"You can't use a firearm to defend property"
Oh wait...
She did not have a gun, a knife, a bat, a club, or a chain and yet it's OK to gun her down. Hmmm. Funny how the rules are different.
Yet she was climbing in through a broken window that was also barricaded.
shareSo someone going out of their way to get to you is a lethal threat you would say?
shareYes. What point are you trying to get across?
shareThe hypocrisy.
shareOf What? If Kyle stayed home he would not have this issue.
shareMaybe you'll work it out. If the arsonists, looters and paedos stayed home, Kyle would have been home too. What's your point?
shareObviously a clear death sentence suddenly...
shareTrespassing isn’t a reason to shoot someone, and before you say it yes if someone is in my house and I don’t know them I have a right to defend myself, it’s called the castle doctrine and it applies to my private property, the Capitol building isn’t a private citizens property.
share
Babbit wasn't shot for trespassing.
The small breakaway group of "protesters" that Babbit was with weren't just trespassing like the others - they were smashing through a barricade to get to Congressional members on the other side. That's when it was no longer "trespassing" and it became terrorism. What did they have in mind when they got through the barricade and past the armed cops? I don't think there was an espresso machine on the other side.
Babbit wasn't shot for trespassing, she was shot for breaking through a barrier to get to Congressional members.
one thing i never see mentioned ( other than by the Secret Service ) is that she was shot because she was approaching the VP's security detail "with a backpack"
similar backpacks have been used in the past to carry and disguise explosives ( the Boston Marathon being just one example )
Yet it turned out she had nothing. You can’t just decide that someone will be a threat in the future and just kill them.
share
Every watch youtube? There are a lot of videos of police being shot to death by motorists who seemed "unarmed". Unless you expect police to suddenly develop X-Ray vision, to suggest that police should automatically assume that suspects are no danger to them until they take a round to the chest is disgusting.
You clearly don’t understand how firearm laws work. You cannot just make the assumption someone will shoot you, you can only use deadly force when it was established that you life was in danger from deadly force. Yes the other person has the element of surprise. Educate yourself.
share
You can't win an argument with insults. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually understood my point and chose to ignore it because your position is so weak. But here it is again:
Police can't tell how dangerous someone is, but someone who is violently breaking through a barrier to get at U.S. government elected officials is very high on the probability list of being a danger, perhaps deadly.
Suppose the cop didn't shoot those breaking through the barrier and let them get into the chambers where they attacked a Congressperson.
The police couldn't wait until the mob got to the Congressmen and hurt or killed them before deciding to stop them.
I don't understand your hatred for police. Maybe you should be one before calling one a murderer.
What insults? I am just giving you objective facts hoping you’ll get your head out of the sand and listen to reason.
You don’t get to calculate the probability that they might be a danger in the future, they have to be a threat to society when they are shot. Ashli Babbit was just in a building, you don’t get to shoot someone for that. She never attacked a congressman, not to mention there is little to no evidence that anyone in the crowd wanted to hurt anyone, in fact Capitol police even gave the crowd a free tour of the capitol, kind of destroys your narrative.
And it’s your cult that hates the police, they spent months telling their mob BLM to go kill them. BLM even blocked the entrance to a hospital so that an ambulance carrying two wounded police officers couldn’t get in all while chanting “we hope you fucking die”
Babbit was just in a building, you don’t get to shoot someone for that.
Well, if she was "just in a building", she wouldn't have gotten shot. She was breaking down then going through a barrier to get to the Congressional members. She was the only one going through the hole they created and the only one shot. Does any of that seem coincidental? If you have any insight to what her plan was besides getting to Congressional members if she got through the barrier please let us know.
She never attacked a congressman..
Right, because she was shot before she could hurt/kill any of them.
share
But she was just in a building and she was shot. Can you show me the video of her specifically breaking down a barrier? Even if you can it wouldn’t make any difference because all she did was trespass and she was murdered for it. Again educate yourself on rules of engagement and gun laws.
You don’t get to shoot someone because you think they “could hurt/kill” someone.
Can you show me the video of her specifically breaking down a barrier?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWMpTHLJXbw&t=9s
You don’t get to shoot someone because you think they “could hurt/kill” someone.
You're being naive. Try breaking into any government building on any nation on the planet and see if you don't get shot.
Do you really think the Capitol police should have waited for the mob to get to the Congressmen? The police aren't there to pick up dead bodies, they're there to prevent them.
