Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Wes97 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

That is all incorrect. Her actions were outside of the law and it's reasonable to believe she was a threat. Why else would she be climbing through a window to get around a barred door?

---

There are countless reason's.... Maybe because she was trying to steal something or maybe because she was a complete dumbass? Who knows. That's the whole point. Officer's can't shoot someone just for breaking the law.

She has to present an active direct threat to the officer before he can shoot her. She presented no more threat to the officer's life than countless other dumbasses that officer's deal with out on the street every day.

Hence my DUI example earlier. There are countless very serious crimes that no not justify deadly force.

---

So ignore the context of everything else going on?

I'm sorry that she died because she allowed herself to be manipulated like a sheep. But the officer behaved in a reasonable manner to everything that was going on around the capitol that day.

---

The ICE agent should have popped the other lesbo since we are now considering the context of everyone around you. She was obviously trying to kill the agents as well. She even yelled "drive baby drive."

I don't know who you are referring to.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I don't know who you are referring to.

---

He's talking about Good's objectively obnoxious **** wife that told her to "drive baby, drive drive". Not gonna lie, if one of them had to get shot, it's a bummer it wasn't that one.

That has to be AI.

unmade bed said:

---

Was Renee Good in a restricted area breaking through glass windows with 100s of protestors behind her approaching US congressmen? I don't remember that.

To the extent the 2 are being compared, it's probably because both believed so strongly in a false narrative for which they were so certain that they were in the right they were willing to disobey commands from law enforcement and they both got themselves killed doing so.

---

What was the false narrative on January 6th? That an election was stolen in Georgia and other places?

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I don't know who you are referring to.

---

He's talking about Good's objectively obnoxious **** wife that told her to "drive baby, drive drive". Not gonna lie, if one of them had to get shot, it's a bummer it wasn't that one.

---

If she was hit incidentally, that's what happens in those situations. I don't want anyone to die but when you put yourselves in those situations, people die.

annie88 said:

---

Which congressman was she getting near?

I honestly don't remember.

---

Doesn't matter.

And you can use the "They let them in" argument all you want, but like all places that you are let in to, you're going to come to a point that you are not allowed to go any further. She decided to ignore that, and despite having a full 15 seconds between the time the gun was spotted and the time the shot was fired, she proceeded to attempt to enter an area that she was clearly not allowed.

Tough tits. Don't go any further and you're alive to tell about it.

Peacefully comply and they would both be alive...maybe.

Anonymous Source said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Which congressman was she getting near?

I honestly don't remember.

---

Doesn't matter.

And you can use the "They let them in" argument all you want, but like all places that you are let in to, you're going to come to a point that you are not allowed to go any further. She decided to ignore that, and despite having a full 15 seconds between the time the gun was spotted and the time the shot was fired, she proceeded to attempt to enter an area that she was clearly not allowed.

Tough tits. Don't go any further and you're alive to tell about it.

---

Did you mean 1.5 seconds? Cause the officer who fired drew his weapon in Doc Halliday quickness. I think the officers from the Nissan Titan may have drawn their weapon(s) but I would have to go back to watch again. Maybe I missed what you are seeing.

Edit to add: I suffered poor reading comprehension and took the comment obviously meant concerning the Minnesota ICE shooting and applied it to the Capitol "riots" shooting.

Ashli Babbitt made poor choices and should have complied. But there are multiple other avenues that could have been taken before lethal force was used. The same cannot be said of the Minnesota shooting.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Which congressman was she getting near?

I honestly don't remember.

---

Doesn't matter.

And you can use the "They let them in" argument all you want, but like all places that you are let in to, you're going to come to a point that you are not allowed to go any further. She decided to ignore that, and despite having a full 15 seconds between the time the gun was spotted and the time the shot was fired, she proceeded to attempt to enter an area that she was clearly not allowed.

Tough tits. Don't go any further and you're alive to tell about it.

---

Did you mean 1.5 seconds? Cause the officer who fired drew his weapon in Doc Halliday quickness. I think the officers from the Nissan Titan may have drawn their weapon(s) but I would have to go back to watch again. Maybe I missed what you are seeing.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capitol-shooting-that-led-to-ashli-babbitt-s-death-captured-on-video-99180613572

Spare me that bull*****

The idiots at the front are screaming "There's a gun, there's a gun" multiple times, and 15 seconds elapses between the time they initially spot it and the time that a shot is fired. PLenty of time for the idiot attempting to enter through a window to reverse course.

