No, they were let into the building, didn't smash any barricades, but were pounding on the doors and someone broke some glass.
They were let in, but there were also people banging on the doors and yelling. I remember watching it. Pretty sure there were people climbing to the windows ( some of them might have been Antifa?) and shouting about Mike Pence being a traitor.
Ashli Babbit and others were trying to break through an interior, barricaded door. They were chanting"break it down" as they smashed through the glass. Ashli climbed through. That is smashing a barricade.
I'm not 100% clear on how many lawmakers were left to protect, supposedly some were still sheltering nearby, but the officer's job was to protect the politicians, the location, and himself. It's not fucking relevant whether police shot at BLM during the riots. In the situation you cite it would have been completely justified. It was justified here. A credibly violent mob was breaking through a defensive barricade inside the Capitol and threatening the people within.
If we assume that she was such a lethal threat that she was going to bust through the window and kill all the senators that weren't there with her no weapons, it would make sense to keep shooting until she can't threaten the lives of the senators anymore.
Are you seriously making the point that the threat wasn't genuine because he didn't empty the whole fucking clip into her - from a very awkward angle by the way - and then keep firing at the rest of the crowd? That's complete nonsense. By your reasoning, maybe Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't really threatened because he shot each assailant once and didn't massacre everyone else? If the officer stopped firing because he realized the rest of the mob were staying put, good. At that point it no longer made sense to shoot.
But if I was guarding against an encroaching mob of unknown number, unknown arms, and presumably violent intent, I'd have done what he did. I'd have shot BLM rioters. I'd have shot Ashli Babbit or whoever else came through that window, and I'd feel sad about it but I'd also feel completely justified. Maybe you'd handle it differently. Maybe you'd walk up them and shake their hand or something.
Yes, there are horrific double standards. Yes, this deserves a proper investigation. Yes, we're not going to get one and yes the entire narrative about J6 is bogus political theater.
The shooting was still justified in the circumstances.
They were chanting"break it down" as they smashed through the glass. Ashli climbed through. That is smashing a barricade.
Except that's not on video, I know, I've watched it.
the officer's job was to protect the politicians, the location, and himself. It's not fucking relevant whether police shot at BLM during the riots.
Yes it is, and the fact that they didn't kill everyone that threw a rock, or walked through the broken down fence is an indication that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to lethal force.
A Lethal threat has to be present and it has to be specific. That imminent lethal threat didn't appear in either case. The cops in Minneapolis didn't fire, because they didn't have justification to do so.
Are you seriously making the point that the threat wasn't genuine because he didn't empty the whole fucking clip into her - from a very awkward angle by the way - and then keep firing at the rest of the crowd? That's complete nonsense.
Bullshit, it's your argument. Either the crowd and her were an ongoing lethal threat, or they fucking weren't. You've given me non-stop excuses about how the crowd was a lethal threat, and yet no one treated them like that, even the shooter. The reason no one treated them as a lethal threat is because you're wrong. If you were right, dumping rounds into both of them would have been entirely acceptable, as it was in Akron, Ohio.
But if I was guarding against an encroaching mob of unknown number, unknown arms, and presumably violent intent, I'd have done what he did. I'd have shot BLM rioters.
And you'd be a murderer in every state in the union. This is because you are ignorant of the law and self-defense, and you clearly didn't watch the videos. You're either a troll, a fed, or a Leftist. One way or another, you're fucking igonrant.
Kyle Rittenhouse fired:
At Joseph Rosenbaum for pursuing him and grabbing his gun - Ashley Babbit did neither of these things.
At Gaige Grosskruetz for pointing a gun at him - Ashley Babbit did not do this
At "Jump Kick Man" for attempting to stomp his head in while he was immobilized on the ground - Ashley Babbit did not do this.
At Anthony Huber for striking him in the head with a blunt weapon force weapon - Ashley Babbit did not do this.
Rosenbaum, Grosskruetz, Huber, and "Jump Kick" all used lethal force on Rittenhouse, to which he responded with lethal force. He did not randomly fire into a crowd, and he did not fire at everyone who approached him. That's what you are saying you would do.
That is why Rittenhouse's actions are worthy of fucking lecture in self-defense courses as one of the single best real world defensive gun uses in history, and yours would be murder. As would the Capitol Hill Shooter's if we had a justice system worth anything.
Yes, there are horrific double standards. Yes, this deserves a proper investigation. Yes, we're not going to get one and yes the entire narrative about J6 is bogus political theater.
Bullshit, faggot. What are you up to, and why are you concern trolling at people you're glad to see dead.
A Lethal threat has to be present and it has to be specific. That imminent lethal threat didn't appear in either case. The cops in Minneapolis didn't fire, because they didn't have justification to do so.
I don't care what the police think is a lethal threat. I don't care what is "legally" justified. I care about what's going through the guy's head at the time, when he's firing at people who are yelling and breaking through his barricade, who could potentially overwhelm him and his fellow officers whether armed or not.