And you still didn't offer any kind of opinion as to what was Babbit's plan beyond the obvious one of getting to the Congressmen. What in your opinion was her plan after she got through the barrier?
share
Well you just showed a snuff video but even then I saw her climbing through a window, not breaking a barrier down, nice try numb nuts. And yes for the 40th time that is how gun laws work, you cannot just fire into the crowd you can only use your weapon if there is an immediate threat of death. What her plan was beyond climbing through the window is irrelevant, we will never know because the Capitol police just killed her.
shareStatistically speaking, you are more likely to be killed by a motorist if you are in waste disposal operating a garbage truck, than if you are a law enforcement officer stopping a car.
shareYet it turned out she had nothing. You can’t just decide that someone will be a threat in the future and just kill them.
Um, yes - that's how that works. She was warned, and the Secret Service agent couldn't possibly know what she had on (or in) her. What, was he supposed to wait until she got through and then attempt a search? And assume the crowd behind her would let him? When you have your gun trained at them, you tell them to get back, and they keep advancing, your job is to not take any chances. If it turns out later she had no weapons or explosives, tough shit - he couldn't know that, and he could not take that chance. She should have listened. She got herself killed. share
That's not how it works, if you shoot someone you had better be right that they were a threat to your life or someone's else's life. If I am walking down the street and I think I see someone who is about to kill someone else and I pull my gun out and shoot them and it turns out I was wrong then I am going to jail. You don't know the first thing about how gun laws work. You don't get to just assume that in the future someone will be a threat so therefore you get to just shoot them. Educate yourself.
She trespassed into a building and because she voted for Trump you think she deserved to die, you are a pretty sick person.
So therefore I am correct in saying that next time BLM is torching cities and trying to kill cops I can just fire into the crowd, correct? Just admit had she been BLM you'd be crying a river about how the cops targeted her and you'd be painting her as some kind of a victim.
That's not how it works, if you shoot someone you had better be right that they were a threat to your life or someone's else's life. If I am walking down the street and I think I see someone who is about to kill someone else and I pull my gun out and shoot them and it turns out I was wrong then I am going to jail.
Oh, you mean like Zimmerman went to jail? Besides, when you're a security guard, Secret Service no less, tasked with protecting a building and the people within it, and that building is the CAPITOL, and Congress is IN SESSION, and someone BREAKS IN and tries to climb through a broken window, and WILL NOT STOP in spite of you pointing a gun at them and warning them in no uncertain terms to back off or they will get shot, then in shooting them you will have done everything right.
ou don't get to just assume that in the future someone will be a threat so therefore you get to just shoot them.
When they're in the process of breaking and entering, not only do you get to assume that, you HAVE to assume that. You'd be an idiot for assuming anything else.
She trespassed into a building and because she voted for Trump you think she deserved to die, you are a pretty sick person.
She deserved to die because she ignored the warnings of an officer who told her to stop BREAKING IN. You know full well what would have happened if they had succeeded in capturing, say, Nancy Pelosi or Mike Pence. They weren't there to look at the paintings.
So therefore I am correct in saying that next time BLM is torching cities and trying to kill cops I can just fire into the crowd, correct?
Shooting into a crowd? Of course not. That's not what happened here, either. He aimed at the person in front, and he hit the person in front. And even then, EVERYONE in that crowd was breaking and entering, and constituted a threat. It's not like Babbit was breaking down that door while everyone else was minding their own business. share
Uhhh Trayvon Martin was actually trying to kill Zimmerman, huge difference there, Trayvon was an actual threat to Zimmerman's life and I'm glad Zimmerman killed him. Trayvon was a threat to society, Ashli Babbit wasn't. False equivalence on your part. Trayvon was guilty of attempted murder, Ashli Babbit was guilty of trespassing. Very poor analogy from you. EDIT: Zimmerman was also tried and found "not guilty" by a jury of his peers (he never should have been tried in the first place as it was clearly a case of self defense, the only reason it went to trial is because your cult kept politicizing the incident and made it racial), the Capitol Policeman who murdered Ashli Babbit wasn't even arrested, another false equivalence on your part.
Again educate yourself on how gun laws work, you DO NOT have the right to assume someone will in the future be a threat, they have to actually be posing a direct threat to your life or someone else's life like Trayvon Martin was.
You didn't answer the question, if I shot a BLM thug who was throwing rocks at cops (which is attempted murder) I can kill them right? I can also shoot the BLM thugs who were blocking the entrance to a hospital so that an ambulance carrying two wounded police officers couldn't get in (they were attempting to kill the cops).
You need to revamp your approach because your entire debate strategy is based on logical fallacies and false equivalences.