"Doc Holliday quickness"? That video completely invalidates your claims.

Both are dead.

Both likely thought they were doing something to help blah, blah, blah.

Both officers who shot them will live a long a free life.

Now on to the next whatever tragedy happens next because this story is going from old to annoying when there's more things the media (social and msm) could be covering.

My bad, I was thinking your comment referenced the Minnesota incident.

Ashli Babbitt made very poor choices.

So there wasn't really a congressman anywhere near them, but you were just trying to make it sound dramatic. Got it.

annie88 said:

---

So there wasn't really a congressman anywhere near them, but you were just trying to make it sound dramatic. Got it.

---

I don't know if there was or not, and neither do you. What I do know is there was a man whose assignment was guarding whatever was back there with a gun. The choice for AB was to stop where the locked and barricaded doors were or continue to advance. She chose poorly and has no one to blame but herself.

I think it's relevant to ask who are what that officer was protecting. If the answer is "nothing", then that brings into question his rationale for using lethal force.

If the answer was he had protectees with him who were escaping or had no alternate route unless he held his position and that hallway, then that supports his decision.

From recollection, I do not believe this information was ever shared. Why not?

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think it's relevant to ask who are what that officer was protecting. If the answer is "nothing", then that brings into question his rationale for using lethal force.

If the answer was he had protectees with him who were escaping or had no alternate route unless he held his position and that hallway, then that supports his decision.

From recollection, I do not believe this information was ever shared. Why not?

---

I want to know what's in the Epstein files, but they aren't telling us that either.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think it's relevant to ask who are what that officer was protecting. If the answer is "nothing", then that brings into question his rationale for using lethal force.

If the answer was he had protectees with him who were escaping or had no alternate route unless he held his position and that hallway, then that supports his decision.

From recollection, I do not believe this information was ever shared. Why not?

---

That question would be part of the totality of the circumstances as whether Byrd's action was reasonable. He can use lethal force to protect himself and others from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

aggiehawg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think it's relevant to ask who are what that officer was protecting. If the answer is "nothing", then that brings into question his rationale for using lethal force.

If the answer was he had protectees with him who were escaping or had no alternate route unless he held his position and that hallway, then that supports his decision.

From recollection, I do not believe this information was ever shared. Why not?

---

That question would be part of the totality of the circumstances as whether Byrd's action was reasonable. He can use lethal force to protect himself and others from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

---

I am unfamiliar with what the protocols are regarding protecting subjects and if they would be different. So the bar for shooting first asking questions later for USSS protecting POTUS would be much lower than Capitol police guarding a fire exit (using as an example, not saying that was what Byrd was doing).

For Byrd, that totality could have resulted in a different conclusion if he a) recognized the protestors were "mostly peaceful" as in they did not appear to target people especially cops but instead just general mayhem and property destruction.

And if Byrd was not protecting any other persons, then the threat to his person would be diminished by the fact he had multiple routes to egress and there were officers already engaging the "mob".

Compared to Renee Good who had been harassing the officers for hours if not days, and that harrassment was directed personally to those officers (versus against lets say tyranny in general). Then they have a woman, armed with a deadly weapon, who has refused to comply for HOURS. Well, really they don't compare at all.

Appreciate your insight Hawg.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

She didn't try to kill him. She was trying to run. Still very stupid and invited something bad to happen.

---

Her intent is irrelevant, completely. It is from the officer's perspective only and whether it was reasonable for him to perceive a lethal threat under the circumstances. He could not know her intent at that second and that is what is considered. He is not required by law to be 100% correct, he just has to be reasonable.

---

Can you articulate how this is different from AB? The agent saw her coming through a broken window with a whole crowd that was likely to follow if he didn't take action. How was he supposed to know her intent in the short time frame? How was he going to subdue her and then stop subsequent person(s) who climbs through that entry. From his perspective he believed he was a last line of defense between that group and Congress and took action to stop an active threat.

