Cop Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Never Interviewed By Investigators, Now Back In Charge Of House Securit

Well, I don't know how to say it better than I have in several previous posts; there is no joy in someone's death for me or anybody I know. By continuing those accusations you're only branding yourself as an unreasonable partisan grinding his ax.

Such as trying to equate Alex Baldwin and Lt. Byrd. Yes they both shot and killed a woman. Mr. Baldwin demonstrated he is totally and dangerously ingnorant about firearms. Lt. Byrd demonstrated superb training, discipline and control of himself and his sidearm.

I don't "adore" either man, I am disgusted that Mr. Baldwin was given a firearm that neither he or the person who gave it to him took seriously or had a clue about the danger it was. I admire Lt. Byrd for doing his job and protecting Congress. Even though, if you listen to his statement and watch the video of the shooting, it was something he did with the utmost reluctance and regret.

I feel sorry for both men, they will live a life of regret that nothing can change or bring back a life, one, Mr. Baldwin, from negligent stupidity; the other, Lt Byrd, because he did his job and protected Congress when being in that situation was the last thing he wanted.

 

Again, you have been, and continue to, unequivocally defend the actions of Michael Byrd, just like every other Democrat on this forum, even though, again, he shot and killed an unarmed white woman, and he was the only one to shoot and kill a rioter that day. None of the other officers shot and killed any of the other rioters. So what makes his situation unique? Why did he have to shoot? Why was grabbing and restraining Ashli Babbit not an option, especially with other officers in the vicinity? You have been passionately defending the killing of an unarmed white woman, but as soon as I mention the apparent hypocrisy of you leftists when it comes to the hand-wringing about unarmed blacks being shot, you automatically prove my point by starting to hand-wring about unarmed blacks being shot.

It appears that the people who had control of themselves and their firearm would be every other officer that day that did not shoot and kill a rioter, especially an unarmed female one. And the officers during the BLM-Antifa riots, in which over a dozen people were killed and officers were attacked, at least one of whom with a brick to the head (yes, a brick to the head), and in which cops were seen as the bad guys, hated by the liberal mainstream press who fueled the riots, are the ones that had great self-constraint, not shooting and killing any of the violent rioters.

Neither of them have been charged with a crime. Both of them, generally speaking, are adored by Democrats. Why hasn't Baldwin been charged with at least manslaughter? You may say that you do not adore Byrd, but you have been passionately defending his actions, which appear to be indefensible.

 

And you "unequivocally continue to grind your ax and insist Lt. Byrd acted not just erroneously but criminally even though he has been exonerated and judged to have acted correctly, by three independent investigations, in the Ashli Babbitt shooting. You continue to bring up the red herring that he was the only one to shoot an insurrectionist on January 6th, even though it's been explained, with video to back it up, that Lt. Byrd was the sole and last defender at the breach, VIOLENTLY caused by the group of insurrectionists Ms. Babbitt was part of and possibly one of the leaders of. I'm not defending the killing of an unarmed woman, I'm defending the use of force used by a lone Officer to stop insurrectionists from harming Congress. This is not hypocritical it's just stating facts. And resisting the push by conservatives to obfuscate the January 6th insurrection by equating it to the riots of 2020 to which IT IS NOT equatable.

IMHO, and going forward, you have disqualified yourself, in multiple biased posts to be a credible judge of the insurrection generally and the Babbitt shooting specifically. By using the same argument over and over, no matter how it's rebutted, you've shown the your argument is hollow and thin as piss on a rock and can't be take seriously.

Your further attempt to equate the Babbitt shooting to something/anything else is just grasping at straws, because your example, the "Baldwin" incident and the Babbitt shooting, have nothing to do with each other. But, IMHO, neither Baldwin nor Lt. Byrd should be charged criminally. I think Alec Baldwin should be sued into poverty, because, as a principal in the production, he allowed an inexperienced armorer to be in charge of his movie and he violated all rules of gun safety when HE shot and killed Mrs. Hutchins. Lt. Byrd in defending Congress AND judged to have acted correctly and withing department rules is obviously not liable in anyway for Ms. Babbitt's death.