Trayvon Martin was not trying to kill Zimmermann. Zimmermann confronted Martin, not the other way around. And he did so in spite of the 911 operator telling him not to. Zimmermann followed Martin, and when Martin tried to RUN AWAY, Zimmermann ran after, caught up with him and shot him in the ensuing kerfuffle. Martin tried, and failed, to defend himself. Martin was, himself, UNARMED.
And no, Babbitt, wasn't merely guilty of trespassing. She was guilty of BREAKING AND ENTERING. She was attempting to climb through a broken window when she got shot, for crying out lout. That's not "trespassing". And she was WARNED what would happen if she persisted. And seriosly, what do you suppose would have happened if the crowd had gotten their hands on, say, Nancy Pelosi or Mike Pence? Honest answers only, please.
And I did answer your question. It's the last paragraph of my previous reply. But then your question was different: you asked if you could fire into the CROWD. Now you're asking if you can shoot the individual in question. If YOU are the one being attacked, then that's your call. If a person attacks a cop, but the cop is making no sign to kill or subdue that individual, then no: you don't butt in. It's his call. In the Babbitt case, it wasn't a random civilian who shot her, so your comparison is still invalid.
Zimmerman confronted him as was his job and Trayvon attacked him and tried to kill him. Trayvon deserved to die, he was attempting to murder Zimmerman, even if Zimmerman confronted him and was provoking him Trayvon should have called the cops (BTW that didn't happen). Deadly force can be used without a weapon BTW. If you are on top of me trying to choke me to death (that is deadly force) then yes I can pull my gun out and shoot you. If I see you breaking through a window to get into a building I CANNOT shoot you. Learn the difference, kid.
You are wrong again, all Ashli did was trespass, she was somewhere she wasn't supposed to be and because she voted for Trump your death cult seems to think she should have been shot.
As for Pence and Pelosi you are speculating, there is ZERO evidence Ashli intended to do any harm to either of them and again she was UNARMED. When you choose to shoot someone you had better be right in the sense that you have a justification to shoot someone. If you decide that someone is a threat without evidence and then it turns out they are unarmed then you are the one at fault.
My comparison is completely valid, private citizens have the right to defend themselves as do the cops and they have to abide by the same rules, if you choose to use your weapon you had better be right about it. The cop who shot her was not, Ashli was unarmed, didn't have a bomb or a gun. You can't predetermine that someone will be a threat to someone's life and if you do and you're wrong then you go to jail. Again educate yourself on gun laws because you are clearly ignorant.
And the cop did just fire into the crowd so my BLM comparison is legitimate.
Trayvon deserved to die, Ashli did not so can it with your false equivalences.
EDIT: You got another thing wrong in your post, if a BLM thug is attacking a cop and the cop isn't doing anything I can intervene, as long as I am on the right side then I am in the clear. Intervening comes with risks, you need to know exactly what the situation is which is why if I walk into a gas station and someone is holding someone against the wall with a shotgun and then I kill them, but it turns out the person with the shotgun was the gas station attendant who was holding a robber still until the police came then I am at fault and I'll go to jail. Same thing with Ashli, if you think she is a threat to "our democracy" and you choose to take action you had better be right about the situation and when it turns out she was unarmed and had no bomb or anything you are now guilty of murder. Again you totally ignorant on how gun laws work but that's pretty consistent with the other members of your death cult.
LOL breaking a window isn’t terrorism you snowflake. At the very worst she trespassed which is a misdemeanor. Usually I wouldn’t take such issue but the left went on and on for months saying that BLM thugs who were torching our cities had a right to due process and shouldn’t just be shot on the spot (which they weren’t), yet the Capitol police did that very thing to Ashli Babbit and as predicted the lefts attitude is a complete 180. You can only use deadly force to protect against deadly force, Ashli Babbit wasn’t using deadly force and she was unarmed.
I guess by your logic next time BLM starts rioting the police should be allowed to just fire into the crowd correct? I mean they are domestic terrorists.
LOL breaking a window isn’t terrorism you snowflake.
Oh, I see. A broken window. Like a kid throwing a baseball errantly. I see - we can't shoot a kid for breaking a window. We've all done that. But then I see the video and I realize that the material of the barrier is, well immaterial. If it was Lexan instead of glass, or Masonite, or lathe and plaster, would the material that makes up the barrier make a difference?
Except she didn't just "break a window". She broke through the barrier to get to elected member of the United States Congress. I know you Marxists love this type of "democracy", but it's not how we do thinks in the U.S.
I guess by your logic next time BLM starts rioting the police should be allowed to just fire into the crowd correct?
