Ashli Babbitt's Violent Past Doesn't Justify Her Death
After the cops killed her, the A.P. gave her the "no angel" treatment.

On Monday, the Associated Press published a report about Ashli Babbitt, the Capitol rioter who was shot and killed by a police officer while trying to enter the Speaker's Lobby on January 6. In the face of efforts by former President Donald Trump and his supporters to make Babbitt into a martyr, the article purports to provide a counter-narrative, that she was actually "far more complicated than the heroic portrait presented by Trump and his allies."
While that is certainly true, it is also beside the point: Babbitt's behavior on January 6 is sufficient by itself to demonstrate that she is not worthy of martyr status. Digging up prurient stories from Babbitt's past with no real news value is both unnecessary and inappropriate.
The article details a yearslong affair that Babbitt engaged in with a male coworker while she was married and he had a longtime girlfriend, Celeste Norris (Babbitt and the man in question, Aaron Babbitt, later married after separating from their respective partners). Babbitt confronted Norris in traffic by ramming her car, then getting out and screaming through the locked doors. Norris later sought, and received, multiple restraining orders against Babbitt.
While the story may be salacious, it has no bearing on the events that led to Babbitt's death. In fact, the events of that day are sufficient to determine that she was not the righteous figure that the former president and his supporters are making her out to be. Babbitt was among hundreds of people who swarmed into the Capitol, breaking windows and kicking in doors to do so. She was part of a group actively attempting to break through a door leading to the Speaker's Lobby while lawmakers were still being evacuated. Facing Capitol Police officers, Babbitt attempted to climb through a hole in the broken door, at which point an officer fired, fatally wounding her.
Babbitt's behavior in the immediate lead-up to her death was condemnable. But to report out completely unrelated events from her past is shameful on its own.
In fact, the posthumous attempt to recontextualize Babbitt resembles the reverse hagiographies sometimes penned about black victims of police violence. In 2015, after Sandra Bland was found dead in a jail cell under suspicious circumstances, after initially being arrested for not putting out her cigarette during a traffic stop, the district attorney averred that Bland was "not a model person." A year earlier, after Michael Brown was killed during an interaction with a Ferguson police officer, The New York Times described him as "no angel." And ever since George Floyd's May 2020 murder at the hands of Derek Chauvin, some on the right have continued to insist that Floyd actually died of a fentanyl overdose, and was therefore "not an angel" but a "drug addict."
All of those reactions were rightly condemned at the time: Even if the allegations were correct—that Bland was combative, that Brown had a violent history, that Floyd was a drug addict—that would not change the facts of the individual cases, in which police acted wrongly and used excessive force, resulting in these victims' deaths.
We should condemn this media tactic when applied to black men and women killed by police, and we should condemn it in Babbitt's case, too.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A little bit off on the analogies on the end. George Floyd’s fentanyl use did impact what happened during the actual event. A more accurate analogy would be his extensive criminal history including sticking a gun in a woman’s stomach while stealing her belongings from her house. Those criminal actions would be a more apt comparison to the AP’s drudging up rumors from Ashli Babbit’s ex-husband of non-criminal acts. I wonder why objective publication Reason was so vague and off the mark on this issue.
Hold on, your own words just went from “a little bit off” to “so vague and off the mark”.
What is confusing. The word vague or the idiom off the mark?
It's Mike, so, yes.
Race is the dominate factor here.
I disagree. It's between half and a third. Nobody cares if crazy bitch gets her comeuppance, if it's crazy Trump bitch, nobody cares if it's cruel and unusual. This is/was the unspoken plank of the #believeallwomen platform and/or whatever wave of feminist idiocy ENB belongs to. Your agency as a woman is of unassailable importance until you use it to step out of line and/or advance crazy ideas, then you can be publicly executed for all they care.
And this week's nominees for straw man in service of grievance signaling are...
Of course it is a tragedy and of course it should be investigated. Clearly the Capitol police were not ready to secure the safety of Congresspeople and staff and unprepared for managing a mob screaming murder breaking into barricaded Speaker's Lobby.
A summary of some of the Capitol police initiatives since here:
https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/after-attack-future-us-capitol-police
Reasonable people will allocate some amount of appropriate responsibility to the "hang Mike Pence" instigators at the center of the raging event and Big Lie; anti-Constitution extremists naturally will not.
Show me where the article says her death should be investigated. Because I can show you where it says "crazy Trump bitch got what was coming to her":
Yet more variants of false choice fallacy.
The space of possible assessments of Babbitt is not limited to only two: (a) "heroic freedom fighter martyred by corrupt police", (b) "crazy Trump bitch that got what is coming to her".
So your statement is not true.
"Show your work" isn't a false choice. Quite the opposite. There are several dozen sentences in the article that you could've selected and even permutated to provide endless options to meet the assertion "Show me where the article says her death should be investigated." Any false choice imposed is purely your own straw man.
