law was talked about a lot around that time, but I just read it was just that he believed the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or harm.

That's why I asked is this might be seen in a similar situation, legally at least.

---

Question about castle doctrine was for nortex.

Stand your ground says that as long as you are in a place you are legal to be, you have no duty to retreat.

Police use of force is judged by graham V connor.

IMO there are also some national security rules in play when it comes to protecting the legislative branch.

---

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

nortex97 said:

---

---

Anonymous Source said:

I appreciate her service.

Since she's seen active duty, she probably knows what would happen to someone on post trying to access a secured and barricaded area without authorization.

Especially via unconventional means, like kicking in a window.

---

nortex97 said:

She doesn't know anything; she is dead.

He probably knows about the rules as to when deadly force is authorized, though.

---

Anonymous Source said:

If she didn't know in advance that kicking in a window to attempt to breach a secured area COULD end up costing her her life, then why are we shedding tears for someone so ****ing stupid?

---

When is unlawful deadly use of force by police ok to cover up/keep secret in the US and when is it not? It wasn't for Ferguson, Minneapolis etc. I can't keep the rules straight, I guess, but I think they should always be disclosed, and explained/prosecuted when wrong.

I guess you disagree, based on the intelligence of the person killed. Maybe if Ashli had just ate too much drugs?

Remember when Biden claimed he was arrested at the Capitol? Letterman does.

rumble

Just reported on Brett Baier, the officer who shot Babbitt was NOT a member of ANY protective detail. His assignment was the Speaker's Lobby which has little to nothing to do with where Pelosi's office is located. It is a well traveled corridor for reps and aides to get to the House floor and meeting rooms.

It was a bad shoot, and I don't GAF what color the cop was.
Put him on trial, lock him up, and throw away the key.
These federal officers and the alphabet soup/new SS members beed to answer to somebody.

aggiehawg said:

---

Just reported on Brett Baier, the officer who shot Babbitt was NOT a member of ANY protective detail. His assignment was the Speaker's Lobby which has little to nothing to do with where Pelosi's office is located. It is a well traveled corridor for reps and aides to get to the House floor and meeting rooms.

---

That is what have been pointing out -- the character of the Speaker's Lobby. Its in the House, and that "reaching out to Schumer" as reported was kind of going the wrong idea. (But he might have answered, true) But the real problem remains is if the officer is with that group at the House door the timing doesn't fit. Did Brett confirm its Byrd?

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just reported on Brett Baier, the officer who shot Babbitt was NOT a member of ANY protective detail. His assignment was the Speaker's Lobby which has little to nothing to do with where Pelosi's office is located. It is a well traveled corridor for reps and aides to get to the House floor and meeting rooms.

---

titan said:

That is what have been pointing out -- the character of the Speaker's Lobby. Its in the House, and that "reaching out to Schumer" as reported was kind of going the wrong idea. (But he might have answered, true) But the real problem remains is if the officer is with that group at the House door the timing doesn't fit. Did Brett confirm its Byrd?

---

Not by name. The actual reporter was Chad Pergram. Their Capitol Hill reporter.

Reason I posted that was because a few posters believed the officer shot because he was on a personal protective detail. He wasn't. He was defending a corridor, not a person.

So legally, under Graham v. Connor tests, the shoot comes under further question. DOJ doesn't care.

But Ashli Babbitt's husband has a much stronger claim though, IMO.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

aggiehawg said:

---

Just reported on Brett Baier, the officer who shot Babbitt was NOT a member of ANY protective detail. His assignment was the Speaker's Lobby which has little to nothing to do with where Pelosi's office is located. It is a well traveled corridor for reps and aides to get to the House floor and meeting rooms.

---

titan said:

That is what have been pointing out -- the character of the Speaker's Lobby. Its in the House, and that "reaching out to Schumer" as reported was kind of going the wrong idea. (But he might have answered, true) But the real problem remains is if the officer is with that group at the House door the timing doesn't fit. Did Brett confirm its Byrd?

---

aggiehawg said:

Not by name. The actual reporter was Chad Pergram. Their Capitol Hill reporter.

Reason I posted that was because a few posters believed the officer shot because he was on a personal protective detail. He wasn't. He was defending a corridor, not a person.

So legally, under Graham v. Connor tests, the shoot comes under further question. DOJ doesn't care.

But Ashli Babbitt's husband has a much stronger claim though, IMO.

---

That is very interesting. Review how described it. It almost looks like Byrd is defending something else if at the House main door at any time, so the contradiction grows

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3209184/replies/59640771