Lies, Damn Lies, And Democrats

[HisArpy]

I love how you keep on doubling down on derp!


My examples aren’t shitty, they just blow your claims out of the fucking water and you don’t even realize it because here you are back with more derp!


Ok, I’ve got no argument with that in general.


You just can’t help yourself, can you?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt
https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/video-shows-moment-ashli-babbit-was-fatally-shot-in-capitol/
https://apnews.com/article/ashli-babbitt-capitol-siege-a15c7e52a04d932972b7a284c7a8f7df


The officer involved is on record under oath saying he fired as a last resort and didn’t know if she was armed or not. This was not some calm traffic stop gone wrong. The capital police were doing their job preventing an angry mob from storming the chamber and potentially causing harm to legislators. <—- That last sentence goes to my assertion that it matters where incidents happen.

You’d go before a judge claiming the security forces at the top secret military site had no right to shoot your client after he scaled the barb wire fence despite very clear signs saying trespassers will be shot on sight.


Dudly, lighten up, you’re gonna blow a gasket. But thanks for the ascription as well as proving you have no sense of humor beyond your lame ass insults.


You’re projecting again, harpy. A good therapist can help you get congruent.

Until then you can continue to entertain us with your derpitude instead of taking the L like you should.

Lol, I love how you do googly searches and cherry pick the results as if you think no one knows that you're out of your depth here.

You cite to the officer's statements as if you believe that HE is the one who gets to decide if his use of force is allowed or not. Newsflash you moron, THAT decision is the exclusive province of someone else and the officer's words are meaningless except as a statement that he acted.

His belief is irrelevant except as to his motivation. If it turns out that a reasonable person would not have acted in that manner, HIS OWN WORDS will hang him out to dry.

So far, no one has made that call. The investigators don't get to do it because they only gather evidence and present their findings for someone else to make that a preliminary determination on whether to go forward or not.

So, now we return to the the fact that I already said that if we change the DA we might get a different decision on whether to prosecute or not. Why? Because currently the decision is based on political ideology not the evidence. Eliminate the ideological component and you might wind up with the officer going to jail after a trial and verdict by a jury.

Unfortunately, what we have in this discussion is my politically neutral and informed on the law and facts viewpoint and your rampant flailing and rabid foaming at the mouth defense of the indefensible because you agree that it's ok to kill the people you don't agree with politically.

 

[phrodeau]

GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU LITTLE BIGOT

What, don’t you care about justice for the goons who pushed little Ashli, committing homicide by cop?

 

[HisArpy]

What, don’t you care about justice for the goons who pushed little Ashli, committing homicide by cop?

GO FUCK YOURSELF

 

[jomar]

Lol, I love how you do googly searches and cherry pick the results as if you think no one knows that you're out of your depth here.

I didn’t cherry pick results. Every single article notes she was climbing through the window!

You cite to the officer's statements as if you believe that HE is the one who gets to decide if his use of force is allowed or not. Newsflash you moron, THAT decision is the exclusive province of someone else and the officer's words are meaningless except as a statement that he acted.

His belief is irrelevant except as to his motivation. If it turns out that a reasonable person would not have acted in that manner, HIS OWN WORDS will hang him out to dry.

How do you get so much wrong? I hope you stick to mortgage closings because other attorneys would eat you alive in court.

I never claimed the officer gets to decide. That was a comment that went to his state of mind and threat assessment. His testimony matters to the investigation.

So far, no one has made that call. The investigators don't get to do it because they only gather evidence and present their findings for someone else to make that a preliminary determination on whether to go forward or not.

Which they did.

So, now we return to the the fact that I already said that if we change the DA we might get a different decision on whether to prosecute or not. Why? Because currently the decision is based on political ideology not the evidence. Eliminate the ideological component and you might wind up with the officer going to jail after a trial and verdict by a jury.

What makes you say that the decision not to prosecute was political, where’s your proof? Did they not have to follow the law? By your example a different DA may be political in the opposite direction and decide to prosecute based on politics.

Why do you even want to argue something that’s moot anyway?

Unfortunately, what we have in this discussion is my politically neutral and informed on the law and facts viewpoint and your rampant flailing and rabid foaming at the mouth defense of the indefensible because you agree that it's ok to kill the people you don't agree with politically.

