Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

Were any of the investigations you mentioned initially federal investigations or were the initially leaked at the state or local level?

 

The Speakers lobby is not in the House Chamber, it is a hallway outside the House Chamber. So yes, that supports exactly what I said.

The first image is her starting to climb into the window. The second is when she was shot, you can just see her arm and leg in the upper right hand corner. She was shot in the shoulder/neck area, which is elevated well above the crowd. I don't think it is ambiguous who the officer was shooting at.

They were the intentional release of state/local investigations. Should the Federal government be less transparent?

If there is so much danger that she cannot be allowed to set foot in the hallway, one would expect the guys in tactical gear could take a second away from escorting people to shoot her with their rifles. They apparently thought escorting people down the stairs was a more pressing use of their time than stopping this dangerous terrorist from breaching the hallway.

Is the evidence that she was working in coordination with them that she was there and they were also there, or is there additional evidence?

Almost certainly.

She was the only one that went through the window. We don't even know if other people COULD go through the window, it could be that only a small woman could get through that way. It is speculative either way.

Did she? Did the other people at that barricade? Was that somewhere else in the building involving another group of people? I have no idea.

I am trying to isolate what we know about her and this incident in particular. If other people in another area of the building are hitting officers with a fire extinguisher or flagpole or bear mace, it cannot be attributed to her, IMO. Just like you can't arrest every protester because some of them start throwing molotovs. I want to know what SHE did. What the people with HER did.

The Congressional investigation is a red herring. There is already an investigation being done by the FBI. There was also some sort of use of force investigation of this incident spec already concluded that the officer was allowed to shoot her and will face no discipline. Why is that investigation a secret?

 

Tucker Carlson thinks the FBI organized the Capitol riot

 

I have no clue how or why you think any of this defends the terrorist assault on the Capital or why the woman should not have been shot. Federal law officers barricaded the door, she tried to breach the door, and the federal law enforcement officers shot her.

 

But it doesn't matter. Breaking into a hallway connected to occupied chambers, isn't a significant difference. I have no idea why that would even be brought up. I'm not sure if you've seen a map. But immediately to the right of where she was is the House Chamber. She wasn't far removed at all had she been able to succeed in breaching the barricade she was trying to breach. Witnesses believe the members of congress were definitely in danger.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...itt-capitol-mob-trump-qanon-conspiracy-theory

There may be additional evidence. I don't know. But a huge group of people did these things. The evidence that she is with that group is that they already broke into the building and are continuing to violently demolish barricades in order to further invade the federal property. The evidence that she was with them is that she is at their lead as they shout they want to break it down. The person who broke the window she attempted to climb through has been arrested for assaulting an officer and other charges. It's quite a stretch to claim that she is separate from that guy.

https://sports.yahoo.com/man-accused-breaking-window-ashli-224656508.html

She was shoulder to shoulder with a person arrested for assaulting a Federal Officer. It is reasonable to assume that she is with that group of people.

 

Given that the federal prosecutor investigated and decided not to charge the officer, they didn't see it as unjustified or that a crime was committed by the officer. Personally, I don't care if the name is made public or not and in general, I agree with being transparent. However, given the politic of this and the threats against election workers by Trump's craziest supporters, there is a strong argument to not give in to political pressure for the safety of this officer.

As for downplaying this incident that @Astrodome has done here (trespassing charge and move on) and many other politicians on the right have done so publicly.... it seems they have to discount what was intended and what was done. The mob did accomplish something that they intended to do - to disrupt and delay the electoral college vote count. This isn't just a case of protesting, looting, vandalism, or even assault against federal capital officers. There was an intention to obstruct Congress from executing the law and their duty and they did successfully do that.

 

fox news continuing to poison the country

 

These people were more than capable of murder had that been their prerogative. I am thankful that no politicians or police were murdered. Very thankful.

 

If Joe is capable of murder but only stabbed your friend, we wouldn't be very thankful that Joe didn't murder, would we?

 

good lord dude! you cant be serious? how the heck do you think it would have turned out if he let her crawl thru the broken window and then tried to cuff her? you think all those terrorist trumpers on the other side would have just stood there and let that happen.

 

ive watched the video at least a half dozen times and your take here is just not based on the reality of the situation.

and how is it a bad shot? he hit his intended target, which was the terrorist who was breaching a secure area.