Given the shooting was already investigated I didn't really accept the premise; what is the purpose of an article a year later calling for another investigation? Why is it reasonable to expect that as an indication of something like objectivity?
Your claim was "Nobody cares if crazy bitch gets her comeuppance, if it's crazy Trump bitch, nobody cares if it's cruel and unusual" because she "stepped out of line", or something. Your evidence that nobody cares is they aren't calling for an investigation. That's a false expectation and your original claim remains unsupported.
If all you wish to say is "many Trump foes won't care that Babbitt was tragically caught up in the election lies and maneuvering and died unnecessarily" than do so. I wouldn't take issue with that.
Lol. It wasn't investigated.
False, of course.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
Wow, 3 month investigation. Sounds totes rigorous.
Wow, 3 month investigation. Sounds totes rigorous.
A 3 mo. investigation by people who's job was essentially to find protesters guilty of insurrection. A 3 mo. investigation by the organization who, followed *Comey's* lead in finding HRC did break the law, didn't *break* break the law. It makes Chicago's now-defunct-IPRA-cum-COPA oversight... machine look legit.
That you find the investigation unsatisfying is hardly surprising or adding any new information. Jesse's claim was "it wasn't investigated."
Why blindly follow the government? They should not be taken as 100% truth.
Conspiracy theorists like to argue there are only two options – "believe the government blindly" or "believe the conspiracy theory blindly".
It is always versions of the same discussion. I just think the rational/skeptical approach is alien so it becomes hard to interpret how others are thinking. "If they reject the conspiracy theory they are obviously part of it" etc.
Except you've been solidly on the side of the gov't this whole time, so I'm not sure where the rational middle you speak of comes in.
Likewise, don't remember any Reason headlines talking about Jacob Blake's "history of violence", Michael Reinoehl's "history of violence", blmantifa's "history of violence", or the Waukesha terrorist's "history of violence".
Reason tries to justify, and advocates for more, political murder.
Apparently White Female Lives Don't Matter.
#WFLDM
RioterProtestorFloyd’s cause of death may have been from an overdose making it germane to the discussion during the Chauvin trial. Babbitt didn’t drive at the cop while trying to ram her husband's mistress’ car.
Mr. Lancaster, thank you for publishing an article regarding Ashli. More on whether deadly force was justified (I believe in it but not in this instance).
Babbitt’s cause of death may have been from her overdoses of temper tantrums, violence, and insurrection, making her lack of self control germane to the discussion.
You're absolutely right. Her actions on January 6th is what justifies her death.
She died like the traitor she was.
At least you're diving into the deep end of the stupid pool.
Unarmed trespassing and minor vandalism is a capital offense.
Planting explosives at BLM riots, launching commercial grade fireworks at officers, shining lasers that can blond in their eyes... stop harassing the mostly peaceful protestors!!
We said protests are supposed to be peaceful?
/The dumber Cuomo
Don't make me only dry ramen guy.
Make me link*
She was more of a man then you'll ever be, sissy.
She died like the traitor she was.
Like I have said the 9/11 hijackers and the Trump Mob had the same objective - destroy American democracy.
Like you've been told, you're an idiot.
What a compelling rebuttal! Did your mommy help you write it?
I've rebutted in plenty of my comments sarc. Are you incapable of reading? I even responded directly to you.
Shrikes post wasn't even an evidenced statement, it was his opinion dumbass.
You have actually grown dumber. How is that possible sarc?
Please rebut the FACTS listed in the below source, high -school dorp-out! WHEN will you PLEASE stop dorping out?!?!
https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
Trump's Big Lie and Hitler's: Is this how America's slide into totalitarianism begins?
And opinion piece by a leftist in a leftist magazine full of opinionated takes woth little evidence is supposed to prove what exactly sarc?
You look even stupider now.
At least you admitted your initial complaint was without merit.
Didn't refute a SINGLE DAMNED FACT listed in the link! If a leftist said that we would be better off not breathing oxygen, dipshit, would you stop breathing? You are a MORON, you hyper-partisan NAZI!
Ooops! "If a leftist said that we would be better off ALWAYS breathing oxygen, dipshit, would you stop breathing?"
(JesseBahnFuhrer... BREATHE ye some oxygen!!!)
Why would I refute a biased opinion link from a known leftist? What fact do you think is actually pertinent?
Trump saying to peacefully protest? Riot starting before trumps speech ended? Trump authorizing national guard?
As far as the "big lie" why do you think ignoring multiple examples of issues such as thousands of double votes is a good thing? Thats just you ignoring problems because you wanted Biden. How is that working out for you btw?
Endless deflections. No refutations. WHAT an utter SURPRISE!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riots-cops-describe-facing-pro-trump-rioters/
"Kill him with his own gun:" Cops describe being attacked by Capitol rioters
You SUPPORT this, ye violent, power-at-any-price dictatorshit-luster?
OSHA
They may have been wrong, but their stated objective was to save American democracy. I see no reason not to believe that that was a sincere belief.
