helltopay1 said:

---

One person shot and killed. That person was an unarmed white female. Some insurrection!!

---

I agree. You don't need a lot of people shot and killed to have an insurrection.

helltopay1 said:

---

One person shot and killed. That person was an unarmed white female. Some insurrection!!

---

helltopay1: I know you all-of-a-sudden like "BLM" now because they criticized Biden, but imagine what you would've thought if it were they who had entered the Capitol on January 6th.

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

One person shot and killed. That person was an unarmed white female. Some insurrection!!

---

helltopay1: I know you all-of-a-sudden like "BLM" now because they criticized Biden, but imagine what you would've thought if it were they who had entered the Capitol on January 6th.

---

A black man shot and killed an unarmed white woman, imagine that.

---

How was he supposed to know she's unarmed?

okaydo said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

One person shot and killed. That person was an unarmed white female. Some insurrection!!

---

helltopay1: I know you all-of-a-sudden like "BLM" now because they criticized Biden, but imagine what you would've thought if it were they who had entered the Capitol on January 6th.

---

A black man shot and killed an unarmed white woman, imagine that.

---

How was he supposed to know she's unarmed?

---

Whether she was armed is irrelevant. The officer reasonably feared for his life. She was a part of a violent mob attempting to breach the capitol. No serious person thinks otherwise. This isn't like shooting a fleeing suspect in the back or murdering a non threatening suspect.

The only people pretending otherwise are radicalized Trumpers, with a dash of racism thrown in of course.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

okaydo said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

One person shot and killed. That person was an unarmed white female. Some insurrection!!

---

helltopay1: I know you all-of-a-sudden like "BLM" now because they criticized Biden, but imagine what you would've thought if it were they who had entered the Capitol on January 6th.

---

A black man shot and killed an unarmed white woman, imagine that.

---

How was he supposed to know she's unarmed?

---

Whether she was armed is irrelevant. The officer reasonably feared for his life. She was a part of a violent mob attempting to breach the capitol. No serious person thinks otherwise. This isn't like shooting a fleeing suspect in the back or murdering a non threatening suspect.

The only people pretending otherwise are radicalized Trumpers, with a dash of racism thrown in of course.

---

Looking forward to your applying this same standard to other shootings of unarmed individuals, particularly those who are African American. Start with Breonna Taylor and Ma'Khia Bryant. Now do BLM and Antifa rioters who were attacking buildings/areas protected by the police. And don't forget looters. I guess they can all be shot if the policeman feel threatened?

If the officer reasonably feared for his life, why was he the only Capital officer to discharge his weapon? Why weren't other "insurgents" who breached the capital shot? Why didn't' the other officers who where adjacent to Babbitt (i.e., on the same side of the door she was attempting to get through) shoot her or even attempt to stop her from climbing through the door? Why didn't the officer who fired his weapon attempt to arrest her - or even use non-lethal force to prevent her from climbing through the window?

The QAnon shaman" Jacob Chansley was wielding a spear and literally made it to heart of the senant chamber. Capital police spoke with him - why wasn't he shot?

You don't address any of this. As usual, you just assert without explanation that your opinion is fact ("The officer reasonably feared for his life") and then laughably claim that anyone who might disagree with you is a radicalized trumpster or racist. This is epic Unit2 - well done.

There is a real question here as to whether the officer's claimed belief of a "reasonable fear" was in fact reasonable. It is true that the officer doesn't need to see a weapon - but in the absence of an observed weapon it becomes MUCH harder to claim a diminutive women is a threat to human life. If this was a good shooting, then let's apply that standard to all law enforcement. But of course you never would.

---

This isn't the street. This is the U.S. Capitol Building and she was getting in close proximity to members of Congress while wearing baggy clothes and a backpack and having not been screened by security.

She could've had a gun or bomb or any kind of weapon. Should the cops give her the benefit of the doubt and let her get in close proximity to them to find out? Hell no! (It's a common terrorist tactic to send innocent-looking women on suicide missions.)

This isn't about the officer's life being in danger. It's about protecting the lives of some of the most important Americans. If members of Congress are harmed, maimed, held hostage in any way, it would be a sh*tshow.

And part of that protection is being a last line of defense.

And part of being the last line of defense is keeping control of the situation.

Once Babbitt gets close to you, you've lost control of the situation. It doesn't matter her height. She could be a little person. Once she gets through that barrier, armed or not, she'll become a handful to take down physically.

And when the cops are taking her down, expending all their energy on her, other members of the mob would be able to climb through the window and quickly overwhelm them and get to the members of Congress.

So you see, a diminutive woman could wreak a lot of havoc and cost a lot of lives, especially when they're a military veteran.

