re: Kevin McCarthy: "Officer who shot Ashli Babbit did his job"

quote:

---

Do you realize how disingenuous this argument is or have you completely lost the plot?

---

George Floyd was a drug-addled career criminal who (probably) died of an overdose. His death was framed as a racial police killing by corrupt left-wing politicians who wanted to take advantage of everyone's frustrations with the Covid lockdowns.

quote:

---

On the day of the kill shot I told myself "play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

---

Yes, literally breaking into a federal facility. This board has made a fetish out of such things over the years. But now - all of a sudden - they like it!

quote:

---

Babbitt is a victim of.....Q idiots

---

YOU support election thief and marxist revolution in the USA

you do not deserve to live here

Babbit supporters. I’m genuinely curious as to what you all think her end goal was?

Let’s just go as far as we can in this building and protest some more?

Let’s see if they will actually stop us if we get too close to important people?

Let’s see if we can actually hang Pence?

She’s former military. You would think she would have a solid understanding of federal security and protection of government leaders in a chaotic situation like January 6th.

quote:

---

Babbit supporters. I’m genuinely curious as to what you all think her end goal was?

Let’s just go as far as we can in this building and protest some more?

Let’s see if they will actually stop us if we get too close to important people?

Let’s see if we can actually hang Pence?

She’s former military. You would think she would have a solid understanding of federal security and protection of government leaders in a chaotic situation like January 6th.

---

something something pedo pizza q grammys satanic

I see a lot of people coming up with bizarre analogies such as castle doctrine in your own home which are not applicable here. The other side is not much better.

There is a policy.

Standard federal use of force policy:

quote:

---

agents may use deadly force only when necessary—when the agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the agent or another person. If feasible, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the special agent is given prior to the use of deadly force.

---

(This comes from one particular agency, but this closely tracks the basic language adopted by all federal agencies many years ago.)

So the question for me is whether this person actually posed such a high level of imminent threat that gun fire was the reasonable force necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to people inside the chamber. Keep in mind that the standard of reasonable, is "reasonable officer" rather than "reasonable man."
Other less lethal options that come to mind: Verbal command. Open hand take down and handcuff. Taser. This person was vulnerable when coming through a window. Why could that opportunity not be used to contain and restrain her with a deterrent effect on people outside?

After a year of seeing supposedly non-violent people burning, looting and battering structures and assaulting police personnel with very limited police force being used in return, this is a huge contrast.

Not sure that I know the answer, but I do have questions which I have not seen properly addressed.
It looks like they swept a lot under the carpet and did not give the public a proper accounting for this use of force.

quote:

---

Imagine you were a cop. The highest of the high ups told you people were coming in to kill everyone and put the fear of God in you. You'd shoot to and it'd be your job. I don't blame that stooge.

---

That stooge posted “I can’t wait till I get to shoot a white
perso”n on his Twitter.