Jan 6 tragic shooting

Note: The video and discussion involves a shooting. It is nothing graphic, but the woman shot died.

I think it is better to discuss issues one at a time rather than dropping one issue to move on to another without resolving the first.

On 6 Jan Ashli Babbitt tragically lost her life when shot by a police officer.

I stated that this was unfortunate and that the discussion should be centered around the police officers use of deadly force rather. I do not know what resources the officers had at their disposal. But a taser would have been a better choice than a gun, IMHO.

But we could not get to discuss the level of force used because it was claimed that Babbitt was not trying to enter the room.

@Revmitchell replied that Babbitt was not entering but was instead trying to prevent others from entering. @Mikoo replied that the belief Babbitt was entering was adopting an alt-left narrative.


Attached is a photograph (from the video taken by a oro-Trump supporter) showing Babbitt on the window of the left door, foot above the door handle (approximately 3 feet above the floor) with her head ducked into the window.


Attached is a video (warning, the video shows the shooting) of Babbitt having her left leg through the entrance as she ducks and has her head in, and is shot in the left shoulder, falling approximately three feet into the ground. She would die in the way to the hospital.

Before we can discuss the amount and type of force used (which is subjective) we have to first agree on the basic facts of the incident.

Once this is done, I think the next step would be to discuss the use of deadly force, the potential consequences of allowing Babbitt to enter, and the resources available to the officer at the time.

Then we can discuss our ideas about how the situation could have been handled differently.

 

That is what I expected.

We can accept the what the video shows.

The question that this brings up is why the alt-right created a narrative that proved to be false, and why those like @Revmitchell and @Mikoo accepted that narrative when the video that disproved it has been out from the start.

But now we can discuss the real issue, and that is the amount of force used.

 

What could have happened if the officer allowed Babbitt to enter the Senate Lobby?

What would be the worst case scenario that the officer was responsible for guarding against?

One thing that could have happened is the mob could have realized the officers statement that he would shoot was empty and the mob could have followed Babbitt into the Senate Lobby.

The worst case scenario is that the mob could reach the members of the Chamber as the shooting.


We have to realize the comments that occurred just prior to Babbitt being shot as recorded by the Trump supporters at the door.

They had told the three police officers that there were more of the mob coming to that door and that the officers would be beaten as they were outside the Capitol if they didn't leave, but that they would get inside the Lobby. They made a path and allowed the three trapped between the door and the mob to leave.

 

It is obvious that Babbitt was trying to enter. That is undeniable.

It is also undeniable that that stand, with the chairs blocking the door, needed to remain.

The reason is in the words the Trump supporter made. The rest of the mob was coming up and they had already beaten police officers outside the building.

Babbitt tried to enter as the mob started trying to break the door, trying (by their own statement) to enter the lobby.

What is left is the use of lethal force.

This depends on the resources available the officer at the time Babbitt tried to enter.

And this is something I don't know.

Did the officer have a taser?

 

Um...no.

An opinion is a personal idea based on facts. You did not express an opinion.

You are unable to support your ideas. That is my point.

You state that the alt-left narrative is that Babbitt was entering when the two videos show that Babbitt was entering.

I disagree with you because you are saying that the alt-left respects the truth.

The alt-left has created a false narrative around Jan 6 for its own gain. It has gone on a witch hunt to slander and prosecute people who were simply trespassing.

But the alt-right denies actual facts. It denies that Babbitt was entering even though we all know that Babbitt was entering and it makes their Christian sheerple into liars - repeating actual lies that have been disproven.

Why? Because it is merely emotion.

You actually prove my point.

You see Babbitt entering yet you claim that somebody accepting the truth is accepting the alt-left narrative.


It is that type of dishonesty that discredits the alt-right. It makes them into fools. And it discredits the testimony of Christians (like you and @Revmitchell ), who ignore truth in favor of emotion.


The absolute truth here is that Babbitt was entering and had partially entered. Only a fool would deny that.

What is not objective, however, is whether the officer who shot her was using undue lethal force. @Reynolds is exactly right that this, not whether she was climbing through the window, is the issue.

And I am starting to agree with @Reynolds (looking at the video there seems to have been enough officers to at least push her back through).

 

And no, the post which was initially deleted was restored per a PM between @Mikoo and myself. This is another example of the alt-left acting without integrity.

Here is the post where @Mikoo accused me (and @Reynolds .... And anybody else that watched the video and admitted Babbitt was entering) of defaulting to the alt-left even though I (and most here) have rejected the left (not even the alt-left) narrative of Jan 6.

 

I am leaning hard that way.

I know the officer could not allow Babbitt to continue climbing in.

We heard the crowd outside tell the three officers that a mob had beaten officers outside and we're in their way to the Senate Lobby.

Shortly after the rioters outside the Lobby started breaking down the door (breaking window and wood).

All of this comes into play.

If it were just Babbitt climbing in without a mob outside with her, then I'd say it was unnecessary force as the officers could easily subdue her.

But as it was, lethal force was certainly justified. I can't think of another solution.

 

To those who view this shooting as excessive force, what alterative actions do you believe the police officers should have taken?

 

I do not believe it was an insurrection.

While not an insurrection, several rioters were armed.

Again, not an insurrection. The rioters did beat police officers. With Babbitt, I don't think that group was armed.....but they warned the officers at the door that the mob coming up had beaten down officers. They said that they didn't want that to happen and made a path for the three officers to leave.

If the rioters got to Pence there is a very good chance he would have at least bee beaten. The mob had already beaten other officials.

I don't think any officer would have walked up to that window and put the gun in her face
The reason is training. I was never a cop but I was in the Army. You do not leave your fairly secure position to go in front of a group of rioters with a gun.