And why would you think that? My comments are based on logic, common sense, and morality. The BLM and Antifa rioters should have been shot on sight. I have said that here on MC and you can find those comments if you're so inclined. *Anybody* who riots to cause damage, or worse, those who riot to get to our elected officials should be shot on sight.
The difference between me and you is that I am *consistent* with my thoughts on riots and terrorism, you are biased. If it's your boys, it's fine. If it's the opposition, then shoot them all.
I asked you before on this site to answer this *very* simple yes or no question, and you have avoided it. I'll ask one more time for posterity:
If Antifa or BLM had stormed the Capitol after the 2016 election when Trump won, and an Antifa or BLM member was shot breaking through that barrier to get to Republican Congressmen, would you have called their deaths murder or an execution?
That's a yes or no question. Answer please.
For the record, I would have defended the Capitol police if an Antifa or BLM member was shot under the same circumstances.
share
We’ve all shot a kid for breaking a window??? Ummm I sure as hell haven’t nor has anyone I know. How do you know that she intended to do anyone harm? She was unarmed so it’s highly unlikely she was, again educate yourself on gun laws.
And I think you’re full of shit. If Antifa or BLM had tried to storm the White House and try to murder President Trump you’d either A) Ignore it or B) Celebrate them for trying to kill him. How do I know that? Because that’s exactly what your death cult did when BLM tried to storm the White House and murder President Trump.
We’ve all shot a kid for breaking a window??? Ummm I sure as hell haven’t nor has anyone I know.
Reread what I said. I said we've all broken a window, not shot a kid....
How do you know that she intended to do anyone harm?
Well, she broke through a barrier to get to Congressmen. Tell me, what do you think her plan was when she broker through a barrier? Was she mad at the barrier? Did she have some latent issues with locked doors?
And I think you’re full of shit. If Antifa or BLM had tried to storm the White House and try to murder President Trump you’d either A) Ignore it or B) Celebrate them for trying to kill him. How do I know that?
Well, you *don't* know that. Again, you're wrong. I voted for Trump, but even if I hated him, I would say shoot every son of a bitch who tries to overthrow a legitimately elected government.
But I'm sure you don't believe that, so here is a link of me blasting the BLM rioters two years ago.
Oh, OK. While we're at it let's ignore the stand down orders when BLM and Antifa are burning down neighborhoods, businesses, and destroying government and police cars. They should have shot every one of those rioting looting sons of bitches.
https://moviechat.org/nm3668431/Kamala-Harris/608016e663e4392647e3cf3b/Says-guilty-verdict-is-not-enough?reply=6081890040d9a8765eef10a4
So you see, I am *consistent* when it comes to looting and rioting, you are not. Rioting is only bad when the rioters are people with whom you have political differences. If the rioters are on your side, no foul.
If Babbit is your martyr and you try to defend her actions, you impeach everything you say about anything.
share
I’ve never broken a window.
Breaking through a barrier isn’t a threat on anyone’s life, again you’re making leaps in logic and assumptions. You don’t know the first thing about firearms, you cannot use them if you “think” someone may be a threat. If I’m in a gas station and I see someone dressed like a thug who is in an argument with the attendant I don’t get to just take my gun out and shoot them. You have to wait until they are actually posing a legitimate threat.
I know it very well, you aren’t fooling anyone, had Babbit been BLM your stance would be completely different. You’re a blind DemoKKKrat cultist and a pretty terrible human being.
Breaking through a barrier isn’t a threat on anyone’s life, again you’re making leaps in logic and assumptions.
The logical conclusion anyone would draw is that when breaking through a barrier, you are going to do something that the erectors of the barrier wouldn't want. The barriers were there to protect Congress. Tell me, if that's an unreasonable stretch of logic, what is your best guess as to what Babbit had in mind if she managed to get through?
I know it very well, you aren’t fooling anyone, had Babbit been BLM your stance would be completely different.
I posted evidence from two full years ago when I said categorically that the police should have shot every Antifa and BLM rioter and looter. What don't you understand?
The irony is that the link I posted was a discussion where someone assumed I would somehow defend Babbit's actions *because* I was attacking the actions of Antifa and BLM. Maybe look at that link.
You don't understand your own hypocrisy. Rioting is fine for you when it's committed by someone you like, but not when it's someone you don't. I've been very unambiguous when I attacked BLM and Antifa's actions and attacked Babbit's actions. Rioting, looting, and attacking Congress is not how a Republic works.