Nonsense.
The Trump Mob didn't like the outcome of the presidential election and raided the Capitol to prevent our Constitutional succession process from happening.
From their point of view the election was stolen and they were executing the will of the people.
Tens of millions of people honestly believe this. And most of them own guns.
Strange that they didn't bring their guns to an insurrection. They probably just forgot.
Statists don't care. Sarc hasn't been a libertarian for 5 years now. Any government attacks on the right is justified.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a pathological liar and a TDS-addled pile of lefty shit, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Attacking the capital to try to install an unelected President was saving democracy? They were literally trying to void an election. They did not have any belief that they were doing anything else other then a coup.
The difference between them and what didn't happen in 2017 was that the tens of millions of Hillary supporters who believe the election was stolen didn't get organized and swoop down on the Capital.
They just used the media, IC, and FBI to try to get him impeached, actively resist as members of the executive, etc.
Oh, and there actually were protests during certification for trump you ignorant shit. You can find the article on wsj.com.
They also attacked and disrupted the congressional meetings over Kavanaugh. Of course you ignore this.
"They just used the media, IC, and FBI to try to get him impeached"
He was impeached. For abusing the office to try to obtain dirt on his opponents, as non-controversially happened as well as the testimony of whisteblower Trump appointees such as retired United States Army lieutenant colonel Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland.
You are welcome to disagree with the President's critics about whether it is a good use of executive power to pursue re-election intel with foreign powers. I think the position that American-style patriots take on the issue is understandable and defensible.
But your representatives in Congress gave him a pass and consistently rolled over for him. The impeachment had nothing to do with claims of falsified election results.
What are you complaining about?
The fbi and ic were in reference to trump russia dummy.
And the primary actors involved in that attempt were also key witnesses at impeachment. That doesn't bother you?
Vindman saying he was worried because Trump didn't agree with long standing state views, and so was in the wrong. That doesn't bother you? The deep state trying to override elected officials?
And he never once offered to trade anything for information. The transcripts were released yet you still push that lie. Why?
Is your claim that any politician on video admitting to pid pro quo like Biden was to drop an investigation can't be investigated? The executive has no police powers? That's what you are arguing for impeachment. Yet defend an IC and FBI conjugation of trump russia based on a campaign dossier where Corey admitted he engineered actions to get a SP appointed before being fired.
You have no consistency of principles.
"And he never once offered to trade anything for information. The transcripts were released yet you still push that lie. Why?"
Again, you are putting words in my mouth Jesse (straw man). I would personally probably bet that the guy who positions himself as 'art of the deal' was completely open to this and probably looking for it, and nothing about his character suggests otherwise, but it's not what I wrote or accused.
Wait so you didn't write this?
For abusing the office to try to obtain dirt on his opponents
Holy shit man. Credibility crashing.
"Wait so you didn't write this?
For abusing the office to try to obtain dirt on his opponents"
Believe it or not, the Constitutional purpose of the functions of the Presidency (e.g. representing the nation with other nations like Ukraine) is not to go asking for dirt on other Americans.
But I realize my views are old fashioned relative to your more revolutionary ones.
I see you keep avoiding things. You accused me of creating a strawman despite you making that declaration.
Is that true or not?
Investigating a crime is not unconstitutional. No matter how much you want to deny video evidence.
I think you yourself are probably losing track of what you are trying to straw man and obfuscate at this point.
he's a troll and isnt arguing in good faith.
Seems convenient – you can just assert this, and then you also don't have to provide any evidence for any of the conspiracy theories that absolutely everyone outside your bubble thinks is daft, and still pretend you are "using reason".
Who is trolling? What is the quality of your contribution here?
Oh my! The vice president's crackhead son sits on the board of an Ukrainian "ENERGY" company and advises a Chinese one. Crackhead's business partner verifies email that Crackhead's sharing kickbacks with vice president. Progs believe inquiring about Crackhead's business dealings is an impeachable offense. Joe is as honest as the day is long (in the Arctic Circle presently).
Well, aside from the FBI Agents and DNC party members who already work their. And the actors and public personalities who did flock there and call for the President to be burned alive. And all the BLM and #believeallwomen protestors that shouted down any given vote... come to think if it, it's almost like some of the Jan. 6th protesters pointed out that they were just following the examples that others had set about how democracy was supposed to work. Weird how everyone who pointed out that "This is how you get ants." serially over several administrations and elections, were proven right.
No. The difference was that it did not happen in 2017.
"They were literally trying to void an election."
Yes, this, beyond ANY doubt in the minds of reasonable people! And now, the hordes of Trumpanzees gone apeshit CONTINUE their efforts in preserving the "Big Lie", by constantly voiding their bowels (sans ANY logic or data) on the internet! (AKA Social Media".) They will NOT be content till they get a 1-party "R" dictatorshit, and BURN all of the vote-stealing Demon-Craps!