 

its harder to see in that video, but in the other one you can clearly see her going through the window and you can see someone actually lifting her up to help her get through. that cop hit his intended target.

i cant believe we have someone here saying the cop should have arrested her and when he did the other terrorists would have just stood down...watch this video...these were violent terrorists trying to a breach a secure area that the cops had blocked with furniture. what do you think they would have done if they got thru there? what do you think they would have done to that officer if he tried to arrest the ashli babbit?

 

I have never defended the Capitol riot (though I have disputed some of the claims and language). I think it means she should not have been shot because the standard for use of deadly force is that someone represents an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to the person defending himself or someone else. If she gains access to a hallway that leads to another barricade, then breaching that window does not represent an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to anyone.

The difference is that there was a whole other barricade guarded by a bunch of guys with guns beyond the hallway where she was killed. This was not the last line of defense. Moreover, not one single member of Congress was touched in the House or Senate chambers or in the halls or in their offices. The danger to the Congress members is entirely speculative. The idea that shooting this one woman is what prevented 600+ rioters from killing or injuring the Vice President or members of Congress is not supportable.

Was she with him when he assaulted a Federal Officer? Generally we do not allow guilt by association, people must actually be acting in concert and share a common criminal intent. Wanting to get passed the barricades to the House or Senate Chambers doesn't necessarily imply a violent intent, especially if you look at what many of the rioters said beyond the chants.

Yes. I don't even know if another person could get through that window. I don't know that they would try if he shot over them to keep them down (it seems unlikely since no one moved through after he shot Babbitt).

Not a bad shot, a bad shoot. A wrongful shooting. I don't think she represented an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to the officer or another.

 

As the barricade was being breached, congress members were yards away.

I think she and her violent mob did represent an imminent deadly threat.

It isn't guilt by a association. She was part of the mob, didn't leave when they used violence. She'd already broken the law and was continuing to do so.

It wasn't like the people she was with had committed the assault on Federal officers a decade in the past. They did it that very day as part of the same assault on the building with which she was currently involved.

That's not merely a case of guilt by association.

 

no one moved through after he shot babbitt because they saw what would happen if they did. shooting babbitt might have been the deterrent those terrorists needed to stop trying to break down a barrier the officers had put up. and watching those psychopaths in that video its hard to believe that they would have stood down while a cop tried to cuff babbitt. its just not a realistic scenario in any possible way.

gotcha...im unfamiliar w/ the lingo there! and i totally disagree on your second sentence for reasons ive already discussed in previous posts.

 

Lots of words, most repetitive. Nothing you have presented indicates that the federal law enforcement officer was bound by the requirement "the standard for use of deadly force is that someone represents an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to the person defending himself or someone else."

However, the DOJ did already investigate the shooting and found no evidence that the federal law enforcement officer "did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber."

Department of Justice Closes Investigation into the Death of Ashli Babbitt

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt

 

Don't know if that was directed at me but I agree other video it does appear she was in the process of climbing through the window. I also agree that it would've been very difficult and likely put the LEO in more danger if he attempted to arrest Babbitt.

All of this goes to why we needed a thorough, transparent and Bipartisan investigation that could've won the trust of most people. Instead we are already seeing investigations being called tainted by partisanship and continued false narratives peddled.

 

You've argued skillfully before that we cannot judge a situation by a single image or a short segment of video. You seem to be basing your whole argument on just that moment without considering what might've been happening a minute before, or a minute after, and what the LEO might've known at that moment regarding the evacuation of Congress. You're removing the whole context of the situation.

You continue to raise this argument which is to be blunt illogical. This would be like saying it's speculative that in WWII the RAF shooting down Luftwaffe planes during the Battle of Britain would've stopped the Germans from invading England because the Germans never landed troops on Plymouth, Bournemouth or any other English town. This is is ignoring the conditions of why no members of Congress were harmed because Capitol PD were engaged in slowing down the advance of those saying they were going to kill members of Congress. It's arguing based on an outcome while arguing against the actions that led to that outcome.

Again you're arguing based on an outcome while arguing against the actions that lead to that outcome. No one moved through because seeing Babbitt shot showed them that do advance further would likely lead to more death. In other words the lethal force was succesfully deployed.

 

That y’all choose to engage in absurd debates about this one crazed person is a huge win for Hannity, Carlson, and those they infect.

There is no point in using normal argumentation with them. It’s like doing jumping jacks to fight athlete’s foot.

 

this IS the D&D after all