Read back over our discussion posts and see if you can figure out just how wrong ^^ post is.

It's like you don't even see yourself...

 

[schism666]

You keep digging a hole and then try to blame other people for your grave robbing efforts. It's really not that funny except in its totes unaware self owning gallows humor way.

You claim to not know the law, yet suddenly you're coming up with REALLY SHITTY examples of dissimilar events as if those are a justification for Ashley Babbitt's death. And then you challenge me to provide you with citation which defeats your REALLY SHITTY examples.

Ok then; here's just one small example for you about why you're completely fucked in the head level wrong.

Disparity of force: https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/disparity-of-force

Basically that says that IF an unarmed person represents a reasonable threat of serious injury or death, then deadly for can be used.

In the Ashley Babbit case, she was being pushed through the doorway by the crowd behind her. This is fact. It was part of the finding of the inquiry and you can look it up and verify it yourself. She wasn't running at the officer, brandishing anything, and had no visible weapons. No reasonable person would have believed that if she'd come through the doorway that she'd have attempted to attack the officer or had any way of causing imminent injury or death to the much larger and armed man who killed her.

This is at odds with your very large male hyped up on drugs rushing a much smaller female officer with intent to hurt her scenario.

And then to add icing to the hypocrisy cake, you make up your own false facts to justify why she was shot and killed by claiming that she "probably" was doing something you have ZERO PROOF about. Especially when you consider that even if she was doing that, it wouldn't have been illegal or would have shown any intent to cause bodily injury or death. Yet you use it as justification for someone's death.

That is your failure. That is why you look like a flaming asshole. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know the law, you LIE when you fabricate facts/evidence out of whole cloth, and then you insist on proving how much of a mentally fucked up kind of a person you are to the general public while thinking you're some kind of internet hero for doing so. It's despicable.

cool story, ambulance chaser.

 

[Rightguide]

I think the whole thing should be released.

it will be released

But they had access to 41K hours, no?

Yes but they had to show up at the capitol and go into a room there to view them. The media will have to do the same thing.

He's already on record as a liar, so I'm not expecting he'll come out looking shiny.

Before prejudging why don't you wait and see what happens?

Yes, and they've been corrected.

The lies continue, they must because the credibility of the liars is on the line. They already know what the truth is. They don't care about the truth.

She wasn't murdered. She was where she shouldn't have been, not doing what she was told, and breaking and entering a restricted area. Sorry she died, but it's really on her.

If she was black and the Captain was white everyone on the left would be screaming "murder." You know this. She was unarmed, she presented no direct threat to the Captain, she was on the other side of a door when shot. This is would have been a violation of almost every police department shooting policy in America. In fact, in my view, it violates the DOJs guidelines on the use of deadly force:

1-16.200 - DEADLY FORCE​

1. Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.
   1. Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.
   2. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.
   3. If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the officer shall be given prior to the use of deadly force.
   4. Warning shots are not permitted outside of the prison context.
   5. Officers will be trained in alternative methods and tactics for handling resisting subjects, which must be used when the use of deadly force is not authorized by this policy.
   6. Deadly force should not be used against persons whose actions are a threat solely to themselves or property unless an individual poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others in close proximity.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

 

[Lazaran]

I didn’t cherry pick results. Every single article notes she was climbing through the window!


How do you get so much wrong? I hope you stick to mortgage closings because other attorneys would eat you alive in court.

I never claimed the officer gets to decide. That was a comment that went to his state of mind and threat assessment. His testimony matters to the investigation.


Which they did.


What makes you say that the decision not to prosecute was political, where’s your proof? Did they not have to follow the law? By your example a different DA may be political in the opposite direction and decide to prosecute based on politics.

Why do you even want to argue something that’s moot anyway?


Read back over our discussion posts and see if you can figure out just how wrong ^^ post is.

It's like you don't even see yourself...

Why does Harpy continue to invite public humiliation.

There is video of the MAGAt terrorist climbing through the broken window.

Someone yells GUN!! well before the MAGAt terrorist was shot.

The MAGAt terrorist also was wearing a backpack that could have been filled with explosives.

Hope that ^ helps Harpy.