I say again... "MY Tribe's lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD; your tribe's lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD!"
This is how unthinking, programmed-instinct-slaves throughout the ages have behaved, as sociobiological automatons, lacking conscience or ethical advancement. To understand more, see “Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .
Yes. Look, I didn't say they were right. But there is a constitutional mechanism for certifying, or not, presidential election results. If the protesters were correct and the election was illegitimate or stolen, then urging congress not to certify would be defending democracy. Doesn't seem that hard to understand. Or do you think that if an election were actually rigged, congress should just certify it anyway?
I'm not saying they were right, but they were engaged in political protest and were trying to get congress to do something that is within their constitutional powers.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riots-cops-describe-facing-pro-trump-rioters/
"Kill him with his own gun:" Cops describe being attacked by Capitol rioters
"I'm not saying they were right..."
Could you bring yourself to say that they were WRONG, fence-straddler? Was this REALLY merely a "peaceful protest"?
I don't know if they are right or not about the election. I don't see any reason I need to have a strong opinion.
I think they took a bad course of action even if they were right. It was pointless and never had a chance of changing anything.
It was clearly not an entirely peaceful protest, but as far as I have seen the vast majority of those involved were peaceful.
The Jan 6 riot had a lot of people trespassing compared to the number of people breaking windows and attacking cops. The BLM protests had the vast majority of people marching, yelling and holding signs compared to the number of people breaking windows and lighting fires.
A lot of the Jan 6 folks *did* intend to stop the election certification, whether they did it violently or by trespassing and interrupting the process.
Bullshit you lying leftist cunt. Look at the damages caused by each and you'll see just how much you're lying in defense of your marxist allies.
The constitution does not give Congress the power to overturn a presidential election. And the protesters were wrong. Believing does not matter, facts matter.
Then who does? Think about this, Molly.
If we could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that an election WAS stolen, then what? Would congress be forced to certify a knowingly fraudulent election? Could the Supremes step in and overthrow it on a challenge? Would we be forced to turn to the military for a coup, or could the existing branches enforce law by refusing to acknowledge a lie?
Obviously, if an election is known to be invalid, Congress has no responsibility to certify it. Otherwise, it's a meaningless ceremony.
Now, please acknowledge that the protestors genuinely thought that there was sufficient evidence of fraud to want to stop the certification. In their minds, they were asking Congress to exercise its power to stop an illegal takeover of the government.
The fact that they were wrong is not relevant to their actions on the sixth. They thought they were stopping a coup, not starting one. The protest, while bad on an objective scale, was also significantly smaller and less damaging than multiple open insurrections that had occurred the year prior (unlike this riot, declaring an autonomous zone to not be part of the USA and enforcing the barricades with armed guards is an armed insurrection by definition).
Nope. I don't believe they cared one way or another if there was any evidence. Their guy lost and they did not like it.
Russiagate was the coup.
That, and the pandemic, and the 2020 election. It was a 5 year process.
Given the fact that the left is now claiming, see Rep Salwell, that if the gop wins 2022 elections it is the end of democracy... the term doesn't mean anything.
It would be the first unarmed coup attempt against hundreds of armed officers and thousands of national guard ever.
And the Muslim terrorists who crash planes into buildings have the stated objective to "save my soul" before judgment in front of Allah, or some such religious nuttery. It's still ridiculous to take their "stated intent" at face value.
Why is it ridiculous?
People believe stupid shit and act upon it. Happens all the time.
Why not take what they say at face value until proven otherwise? The alternative is to imagine their real intent which is nothing more than strawmanning.
Stupid shit like an unarmed protest was a coup attempt?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riots-cops-describe-facing-pro-trump-rioters/
"Kill him with his own gun:" Cops describe being attacked by Capitol rioters
As a "lawn odor" Back-the-Blue luster after the "R"-party dictatorshit, ALL THINGS (to include even the tiniest modicum of respect for LEOs, even respect for the very lives of LEOs), JesseBahnFuhrer says, MUST give WAY! POWAH for the R-Party dictatorshit, as led by JesseBahnFuhrer, above ALL else, dammit!
The coup attempt was by the Trump team. The Capitol frenzy was a visible tactic, and involved dozens of injured officers including those getting dragged through the crowd and beaten with the American flag. Keep trying to revise history Jesse.
Here is a take on the Eastman memos by a conservative constitutionalist.
“constitutionalists who cherish the rule of law and the legitimacy of our governing institutions have every reason to be deeply troubled by the Eastman memos and the effects they might have had on the peaceful transition of power from the Trump to the Biden Administration—and perhaps on such transitions of power in the future”
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/critique-eastman-memos/
Demonstrated a few things at once:
* the bankruptcy of the "it was just innocent and valid concerns about election procedures" version of the big lie
* the emptiness of claims by Trump-style rightists to be "Constitutionalists" (again)
* the fact that "conservative" and "integrity" are not actually mutually exclusive concepts, even in the Trump era and despite efforts to enforce tribal message discipline at constant disregard of truth.
