The Jan. 6 Investigation

[Warp12]

Were there any other options besides deadly force? Seems obvious that there were.

As I say, I am not siding with the "report"...but I am opening my eyes to the simple fact that there were other alternatives to deadly force, certainly.

Deadly force should be the last choice for an officer, not the first. Or do you disagree?

would you say the same thing about a Home Invasion ?

False equivalency award winner, imo. We expect, especially after the summer of 2020, for law enforcement to use deadly force as a last resort. They are supposed to be trained to act accordingly. And generally, if they very clearly and publicly don't, we take them to task...except, oddly, in the case of Ashli Babbit.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nuff said on the credibility of this 'report'. The fact is that Ashli Babbitt was engaging in illegal activity having broken through the window with a mob behind that was just steps away from the House Chamber doors. They were were calling to hang Mike Pence and specifically looking for Nancy Pelosi.

Who exactly is "they"? You are conflating different people. When did Babbitt call for Pence's hanging? When did she say she was looking for Pelosi?

Lt. Byrd warned them to stop and they didn't.

Again with this amorphous "they". Unless Babbitt had a thing for nongendered pronouns, there is no "they".

A specific warning to her is what's required here, just as threats made by other people at other places and times (which Byrd may not even have been aware of) aren't relevant. Byrd claims he warned Babbitt. Body camera evidence would clear that up, if it exists. If it doesn't, that's a problem. If it does and it doesn't get released, that's a problem. I'm sure you can recognize from other contexts that simply taking an officer at their word isn't a satisfactory way to resolve the question of whether a fatal shooting is justified.

 

[Stacyhs]

It was a violent damn mob who were attacking outnumbered police. What do you expect him to have done as they were climbing in? Ask them nicely to stop? He warned them and they just kept trying to get through the door. She has no one to blame but herself.

Video:

https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/video-shows-moment-ashli-babbit-was-fatally-shot-in-capitol/

 

[Pixel42]

Were there any other options besides deadly force? Seems obvious that there were.

They were a couple of officers facing a large, angry mob, intent on harming the people it was their job to protect. Members of that mob, armed with weapons (including, quite possibly, guns) were starting to breach the one remaining barrier preventing them from doing so, despite being warned that deadly force would be used if they did.

I honestly can't see what else they could have done which would not have given at least some members of that mob the chance to get past them. They could only have physically tackled the first couple to get through. Even firing a warning shot first might have sent the wrong message - that despite what they'd said they were unwilling to actually use deadly force - and resulted in the mob being encouraged to continue to surge through rather than being shocked into stopping, again risking at least some getting past them.

I'm the last person to condone the use of fire arms in any circumstances, but even I can't see another option in this case that would not have risked the safety of their charges. If you can, by all means take me through it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

False equivalency award winner, imo. We expect, especially after the summer of 2020, for law enforcement to use deadly force as a last resort. They are supposed to be trained to act accordingly. And generally, if they very clearly and publicly don't, we take them to task...except, oddly, in the case of Ashli Babbit.

No, it's not a false equivalency - it's very much the point.
The Capitol Police were protecting the people in their workplace - and Babbit was trying to break through barricades to get to them.
She got shot because she and her actions presented a clear and present danger, as far as the cop on the other side of the barred door could tell. The video is unambiguous.

 

[Stacyhs]

Who exactly is "they"? You are conflating different people. When did Babbitt call for Pence's hanging? When did she say she was looking for Pelosi?

Oh, I'm so sorry. She was just part of a mob that was running riot through the Capitol screaming for Nancy Pelosi's head and to hang Mike Pence. She was just part of the mob that had violently shattered the glass of the door and were attempting to break through the door just feet from the House Chambers. Byrd could hear what was going on through his police radio.

Again with this amorphous "they". Unless Babbitt had a thing for nongendered pronouns, there is no "they".

They= Bobbitt and everyone else with her. I didn't think that really needed defining.

A specific warning to her is what's required here, just as threats made by other people at other places and times (which Byrd may not even have been aware of) aren't relevant.

Nonesese. What was he supposed to say? "Excuse me, but what's your name?" or "Lady crawling through the window after breaking it" before warning her?

Byrd claims he warned Babbitt. Body camera evidence would clear that up, if it exists. If it doesn't, that's a problem. If it does and it doesn't get released, that's a problem. I'm sure you can recognize from other contexts that simply taking an officer at their word isn't a satisfactory way to resolve the question of whether a fatal shooting is justified.

The didn't just take his word. They watched the video and talked to witnesses


From NBC News:

Byrd’s connection to what was going on outside and inside the building was his police radio. For several minutes, it crackled with a cascade of alarming messages.

