I was told yesterday that it was announced who killed Ashley Babbit?

21,795 Views | 283 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by Robert L. Peters
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:


Skimming through, what's the basis for naming him as the guy?

Ask because if he is one of that group there, those scenes played out around 2:40-2:47. Ashli Babbit is shot at 2:44.5 well on the other side and beyond two partitions. And if the photo is the actual one, that's the House Entrance and on the opposite side from where the commotion is.
It's really mostly from the images and Paul Sperry's RCI investigation/reporting;

Quote:

Most police departments including Washington, D.C.'s Metropolitan Police are required to release an officer's name within days of a fatal shooting. Not the U.S. Capitol Police, which is controlled by Congress and answers only to Congress. It can keep the public in the dark about the identity and investigation of an officer involved in a shooting indefinitely.

Which is what happened with the Jan. 6 shooting of Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed protester in the U.S. Capitol riot who was fatally wounded by a plainclothes police lieutenant as she attempted to breach a set of doors inside the building.

For the past six months, as Congress has proposed legislation to reform police departments across the country, the Capitol Police has stiff-armed government watchdogs, journalists and even lawyers for Babbitt, who have sought the identity of the officer and additional details about the shooting. The USCP still refuses to release his name, in stark contrast to recent high-profile police shootings around the nation.

In February, USCP issued a press release promising to "share additional information once the investigation is complete." But Justice Department investigators closed their probe in April, clearing the officer of criminal wrongdoing in Babbitt's death, which the medical examiner ruled a homicide. And last month, the D.C. Police which shares jurisdiction with the Capitol Police and has led the investigation into Babbitt's shooting concluded its own internal review of the shooting without making any findings, according to spokeswoman Kristen Metzger.Still, USCP continues "stonewalling the public," according to the head of the police union.

"That's my department's attorneys for you," United States Capitol Police Labor Committee Chairman Gus Papathanasiou told RealClearInvestigations. "There is definitely a transparency issue. The department needs to answer those questions. They are stonewalling the public."

Withholding the name of the officer who fired the fatal shot the only round fired by anyone during the four-hour siege has bred speculation on the Internet and led to the mistaken identification of at least one officer. USCP Special Agent David Bailey was wrongly fingered as the shooter on social media and conservative news sites.

After RCI called attention to the false rumor in an email to USCP, followed by a story on the issue, USCP's communications chief officially knocked it down as "misinformation."

Now a new name has surfaced in the Babbitt imbroglio Lt. Michael L. Byrd and while USCP Communications Director Eva Malecki won't confirm he is the shooter, in this case she isn't denying it.

In a little-noticed exchange, Byrd was cited by the acting House sergeant at arms during a brief discussion of the officer who shot Babbitt at a Feb. 25 House hearing. Both C-SPAN and CNN removed his name from transcripts, but CQ Transcripts which, according to its website, provides "the complete word from Capitol Hill; exactly as it was spoken" recorded the Capitol official, Timothy Blodgett, referring to the cop as "Officer Byrd." His name is clearly audible in the videotape of the hearing (see video embed further below).

Byrd appears to match the description of the shooter, who video footage shows is an African American dressed that day in a business suit. Jewelry, including a beaded bracelet and lapel pin, also match up with photos of Byrd.

In addition, Byrd's resume lines up with what is known about the experience and position of the officer involved in the shooting a veteran USCP officer who holds the rank of lieutenant and is the commander of the House Chamber Section of the Capitol Police.


Following the shooting, Byrd's Internet footprint was scrubbed, including his social media and personal photos.

...

In a little-noticed exchange, Byrd was cited by the acting House sergeant at arms during a brief discussion of the officer who shot Babbitt at a Feb. 25 House hearing. Both C-SPAN and CNN removed his name from transcripts, but CQ Transcripts which, according to its website, provides "the complete word from Capitol Hill; exactly as it was spoken" recorded the Capitol official, Timothy Blodgett, referring to the cop as "Officer Byrd." His name is clearly audible in the videotape of the hearing (see video embed further below).

...

In February 2019, Lt. Byrd was investigated for leaving his department-issued Glock-22 firearm unattended in a restroom on the House side of the Capitol, even though the potent weapon, which fires .40-caliber rounds, has no manual safety to prevent unintended firing. Fortunately, the abandoned gun was discovered by another officer during a routine security sweep. A Glock-22 was used in the Babbitt shooting.

