 
     |
| The narrative that the Capitol protest was a “deadly insurrection” is falling apart (Page 85/110) |
|
rinselberg
|
NOV 02, 02:40 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
Trespassing is not a capital crime |
|
That can only be a reference to Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, and the late Ashli Babbitt. I don't see any other way to interpret it.
It's a canard.
We are not looking at someone in the person of Ashli Babbitt who was put on trial, judged guilty and given the sentence of death by execution. That would be capital punishment for a capital crime. This is about a Capitol crime.
Lt. Byrd's purpose in shooting Ashli Babbitt was to stop her from enlarging on the crimes that she had already committed. And what crimes were those? More than just "trespassing." She became part of a group that had forced their way inside of the Capitol Building when it was not open to the public. A group that had battered their way inside the Capitol Building by overcoming the Capitol Police in a series of violent assaults, using their fists and feet and a variety of improvised weapons and chemical irritants from spray cans. A group that had smashed through glass windows and forced open locked doorways to get inside the Capitol Building.
At the moment that Ashli Babbitt was fired upon by Lt. Byrd, she was trying to pass through an interior doorway that was being defended by the Capitol Police.
Is it reasonable to think, given the circumstances, that the Capitol Police were being nothing more than capricious, or overbearing towards the public, in trying to block members of the public--Ashli Babbitt in particular--from getting past that doorway? Really?
Again, I recommend this article . . .
"Evaluating the Police Shooting of Ashli Babbitt"
Geoffrey Alpert, Jeff Noble and Seth Stoughton for "Lawfare"; September 9, 2021.
https://www.lawfareblog.com...ooting-ashli-babbitt
This Read-o-Meters at a hefty 20 minutes for a careful read from end to end, but I don't think anyone needs to read the article all the way to the end to get the sense of it. See how it starts. Let your eyes scroll hurriedly through the text and see if you come to parts that you want to read more closely.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
NOV 02, 03:14 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
And what crimes were those? More than just "trespassing."
She became part of a group that had forced their way inside of the Capitol Building when it was not open to the public.
|
|
This is trespassing.
| quote |
A group that had battered their way inside the Capitol Building by overcoming the Capitol Police in a series of violent assaults, using their fists and feet and a variety of improvised weapons and chemical irritants from spray cans. A group that had smashed through glass windows and forced open locked doorways to get inside the Capitol Building.
|
|
Where is the evidence that Babbit committed any of the assaults or destruction that you described?
There is video evidence that the police moved barricades and allowed entry.
| quote |
At the moment that Ashli Babbitt was fired upon by Lt. Byrd, she was trying to pass through an interior doorway that was being defended by the Capitol Police.
|
|
This is trespassing.
| quote |
Is it reasonable to think, given the circumstances, that the Capitol Police were being nothing more than capricious, or overbearing towards the public, in trying to block members of the public--Ashli Babbitt in particular--from getting past that doorway?
|
|
Yes.
Really.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
NOV 02, 03:22 PM
|
|
Byrd aimed and pulled the trigger. His intention was to kill Babbit. He is a murderer.
The police are not allowed to kill someone simply because they are part of a group that has trespassed.
I find it difficult to believe that you, or anyone, in good conscience deny any of that.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
NOV 02, 04:07 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
Byrd aimed and pulled the trigger. His intention was to kill Babbit. He is a murderer.
The police are not allowed to kill someone simply because they are part of a group that has trespassed.
I find it difficult to believe that you, or anyone, in good conscience deny any of that.
|
|
Like a good many other things that he has been, and remains, WRONG about, he is obsessively wedded to the ignorant and fallacious idea that INCOMPETENT COWARD Michael Byrd was somehow justified in murdering Ashli Babbitt for the act of TRESSPASSING.
Moreover, INCOMPETENT COWARD Michael Byrd WAS NOT engaged in the act of openly guarding a doorway.
The video clearly shows that he was hiding in a cloakroom just beyond the doorway to the Speakers Lobby and murdered Ms. Babbitt WITHOUT WARNING from his hiding place.
The simple fact remains that of all the firearms carried by all of the hundreds of police that day ONLY ONE BULLET WAS FIRED and it came from the gun of an INCOMPETENT COWARD with A DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF MISHANDLING HIS WEAPON.
The CIVIL TRIAL of INCOMPETENT COWARD Michael Byrd for the WRONGFUL DEATH of Ashli Babbitt will proceed.
..........................................
Additionally, he keeps harping about a bullshit propaganda article from a gaggle of Leftists that somehow have the delusional idea that the LAW is somehow "warfare" and thus the incredibly moronic name "Lawfare".
You don't have to read very far into that pile of insipid Leftist crap before you hit THIS "NUGGET":
"We now know that there were eight separate breaches in the Capitol, and that some of those breaches involved insurrectionists armed with firearms,..."
If you have to resort to HYPERBOLE AND LIES to support your thesis, you don't have a valid argument and you're nothing more than A PROPAGANDIST
To add to this long festering boil of another one of his stupid positions we are confronted with yet ANOTHER article or book that HE DIDN'T READ but keeps hooting about as his "definitive" support for his ignorant postulations.
IF he had actually read, and understood, the article in it's entirety this part at the very end would have been inescapable...but he didn't:
"The limited public information that exists raises serious questions about the propriety of Byrd’s decision to shoot, especially with regard to the assessment that Babbitt was an imminent threat.
To belabor the obvious, though, we cannot definitively analyze a situation without the relevant facts, and there is a frustrating shortage of facts."
But, Leftists gotta Leftist....and in their world opinions win over facts.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-02-2021).]
|
|
|
|
Rickady88GT
|
NOV 02, 10:34 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
That can only be a reference to Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, and the late Ashli Babbitt. I don't see any other way to interpret it.
|
|
Yes I referenced the capital execution of a trespasser, by a Capital Officer.
| quote |
It's a canard.