Both of these ladies made poor decisions that led to their deaths but I cannot see how anyone sees what AB did as not being a threat at all to what that person was charged with protecting.

Quote:

---

I am unfamiliar with what the protocols are regarding protecting subjects and if they would be different. So the bar for shooting first asking questions later for USSS protecting POTUS would be much lower than Capitol police guarding a fire exit (using as an example, not saying that was what Byrd was doing).

For Byrd, that totality could have resulted in a different conclusion if he a) recognized the protestors were "mostly peaceful" as in they did not appear to target people especially cops but instead just general mayhem and property destruction.

And if Byrd was not protecting any other persons, then the threat to his person would be diminished by the fact he had multiple routes to egress and there were officers already engaging the "mob".

Compared to Renee Good who had been harassing the officers for hours if not days, and that harrassment was directed personally to those officers (versus against lets say tyranny in general). Then they have a woman, armed with a deadly weapon, who has refused to comply for HOURS. Well, really they don't compare at all.

Appreciate your insight Hawg.

---

Putting the focus where it should be, on Byrd's perception in that moment, was it reasonable for him to perceive a woman, whose hands he said he could not see from behind the door, with three officers standing very close to her (in the line of fire, actually) was a lethal threat and thus lethal forced to eliminate that threat was justified?

Remember he doesn't have to have been correct that she presented a lethal threat, just be reasonable in that perception. Really wish there had been a trial in that case so we could see a lot more of what was really happening in that hallway.

By all rights, it was a vastly unsafe shoot due to the number of people, including his fellow officers in the line of fire, had he hit someone else? He would have been held accountable.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

Can you articulate how this is different from AB? The agent saw her coming through a broken window with a whole crowd that was likely to follow if he didn't take action. How was he supposed to know her intent in the short time frame? How was he going to subdue her and then eat subsequent person who climbs through that entry. From his perspective he believed he was a last line of defense between that group and Congress and took action to stop an active threat.

Both of these ladies made poor decisions that led to their deaths but I cannot see how anyone sees what AB did as not a threat at all to what that person was charged with protecting f.

---

She was a regular-sized female, according to pics I've seen. Not many dudes would be able to fit through the window she was coming through. She had to be hoisted up to get there in the first place.



Nor would it allow a wave of people to enter the area.

There was no reason to shoot her. Any grown man should have been able to subdue her relatively easily.

Now...if she was in a 4000lb vehicle, aiming at him? Sure.

aggiehawg said:

---

By all rights, it was a vastly unsafe shoot due to the number of people, including his fellow officers in the line of fire, had he hit someone else? He would have been held accountable.

---

You sure about that? Way Dems played this they likely would have charged all Jan 6ers with murder of an officer had Byrd killed one of the other officers. Had they not been pushing at the door, that officer standing by would never have been shot.

Dems were showing absolutely no ability nor desire to apply the laws judicially over Jan 6th.

I'm no expert on this but I believe he warned the group and her not to enter through this opening. I can understand the opening was small but what would stop it from growing and allowing others to join?

She also had a backpack so how does the officer know if she is carrying any weapons?

I don't see how people cannot see this person was tasked as a line of defense between himself and members of Congress. He gave warning and she continued anyway. She didn't open a door to enter- she entered through a broken window. That's not exactly law and order.

It's sad she was killed but the officer did not know her intentions and made a decision in a short time frame.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I'm no expert on this but I believe he warned the group and her not to enter through this opening. I can understand the opening was small but what would stop it from growing and allowing others to join?

She also had a backpack so how does the officer know if she is carrying any weapons?

I don't see how people cannot see this person was tasked as a line of defense between himself and members of Congress. He gave warning and she continued anyway. She didn't open a door to enter- she entered through a broken window. That's not exactly law and order.

It's sad she was killed but the officer did not know her intentions and made a decision in a short time frame.

---

How does a small window, in a door, "grow"?

There is no way she deserved being shot. He's a gigantic poos who should never be allowed as an LEO ever again.

He was tasked with peoples' defense, but they weren't in any danger. He was just jumpy, for some reason, and shot an unarmed woman.

