One person shot in US Capitol after pro-Trump protesters charge building, source says

ANOTHER Death, Attributable to Trump's Domestic Terrorism.

A Capitol Police Officer

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/capitol-police-officer-dead-after-riot/index.html

 

Was Kyle at The Capitol yesterday?

If you want to re-litigate Kyle's Case, then start a thread about it.

Page after Page of Off-Topic "whataboutism" is ruining the Topic.

Try to stay on the Actual Topic (of yesterday's events at The Capitol) if that is possible.

^Thanks in advance.

Also, back on-topic, I am very sad to hear that there is a 5th Death (a police officer) due to Trump Inciting this Deadly Act of Domestic Terrorism.

 

I'm not trying to justify their actions. I think the failure of the security apparatus at some point gave these rioters a lot of courage in their actions, but once you get close to the politicians you are basically crossing a line. We cant say at this point one way or another if they were at the access to the chambers, or if they understood the danger of where they were considering in some manner they were given way to much access with no repercussions to begin with.

 

Irrelevant, she was part of a terrorist attack. Besides we don't know for sure if she didn't have a weapon concealed.

 

Can we say that word here? I made a reference to something Michael Brown's stepfather said (when Obama was POTUS) and was reprimanded as if I said it.

 

If, by that, you simply didn't comment, the sin of omission comes to mind. And no, I don't ever recall you calling out that BLM or ANTIFA needed to be put on a list and prosecuted. It seems convenient that only now this option seems viable to you.

 

1. Do we know she was unarmed? She may not have had a gun, but she could have had a club of some sort, using it to bang on doors or whatever.

2. She was shot while attempting to break into a chamber where a number of legislators were sheltering in place. The officer who shot her may have had no choice.

3. Trying to get to those legislators in that manner and under those circumstances could easily be considered an act of terrorism.

4. Unless there's video, we'll never know for sure.

 

1. Her hands were both empty when she was shot

2. He always has a choice. There's no hard-and-fast "must shoot or else" rule. There are situations where shooting someone may be legally permissible, but it's not required.

3. There actually is video, since you seem unaware of that fact.

 

How tedious.

I've always opposed violence, and I've always been "vocal" about it here. Just because you haven't noticed ("I don't ever recall ...") doesnt give you any moral high ground here. You just sound pompous.

 

Got a link?

 

For what part? The video of the shooting? I do, but it's quite graphic.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/exact-moment-ashli-babbitt-was-shot-while-storming-capitol

2 videos at link

 

She had a backpack which could have contained grenades for all anyone inside knew

 

We don't, generally, shoot people based off mere "what-ifs" without some reasonable basis for suspecting that imagined "what-if" might be real. There was no reasonable basis for believing there were grenades in her backpack, as the other officers' actions clearly demonstrate. Can you imagine the howls of rage if cops this summer had shot every Antifa thug with a backpack "which could have contained grenades for all anyone knew"? That doesn't fly.

 

That's clearly not true. There have been many defence claims by shooters be they police or an armed civilian that they feared for their life

 

Do you see the words "reasonable basis" in my post? They're there for a reason. Certainly, if there's a "reasonable basis" for believing someone is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, defend yourself. Sometimes, it turns out that, despite having a reasonable basis for believing a threat exists, none does (for example, an apparent gun that someone is waving around, turns out to just be a BB gun). It's what we call the "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person have thought she had grenades in her backpack? No, there was no reasonable basis for suspecting that.

 

The other officers were further away. He was the first line of defense.

If she was a he and had a beard and looked Asian would that have made a difference? All the other protestors pulled back when they saw a gun. One person shouted out that there was a gun. She continued advancing into the chamber

 

No, he wasn't. There were initially three officers on the same side of the door as the protesters, within a few inches of them. They left just as a few more tactical officers arrived, also closer to the protesters than the shooter.

"Asian"? Are you a Brit? And to answer your question: No, it wouldn't have mattered, I still think it's a questionable shooting regardless of the race or gender of the shootee. It'll be interesting to hear his justification.

 

The officer was the first line of defense of the chamber. She had already gone pass any officers on the same side of the door as the protesters. And yes, I am a Brit, does that make any difference?

His justification? - he feared for his life and those within the chamber for whom his duty was to protect

 

We do if they are part of a mob attacking the Capitol and threatening the lives of legislators. Members of congress were hunkered down in some of the rooms off that corridor. She could have had a bomb on her.

 

She also could have had Kit Kat bars for the legislators. Do you remember Kent State?

 

She played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

 

More political poetry
https://www.robertsurbanek.com/politics.html

 

It doesn't matter what she may have had. The officer was pointing a gun at her, and had no way to determine what she had. Presumably, she was told to stop. She chose to continue in spite of warnings and visible guns. As a veteran, she should have known better, IMO.

Yes, I remember Kent State quite well. I knew someone who went to Kent and was there that day, protesting the vietnam war. If you're trying to make that analogy, let me save you the dizziness you would experience in trying to spin up a correlation between the two events.

1. The students who were shot and killed were obviously unarmed, carried no backbacks. In fact, the two girls weren't even carrying purses.

2. The Kent State demonstrators were on home ground, not invading hallowed government ground. There were not thousands of them by the time of the shooting, only around 300.

3. Those 300 or so followed the Guard from a parking lot back towards the commoms. Rocks and bottles and such had been thrown at the troops earlier, but this smaller crow was more or less just watching the troops return, yelling "pig!" epithets at them.

4. For no particular reason that has ever been articulated, a trooper turned and began firing his .45 into the crowd of following students. Because he was a sergeant, other troopers stopped, turned, and started firing their rifles into the crowd. 29 of the 77 troopers admitted to firing their weapons.

Hopefully, you can see that any attempt at correlation or whataboutism with Wednesday's events and the events in May 1970 fails miserably.

 

I don't mind a link that I can choose to ignore. I do mind very much the open crudeness on the forum.