There were shouts of officers down. Screams from his colleagues under attack by rioters with chemical agents. A report that an officer’s fingertips were blown off.

“It was literally broadcast over the air,” Byrd said. “I said, ‘OK, this is getting serious.’”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...t-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736

In this video you can hear shouts of "get down" etc. It is also clear the rioters knew Byrd was pointing a gun at them because it's in view and they still continued to break the glass and to break down the doors.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capit...babbitt-s-death-captured-on-video-99180613572

At one point, Byrd said, an even more alarming message came over the radio: a report of shots fired, which he learned much later was false.

Byrd said that after he heard the radio chatter warning that rioters had breached the building, he rushed inside the chamber and instructed the House members to hide under their chairs and to stay away from doors and windows.He said he told them that pipe bombs had been found in the vicinity of the building and that rioters were using weapons against officers. You need to gather your gas masks, Byrd said he told them.

And he gave one more crucial instruction: He told the House members to take measures to disguise who they were in case they came face to face with the rioters.“One of the things that was imperative was to inform the members to remove their pins to allow them to blend in,” Byrd said. “To remove their jackets, to look like staff as much as possible.”

As Byrd rushed out of the chamber, he saw the House chaplain take the position he had left on the podium. The chaplain began to recite a prayer with the members of Congress.“I believe it was at that point in time” that “the members, as well, started to believe serious harm or injury could come to them,” Byrd said. Byrd said he and the other officers quickly erected the makeshift barricade using every piece of furniture they could find. “At that point is when I realized they’re here,” Byrd said, referring to the rioters. “The chants got louder. I couldn’t make out what they were saying, but it sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.”
Video shot by a person in the crowd showed two officers posted in front of the door. Heavily outnumbered, they eventually stepped aside.Byrd said he had no knowledge that any officers were there. Because of the furniture stacked on his side of the door, he also couldn’t make out how many people were on the other side or whether they were carrying weapons. “It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side,” he said.But he did see the person now known to be Babbitt start coming through the broken glass.“I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”

https://headtopics.com/us/officer-w...hs-in-hiding-i-saved-countless-lives-21526636

 

[smartcooky]

Were there any other options besides deadly force? Seems obvious that there were.

Nope.

She was part of a screaming, violent mob that was baying for blood and calling for the death of the Vice President and the Speaker of the House. She knew exactly what she was doing when she threw her lot in with those terrorists and she paid the price for that. Play lethal games, win lethal prizes. Her death was stupid, and unnecessary, but it was entirely her own fault... whomever was first through that window was going to be shot.

Note: I have not read the report, nor do I intend to. This is from Judicial Watch - a totally biased, ultra conservative group that pander to Trump and the far right of US politics. Its not worth my time to even bother with it.

 

[Mr Fied]

No, it's not a false equivalency - it's very much the point.
The Capitol Police were protecting the people in their workplace - and Babbit was trying to break through barricades to get to them.
She got shot because she and her actions presented a clear and present danger, as far as the cop on the other side of the barred door could tell. The video is unambiguous.

This ^^^

The same people defending Babbit and the mob she was with are the ones defending vigilantes going out and shooting people during a riot.

Apparently it's ok for a member of the public to take matters into their own hands and kill someone they think is breaking the law, but not for a police officer to do the same when someone has broken the law and received warnings not to continue, and lives are at risk.

 

[Craig4]

False equivalency award winner, imo. We expect, especially after the summer of 2020, for law enforcement to use deadly force as a last resort. They are supposed to be trained to act accordingly. And generally, if they very clearly and publicly don't, we take them to task...except, oddly, in the case of Ashli Babbit.

The stupid **** got past multiple layers of security to get to the Speaker's Lobby. The officer gave directions which traitor girl failed to follow. Behind the officer were the first three people in the line of succession to the presidency and Trump was both bat **** crazy and engaged in sedition. The officer had to fire. If you notice, the enemy ceased their assault on the Speaker's Lobby after the officer fired long enough for the Members to get to safety. The life of a traitor is nothing as compared to ensuring the continuity of government.

Finally, the attrition of an enemy force is not a negative outcome. I wish the officers in the corridor where the guy was getting crushed had fired live rounds into that crowd. The rounds would have inflicted serious losses and the following stampede even more.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Were there any other options besides deadly force? Seems obvious that there were.

As I say, I am not siding with the "report"...but I am opening my eyes to the simple fact that there were other alternatives to deadly force, certainly.

Deadly force should be the last choice for an officer, not the first. Or do you disagree?

What else should the officers have done, specifically? And what, in your opinion, would have been the most likely result?

And you cannot reasonably evade with "I don't know" here. You are claiming that there were viable alternatives to deadly force. That assessment requires a justification, based on likely outcomes.