We are not looking at someone in the person of Ashli Babbitt who was put on trial, judged guilty and given the sentence of death by execution. That would be capital punishment for a capital crime. This is about a Capitol crime.
|
|
If this shooting had happened in California with our current laws, this would have put Byrd on trial for manslaughter at minimum. She was unarmed and posed no threat of great bodily harm or death to anyone at the time of her execution. As far as I know, the entire time she was there she wasn't armed, vandalizing or threatening anyone.
This killing was a travesty and a miscarriage of justice. It will be remembered long after the trespassing is forgotten. All it will take is the lies of the left to be drowned out by the truth.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
NOV 02, 10:39 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
Byrd aimed and pulled the trigger. His intention was to kill Babbit. He is a murderer.
The police are not allowed to kill someone simply because they are part of a group that has trespassed.
I find it difficult to believe that you, or anyone, in good conscience deny any of that. |
|
Believe this:
| quote | Importantly, the Graham court held that the reasonableness of force requires looking at the facts not as they actually were, but as they would have appeared to “a reasonable officer on the scene.” As courts have made clear, this standard allows for mistaken perceptions and conclusions so long as all such errors were reasonable. For example, if an individual is stabbing at officers with a shiny, rigid object that a reasonable officer would believe is a knife, then the courts will assess the reasonableness of the officer’s actions as if the object were a knife even if it later turns out to have been a harmless rubber toy.
In assessing what a reasonable officer would have been aware of, it’s important to keep in mind that use-of-force situations can be chaotic. As the Supreme Court described it, “[O]fficers are often forced to make split-second judgments [] in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” This description isn’t always accurate—indeed, as one of us has written elsewhere, this description is “simply wrong almost all the time”—but it seems generally apt in this case.
|
|
"Evaluating the Police Shooting of Ashli Babbitt"
Geoffrey Alpert, Jeff Noble and Seth Stoughton for "Lawfare"; September 9, 2021.
https://www.lawfareblog.com...ooting-ashli-babbitt
I did not and do not need Alpert, Noble and Stoughton to tell me what to think about this, but I'd be hard put to improve upon their wording.
I had my thoughts about it first, and then I looked for an article that lined up with my thoughts.
Ergo, Alpert, Cogito, Sum.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-02-2021).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
NOV 02, 10:50 PM
|
|
When this song was released, I was 12 years old and living in Orlando Florida. A few months later, I was living just outside the Beltway.
LBJ was keeping Ol' Joe's chair warm for him and the world was a very different place, but in some ways very much the same as it is now.
What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and they carrying signs
Mostly say, "Hooray for our side"
I love Sierra Hull
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
NOV 02, 10:59 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Believe this:
Importantly, the Graham court held that the reasonableness of force requires looking at the facts not as they actually were, but as they would have appeared to “a reasonable officer on the scene.” As courts have made clear, this standard allows for mistaken perceptions and conclusions so long as all such errors were reasonable. For example, if an individual is stabbing at officers with a shiny, rigid object that a reasonable officer would believe is a knife, then the courts will assess the reasonableness of the officer’s actions as if the object were a knife even if it later turns out to have been a harmless rubber toy.
In assessing what a reasonable officer would have been aware of, it’s important to keep in mind that use-of-force situations can be chaotic. As the Supreme Court described it, “[O]fficers are often forced to make split-second judgments [] in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” This description isn’t always accurate—indeed, as one of us has written elsewhere, this description is “simply wrong almost all the time”—but it seems generally apt in this case.
|
|
If for no other reason (and there are other reasons), Byrd's defense falls apart based on the words that I underlined.[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 11-02-2021).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
NOV 07, 09:31 PM
|
|
[URL=https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/11/04/jan-6-defendant-released-after-investigation-finds-mistreatment-of-prisoners-n470246?fbclid=IwAR2CozwoZQmUtK4GMimmXzpBP-gChjdHdOdNtvefCXeJRm7mMoihkvD_KUs]https://redstate.com/nick-a...fCXeJRm7mMoihkvD_KUs[/UR L]
(Judge) Lamberth has now ordered the release of one of the detainees, Christopher Worrell — that man whose rights the judge had already said were violated. In addition to the issue with Worrell’s hand, he needs treatment for cancer. Lamberth said he had “zero confidence that the D.C. jail would give him the treatment needed and would “not retaliate” against him.
The D.C. Department of Corrections staff were “antagonizing detainees” and “directing detainees to not cooperate with” U.S. Marshals during the inspection, the agency said, and “one DOC staffer was observed telling a detainee to ‘stop snitching.’”
Just as a reminder, Leftist members of Congress actually helped fund the bail money and defense costs for ANTIFA / BLM rioters during the summer of 2020[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-07-2021).]
|
|
|
|
Rickady88GT
|
NOV 07, 09:36 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
That can only be a reference to Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, and the late Ashli Babbitt. I don't see any other way to interpret it.
|
|
Yes I referenced the capital execution of a trespasser, by a Capital Officer.
| quote |
It's a canard.
We are not looking at someone in the person of Ashli Babbitt who was put on trial, judged guilty and given the sentence of death by execution. That would be capital punishment for a capital crime. This is about a Capitol crime.
|
|
If this shooting had happened in California with our current laws, this would have put Byrd on trial for manslaughter at minimum. She was unarmed and posed no threat of great bodily harm or death to anyone at the time of her execution. As far as I know, the entire time she was there she wasn't armed, vandalizing or threatening anyone.
This killing was a travesty and a miscarriage of justice. It will be remembered long after the trespassing is forgotten. All it will take is the lies of the left to be drowned out by the truth.
|
|
|
|