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

One person shot and killed. That person was an unarmed white female. Some insurrection!!

---

helltopay1: I know you all-of-a-sudden like "BLM" now because they criticized Biden, but imagine what you would've thought if it were they who had entered the Capitol on January 6th.

---

A black man shot and killed an unarmed white woman, imagine that.

---

How was he supposed to know she's unarmed?

---

In the military, deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably employed.

---

Great. But this isn't the military. This is protecting members of Congress from terrorists. You should be praising this guy, if you were a real American.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

okaydo said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

One person shot and killed. That person was an unarmed white female. Some insurrection!!

---

helltopay1: I know you all-of-a-sudden like "BLM" now because they criticized Biden, but imagine what you would've thought if it were they who had entered the Capitol on January 6th.

---

A black man shot and killed an unarmed white woman, imagine that.

---

How was he supposed to know she's unarmed?

---

Whether she was armed is irrelevant. The officer reasonably feared for his life. She was a part of a violent mob attempting to breach the capitol. No serious person thinks otherwise. This isn't like shooting a fleeing suspect in the back or murdering a non threatening suspect.

The only people pretending otherwise are radicalized Trumpers, with a dash of racism thrown in of course.

---

Looking forward to your applying this same standard to other shootings of unarmed individuals, particularly those who are African American. Start with Breonna Taylor and Ma'Khia Bryant. Now do BLM and Antifa rioters who were attacking buildings/areas protected by the police. And don't forget looters. I guess they can all be shot if the policeman feel threatened?

If the officer reasonably feared for his life, why was he the only Capital officer to discharge his weapon? Why weren't other "insurgents" who breached the capital shot? Why didn't' the other officers who where adjacent to Babbitt (i.e., on the same side of the door she was attempting to get through) shoot her or even attempt to stop her from climbing through the door? Why didn't the officer who fired his weapon attempt to arrest her - or even use non-lethal force to prevent her from climbing through the window?

The QAnon shaman" Jacob Chansley was wielding a spear and literally made it to heart of the senant chamber. Capital police spoke with him - why wasn't he shot?

You don't address any of this. As usual, you just assert without explanation that your opinion is fact ("The officer reasonably feared for his life") and then laughably claim that anyone who might disagree with you is a radicalized trumpster or racist. This is epic Unit2 - well done.

There is a real question here as to whether the officer's claimed belief of a "reasonable fear" was in fact reasonable. It is true that the officer doesn't need to see a weapon - but in the absence of an observed weapon it becomes MUCH harder to claim a diminutive women is a threat to human life. If this was a good shooting, then let's apply that standard to all law enforcement. But of course you never would.

---

This is peak BearGoggles sophistry. I'm not sure what you actually believe other than that conservative positions are always correct. I think you argued the murder of George Floyd was justified but please let me know if I'm wrong. Comparing petty looting to an insurrection and attack on our capitol with the obvious risk to the lives of our legislators is risible beyond belief. No reasonable person would draw that comparison in good faith. Protecting property and protecting lives should carry very different protocols for use of force.

I also think it's possible for a police officer defending the capitol to reasonably fear for his life even if not all capitol police officers decided to discharge their weapons. The fact that she was a small woman (was she actually small? I have no idea) is also largely irrelevant given that she was in a pack of violent criminals attempting to breach the building to attack our elected officials. To pretend that this is the same as the murder of unarmed black people (even large ones!) who pose no threat to police or anyone else - such as when they are running away or already subdued - is either disingenuous or absurd. With you one can never assume too much.

You've made some good arguments to justify the use of force on other criminals involved in the insurrection. Perhaps more violence would have helped protect the capitol but I'm not so sure given how outnumbered the police were. The fact that force is justified does not mean that it is required or even advisable. I would have no problem with criticism from the police force for the shooter if he breached protocol or failed to adhere to training but it's quite clear that what he did is not considered a crime in this country. There would be a whole lot of cops in jail if we did consider his action a crime. I would be okay with that and think it would create a safer society. That doesn't make the shooting of the traitor at the capitol a crime. She was a violent criminal who paid the ultimate price for her radicalization. Unfortunately I don't think the republicans who continue to radicalize their base care one whit about this and we will continue to see idiots like her attack our government.

What's so interesting about this case is those who support/make excuses/ deny&deflect / refuse to apply any personal accountability are all in sync the same words and thoughts…

That mind set is simply white Supremacy/white privilege at work.

Minus race she shouldn't been there… all bets are off they should have laid out everyone of those racist pos.

Meanwhile a woman that threatened an officials' life and then attended that Tiki torched thug take over appears she pleaded out to misdemeanor???? A what ? How?