Byrd addressed the blunder at a roll call the following morning, reportedly telling fellow officers that he would "be treated differently" because of his rank as a lieutenant.

At the time, Malecki assured the press that "appropriate actions will be taken" against Byrd. Asked recently what disciplinary actions were administered, the USCP spokeswoman declined comment.

Unlike other police forces, USCP does not have to disclose records on police misconduct.

More than 700 complaints were lodged against Capitol Police officers between 2017 and 2019, but brass won't say what the alleged violations were or how the department resolved them. They also won't disclose how many complaints are in any individual officer's file.

While the USCP has an inspector general, he does not make reports public, unlike other agency watchdogs. His report on Jan. 6 remains secret.
Read the whole thing, as they say. His continued silence/administrative leave, the social media scrubbing, and the erasure of stuff like the cspan transcript etc. There's really no reason to refuse to even identify the shooter, in a police-involved shooting. Especially since the folks doing the silencing are the same ones who want to eliminate qualified immunity.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
oldschoolcat said:

titan said:

oldschoolcat said:

So the same capitol police that were letting the protesters walk in the door were also joined by the private security of the Democrat head of the Senate?

Ignore the shooting at this time. What does that say about Schumer's involvement? This whole thing has been overblown from the minute it happened.

Occam's Razor anyone?
Schumer's involvement is far less likely than that it points to Pelosi. This is the House, not the Senate, which was evacuated in a different direction and very far north relatively speaking. The Romney video showed a bit how that went.
More a statement of Democrat leadership being involved. There was zero chance that capitol police let them walk in the door without prior discussions. Schumer's guy being right in the thick of it makes me go all Alex Jones....
Well there may be more reason. What if it isn't the actual shooter and is connected to Pelosi or for some other reason they want to downplay? The Schumer thing appears to have started in large part because some major figure (I don't think Tucker, who?) "reached out to Schumer's office" ----- they may have thought his more likely to fess up than Pelosi's (true). But they should have grilled House leadership. It was at that end of the building, their guys and CP.

That said, all you have to do is assume a member of Senate security down in the House. No problem -- but, when coupled with the apparent discrepancy of could he even have been the guy --then it gets a little unclear.

There may be a very simple explanation though. Just pointing out the physical context.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
oldcrow91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bureaucracy is incompetent and cowardly in an emergency. I would say that is the biggest contributor to allowing this to happen even though I know there were radicals in the crowd encouraging it and I don't discount nefarious leadership contributing to it.

They should have shot the first one to break down a door or window at the perimeter but most of these guys spent their career handling compliant tourists so who is going to risk their freedom without specific orders to shoot.

At some point even bureaucracy can make a stand and it has to end. They were behind a locked door. The folks breaking down the door were not mostly peaceful protesters.
All they did was shoot the first idiot through the window and it was over.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

I will read over it. But already seeing something that doesn't appear to address the main point.

Quote:


Byrd appears to match the description of the shooter, who video footage shows is an African American dressed that day in a business suit. Jewelry, including a beaded bracelet and lapel pin, also match up with photos of Byrd.
Far more compelling to me than the description is that IF Byrd is in that crowd of guards at the NORTH main entrance of the House at about same time Babbit is shot at the SE corner on the opposite of the chamber to the south and on the other side of the back of the House Wall (which is the southern wall). That is what focusing on. It is made more complicated by the fact that the shooter is definitely already position to the left of the Speaker's Lobby entrance in an office door , and not taking a shot at her from her right and ahead, which would be doing if emerging from the House chamber.

FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
zephyr88 said:

Secolobo said:

Video shows new angle of Ashli Babbitt shooting inside Capitol
So, the ARMED POLICE who were standing within 10' of the dudes smashing the windows were right there all along?
Yes. Capitol Police was arriving in numbers up the staircase from the 1st Floor to simply try to manhandle the crowd away. It is very significant that none of them resort to extreme force, not even clubs. The shooter who shot Babbit could just as easily have killed a Capitol Police officer. If she herself had slipped going through the window and dropped back even for an instant, CP and others are behind her. (More likely the angle of bullet carries it into the SE corner of the House.)
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:

zephyr88 said:

Secolobo said:

Video shows new angle of Ashli Babbitt shooting inside Capitol
So, the ARMED POLICE who were standing within 10' of the dudes smashing the windows were right there all along?
Yes. Capitol Police was arriving in numbers up the staircase from the 1st Floor to simply try to manhandle the crowd away. It is very significant that none of them resort to extreme force, not even clubs. The shooter who shot Babbit could just as easily have killed a Capitol Police officer. If she herself had slipped going through the window and dropped back even for an instant, CP and others are behind her. (More likely the angle of bullet carries it into the SE corner of the House.)
Agree that was a very questionable discharge of his weapon by a supposedly trained officer. He could have just as easily taken a step or two, revealed himself with gun drawn and called for her to stop.