And you'd be a murderer in every state in the union.
At least I'd be alive to be a murderer. I'm not stopping to microanalyze every facet of a threat before I decide if I need to shoot at aggressive assailants. If you knowingly present a significant threat to someone holding a gun, expect to get shot.
One way or another, you're fucking igonrant.
Sure, Mister "they shot her for looking through a window".
What are you up to, and why are you concern trolling at people you're glad to see dead.
???
Sorry dude, accuracy is important and you've been framing this dishonestly from the start. I'm not going to derail by accusing you of being a leftist/concern troll/whatever, but this "conversation" feels just like I'm arguing with one.
But I believe we should be using their own tactics against them, so congratulations for that. Maybe I should be learning from you.
They were let in, but there were also people banging on the doors and yelling. I remember watching it. Pretty sure there were people climbing to the windows ( some of them might have been Antifa?) and shouting about Mike Pence being a traitor.
Ashli Babbit and others were trying to break through an interior, barricaded door. They were chanting"break it down" as they smashed through the glass. Ashli climbed through. That is smashing a barricade.
I'm not 100% clear on how many lawmakers were left to protect, supposedly some were still sheltering nearby, but the officer's job was to protect the politicians, the location, and himself. It's not fucking relevant whether police shot at BLM during the riots. In the situation you cite it would have been completely justified. It was justified here. A credibly violent mob was breaking through a defensive barricade inside the Capitol and threatening the people within.
Are you seriously making the point that the threat wasn't genuine because he didn't empty the whole fucking clip into her - from a very awkward angle by the way - and then keep firing at the rest of the crowd? That's complete nonsense. By your reasoning, maybe Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't really threatened because he shot each assailant once and didn't massacre everyone else? If the officer stopped firing because he realized the rest of the mob were staying put, good. At that point it no longer made sense to shoot.
But if I was guarding against an encroaching mob of unknown number, unknown arms, and presumably violent intent, I'd have done what he did. I'd have shot BLM rioters. I'd have shot Ashli Babbit or whoever else came through that window, and I'd feel sad about it but I'd also feel completely justified. Maybe you'd handle it differently. Maybe you'd walk up them and shake their hand or something.
Yes, there are horrific double standards. Yes, this deserves a proper investigation. Yes, we're not going to get one and yes the entire narrative about J6 is bogus political theater.
The shooting was still justified in the circumstances.
Except that's not on video, I know, I've watched it.
Yes it is, and the fact that they didn't kill everyone that threw a rock, or walked through the broken down fence is an indication that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to lethal force.
A Lethal threat has to be present and it has to be specific. That imminent lethal threat didn't appear in either case. The cops in Minneapolis didn't fire, because they didn't have justification to do so.
Bullshit, it's your argument. Either the crowd and her were an ongoing lethal threat, or they fucking weren't. You've given me non-stop excuses about how the crowd was a lethal threat, and yet no one treated them like that, even the shooter. The reason no one treated them as a lethal threat is because you're wrong. If you were right, dumping rounds into both of them would have been entirely acceptable, as it was in Akron, Ohio.
And you'd be a murderer in every state in the union. This is because you are ignorant of the law and self-defense, and you clearly didn't watch the videos. You're either a troll, a fed, or a Leftist. One way or another, you're fucking igonrant.
Kyle Rittenhouse fired:
Rosenbaum, Grosskruetz, Huber, and "Jump Kick" all used lethal force on Rittenhouse, to which he responded with lethal force. He did not randomly fire into a crowd, and he did not fire at everyone who approached him. That's what you are saying you would do.
That is why Rittenhouse's actions are worthy of fucking lecture in self-defense courses as one of the single best real world defensive gun uses in history, and yours would be murder. As would the Capitol Hill Shooter's if we had a justice system worth anything.
Bullshit, faggot. What are you up to, and why are you concern trolling at people you're glad to see dead.
It's hard to find video of this anymore, so you'll forgive me linking to the NBC website
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capitol-shooting-that-led-to-ashli-babbitt-s-death-captured-on-video-99180613572
I don't care what the police think is a lethal threat. I don't care what is "legally" justified. I care about what's going through the guy's head at the time, when he's firing at people who are yelling and breaking through his barricade, who could potentially overwhelm him and his fellow officers whether armed or not.
At least I'd be alive to be a murderer. I'm not stopping to microanalyze every facet of a threat before I decide if I need to shoot at aggressive assailants. If you knowingly present a significant threat to someone holding a gun, expect to get shot.
Sure, Mister "they shot her for looking through a window".
???
Sorry dude, accuracy is important and you've been framing this dishonestly from the start. I'm not going to derail by accusing you of being a leftist/concern troll/whatever, but this "conversation" feels just like I'm arguing with one.
But I believe we should be using their own tactics against them, so congratulations for that. Maybe I should be learning from you.