Police Officer Who MURDERED Ashli Babbitt Won’t Face Charges

[deuces_wild]

I’m not sure you even know what you are arguing or who your are arguing with, at this point.

look at the quote above my statement perhaps...

 

[Bonesinium]

look at the quote above my statement perhaps...

I’m well aware, I said I don’t think you are. You couldn’t have missed my point any harder.

 

[deuces_wild]

I’m well aware, I said I don’t think you are. You couldn’t have missed my point any harder.

So say it again. I think I comprehended what you stated and responded appropriately.

 

[deuces_wild]

You don't get it. Liberal "logic" and "science" have nothing to do with actual logic nor science.

Not sure what liberal "logic" or "science" is in this instance?

I use what I think to be logical and well established truths based in science. Nothing else. So, speak to me about the situation regardless of what you think I am.

 

[Bonesinium]

If you are going to say the Capital police officer did NOT need to execute her, then you logically HAVE TO say that the officer in Minneapolis did not need to shoot Daunte Smith.

I use what I think to be logical and well established truths based in science. Nothing else.

Exactly. And what you think is logical and based in science, others think isn’t. And I agree with the others.

Anyone who says the conclusion from an incident in which a cop shoots a woman in a crowd climbing through the door must logically conclude the same thing in an incident in which a cop wants to tase a man resisting arrest and trying to escape but mistakes her taser with her firearm, is not actually using any logic or science.
Those are two wildly different situations.


Considering that’s what you’ve done while claiming to have done nothing more than use logic and established truths based on science, clearly that’s not compatible.

 

[deuces_wild]

Exactly. And what you think is logical and based in science, others think isn’t. And I agree with the others.

Anyone who says the conclusion from an incident in which a cop shoots a woman in a crowd climbing through the door must logically conclude the same thing in an incident in which a cop wants to tase a man resisting arrest and trying to escape but mistakes her taser with her firearm, is not actually using any logic or science.
Those are two wildly different situations.


Considering that’s what you’ve done while claiming to have done nothing more than use logic and established truths based on science, clearly that’s not compatible.

Was the officer in Minneapolis in danger?
Was the officer in the US Capital in danger?

For me, both would be NO.

Logical conclusion... no need to pull out or use gun.

Do you disagree with that logic?? (If yes, for you, please explain?)

 

[Cipher]

Watch all the lefties who scream "boot licker!" turn into blue liners.

 

[Bonesinium]

Was the officer in Minneapolis in danger?
Was the officer in the US Capital in danger?

For me, both would be NO.

Logical conclusion... no need to pull out or use gun.

Do you disagree with that logic?? (If yes, for you, please explain?)

Are you capable of realizing it’s possible to come to the same conclusion and it also doesn’t mean that logic requires it? For one, that’s such a ridiculous oversimplification of both situations. But hey, if the extent of the logic you are capable of is based only on the most general of beliefs, I’m not going to try and make you feel any dumber than you already are.

 

[deuces_wild]

Are you capable of realizing it’s possible to come to the same conclusion and it also doesn’t mean that logic requires it? For one, that’s such a ridiculous oversimplification of both situations. But hey, if the extent of the logic you are capable of is based only on the most general of beliefs, I’m not going to try and make you feel any dumber than you already are.

It is a simplification and also the law for an officer to use deadly force. If you came to the same conclusion, then we agree?? Thinking is logical by the way so, not sure where logic would not fit in unless you are going by belief or emotion.

So we result to personal insults?? Okay...

 

[SHOCKNAWE]

@deuces_wild Let’s break this down. Babbitt absolutely put herself in a dangerous situation and really has nobody to blame but herself, that being said she was not a thug or didn’t have a thug history. She gets shot and killed when it sincerely was not necessary to kill her, there were a number of other things that could have been done to secure her and take her into custody. She is white and the cop that shot her could be out drinking beers and having a good time since he is FREE without charges being filed against him over this shooting. Now some of the people that are OK with this killing are NOT ok with a black thug who like Babbitt put himself in a bad situation and was needlessly killed, but by all accounts it was an accident yet these same people are showing sympathy for this black thug kid and this White Cop is sitting in a jail cell right now as we speak. It’s hypocrisy at its finest and makes no sense whatsoever. I don’t think anyone is saying Officer Potter needed to shoot that kid, or did this Capital security officer have to shoot Babbitt either. Do you agree that both shootings were equally uneccesary or does one outweigh the other? My stance is both people that got shot put themselves in a dangerous situation I also say neither person deserved to get shot. What I cannot understand is why the Shooter of the Black kid is in jail and the shooter of the white woman is not.