There were certification protests in 2000, 2004, and 2016. Are you aware of that? Because if you were i doubt you would call them a coup attempt. Was Gores use of courts to attempt disparate counting procedures ina state a couple attempt?
Why use a legal process to attempt a coup?
Youre being ridiculous because of your politics.
It is being ridiculous because of your politics, says pro-law-and-order JesseBahnFuhrer, when you try to kill a cop with the cop's own guns! "My Tribe is ALWAYS right!"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riots-cops-describe-facing-pro-trump-rioters/
"Kill him with his own gun:" Cops describe being attacked by Capitol rioters
"Was Gores use of courts to attempt disparate counting procedures ina state a couple attempt?"
No. Gore did not "use courts to attempt disparate counting procedures" as far as I am aware. Scalia used the fact that different parts of Florida were using different counting procedures as a thin excuse for *stopping* recount (inventing an 'equal protection' justification and explicitly claiming it should not be used as precedent – always a sign of deep Constitutional reasoning).
Your endless history revision is *nothing short of amazing*. But it's clear you must believe most of this.
In another element that looks particularly surreal and tells you how far the big lie narrative diverges from the Gore era, Scalia argued the recounts had to be stopped due to "irreparable harm" that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast "a needless and unjustified cloud" over his legitimacy!
Imagine conservative SCOTUS *stopping* recounts to make sure the country preserved unity, instead of in 2020 everyone wondering if SCOTUS would go ahead and throw out millions of votes against Trump because Trump was pressuring them to do so and his agents calling in favors for having appointing them.
Another surreal difference – in fact in this case evidence suggests a solid chance Gore would have won the manual recount if it had been permitted to proceed! Again diametrically opposite Trump where audits and recounts consistently affirmed the results.
Imagine being outraged both that a recount was started in 2000 and outraged in 2020 that Trump and supporters ere expected to care about vote counts. Shades of Trump supporters simultaneously chanting "stop the count" and "count the vote" in different states.
Gore literally conceded the election and called for unity.
"Why use a legal process to attempt a coup?"
It was not a legal process. It ran into obstacles like DOJ staffers threatening resignations.
Saying "see, the institutions held this time, so it is fine" is just apologetics. With more time, more loyalists could be installed in more agencies, and they could steamroll over the Constitution as just a bunch of words. I'm afraid it seems likely you would have supported it.
"Gore literally conceded the election and called for unity."
Yes, this! Der TrumpfenFuher, 1+ year later, STILL will not do this! Sore, lying LOSER!!!!
Sp youre literally aware of nothing yet keep trying to have an argument.
Trumls initial suit asked for them to recount only specific districts in Florida with different rules than were used in the general count. Yes he was asking for selective recounts.
My God man. This has been a pathetic day for you. The entire ussc ruling was based in equality of the process. They ruled that a new recount would have to be done equally with equal rules in every district. But there wasn't enough time prior to certification so they dismissed the suit.
You should really try education BEFORE you pontificate.
Sorry gores initial suit.
Look i have seen you are an intellectually lazy person. So instead of reading Bush v gore decision which focused on equal protection in response to an ask for disparate means of counting, you simply repeat a false narrative.
Have you ever tried reading primary sources? The decision is public.
OK, asshole waxlyingpileofshit *bing*! Do not need the posts of one more TDS-addled lying piles of lefty shit.
"The coup attempt was by the Trump team."
Oh boy - now you get to trot out a conspiracy theory!
What happened to your skepticism?
There is lots of documentation of the multi-pronged effort as well as, you know, literal public statements of false claims and intent. So not a theory, and not a conspiracy of comparable breadth as imagining all the doctors globally falsifying data or the FBI conspiring in a mysterious secret plot and so on.
The President and his inner circle were trying to plot a course to maintain power, as is well documented and not particularly surprising; their cover argument was that they claimed the election untrustworthy.
You can disagree with whether it is a "coup attempt", but the definition is:
"an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction "
and it involved public lies, private pressure on government officials to take illegal actions, inciting illegal violence and would have resulted in a reversal of the election result on plainly unConstitutional grounds, seeking to bypass courts if possible.
You are welcome to describe it instead as "an innocent and legal questioning of vote counts" if integrity of your position is not a concern.
Here again, a breakdown of the Eastman memos by a conservative Constitutionalist.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/critique-eastman-memos/
What false claims, be specific. We know of, through facial audits, thousands of double voters in az and ga. We know Pennsylvania destroyed ballot envelopes against state law requiring them to be kept for 2 years. There is whistle-blower video of Pa election officials destroying and generating false evidence.
There are 2 dozen lawsuits won by people suing over illegal election rule changes in multiple states.
"...There is lots of documentation of the multi-pronged effort as well as, you know, literal public statements of false claims and intent. So not a theory, and not a conspiracy of comparable breadth as imagining all the doctors globally falsifying data or the FBI conspiring in a mysterious secret plot and so on..."