So, no one else is following this thread anymore, and like it or not that is my last effort to make sense to you. You can, in a desperate attempt to make my position personal say that I and the left "adore" Baldwin or Babbitt, but that is just a lying attempt so disqualify the opinion's I've expressed. I don't know either man, my "opinions" about both shooting's is dispassionate and based on the facts I know of their cases. You, of course are entitled to your opinion, even though you have shown it's a passionate attempt to obfuscate the realities of what happened on January 6th to advance your political agenda about that awful day.

Good bye!

 

Three independent investigations? Independent how? Were they conducted by three separate departments? Yes, they were. They were conducted by the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Metropolitan Police, and it appears that Michael Byrd was never actually interviewed in the so-called "independent investigations." Additionally, I question the impartiality and fidelity to the law in how they were conducted, especially since Democrats, who have been milking January 6th for all its worth, control the White House and Congress, and thus have leadership in those same departments that were "investigating."

Two points here.

One, no, he was not the only officer within the vicinity. There were officers in the stairwell, as illustrated in the video below. And those other officers in the vicinity were armed with rifles and tactical gear.



Two, Ashli Babbit was an unarmed woman. He shot and killed an unarmed woman. Officers are generally not trained to shoot in any area of the body except the torso area, as the odds of missing that target are much smaller than, for example, a limb. Michael Byrd shot Ashli Babbit, an unarmed, small statured white woman, in the neck, not the torso, which is a more-difficult part of the body and a more fatal shot, which suggests that he was aiming for a fatal shot, not trying to stop the "threat" of an unarmed, small-statured woman.

How dare you! I am absolutely offended. I would never, ever equate January 6th to the BLM-Antifa riots. What kind of monster do you think I am? No, no, the BLM-Antifa riots were much worse. Over a dozen people were killed and about $2 billion in property damage was caused during the Antifa-BLM riots.

This is pure projection. I am the one citing facts. You are the one using emotional, mendacious, hyperbolic rhetoric in defense of what appears to be an unjustifiable killing of an unarmed white woman. And, like I've said, it's hypocritical, too: for multiple posts, you have been zealously defending the killing of an unarmed white woman, but as soon as unarmed black men getting shot by the police are cited, you immediately began the hand-wringing. It was pathetic, but expected.

Both Michael Byrd and Alec Baldwin shot and killed an unarmed white woman. Both have not been charged, and you agree that both should not be charged. And both are adored by Democrats.

You think Baldwin shouldn't be arrested for killing a woman? Why isn't what he did considered manslaughter?

 

Seven days later, seven days and you're posting the same thing over and over again??? But, there's a couple things here to respond to.

You've repeated that Ashli Babbitt was small and unarmed seven times; who's being hyperbolic?

"How dare you! I am absolutely offended."; who's being emotional?

"One, no, he was not the only officer within the vicinity." I never said he was, "I" said, "Lt. Byrd was the sole and last defender at the breach". It's doubtful the officers in the stairwell ever eve saw Ms. Babbitt until they were administering first aid; who's being mendacious?

Comparing the Byrd and Baldwin shootings and accusing me or any Democrat, Liberal, Progressive of "ADORATION" of either man is to demean and diminish the obvious justification of the first and necessary nightmare of the other. Neither man is adored, by anyone ... out side their loved ones.

Which puts a point on the real reason for your unbridled attack on Lt. Byrd. The elephant in the room is "the right" must obfuscate and rewrite the story of January 6th in defense of Benedict Donald the only president to plot a coup to retain power and USED his devoted followers to help him by bringing them to Washington to attack OUR Capitol the most beautiful public building in the world. They used the flag they criticized Colin Kapernick over for protesting during the national anthem to beat Blue Lives they killed a woman in support of, and then wiped their **** on the walls of our Beautiful Capitol. There IS no comparison between the 2020 riots and the January 6th Insurrection. Because the 2020 riots, as devastating as they were, never posed a threat to our Nation, The January 6th insurrection, had it been successful would have ended Government BY the People.