 

[240Geezer]

Ask your friend if he can just walk on to a military base and go to a hanger with A10's and climb into one of the cockpits and make "bbbbbrrrrrrraaaaap" sounds like he is pretending to fire the Vulcan chain gun at Iraqi insurgents.

My friend says he has credentials so yes.
I believe you're reaching a bit with the false equivalents on this one.
But whatever makes you happy.
This will all get sorted out soon enough.
No quarter.

 

[FalArAk]

My friend says he has credentials so yes.
I believe you're reaching a bit with the false equivalents on this one.
But whatever makes you happy.
This will all get sorted out soon enough.
No quarter.

Not reaching at all.

You made some crazy ass analogy about "the peoples house" and how a person should just have free un-restricted access on .gov property.

I also think your friend is full of shit with his credentials lol

It's all good, I get your point I just can't stand when people use that analogy. if it was true I would be sitting in the cockpit of an A10 every weekend pretending to protect and help Infantry troops making BBBrrraaappppp sounds

 

[deuces_wild]

Now some of the people that are OK with this killing are NOT ok with a black thug who like Babbitt put himself in a bad situation and was needlessly killed, but by all accounts it was an accident yet these same people are showing sympathy for this black thug kid and this White Cop is sitting in a jail cell right now as we speak. It’s hypocrisy at its finest and makes no sense whatsoever. I don’t think anyone is saying Officer Potter needed to shoot that kid, or did this Capital security officer have to shoot Babbitt either. Do you agree that both shootings were equally uneccesary or does one outweigh the other? My stance is both people that got shot put themselves in a dangerous situation I also say neither person deserved to get shot. What I cannot understand is why the Shooter of the Black kid is in jail and the shooter of the white woman is not.

I appreciate you writing this. For me, they were both unnecessary. I can see how each could happen with the way cops have been trained and treated in this country though. A gun should not be the first option of a police officer who is there to serve the public.

Please correct me if I am wrong... you are mad at the hypocrisy from the media and people, but feel that both should not have been shot?

I agree that there is hypocisy on both sides of these situations. If we believe that certain media stations are stoking these flames but agree that neither person should have been shot, we should not be arguing!! We should be discussing how to get equal treatment in the media and from the law.

 

[Bonesinium]

If you came to the same conclusion, then we agree??

Again, people can come to the same conclusion for different reasons. You claimed if you came to one conclusion in one scenario, then BY LOGIC YOU MUST come to the same conclusion in another totally different scenario. That, is not logic. It’s not an established truth based in science. And yet that’s what you said it was.

Furthermore you stated :

It is a simplification and also the law for an officer to use deadly force.

Except that’s NOT the law. Sorry if I made you feel bad, but I was making a point about you oversimplifying things. And this is why. You’ve drawn a conclusion based on a false premise caused by your oversimplification. That’s not factual. It’s not scientific. And the only logic is faulty.

 

[TLB]

You don't get it. Liberal "logic" and "science" have nothing to do with actual logic nor science.


people mistakenly think that abstaining from action and keeping quiet somehow keeps them from playing the game ... well, everyone plays the game, there is no way to abstain. And the prizes we are receiving are tyranny and pervert hypocrisy where words have no meaning. Shoe string is machine gun, Barrycare is a law-tax etc, NFA registration is a "tax" ... it get worse and worse.

This.

This is what the end of a republic looks like.

 

[Dr_Scholl]

The election was stolen, that’s a good reason, moron .

LOL if you say so.

 

[deuces_wild]

Again, people can come to the same conclusion for different reasons. You claimed if you came to one conclusion in one scenario, then BY LOGIC YOU MUST come to the same conclusion in another totally different scenario. That, is not logic. It’s not an established truth based in science. And yet that’s what you said it was.

So we got to the same conclusion in both cases?

Please share your logic for each one and your conclusion.