There is nothing that would convince anyone other than a steaming pile of lefty shit, and if you don't see the collusion of the FBI regarding that dossier, well, your status as a steaming pile of lefty shit is confirmed.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
"What false claims, be specific"
Gosh, I don't know. Were there any big claims made? Honest people discussing in good faith probably aren't sure what they were.
Oh that's right, "We won in a landslide" claims the sitting President who lost by seven million individual and 74 electoral votes.
What unrestrained apologetics.
If you had to list the documents you consider to be the most politically inconvenient in the world, would there even be any competition for the U.S. Constitution on your list? Any other document more frustrating in the obstacles it places between you and a world of unfettered power invested in Trump?
"We know Pennsylvania destroyed ballot envelopes against state law"
Sounds like repetition of the legion of horsecrap claims from online conspiracy entertainment peddlers. You probably are smart enough to suspect they are horsecrap even without willingness to fact check absolutely anything, but I concede you make some credible arguments in favor of simply being mind-numbingly politically credulous.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/22/fact-check-video-shows-printing-waste-not-shredded-pennsylvania-ballots/3679221001/
Stupid shit that a record 80 million people voted for Biden?
Well, one alternative would be to imagine intent. Yes that would be strawmanning.
Another alternative would be to consider the entire body of evidence, not just the spoken words of the perpetrators.
Another alternative would be to consider the entire body of evidence, not just the spoken words of the perpetrators.
And then imagine intent. Usually when people do that what they imagine is malicious. What happened to not attributing to malice what can be explained by stupidity, or ignorance, or something else?
They put up gallows, brought bear spray and zip ties for a reason that is no malicious.
Zip ties were picked dup after being left on a table by Capitol Police dummy.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't their objective, but nevermind.
Why is it ridiculous to take their stated intent at face value? What else would their intent have been? They thought the election was illegitimate and wanted congress not to certify it. I was responding to the claim that they wanted to destroy American democracy. Do you think all of those people are lying when they say they think the election was illegitimate?
Yes - not FBI, antifa, not believers in fascism. Just useful dupes.
The correct questioning of motives is the Trump team's tactics. In pushing the "hang Mike Pence" narrative, did they authentically believe the Vice President had unilateral power to declare the victor and were just innocently acting on their belief that the election was stolen, as Trump clairvoyantly knew in advance when trailing in polls? I think there are mainly rational and naive answers to this question, naivete naturally being popular with loyalists.
Trump never pushed hang Mike pence... what the actual fuck. You've lost all credibility.
Never miss a chance to straw man.
Trump loyalists absolutely initiated the anti-Pence narrative, it was core to the attempt to overturn the election. As already linked and as already ignored by you Jesse. Where do you think the hang Pence chants came from, nowhere?
When asked about it Trump defended it:
KARL: They were saying, “Hang Mike Pence.”
TRUMP: Because — it’s common sense, Jon. It’s common sense that you’re supposed to protect. How can you — if you know a vote is fraudulent, right — how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress? How can you do that?
Trump directly laid the fraud at Pence's feet, tweeting "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"
You are an incorrigible revisionist and serially unable to reason or discuss with integrity.
A strawman. Like saying trumps tram said something and then switching it to trump loyalists when someone points out you are lying?
Zero credibility reached.
George Will is a PRINCIPLED and data-driven conservative, who I respect a LOT. (We need LOTS more like him!) He wrote some harsh words about the “whataboutism” as you (JesseBahnFuhrer) always espouse. I am still looking for his quote. In the meantime…
https://wacotrib.com/opinion/columnists/q-a-with-george-will-yes-it-s-time-to-worry-for-american-democracy/article_a89298b0-22ed-11ec-a317-4b16b3d3b45f.html
Q&A with George Will: Yes, it’s time to worry for American democracy
From the bottom of there:
Under what circumstances would George Will ever consider going back to the Republican Party?
Will: When it becomes a political party again, not a cult of personality.
But what about Mao Tse Tung?!?!? If the ChiComms can "do" cults of personality, we can toooOOOOooooOOOO, dammit!!!!
I used "push the 'hang Mike pence' narrative" as shorthand for the campaign against Pence and aiming the mob at him, obviously. It is fairly dumb to think Trump himself literally tweeted "hang Mike Pence". He's not subtle but he's not an idiot.
However, it is clear from the increasing invective and shrillness of responses that you are seeing this as a personal conflict of some kind and desperate for some kind of ego cover. So let's say I made a major error here and you shrewdly called me on it.
Sharp stuff. You have my encouragement to take a victory lap and make a polite ego exit if you wish.
You lied and can't even admit it. Man. You are worse than Mike.
"...Sharp stuff. You have my encouragement to take a victory lap and make a polite ego exit if you wish..."
As a low-watt lefty shit, you are hereby encouraged to fuck off and die, asshole.