Quote:

---

Can you articulate how this is different from AB? The agent saw her coming through a broken window with a whole crowd that was likely to follow if he didn't take action. How was he supposed to know her intent in the short time frame? How was he going to subdue her and then eat subsequent person who climbs through that entry. From his perspective he believed he was a last line of defense between that group and Congress and took action to stop an active threat.

Both of these ladies made poor decisions that led to their deaths but I cannot see how anyone sees what AB did as not a threat at all to what that person was charged with protecting f.

---

The officers closest to her easily could have pulled her back as they could see she was unarmed whereas Byrd could not. Those officers did not perceive a deadly threat because if they had, they would have reacted. Those same officers had earlier been standing directly in front of the doors but for some reason (which we don't know) fell back and to the side leaving the door unguarded for people to break the safety glass in the doors.

So considering all of that, was Byrd's perception of a imminent lethal threat reasonable when three other officers right there and observing her did not?

As per my wont, I compose closing statements in my mind to bring together all of the evidence and evaluate which are the stronger arguments? Prosecution or defense?

In Renee Good's case, the stronger argument under the facts and the law is for the defense of the officer. Easy peasy, in fact.

In the Byrd/Babbitt case that is more problematical as we just don't know all of the facts but I'd give the edge to the prosecution because of the lack of reaction of those other officers present. Easier to assert Byrd's perception was not reasonable. But again we don't know all of the facts and it was a chaotic situation.

I'm looking at the photo that someone posted. That opening would allow large people to fit through it. And there was a whole crowd that was attempting to get through - Which is why they broke the window.

In the end we'll just agree to disagree, which is fine. I

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I'm looking the photo that someone posted. That opening would allow large people to fit through it. And there was a whole crowd that was attempting to get through - Which is why they broke the window.

In the end we'll just agree to disagree, which is fine. I

---

Maybe....if some other people were able to hoist them up there.

The idea of that is so ridiculous as to be laughable, at the very least.

Even then, it would be a one-by-one issue. And, like Hawg pointed out, there were cops out there letting it happen. Ooooooo, scary.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you articulate how this is different from AB? The agent saw her coming through a broken window with a whole crowd that was likely to follow if he didn't take action. How was he supposed to know her intent in the short time frame? How was he going to subdue her and then eat subsequent person who climbs through that entry. From his perspective he believed he was a last line of defense between that group and Congress and took action to stop an active threat.

Both of these ladies made poor decisions that led to their deaths but I cannot see how anyone sees what AB did as not a threat at all to what that person was charged with protecting f.

---

The officers closest to her easily could have pulled her back as they could see she was unarmed whereas Byrd could not. Those officers did not perceive a deadly threat because if they had, they would have reacted. Those same officers had earlier been standing directly in front of the doors but for some reason (which we don't know) fell back and to the side leaving the door unguarded for people to break the safety glass in the doors.

So considering all of that, was Byrd's perception of a imminent lethal threat reasonable when three other officers right there and observing her did not?

As per my wont, I compose closing statements in my mind to bring together all of the evidence and evaluate which are the stronger arguments? Prosecution or defense?

In Renee Good's case, the stronger argument under the facts and the law is for the defense of the officer. Easy peasy, in fact.

In the Byrd/Babbitt case that is more problematical as we just don't know all of the facts but I'd give the edge to the prosecution because of the lack of reaction of those other officers present. Easier to assert Byrd's perception was not reasonable. But again we don't know all of the facts and it was a chaotic situation.

---

This is reasonable but many act like this officer had absolutely no business pulling the trigger. Maybe we should have done more in a legal proceeding but your last sentence is what I saw- very chaotic and the officer felt he had to do this to protect Congress.

BigRobSA said:

---

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I'm looking the photo that someone posted. That opening would allow large people to fit through it. And there was a whole crowd that was attempting to get through - Which is why they broke the window.

In the end we'll just agree to disagree, which is fine. I

---

Maybe....if some other people were able to hoist them up there.

The idea of that is so ridiculous as to be laughable, at the very least.

Even then, it would be a one-by-one issue. And, like Hawg pointed out, there were cops out there letting it happen. Ooooooo, scary.

---

She got up and through so why is laughable others could not either? And yes they come through one at a time. Is he expected to restrain them one by one? How? He's one person.