Except that’s NOT the law. Sorry if I made you feel bad, but I was making a point about you oversimplifying things. And this is why. You’ve drawn a conclusion based on a false premise caused by your oversimplification. That’s not factual. It’s not scientific. And the only logic is faulty.

You didn't make me feel bad. We don't know each other so it didn't seem necessary to get into name calling.

In general, an officer cannot use deadly force unless in self-defense or in defense of another individual or group.

Please be specific about what I mentioned that is not factual.

 

[Boris]

Not sure what liberal "logic" or "science" is in this instance?

I use what I think to be logical and well established truths based in science. Nothing else. So, speak to me about the situation regardless of what you think I am.

That's where you are wrong, the whole foundation of scientific principle and logic, rest on establishing a common ground. Real science is an experiment that could be duplicated by other people, thus bringing everyone on the same page. Cooking data, cherry picking, suppressing unpopular opinions that challenge establishment are polar opposite for what scientific principles stand for. But here were are.

 

[SHOCKNAWE]

I appreciate you writing this. For me, they were both unnecessary. I can see how each could happen with the way cops have been trained and treated in this country though. A gun should not be the first option of a police officer who is there to serve the public.

Please correct me if I am wrong... you are mad at the hypocrisy from the media and people, but feel that both should not have been shot?

I agree that there is hypocisy on both sides of these situations. If we believe that certain media stations are stoking these flames but agree that neither person should have been shot, we should not be arguing!! We should be discussing how to get equal treatment in the media and from the law.

I’m Friggen outraged about a lot of things going on. We as a country want to get away from “Racism” but are being “Racist” in how we are handling things. It’s not just the media it’s reality and I’m angry about it.

 

[Dench]

I'm still trying to figure out how people think shooting an unarmed person for breaking and entering in a federal building makes sense. At what point does that make sense?

 

[FalArAk]

I'm still trying to figure out how people think shooting an unarmed person for breaking and entering in a federal building makes sense. At what point does that make sense?

It only makes sense if you disagree with the reason the people were there in the first place.

It would be a whole different attitude if it was Antifa in that building and a fat pink haired girl with a BLM facemask that got shot.

 

[allen-1]

Not reaching at all.

You made some crazy ass analogy about "the peoples house" and how a person should just have free un-restricted access on .gov property.

I also think your friend is full of shit with his credentials lol

It's all good, I get your point I just can't stand when people use that analogy. if it was true I would be sitting in the cockpit of an A10 every weekend pretending to protect and help Infantry troops making BBBrrraaappppp sounds

Tell the truth; you sit on your Ducati now making BBBrrraaappp sounds pretending it's a Harley.
Don't bother denying it; when you said "Hey Siri, hold my beer and watch this!" - the video was streamed.

 

[FalArAk]

Tell the truth; you sit on your Ducati now making BBBrrraaappp sounds pretending it's a Harley.
Don't bother denying it; when you said "Hey Siri, hold my beer and watch this!" - the video was streamed.

lol, nice one, Sir.

 

[Bonesinium]

So we got to the same conclusion in both cases?

Please share your logic for each one and your conclusion.

I'm still not convinced you even know what the legal standard is. Actually I'm sure of it. Not only is it not "was the officer in danger", but it's significantly more nuanced. Secondly, in the Babbitt shooting, the cop intended to shoot her. In the Smith shooting, the cop did not. These are wildly different scenarios in which the law itself applies differently, despite you contention.

Do some reading about the "reasonable person standard".

For the Babbitt shooting, (simplified for your convenience since that's your thing), the test to determine whether the use of deadly force is justified relies in part, on whether the officer reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent or protect himself or others from the imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. It's not whether the belief, is in fact, true, but rather that a reasonable person in the same position could reasonably come to the same conclusion. Considering in this shooting, there were in fact other officers in the same situation as he was, and none of them shot her, or shot anybody, that's significant evidence that weighs against him. While it doesn't prove he wasn't justified, when no other, presumably reasonable officers acted similarly, maybe he was the one that wasn't reasonable, and therefore was not justified.

In the Smith shooting, basically none of that applies. Firstly, and most importantly, she didn't even intend to shoot him. For the purpose of this argument, let us assume that is indeed true, and she meant to use a taser. So here we have a set of facts in which an officer kills someone, UNINTENTIONALLY. So the question is not that she reasonably believed deadly force was required to stop an imminent threat. Because that's not what happened. It's now whether her unintentionally killing him because of her negligence or mistake rises to a level of criminality.