There was a famous case from Iowa in the early 70s, Katko v. Briney. Abandoned house on a farm kept being broken into and vandalized. Owner rigs a shotgun to fire at the legs of anyone breaking through the door. Guy breaks in, gets shot, sues for damages from his injuries and wins. Eventhough the gun was aimed low and not at center mass, employing potentially deadly force to protect property from the minor crime of trespassing is not allowed.
nu awlins ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GeorgiAg said:

So that's why Trump brought this up - to stoke racial tensions. What a jackass.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
WHOOP!'91 said:

YellowPot_97 said:

Secolobo said:

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.
But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

She was climbing through a broken window of a barricaded door in the US Capital building.
How anyone is defending her is beyond me.
Nobody is "defending her", people are wondering if what she did warrants being killed.


Exactly. It's so curious what warrants a discussion based upon one's political ideology.

Just discussing this event always quickly becomes "wHy ArE yOu DeFeNdInG hER?!?"
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BoydCrowder13 said:

Is this the new Benghazi?


i'M A cOnSeRvAtIve!



titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
aggiehawg said:

titan said:

zephyr88 said:

Secolobo said:

Video shows new angle of Ashli Babbitt shooting inside Capitol
So, the ARMED POLICE who were standing within 10' of the dudes smashing the windows were right there all along?
Yes. Capitol Police was arriving in numbers up the staircase from the 1st Floor to simply try to manhandle the crowd away. It is very significant that none of them resort to extreme force, not even clubs. The shooter who shot Babbit could just as easily have killed a Capitol Police officer. If she herself had slipped going through the window and dropped back even for an instant, CP and others are behind her. (More likely the angle of bullet carries it into the SE corner of the House.)
Agree that was a very questionable discharge of his weapon by a supposedly trained officer. He could have just as easily taken a step or two, revealed himself with gun drawn and called for her to stop.

There was a famous case from Iowa in the early 70s, Katko v. Briney. Abandoned house on a farm kept being broken into and vandalized. Owner rigs a shotgun to fire at the legs of anyone breaking through the door. Guy breaks in, gets shot, sues for damages from his injuries and wins. Eventhough the gun was aimed low and not at center mass, employing potentially deadly force to protect property from the minor crime of trespassing is not allowed.
Another thing that might make it very questionable is when a mass of officers already among the protestors are electing not to escalate. He single-handedly changed the dynamic. Can few doubt a more aggressive minded crowd would have just stepped up the violence to those among them? Instead like sane people they just react in horror (even Sullivan) and start doing what they can to get out of the way so she can be removed.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GeorgiAg said:

So that's why Trump brought this up - to stoke racial tensions. What a jackass.
Stop trolling. This isn't about Trump, it's about a police officer involved shooting that is being covered up/not disclosed as to who the shooter is.

This isn't an ambulance chaser issue. It's a basic one of civil rights and transparency in government.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
nu awlins ag said:

GeorgiAg said:

So that's why Trump brought this up - to stoke racial tensions. What a jackass.

That's absurd. In fact, it would be interesting to know who Pelosi's guards are ---- if Byrd is not the actual shooter, as incline at moment for timing reasons it could very well turn out it wasn't even a black guy.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GeorgiAg said:

So that's why Trump brought this up - to stoke racial tensions. What a jackass.


What?
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GeorgiAg said:

So that's why Trump brought this up - to stoke racial tensions. What a jackass.
You're proof that TDS is a degenerative and probably terminal condition.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
nu awlins ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:

nu awlins ag said:

GeorgiAg said:

So that's why Trump brought this up - to stoke racial tensions. What a jackass.

That's absurd. In fact, it would be interesting to know who Pelosi's guards are ---- if Byrd is not the actual shooter, as incline at moment for timing reasons it could very well turn out it wasn't even a black guy.


I was laughing at his idiotic take. Liberals really are stupid and evil. To want something to fail so bad because you yourself have failed at life is so stupid and warped.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

GeorgiAg said:

So that's why Trump brought this up - to stoke racial tensions. What a jackass.