"Do you think all of those people are lying when they say they think the election was illegitimate?"
Does that JUSTIFY what they actually DID? If I persuade a butt-load of folks that the LIBERTARIANS actually won the elections, can we legitimately have a Libertarians-gone-apeshit riot, are we then justified? Just 'cause we were SINCERE in our illusions and lies?
To me, this one weighs heavily...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riots-cops-describe-facing-pro-trump-rioters/
"Kill him with his own gun:" Cops describe being attacked by Capitol rioters
If they wanted to bring guns, then they certainly forgot to do it. So much for an insurrection...
I have never said it was justified. I've said many times I think it was dumb and people who committed actual crimes should be punished for those crimes.
Again, I was responding to a claim that their intent was to destroy American democracy.
So you think they were there for no reason whatsoever?
They were there protesting the illegitimate coup and hostile takeover of this country by the totalitarian left.
Congratulations on proving you don’t actually read people’s posts Tony.
Harsh stance to take on every protest ever...but you be you.
9/11 hijackers were not destroying American "democracy" but blowback for us occupying and bombing and arming Israel to bomb Arab land and they specifically said that. They don't hate us because we have McDonalds Bushie/neocon
Good to know you'll meet your end consciously.
chemjeff radical individualist
February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
Flag Comment Mute User
What is there to talk about?
From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser.
Completely justified. How was the officer supposed to know she didn't have a bear in her backpack?
All libertarians believe in the immediate use of deadly force for any public or private law violation, regardless of threat level to the attacked. I mean, DUH.
Let’s all play second guessing the actions of a police officer guarding people from rioters.
While 3 other officers on the side of the door with the protestors standing down not worried?
I would like to know:
Did Officer Bryd radio for support? Did those 3 officers radio Bryd that they were in route to provide assistance? Were officers even equipment with radios? There seems to have been a total breakdown of command/communications and from my recollection of the 9-11 commissions, radio problems were a key issue that Congress was to address. The fact that a few dozen/hundred violent protestors (thousands were just selfie takers) were able to overwhelm the Capitol police is just a complete failure on their part.
Also who is Ray Epps?
Pelosi is actively blocking requests from the GOP House members to answer those questions.
This is an issue. A few minutes before the unarmed assault on the Capitol and democracy itself there were three security personnel standing there between the protesters and the entry. They were doing an ok job of deescalating. They then suddenly disappeared. Someone broke a window. Ashli stepped through an opening. And deadly force was applied by a Capitol police officer. The insurrection then stopped. If only the Tsar had a guard that fired one shot against the revolution in Russia the Romanovs would still be in power.
Let’s all play second guessing the actions of a police officer guarding people from rioters.
It's revealing leftists do exactly this in all circumstances. And yet it becomes verboten the second it is politically advantageous to them.
Sometimes I think leftists might not have any consistent standard for anything, they just make up a justification for whatever protects the left in any given circumstance.
But Mike is totes a libertarian!
Project Mayhem! Her name was Ashli Babbitts
The media is trying to paint a Trump supporter in a bad light to justify tyrannical and violent actions made by people working for the government? This is unprecedented!
“tyrannical”? How so?
Federal takeover of elections. Congressional warrants for private bank accounts, emails, and even diaries. Including people not even at the Capitol. Attempted jailing for contempt of congress. Every member of the j6 committee stating it is being done to disallow trump as a candidate. 9 months of solitary confinement for non violent protestors. A judge banning someone from reading the news or participating in online discussions. Fealty statements as part of plea agreements.
Which one do you want to discuss?
ty·ran·ni·cal /təˈranək(ə)l - adjective: exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way.
One cop thought they were in enough danger to shoot and kill an unarmed person, but not anyone else during this violent insurrection that was worse than 9/11? Why not start blasting everyone? Or even other people trying to go through the windows? Why just her? I doubt she was the only person at the windows of the building. Seems arbitrary to me.
You could watch the videos available. The 'window' was a large pane of a glass (maybe 2' wide x 3' tall) in steel framing surrounding the doors at the end of an interior hallway where it intersected with the Speakers Lobby. The officers had barricaded the doors with furniture, so Babbitt had smashed the upper portion of the glass to right of the door. Babbitt was the only person climbing through the opening. She was crouched on the framing, climbing through carefully to avoid the glass, so she was completely defenseless with her hands up on the framing when she was shot.
You seem to agree that the shooting wasn't justified, but if you don't understand the circumstances correctly you are just talking out your ass.
She was the first person to try to climb through the window.
Tyranny would be government agents breaking into Babbitt’s home in the middle of the night, and dragging her off to execute her in the street.
Nobody from the government was seeking to cause her even one drop of trouble. She forced the situation on cops who were doing their job.
The excuses of an authoritarian supporter.
*totalitarian
Mike Laursen is a virus, and it threatens us all
"She forced the situation on cops who were doing their job."