 

[jimbob]

Were there any other options besides deadly force? Seems obvious that there were.

As I say, I am not siding with the "report"...but I am opening my eyes to the simple fact that there were other alternatives to deadly force, certainly.

Deadly force should be the last choice for an officer, not the first. Or do you disagree?

In this case the police officer had a very reasonable belief that there wa an imminent threat to his life and that of others.

I am surprised, given your statements in other threads, that you think there should be any concern.

If only people cared about the actions of perps, we might understand how we arrived at this point. Quite frankly, when I see people referring to the Police as "PIGS", I know there is no reason to read further.

In the US, Police make around 10 million arrests per year. The are 40 million+ African Americans. In 2020, 18 unarmed African Americans were shot and killed by police. That death toll is according to the Washington Post.

I'll leave it up to you to decide whether that constitutes an epidemic, or if use of that word might be an exaggeration.

Or are you only in favour of police use of force where it isn't justified?

 

[Ziggurat]

Nonesese. What was he supposed to say? "Excuse me, but what's your name?" or "Lady crawling through the window after breaking it" before warning her?

You seem confused. A warning to someone specific doesn't require their name be used, nor does it need to be polite. But you can't warn person A, and then act against person B as if they had been warned.

Byrd claims he gave such a warning. I didn't claim he didn't.

Of course, giving a warning is relevant to the use of deadly force, but it isn't sufficient on its own to justify its use.

 

[crescent]

Were there any other options besides deadly force? Seems obvious that there were.

As I say, I am not siding with the "report"...but I am opening my eyes to the simple fact that there were other alternatives to deadly force, certainly.

Deadly force should be the last choice for an officer, not the first. Or do you disagree?

Good god! Did you not see the fighting on the steps? There was a hell of a lot of non-lethal force used prior to that, but it didn't stop the invaders.

She got as far as she did because she and others overcame the non-lethal force used against them.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Indeed.
The officer was literally the line of defense after all the others were breached.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Indeed.
The officer was literally the line of defense after all the others were breached.

To be fair, they were only breached because the police force was laughably underprepared for a clearly telegraphed right wing threat. Seems that everybody in the country except the Capitol police was anticipating a big showdown that day based on the escalating threats and expectations from the "stop the steal" propaganda from Trump and the rest of the right wing.

We see how cops respond to protests of a liberal/left wing persuasion. If the police had treated the CHUD rally the way they typically treat a BLM rally, nobody would have got into the building.

The fact that the cops were so quickly and completely overwhelmed was a direct result of the police's complacency and/or sympathetic attitudes towards right wing political violence.

 

[sackett]

I'm with Warp, gunplay is bad medicine. Those cops should be issued tomahawks; no need for special training, the weapon practically wields itself. And traumatic amputation is not immediaty fatal! No sir! Every REAL Patriot knows how to tie a tourniquet and then cauterize with, oh I dunno, grape seed extract?

Nother thing: no ammo expended! You just reflect on how high the communo-liberals have driven the price of factory cat'ridges. (They know what they're doing.) Goddammit, will no one think of the taxpayers?!?

What happened to the America I knew?

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm with Warp, gunplay is bad medicine. Those cops should be issued tomahawks...

Do you mean the small hand-held axe-like weapon, or do you mean the Tomahawk cruise missile?

 

[plague311]

Were there any other options besides deadly force? Seems obvious that there were.

As I say, I am not siding with the "report"...but I am opening my eyes to the simple fact that there were other alternatives to deadly force, certainly.

Deadly force should be the last choice for an officer, not the first. Or do you disagree?

Deadly force wasn't his first choice. The doors, the barricade, the repeated warnings, the gun pointed at her were all clear warnings. There were only a couple officers there. If she gets through, and they have to wrestle with her to get her under arrest, then they open themselves up to a wave of people coming through. They could have been over run by sheer numbers pretty quick. Once the glass is broken and someone gets through it wouldn't be hard at all for others to follow.

The shot that hit Babbit was the warning shot to all the others. It worked. It's too bad it she let it get that far and it cost her life.

ETA: Dammit, I forgot I was a page behind. Sorry for repeating what most others have already said.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh shocking the people who are all "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" over someone robbing a store or multiple cases of black people just existing are now defending the coup members and bemoaning that lethal force had to be used.

My arm is not long enough for the jerk off motion that is my soul right now.

I'm glad Babbit is dead. I hope so died alone, afraid, and in pain where the last thought in her head before the silence and darkness took her was "Well this isn't tweaking the Libs. This isn't tweaking the Libs at all!" I think we should charge her family for the cost of the bullet.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Do you mean the small hand-held axe-like weapon, or do you mean the Tomahawk cruise missile?

Train them on the axe, then issue them missiles - or vice versa.