Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt formally exonerated


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Since there were at least five cops there why do you think they didn't all shoot?  Have you noticed that when a group of police feel there is reason to shoot they all do?

(personally I think one person is worth more than a room full of politicians sooo....)

She was the first one halfway through the window. I think anyone who was the first through the window would of been shot

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

She was the first one halfway through the window. I think anyone who was the first through the window would of been shot

If that is the case then the first one through the outside doors should've been shot.

And as I pointed out before there were police officers with their backs against the doors facing the protestors and for some reason they just stepped aside as they did at the other doors and barricades actually opening them for the protestors.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

She was the first one halfway through the window. I think anyone who was the first through the window would of been shot

Then why didn't they all open up?  There were at least four or five other cops, weapons drawn standing right there.  If you check the timeline I posted earlier there had been people running rampant in the building for hours before and after the shooting.  Factually there was one shot fired and one death.  I'm wondering how this saved any lives?  I don't think for a second it did. In that case how is it justified?  In the heat of the moment I get it.  I also think considering that since no other police opened fire there were probably other options such as falling back.  It's impossible to believe that the cops didn't know the senate had been moved to a vault.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

She was the first one halfway through the window. I think anyone who was the first through the window would of been shot

Hi Spartan

Agreed, she also knew what she was doing when she was climbing through the window and did not heed warning. These officers did not go to work that day thinking I am going to shoot someone and they are just as human as the rioters 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Then why didn't they all open up?  There were at least four or five other cops, weapons drawn standing right there.  If you check the timeline I posted earlier there had been people running rampant in the building for hours before and after the shooting.  Factually there was one shot fired and one death.  I'm wondering how this saved any lives?  I don't think for a second it did. In that case how is it justified?  In the heat of the moment I get it.  I also think considering that since no other police opened fire there were probably other options such as falling back.  It's impossible to believe that the cops didn't know the senate had been moved to a vault.

Hmm. Idk. I have to think about it. My only knowledge of the situation is the video.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, closed for business said:

Hi Spartan

Agreed, she also knew what she was doing when she was climbing through the window and did not heed warning. These officers did not go to work that day thinking I am going to shoot someone and they are just as human as the rioters 

  

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Hmm. Idk. I have to think about it. My only knowledge of the situation is the video.

 

 

It seemed that way to me too, but the more I read and put it in perspective with what happened when, it seems less and less necessary.  Actually not necessary at all at this point.  But that's me.  I almost always think I'm right.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OverSword said:

  

 

 

It seemed that way to me too, but the more I read and put it in perspective with what happened when, it seems less and less necessary.  Actually not necessary at all at this point.  But that's me.  I almost always think I'm right.

Don't we all lol :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

  

 

 

It seemed that way to me too, but the more I read and put it in perspective with what happened when it seems less and less necessary.  Actually not necessary at all at this point.

Hi OverSword

I wasn't inferring that it was necessary nor would I but the fact remains is that they are all humans in a tense situation. The officer did give warning which was not heeded and continued to try to gain entrance. She knew the officer had warned her  and was armed with a commission to defend and yet continued on her own behalf, I am not saying any killing is right just that in a situation like that the onus was on her to stop when told to.

Edited by closed for business
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, closed for business said:

Hi OverSword

I wasn't inferring that it was necessary nor would I but the fact remains is that they are all humans in a tense situation. The officer did give warning which was not heeded and continued to try to gain entrance. She knew the officer had warned her  and was armed with a commission to defend and yet continued on her own behalf, I am not saying any killing is right just that in a situation like that the onus was on her to stop when told to.

I get it, and may have shot too.  

I would not shoot anyone to save Nancy Pelosi though, that's for sure.:yes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

That statement is 99% consistent with all officer involved shootings regardless of jurisdiction until that is, the facts say otherwise. I'm content to wait until the civil suit runs its course to determine whether that is the case or not.

I'm not defending the protestors actions but I am calling into question the actions of the Capitol police that day as I have already stated in a previous post. Not to mention the BLM agitator John Sullivan the founder of InsurgenceUSA who was at the door along with Babbitt and others. Oh and he's not a Trump supporter. (They call that a clue)

As far as tasers go, yes they would've have been highly effective in this case as there was still a physical barrier between the shooter and Babbitt. Heck the officer could've just used his fist to knock her back.

Basically you are going to see what you want to see and I'll see what I want. Doesn't make either of us wrong nor does it make either of us right.

That's why there's investigation and the aforementioned report right? 

They decide what the evidence shows, and that evidence exhonerates the officer. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

If that is the case then the first one through the outside doors should've been shot.

And as I pointed out before there were police officers with their backs against the doors facing the protestors and for some reason they just stepped aside as they did at the other doors and barricades actually opening them for the protestors.

 

Those officers standing with their backs against the wall were threatened with "so many people" warned of seeing "people out there get hurt.