Harpy

 

[phrodeau]

Is wounding a shoulder considered deadly force?

 

[Bray123]

Here is Ashli being pushed against her will, thrown bodily through a window that had been opened for ventilation by the people suffocating on the other side.

She only wanted to plug the gap so that the security of the Capital was maintained against the BLM and Antifa types behind her.

 

[jomar]

Before prejudging why don't you wait and see what happens?

I'm happy to wait and see, just saying if the past is the best predictor of the future...

The lies continue, they must because the credibility of the liars is on the line. They already know what the truth is. They don't care about the truth.

I'm not aware of any at this point. Early on, yes, but largely due to conflicting reports that had to be chased down.

If she was black and the Captain was white everyone on the left would be screaming "murder." You know this. She was unarmed, she presented no direct threat to the Captain, she was on the other side of a door when shot. This is would have been a violation of almost every police department shooting policy in America. In fact, in my view, it violates the DOJs guidelines on the use of deadly force:

1-16.200 - DEADLY FORCE​

1. Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.
   1. Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.
   2. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.
   3. If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the officer shall be given prior to the use of deadly force.
   4. Warning shots are not permitted outside of the prison context.
   5. Officers will be trained in alternative methods and tactics for handling resisting subjects, which must be used when the use of deadly force is not authorized by this policy.
   6. Deadly force should not be used against persons whose actions are a threat solely to themselves or property unless an individual poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others in close proximity.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

Yeah, I get that. But as I said to Harpy, the officer involved is on record under oath saying he fired as a last resort and didn’t know if she was armed or not. This was not some calm traffic stop gone wrong. The capital police were doing their job preventing an angry mob from storming the chamber and potentially causing harm to legislators.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm happy to wait and see, just saying if the past is the best predictor of the future...


I'm not aware of any at this point. Early on, yes, but largely due to conflicting reports that had to be chased down.


Yeah, I get that. But as I said to Harpy, the officer involved is on record under oath saying he fired as a last resort and didn’t know if she was armed or not. This was not some calm traffic stop gone wrong. The capital police were doing their job preventing an angry mob from storming the chamber and potentially causing harm to legislators.

Derek Chauvin swore he was innocent as well. It is certain the Capitol Police knew that shooting violated their policy but were confident the Speaker, the Majority Leader, a corrupt DOJ, and a Democrat media, would make an exception because he was black and she was white, and it would support their narrative that a full-blown "insurrection" against the government was at hand. In short, Democrats and squishy Rinos were in charge. They threw the rule book out in this case as Democrats always do in their own defense.

 

[jomar]

Derek Chauvin swore he was innocent as well.

Of course he did. That’s what you do, plead not guilty and throw the dice.

It is certain the Capitol Police knew that shooting violated their policy but were confident the Speaker, the Majority Leader, a corrupt DOJ, and a Democrat media, would make an exception because he was black and she was white, and it would support their narrative that a full-blown "insurrection" against the government was at hand. In short, Democrats and squishy Rinos were in charge. They threw the rule book out in this case as Democrats always do in their own defense.

That’s a mouthful but you have no idea or proof about, well, all of those unfounded suppositions.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

If she was black and the Captain was white

If she were Black, she wouldn't have been there in the first place.

all that bullshit went down precisely because Ashli Babbit was a White MAGA shitstain dancing to the fife of another White MAGA shitstain. She played for that game and then paid for that game.

y'all can't and won't deal with that verity. please continue bursting blood vessels over it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lol, Remember that whole hands up, don't shoot thing? I sure do and it's AMAZING how it doesn't apply when the victim is white and/or a Trump supporter.

.

"Hands up, don't shoot"? I didn't see seditionist radical Ashli Babbit's hands up at all. I saw a red-eyed, frothing at the mouth extremist leading a charge of a phalanx of like-minded seditionists violently breaking down Capitol doors and a single Capitol police officer tasked to defend his post by any means necessary.

I also noted you referred to the criminal seditionist as a "victim" instead of the more accurate "perpetrator"....nobody forced her to be there. She chose to commit her crimes

Nice attempt to pivot to Perpetual White Victimhood nonetheless.

 

[RobDownSouth]

GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU LITTLE BIGOT

Save your histrionics for the courtroom, Timmeh,