He took a course of action to say- if you come through this opening you'll be met with strong force and guess what'- they stopped advancing.

If he doesn't do that more are coming and he would have been overrun.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I'm looking the photo that someone posted. That opening would allow large people to fit through it. And there was a whole crowd that was attempting to get through - Which is why they broke the window.

In the end we'll just agree to disagree, which is fine. I

---

Maybe....if some other people were able to hoist them up there.

The idea of that is so ridiculous as to be laughable, at the very least.

Even then, it would be a one-by-one issue. And, like Hawg pointed out, there were cops out there letting it happen. Ooooooo, scary.

---

She got up and through so why is laughable others could not either? And yes they come through one at a time. Is he expected to restrain them one by one? How? He's one person.

He took a course of action to say- if you come through this opening you'll be met with strong force and guess what'- they stopped advancing.

If he doesn't do that more are coming and he would have been overrun.

---

She had to be lifted up.....that's not happening for larger people.

Quote:

---

You sure about that? Way Dems played this they likely would have charged all Jan 6ers with murder of an officer had Byrd killed one of the other officers. Had they not been pushing at the door, that officer standing by would never have been shot.

Dems were showing absolutely no ability nor desire to apply the laws judicially over Jan 6th.

---

Let me clarify. Had he shot and killed other people, he would have at least gone before a grand jury. Would that grand jury have no billed him? Probably but he would have been scrutinized instead of being put into witness protection like he was. After all Byrd had a less than stellar service record, especially when it came to his firearm.

BigRobSA said:

---

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I'm looking the photo that someone posted. That opening would allow large people to fit through it. And there was a whole crowd that was attempting to get through - Which is why they broke the window.

In the end we'll just agree to disagree, which is fine. I

---

Maybe....if some other people were able to hoist them up there.

The idea of that is so ridiculous as to be laughable, at the very least.

Even then, it would be a one-by-one issue. And, like Hawg pointed out, there were cops out there letting it happen. Ooooooo, scary.

---

She got up and through so why is laughable others could not either? And yes they come through one at a time. Is he expected to restrain them one by one? How? He's one person.

He took a course of action to say- if you come through this opening you'll be met with strong force and guess what'- they stopped advancing.

If he doesn't do that more are coming and he would have been overrun.

---

She had to be lifted up.....that's not happening for larger people.

---

You can assist a 200 lb guy up and over. It's not hard when you have a whole crowd there lifting.

Again- you lift over 2 medium build guys with her and now
It's 3 on 1. Then what?

It's not hard to draw out the inevitable conclusion of what this law enforcement person saw coming.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I'm looking the photo that someone posted. That opening would allow large people to fit through it. And there was a whole crowd that was attempting to get through - Which is why they broke the window.

In the end we'll just agree to disagree, which is fine. I

---

Maybe....if some other people were able to hoist them up there.

The idea of that is so ridiculous as to be laughable, at the very least.

Even then, it would be a one-by-one issue. And, like Hawg pointed out, there were cops out there letting it happen. Ooooooo, scary.

---

She got up and through so why is laughable others could not either? And yes they come through one at a time. Is he expected to restrain them one by one? How? He's one person.

He took a course of action to say- if you come through this opening you'll be met with strong force and guess what'- they stopped advancing.

If he doesn't do that more are coming and he would have been overrun.

---

She had to be lifted up.....that's not happening for larger people.

---

You can assist a 200 lb guy up and over. It's not hard when you have a whole crowd there lifting.

Again- you lift over 2 medium build guys with her and now
It's 3 on 1. Then what?

It's not hard to draw out the inevitable conclusion of what this law enforcement person saw coming.

---

It actually is, for me, since I'm not a giant poos.

I'm a logical person. One person, especially a female, ain't scaring me. Now, if she came through and pulled a weapon... *pop* *pop* *pop*....until then, man the **** up and handle the lone female as she stands there once through.

You completely ignored my point of what does he do when the next comes through and the next. She was the first of more.

He told her not to come through with his weapon drawn. She continued on- this doesn't signal good intentions and she got shot. She believed he wouldn't shoot her. She was wrong.

If he was the guard protecting the entrance to a museum I think we can look at this differently but he was in charge of protecting the lives of Congress. It's really different.