It doesn't bother me. Was just wondering. Actually @rocketsjudoka goes round and round with him more than you......lol
I try not get involved but some of the stuff he says that are false just drives me bonkers. I don't think it will ever end SM RK and FC just love the debate.
If it makes you feel any better will probably be spending less time debating Stupidmoniker as work picks up.
You picked the video that doesn't even show Babbitt, for some strange reason. Here is the one where you can clearly see both her hands are empty and she grabs the edges of the window frame (which is directly in front of the officer that shoots her and well within his field of view). Here is a screenshot of her hands grabbing the window frame to pull herself up. You are lying again. The video clearly proves she had empty hands and that her empty hands were well within the officer's view. She should have followed orders. She was shot and killed. If that doesn't prove she should have followed orders, I don't know what does. That has nothing to do with whether or not the cop was legally justified in shooting her. They are two separate issues. Issue 1: When an officer gives you a lawful order, you are bound by law to comply and failing to do so may result in very negative outcomes for you. Babbitt failed to comply with a lawful order. Babbitt was shot and killed. It certainly seems that the proposition that failure to follow lawful orders may result in very negative outcomes for you is not disproven by this case. Issue 2: For a peace officer to have the right to use lethal force against someone, they must perceive an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to themself or others. Here, Ashli Babbitt does not appear to be an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to the officer or anyone else. She is empty handed and climbing through a window. As such, in my opinion that officer unlawfully used lethal force against her. Her family is suing, so it will be interesting to see how that lawsuit turns out. The reasonable officer standard doesn't require testimony by a law enforcement officer. It just means that officers have different responsibilities and powers than other citizens so their conduct cannot be judged by a reasonable person standard. For example, it is unreasonable for a citizen to learn someone's name, search it on their computer for warrants, and then handcuff the person. If a citizen orders someone to stop and put their hands up and the person starts running, it is unreasonable for that citizen to then chase and tackle the person running. A reasonable officer standard is entirely appropriate in evaluating the conduct of an officer during an arrest.
looks like AP is reporting this and the basic facts as described here have been verified "Chauvin Juror Participated in BLM Protest, Lied About It": https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/chauvin-juror-participated-in-blm-protest-lied-about-it/
It's not surprising that Chauvin's attorney's have filed for an appeal but it is surprising that Mitchell wasn't weeded out of the jury pool. What's going to happen isn't yet a new trial but likely Mitchell and the other juror's called in and questioned further about their statements during jury selection and whether they misrepresented themselves and how much that might've affected the verdict. It's far from guaranteed that this will lead to a new trial especially given that the jury came to a quick and unanimous decision on all counts.
Its reasonable that cops get some extra words in due to the pressure of the situation. That said some protections allow for arrogance and abuse. The matter of racism in the world is and will be an ongoing discussion and situation that as humans we have to always continue to evolve on how we value without the polarization of total desegregation. in terms of legislating, can you legislate to treat a color differently, do we really want entirely segregated neighborhoods, forces, institutions? How about actual accountability. While I said the above that we need police, one way or another, defund the police might not mean to be defund the police I udnerstand, but what a stupid title that from the very get go when you have the nation paying attention, people on fox and cnn agreeing that chauvin was out of line here, that we're talking about misnamed movements rather than the meat and bones of transparency ,access, accountablity, and abuse of public trust that should always be easier to be held accountable, to be scrutinized, and reformed in terms of anyone that the public gives the privileges and responsibility of the publics power and resources be it cops, judges, city managers, and especially politicians. The amoutn of insider trading, paying for access, gerry mandering, across the entire spectrum of politics shows washington works for the self selected ass holes chasing it rather than people who they represent.
Allowing a riotous mob into the chamber would quickly make the situation uncontrollable and dangerous. She didn't need to be armed or violent to be a threat. Makes sense to use force to defend the points of entry because once you lose those, you lose the whole room. It's funny that this argument is a cousin of the 'do you shoot a suspect trying to drive away in a car' argument, except with people switching sides.
Thanks for summing that up succinctly, I missed the fact that others would have been following and the situation could have easily gotten out of control.
They didn't ask him if he ever attended a Martin Luther King rally, or if he ever bought or wore a BLM t-shirt. The first question asked: “Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?” The second asked: “Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?” Are all black rallies put in the category of protests for BLM or police brutality in Minneapolis? Does wearing a t-shirt put you in the same category as participating in a protest? One thing is for sure. Chauvin deserves a life behind bars. Chauvin slowly killed a man, and did it while smugly staring at frantic onlookers pleading for George's life.
This is the moment the officer shoots Babbitt. Go ahead and circle her in this picture. This is a screenshot from the video you used to say the officer couldn't tell if Babbitt had a weapon when he shot her or that she was even a woman. Where are Babbitt's hands in this picture? Where is her face? How do you look at this picture and make any determination of what the officer can see when he shoots?
I'm waiting for people to talk about her previously having two restraining orders against her, and the fact that she had previously been charged with criminal offenses. Or do people only do that for certain people who died at the hands of a police shooting?
That pic does not show the entire video. The video shows her coming through the window and being shot and falling backwards. Why do you have to be so dishonest about everything. The video continues to pan over to her coming through the glass. why don't you show consecutive screenshots? Why do you have to be so dishonest about everything. Even so it does not matter what he saw, it was someone breaching the barricade I noticed you ignored what @JuanValdez said and just focused on this one pic, why is that?