Quote

one officer guarding the door said to the others, “They’re ready to roll,” and gestured to them to come with him, the video shows. The officers stepped away from the door together and moved to an adjacent wall.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/ (you might have to view it in an incognito window)

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's why there's investigation and the aforementioned report right? 

They decide what the evidence shows, and that evidence exhonerates the officer. 

They do 99% of the time. The police judging themselves might be a slight bit biased sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

Is that what you think of the Sandy Hook parents as well?

No. You referring to Remington or Alex Jones? 

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

I would like to see you say that to her family.  Truly I would.

Would I have to? 

You think they haven't already heard exactly that time and again? She has become a martyr for the orangutan previously elected as POTUS.

I'd have the guts to if the situation arose. That's one big difference between you and I.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

They do 99% of the time. The police judging themselves might be a slight bit biased sometimes.

That's why there's independent reports like the one the family has requested exist. 

I'm not convinced the family is entirely unbiased either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Why can I do better than that?  Do you think one set of parent's suffered less loss than the other?  Do you believe either set are suing just to take advantage of the situation so they can get rich?  Wow.  Tell you what, next time think a little harder before telling me what  I can do better than.  

You made a tasteless and, frankly, rather gross equivalency in that you want us to feel as bad for Babbitt's parents as we do for the Sandy Hook victims' parents and it shouldn't have to be explained to you.

Edited by Alpha_Q
Grammar
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's why there's independent reports like the one the family has requested exist. 

It's not independent it's Internal, a department within the force.

Quote

I'm not convinced the family is entirely unbiased either. 

Certainly they are not. 

You have to wonder why when reviews are done by other departments around the country they are released to the public as well as the names of the officers involved but when the capitol police shoot someone it's hush hush.  this guy's name was leaked, not released.  I was pretty much on the 'she pretty much asked for it" side of the argument at first, but posting this thread I have been forced to dig deeper and am now of the opinion that this shooting protected nobody and therefore was not warranted.  All the shooting board determined was that he followed policy, so I'm sure that technically they will be able to point to some lines of text in a guide book and say, that's what he did.  But does that make it right?  Mark Furman also followed procedure.  The Minneapolis guide had pictures of kneeling on the back of the neck in their training manual as an approved method of subduing people and yet.....murder.  

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alpha_Q said:

You made a tasteless and, frankly, rather gross equivalency in that you want us to feel as bad for Babbit's parents as we do for the Sandy Hook victims' parents and it should 't have to be explained to you.

I don't think it's tasteless to feel sorry for anyone that has lost a child or family member to tragedy, regardless if they killed themselves, were murdered, died in a car accident, etc.  I don't believe that one of those griefs is less than the other.   Sorry that you do. You're a terrific human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's why there's investigation and the aforementioned report right? 

They decide what the evidence shows, and that evidence exhonerates the officer. 

Unfortunately the Capitol Police are not subject to FOIA request so the results of the investigation and how the investigation was conducted may never be known. That is unless a judge rules that it be released.

Exonerating a police officer serves to remove liability away from the department he was assigned to. Like I stated before I'll wait until the results of the law suit are made public. Unless of course there's an out of court settlement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Unfortunately the Capitol Police are not subject to FOIA request

Isn't that lovely? :rolleyes:  Cheez and rice!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Those officers standing with their backs against the wall were threatened with "so many people" warned of seeing "people out there get hurt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/ (you might have to view it in an incognito window)

Their job was to protect the people on the other side of the door. I guess they failed huh? Probably the reason the Capitol Police chief resigned just days later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Their job was to protect the people on the other side of the door. I guess they failed huh? Probably the reason the Capitol Police chief resigned just days later.

How do you measure a thing like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

How do you measure a thing like that?

I'm a former Marine so no measurement required. Do your job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

I'm a former Marine so no measurement required. Do your job.

Can you explain the "ready to roll" instruction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It's not independent it's Internal, a department within the force.

Certainly they are not. 

You have to wonder why when reviews are done by other departments around the country they are released to the public as well as the names of the officers involved but when the capitol police shoot someone it's hush hush.  this guy's name was leaked, not released.  I was pretty much on the 'she pretty much asked for it" side of the argument at first, but posting this thread I have been forced to dig deeper and am now of the opinion that this shooting protected nobody and therefore was not warranted.  All the shooting board determined was that he followed policy, so I'm sure that technically they will be able to point to some lines of text in a guide book and say, that's what he did.  But does that make it right?  But Mark Furman also followed procedure.  The Minneapolis guide had pictures of kneeling on the back of the neck in their training manual as an approved method of subduing people and yet.....murder.  

It's not done by the department involved. There is a seperate internal division tasked with these incidents. 

If there would be anything to be suspicious about it would be that the department did not release the report to the family on the agreed date. Now the family have sought legal recourse and will be receiving the reports as promised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.