 

First off, before I get into the heart of my reply, I want to let you know that you're being a silly person. In your penultimate reply, you said, "So, no one else is following this thread anymore, and like it or not that is my last effort to make sense to you,' and then you said "good bye [sic]," even though it is "goodbye," "good-bye," "goodby," or "good-by." You had four alternative, correct choices, and you, of course, chose none of them. But the point is this: if you don't want to respond to me anymore in this thread, just don't. Just stop responding. You don't have to let the whole forum know that you, at this point, are going to stop responding to me. Be a grown-up, and just either say, "Hey, agree to disagree," or just stop responding, even though you're wrong. The route you chose is childish. Worse, you responded to me again, AFTER you already announced you were going to stop responding to me on this thread, and you did it within less than twenty-four hours of my post. Stop being silly; act like a grown-up. In other words, to quote the great Dave Portnoy, "You just keep walking, dude. Just keep walking."

I do have a life outside of this forum. If you look at my post count and how long I have been on this forum, I post, relatively speaking, few and far between, not being of a mindset to do otherwise. I work a lot, study a lot, and I have a social life; this forum is not my world, and you are not a worthy-enough opponent to specially carve out parts of my day to respond to you in a timely manner to your fitting.

She was small and she was unarmed. That is not hyperbolic. That is stating fact. What is hyperbolic is saying that January 6th was an insurrection, sedition, an attack on the framework and fabric of our society. Do you agree with Kamala Harris and other Democrats that January 6th falls in the same category as Pearl Harbor, September 11, and the Holocaust? Yes, I've heard Democrats compare it to the Holocaust. Not a joke.

Obviously, I was being sarcastic. The sarcasm was a build-up to say that I would never compare January 6th to the BLM-Antifa riots, attempting to persuade the reader into believing that I, too, think January 6th was worse, only to then say the opposite: that, no, I am not equating January 6th with the BLM-Antifa riots; I think the latter is worse. And were you paying attention to the thread and context of the conversation, you may have been able to pick up on the ironic tenor. Perhaps I need to end my statements with "LOL," so you'll catch on?

Let me get this straight. He was not the only officer within the vicinity, but he was the "sole and last defender." It's the same thing, just phrased differently. This is like saying, "I'm not saying he was the only officer within the vicinity; I'm just saying he was the only officer within the vicinity. Just pure nonsense.

Both men are adored by Democrats. It's probably the reason why neither has been charged. Being liked by the establishment has its perks.

The right is rewriting the story of January 6th? This is just classical projection, for it is the left that is rewriting the story of January 6th, saying 5 people died on January 6th when, in reality, only one person died, and it was Ashli Babbit, an unarmed, small-statured woman, and her death has been defended and celebrated by the very same people who will decry unarmed blacks being killed by police. Complete, utter hypocrisy. Hell, you had Nancy Pelosi hold a moment of silence in the House chamber to read of names of the people who DID NOT DIE ON JANUARY 6TH. If January 6th was as bad as you all are making it out to be, you'd just have to be honest. Just tell the truth. No embellishments. But not only do you overembellish it; you lie about the events of that day. Straight-up, easily debunked lies, in fact.

Tell that to the businessmen and businesswomen whose buildings were destroyed and burned to the ground. Tell that to the businessmen who were beaten trying to defend their property. Tell that to the cops who were injured during the BLM-Antifa riots, including the one that got hit in the head with a brick. Tell that to the families of the over dozen people who were killed during the BLM-Antifa riots. Tell that to the neighboorhoods that were terrorized for months on end by the BLM-Antifa rioters while Democrats and the mainstream press defended it, calling it a mostly peaceful protests. January 6th was a riot. It was one day. And nothing came of it. It did not threaten our democracy. What threatens our democracy was the fact that Congress approved the results of an absurdity of an election. What threatens our democracy is making the 2020 election into a farce with the astronomical implementation of mail-in voting. What threatens our democracy is Democrats refusing to accept election results when it does not go their way, and who now overly defend the 2020 election results, calling it the most secure election with no evidence to back up that claim.