What?
What's funny about that is it is something his Media demonstrably intentionally does 24/7 with seemingly no complaints. In this one, it is just being assumed it is Trump's motive.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
CoppellAg93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:

nu awlins ag said:

GeorgiAg said:

So that's why Trump brought this up - to stoke racial tensions. What a jackass.

That's absurd. In fact, it would be interesting to know who Pelosi's guards are ---- if Byrd is not the actual shooter, as incline at moment for timing reasons it could very well turn out it wasn't even a black guy.
I guess you can make up your own mind ...



nu awlins ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trump's angry because the election was stolen and fraudulent period. The whole MSM was complacent in it as well as a few government agencies, state and nationally. There is no way Biden won in a fair and honest election. Hell, he brings it up and the MSM is still talking about January 6th! You don't do this if you won fairly.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:


I will read over it. But already seeing something that doesn't appear to address the main point.

Quote:


Byrd appears to match the description of the shooter, who video footage shows is an African American dressed that day in a business suit. Jewelry, including a beaded bracelet and lapel pin, also match up with photos of Byrd.
Far more compelling to me than the description is that IF Byrd is in that crowd of guards at the NORTH main entrance of the House at about same time Babbit is shot at the SE corner on the opposite of the chamber to the south and on the other side of the back of the House Wall (which is the southern wall). That is what focusing on. It is made more complicated by the fact that the shooter is definitely already position to the left of the Speaker's Lobby entrance in an office door , and not taking a shot at her from her right and ahead, which would be doing if emerging from the House chamber.


It's not just that part. This is the crux of the disclosure;

Quote:

In a little-noticed exchange, Byrd was cited by the acting House sergeant at arms during a brief discussion of the officer who shot Babbitt at a Feb. 25 House hearing. Both C-SPAN and CNN removed his name from transcripts, but CQ Transcripts which, according to its website, provides "the complete word from Capitol Hill; exactly as it was spoken" recorded the Capitol official, Timothy Blodgett, referring to the cop as "Officer Byrd." His name is clearly audible in the videotape of the hearing (see video embed further below).
Again, the context of his extended administrative leave, and lack of denials/information confirming/denying this is what really makes sense of it. That he fits the physical description of the shooter caught on camera (which, probably less than 10 percent of people do, even loosely, among law enforcement at the US Capitol, in skin/gender/size/features), is only one part of the corroborating data.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

Okay, dark skinned, but this is all missing what really focusing on. He is shooting from the left, from the office doors that line the south wall of the Speaker's Lobby Hall. That photo of Byrd shows him at the press of people in the same time range defending the House chamber where the seats curve toward the main entrance. Far less interested in the race of the shooter (I don't think Trump was focusing on that either) then that if identified correctly, he is not at the left side of the Speaker's Lobby hall at 2:44.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
nortex97 said:

titan said:


I will read over it. But already seeing something that doesn't appear to address the main point.

Quote:


Byrd appears to match the description of the shooter, who video footage shows is an African American dressed that day in a business suit. Jewelry, including a beaded bracelet and lapel pin, also match up with photos of Byrd.
Far more compelling to me than the description is that IF Byrd is in that crowd of guards at the NORTH main entrance of the House at about same time Babbit is shot at the SE corner on the opposite of the chamber to the south and on the other side of the back of the House Wall (which is the southern wall). That is what focusing on. It is made more complicated by the fact that the shooter is definitely already position to the left of the Speaker's Lobby entrance in an office door , and not taking a shot at her from her right and ahead, which would be doing if emerging from the House chamber.


It's not just that part. This is the crux of the disclosure;

Quote:

In a little-noticed exchange, Byrd was cited by the acting House sergeant at arms during a brief discussion of the officer who shot Babbitt at a Feb. 25 House hearing. Both C-SPAN and CNN removed his name from transcripts, but CQ Transcripts which, according to its website, provides "the complete word from Capitol Hill; exactly as it was spoken" recorded the Capitol official, Timothy Blodgett, referring to the cop as "Officer Byrd." His name is clearly audible in the videotape of the hearing (see video embed further below).
Again, the context of his extended administrative leave, and lack of denials/information confirming/denying this is what really makes sense of it. That he fits the physical description of the shooter caught on camera (which, probably less than 10 percent of people do, even loosely, among law enforcement at the US Capitol, in skin/gender/size/features), is only one part of the corroborating data.
Okay, that is is pretty compelling. So the obvious answer is to the House photo is before somehow dispatched over there, because apparently he is the shooter. But those events were happening at the same time in opposite quarters.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
CoppellAg93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:


Okay, dark skinned, but this is all missing what really focusing on. He is shooting from the left, from the office doors that line the south wall of the Speaker's Lobby Hall. That photo of Byrd shows him at the press of people in the same time range defending the House chamber where the seats curve toward the main entrance. Far less interested in the race of the shooter (I don't think Trump was focusing on that either) then that if identified correctly, he is not at the left side of the Speaker's Lobby hall at 2:44.
I couldn't care less what color the shooter is - just responding to the post above.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
zephyr88 said:

Secolobo said:

Video shows new angle of Ashli Babbitt shooting inside Capitol
So, the ARMED POLICE who were standing within 10' of the dudes smashing the windows were right there all along?
Yes, on both sides. The plain-clothed black officer on the left side of the door, with cufflinks (again matching the guy identified as I have linked by Sperry), is the shooter though (with a glock, same type he lost in 2019). Oh, and the BLM/Antifa guys were there too.

I think it looks like a glock 22, but I'm not a glock aficionado/expert.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

Here's an illustration that came to mind. Form a rectangle long side east-west in your mind. Or take your phone and turn it sideways. The phone is the House chamber. The main entrance is in the center and top of your phone. Huge crowd pounding on the [North] door there, though not many can fit the entrance vestibule at a time. That crowd of officers with guns drawn is facing the main entrance.

The Speaker's Lobby hall runs along the bottom side of the rectangle; the commotion with Ashli Babbit is at the lower right corner of your phone or the SE corner of the rectangle. The culprit is shooting her from the left, the row off offices and doorways running along the south side of the Lobby hall. Babbit's crowd got there by going left from the main entrance crowd, around a corner (now going south) around another corner (now going west) to confront that east glass panned door right after rounding the corner. There is a staircase there that CP were coming up right amongs the protestors, on the protestor side of the door pane.

Both of these events are happening in the 2:39-2:44 range and mean rather precisely.

That's the knot.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Gigem314
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:

BoydCrowder13 said:

Is this the new Benghazi?
Oh, look. Totally NOT a Concerned Moderate using a Concerned Moderate talking point.
They don't even try to hide it.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GeorgiAg said:

So that's why Trump brought this up - to stoke racial tensions. What a jackass.
F- troll. You voted for race baiting.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

zephyr88 said:

Secolobo said:

Video shows new angle of Ashli Babbitt shooting inside Capitol
So, the ARMED POLICE who were standing within 10' of the dudes smashing the windows were right there all along?
Yes, on both sides. The plain-clothed black officer on the left side of the door, with cufflinks (again matching the guy identified as I have linked by Sperry), is the shooter though (with a glock, same type he lost in 2019). Oh, and the BLM/Antifa guys were there too.

I think it looks like a glock 22, but I'm not a glock aficionado/expert.
Neither am I but I seem to recall reading that model glock doesn't have a safety? Can anyone confirm that?
Cassius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GeorgiAg said:

So that's why Trump brought this up - to stoke racial tensions. What a jackass.


So you are accusing Trump of knowing who shot her when he brought it up and asked who shot her?

Where is your evidence of that?
AgOutsideAustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Black kills white.
Move along because slavery.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

nortex97 said:

zephyr88 said:

Secolobo said:

Video shows new angle of Ashli Babbitt shooting inside Capitol
So, the ARMED POLICE who were standing within 10' of the dudes smashing the windows were right there all along?
Yes, on both sides. The plain-clothed black officer on the left side of the door, with cufflinks (again matching the guy identified as I have linked by Sperry), is the shooter though (with a glock, same type he lost in 2019). Oh, and the BLM/Antifa guys were there too.

I think it looks like a glock 22, but I'm not a glock aficionado/expert.
Neither am I but I seem to recall reading that model glock doesn't have a safety? Can anyone confirm that?
It does not have a manual safety.

It does have some other safety features, but I've got no clue about what those do since I've never owned a Glock and never will. Just don't care for how they feel in my hand. Give me a H&K or Springfield anyday.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

This is interesting as to how might relate to accuracy. Does this have any bearing on whether it was in any way a bad shoot or a little reckless given all the CP behind? Even the shot itself is rather close to a miss apparently-- a neck wound I believe.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
TheEternalPessimist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
YellowPot_97 said:

Secolobo said:

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.
But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

She was climbing through a broken window of a barricaded door in the US Capital building.
How anyone is defending her is beyond me.
I will defend her when she is unarmed. That is the standard the left has created. Anyone unarmed can not be killed/shot by police ever.