As you should be able to see, drawing the same conclusion in the second scenario because LOGICALLY YOU MUST based on the first scenario, is ridiculous.

You didn't make me feel bad. We don't know each other so it didn't seem necessary to get into name calling.

In general, an officer cannot use deadly force unless in self-defense or in defense of another individual or group.

Please be specific about what I mentioned that is not factual.

See above. Again, we are talking about two very specific incidents, not generally. For two, it's not that they were in fact in danger but rather he reasonably believed to be. The difference there is not insignificant. And thirdly, accidentally shooting someone is very different than intentionally doing so. Fourthly, again as I laid out above, the facts of the two cases are so different as to be incomparable.

 

[Boris]

I'm still trying to figure out how people think shooting an unarmed person for breaking and entering in a federal building makes sense. At what point does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense.

Ben Franklin said: goverment is like fire, whe it's small, it's usefull to prep food and get warm. When it grows out of control, it becomes a disaster ... or something like that.

We are in the f***ing inferno stage. Ballot box is gone, soap box is practically gone ... we have only one box left and people are not ready to use it ... yet. At least not enough of us.

 

[Dench]

Where at the point where people mock others for having voter fraud concerns after SCOTUS ruled X states voting problems are not Y states business.

Zero people on earth should be ok with that

 

[Bonesinium]

It only makes sense if you disagree with the reason the people were there in the first place.

It would be a whole different attitude if it was Antifa in that building and a fat pink haired girl with a BLM facemask that got shot.

It would be, mainly because if it was antifa, they'd be actually assaulting people and trying to burn the building down.

 

[FalArAk]

It would be, mainly because if it was antifa, they'd be actually assaulting people and trying to burn the building down.

True.

 

[deuces_wild]

I’m Friggen outraged about a lot of things going on. We as a country want to get away from “Racism” but are being “Racist” in how we are handling things. It’s not just the media it’s reality and I’m angry about it.

It's okay to be angry. What we do with that anger is the important thing. I will assure you that there have been plenty of people angry before and there will be plenty of people angry in the future. It's good for us to reflect on why we are angry and whether it is justified or not though.

On a racism perspective -
Is that anger because something wrong happened to someone who looks like yourself only? Or is it anger because something wrong happened to someone no matter what color they are? This is important! How often have you felt angry and the person you identify and angry about is another race vs your own? Not saying your conclusion would be worng but its good put things into perspective for ourselves.

 

[deuces_wild]

Do some reading about the "reasonable person standard".

I've done the reading. I don't like this whole police "belief" about being in danger. Let's follow that through with that though.

For the Babbitt shooting, (simplified for your convenience since that's your thing), the test to determine whether the use of deadly force is justified relies in part, on whether the officer reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent or protect himself or others from the imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. It's not whether the belief, is in fact, true, but rather that a reasonable person in the same position could reasonably come to the same conclusion. Considering in this shooting, there were in fact other officers in the same situation as he was, and none of them shot her, or shot anybody, that's significant evidence that weighs against him. While it doesn't prove he wasn't justified, when no other, presumably reasonable officers acted similarly, maybe he was the one that wasn't reasonable, and therefore was not justified.

So, since he could believe that he was in danger, it can be said that he is "justified" in shooting said person attempting to enter the chamber unlawfully. There is no camera to show shooting. Hence, he doesn't get arrested or charged based on his belief.

In the Smith shooting, basically none of that applies. Firstly, and most importantly, she didn't even intend to shoot him. For the purpose of this argument, let us assume that is indeed true, and she meant to use a taser. So here we have a set of facts in which an officer kills someone, UNINTENTIONALLY. So the question is not that she reasonably believed deadly force was required to stop an imminent threat. Because that's not what happened. It's now whether her unintentionally killing him because of her negligence or mistake rises to a level of criminality.

Since she did not say she felt in danger of said person with a warrant for his arrest and evading arrest, there is no justifiable reason for her to use a gun. She didn't intend to use her gun but did. It resulted in the unintentional death of an individual. Unitentially killing someone is considered manslaughter. Hence she is charged with manslaughter.