And for the 8th time at least, you have ignored my question, so I'll post it again:
If Antifa or BLM had stormed the Capitol after the 2016 election when Trump won, and an Antifa or BLM member was shot breaking through that barrier to get to Republican Congressmen, would you have called their deaths murder or an execution?
Maybe someday it will occur to you why you *can't* answer that question.
Violence is WRONG no matter who perpetrates it.
share
You can’t just draw conclusion when a gun is involved, you have to actually observe a threat to someone’s life. You cannot speculate. You don’t know the first thing about gun laws.
I don’t believe you, I fully believe that if Ashli Babbit was BLM you and your cult would be torching cities and crying racism.
And yes if Ashli Babbit were BLM I would have the same attitude that I had when George Floyd was killed, he was murdered and there was no justification for it. There also wasn’t a justification for Diaper Joe, KKKamala, Pelosi and Schumer to tell their mob to go vandalized cities and kill people.
I don’t believe you, I fully believe that if Ashli Babbit was BLM you and your cult would be torching cities and crying racism.
I have provided evidence that I vociferously attacked the mobs that rioted and looted our cities two years ago - I posted the entire thread. Antifa and BLM are Marxist scum who want to destroy America as we know it.
And yes if Ashli Babbit were BLM I would have the same attitude that I had when George Floyd was killed, he was murdered and there was no justification for it.
You *almost* said it but you didn't. It's hard isn't it. Instead of tying this to George Floyd, say it without qualification:
"Yes, if Antifa and BLM attacked the Capitol and one of their members was shot breaking through a barrier to get to Congress members, I would be on this site calling it a murder".
Maybe if you said it that way we might at least believe some small part of you, but we know better.
But you'd still be wrong - there is NEVER justification for violence in a Constitutional Republic as long as the government stands. Anarchy has never worked and never will.
There also wasn’t a justification for Diaper Joe, KKKamala, Pelosi and Schumer to tell their mob to go vandalized cities and kill people.
Well, we agree on that point at least.
share
So then are you going to join me in calling for Diaper Joe to be impeached seeing how he incited those insurrections?
I have been very consistent in my position, I denounced Derek Chauvin for murdering George Floyd and I am denouncing the Capitol cop who murdered Ashli Babbit. I am also denouncing Diaper Joe for inciting the 2020 BLM riots.
So then are you going to join me in calling for Diaper Joe to be impeached seeing how he incited those insurrections?
Absolutely not.
The two impeachments on Trump were both bullshit and simply politically motivated (which is why they both failed), and impeaching Biden for "incitement" is just as ridiculous as those accusing Trump of inciting the Capitol riot.
The NY indictment on Trump is also bullshit and politically motivated - a Banana Republic move to attack one's opponents politically.
Now, if there is some actual evidence I haven't seen where Biden had an active hand in orchestrating or otherwise helping the rioters , then my position would absolutely change, but impeachment is serious business only to be used for serious charges. Anything less reduces the whole process to some machinations typical of a Banana Republic.
Impeachements are nearly impossible to pull off anyway. A bullshit impeachment won't get the Senate votes (which is why Trump rightly wasn't convicted), and a legitimate impeachment wouldn't get to Senate trial as the president will resign first.
share
It actually isn’t, Diaper Joe actually did incite violence and he did get people killed, and apparently he thinks it’s funny that people are dying because of his lies.
share
Fine, if you want to get Biden on incitement, then Trump is just as guilty. Can't have it both ways.
If you want every president from this point on to be impeached, then you're on the right track.
That is a false equivalence, The left twisted the facts to suit their narrative and their predetermined conclusion that Trump needed to be impeached.
Diaper Joe committed treason and he is responsible for over 20 murders, the son of a bitch deserves to be prosecuted.
OK El Jefe. Viva la revolución!
And again, you ignored the question - so here it is again:
If Antifa or BLM had stormed the Capitol after the 2016 election when Trump won, and an Antifa or BLM member was shot breaking through that barrier to get to Republican Congressmen, would you have called their deaths murder or an execution?
You can't answer the question honestly, because you can't reconcile the answer. Maybe you should stop "rooting" for your team and root for honesty instead.
We all know the answer even if you won't say it: if Antifa had stormed the Capitol after Trump's 2016 win and someone got shot trying to get to Republican Senators, you would have NOT defended Antifa nor should you or anyone have. The only ones who would defend Antifa and BLM are those who are trying to destroy the U.S and our enviable system of checks and balances.
Babbit may have been let in by the bumbling Capitol police, but she and that small group of wingnuts went over the line when their protesting became violent and they smashed through that barrier. They may have been invited inside the Capitol, but they were not invited to smash down barriers.