Apply the same standard.

Byrd is a murderer and should get at least 20 years in jail.
GeorgiAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trump lost the election and it wasn't close. He promoted the reckless shenanigans of 1/6 and his tweet silence during the onslaught spoke volumes. They were shouting to hang his Vice President. Now he's recklessly calling it a "love fest." He is 0-60 in court filings, and the moron lawyers who filed that garbage are going to get Rule 11 sanctions for filing it.

He continues to push the Big Lie and people still believe it. Now he's trying make a martyr out of a moron who jumped through a smashed window of a barricaded door of the US Capitol during a riot with a man with a gun drawn in her face telling her not to. And he knows his base will eat it up because the guy may have been a black security guard for a democrat.

This man is a cancer on our democracy and the Republican Party. And y'all will rush to defend him.

Mitch McConnell summed it up perfectly:
Quote:

January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They use terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of domestic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the center floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chatted about murdering the vice president. They did this because they'd been fed wild, falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth because he was angry. He lost an election. Former President Trump's actions preceded the riot or a disgraceful dereliction of duty. The House accused the former president of quote "Incitement". That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me just put that aside for a moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago. There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.

The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the president in temperate language on January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged quote "Trial by combat". It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe. The increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen. Some secret coup by our now president.

Now I defended the president's right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke, the electoral college spoke. As I stood up and said, clearly at that time, the election was settled. It was over, but that just really opened a new chapter of even wilder and more unfounded claims. The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. I sadly many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors. We saw that. That unhinged listeners might take literally, but that was different. That's different from what we saw. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voter's decision or else torch our institutions on the way out. The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence actually began.

Whatever our ex president claims he thought might happen a day, whatever right reaction he's says he meant to produce by that afternoon we know he was watching the same live television as the rest of us. A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name, these criminals who are carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him. It was obvious that only President Trump could end this. He was the only one who could. Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the administration. The president did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored. No, instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election. Now, even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger. Even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters their president sent a further tweet, attacking his own vice president.

Now predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as a further inspiration to lawlessness and violence not surprisingly. Later, even when the president did halfheartedly began calling for peace he didn't call right away for the riot to end. He did not tell the mob to depart until even later. And even then with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election laws and praising the criminals. In recent weeks, our ex-president's associates have tried to use the 74 million Americans who voted to reelect him as a kind of human shield against criticism. Using the 74 million who voted for him as kind of a human seal shield against criticism. Anyone who decries his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. That's an absurd deflection. 74 million Americans did not invade the Capitol, hundreds of rioters did. 74 million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. One person did, just one.

TheEternalPessimist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

WHOOP!'91 said:

YellowPot_97 said:

Secolobo said:

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.
But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

She was climbing through a broken window of a barricaded door in the US Capital building.
How anyone is defending her is beyond me.
Nobody is "defending her", people are wondering if what she did warrants being killed.


Exactly. It's so curious what warrants a discussion based upon one's political ideology.

Just discussing this event always quickly becomes "wHy ArE yOu DeFeNdInG hER?!?"
F that. I will defend her. She was unarmed. Should not have been shot.

Byrd and the CP police shot her because the cathedral of government power is so sacred to them that the vermin (aka Patriots) should not be allowed to protest there the same way the anti-Kavanaugh crowd did.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

nortex97 said:

zephyr88 said:

Secolobo said:

Video shows new angle of Ashli Babbitt shooting inside Capitol
So, the ARMED POLICE who were standing within 10' of the dudes smashing the windows were right there all along?
Yes, on both sides. The plain-clothed black officer on the left side of the door, with cufflinks (again matching the guy identified as I have linked by Sperry), is the shooter though (with a glock, same type he lost in 2019). Oh, and the BLM/Antifa guys were there too.

I think it looks like a glock 22, but I'm not a glock aficionado/expert.
Neither am I but I seem to recall reading that model glock doesn't have a safety? Can anyone confirm that?
Most all glocks don't have a separate safety past the trigger one (basically meaning you have to have your fingertip sort of squarely on the trigger, not just to the side). It's more an annoyance than a safety in a traditional 1911 way.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.