Only one cop fired. If that cop would have missed, it's likely the miss would have hit one of the 3-4 Capitol Police Officers who were behind Babbitt on the steps.
There is no question whether Babbitt's actions were breaking the law. There is also no question whether the Capitol Police Lt used excessive force by murdering her. The difference is, the Officer was a member of the Praetorian Guard and could do no wrong.
Someone who was breaking a window to get past a police barricade to attack Members of Congress does not need any help to look bad.
The members who were already evacuated?
They were not all evacuated yet.
Attack members of congress. See Santa brought you a jump to conclusions mat.
It was not a 'police barricade'. It was furniture stacked in front of the doors like a fucking cartoon.
In the face of efforts by former President Donald Trump and his supporters to make Babbitt into a martyr
Allah likes his martyr.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a TDS-addled steaming pile of shit and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Ashli Babbitt's Violent Past Doesn't Justify Her Death
I'm glad to see Reason has this right. Even though some of our regular commenters aggressively refused to get this in a previous thread when I brought this EXACT point up.
People looking for trouble don't deserve to die when they find it, but sometimes that's how it goes.
Again, finally a cop you can have a beer with.
This is true. But we can still condemn their killings when they aren't justified.
Show me where the article condemns her killing as unjustified.
I'm not reading all that. I condemn her killing as unjustified.
Sarc has only ever applauded it.
after Michael Brown was killed during an interaction with a Ferguson police officer, The New York Times described him as "no angel."...Even if the allegations were correct...that Brown had a violent history..that would not change the facts of the individual cases, in which police acted wrongly and used excessive force, resulting in these victims' deaths.
I guess if you tried you could be wronger about Michael Brown but it would take effort. There is no legitimate argument that he was a victim and excessive force was used.
It's not that in an *earlier* incident he was accused of ramming someone else's car, it's that witnesses to the specific incident where Brown died claim he was trying to grab the cop's gun.
Is that true?
Well, probably.
Consider that the witnesses wouldn't have been very happy to say bad things about Brown - they weren't a bunch of Klanspersons colluding to make a black guy look bad, but neighborhood residents in a community which was outraged on Brown's behalf.
Also, after looking at the evidence, the Obama/Holder Justice Department decided not to even seek an indictment. I would have thought that if the situation was *even close,* Obama and Holder would have resolved doubts in favor of seeking a prosecution.
Suggesting the case wasn't even close and the cop was getting a bad rap in the press and in the mob.
I looked up Wikipedia to learn about the civil suit, but it seems Ferguson settled.
Which could mean they knew they were going to lose and wanted the best deal they could.
*Or* it could mean they had political reasons not to "make the Brown family suffer any further" and just give them some damages already.
The fact that Brown had just committed a strong arm robbery and was carrying the stolen goods on him at the time of his confrontation with the police officer has no bearing on what happened,...apparently.
Shhhhh. This article doesn't exist. Reason totally ignored Ashli Babbitt. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Sticking with this strawman still huh? Ashli deserved being killed for breaking a window right?
Hilarious that you write this, a year after the riots about an article that still basically says she deserved what she got but pissing on her grave is a step too far.
This totally equals all the pro blm justifications now.
Nobody is saying she deserved to die. But people who look for trouble don't garner much sympathy when they find it.
You actually are saying that. You constantly attack anyone who asks why cops were not even put to trial for her death. You applaud as a happy seal over her death. You have never one condemned it. Not once. Yet you condemn every other fucking police action on the planet.
This is why people call you a leftist shit weasel.
Same with that Rittenhouse kid. He went looking for trouble and he found it. I don't have much sympathy for him. I have less sympathy for the people he killed. Fuck them all. Yes it was self defense. It's also self defense when you call everyone in a biker bar a faggot, and then shoot them in the parking lot when they try to kill you.
No it isnt.
But you've never been an expert at law.
If a mob or a person is trying to kill you (no matter what you verbally said to piss them off earlier) then you can shoot them in self defense. That's why Rittenhouse got off. The jury decided that the little unarmed crazy guy was threatening enough to merit the shooting.
Do facts even matter to you sarc, or just feelings? Rittenhouse wasn't the aggressor ever. Yet you creat a strawman metaphor completely opposite to reality so you can attack a kid supported by the right, so he has to be in the wrong.
You wonder why people call you a leftist shit? This is why.
Same with that Rittenhouse kid.
"Bullets flying like the Capitol is just another a riot in Kenosha is just how democracy works." - sarcasmic
Do you take classes to be that stupid?
It's not my fault you don't know what the word 'same' means.
What's to sympathize with? He walked and is on right-wing media talking about how much he likes women with big tits.
He walked into a riot with a rifle and was not prepared for when idiots assailed him. He probably thought that nobody would fuck with him because he had a rifle. But no. People did. And they forced the kid to defend himself.
Shitty situation for everyone involved.
Well, not so much for him.
And sarc once again is anti 2a.
He walked into a riot with a rifle and was not prepared for when idiots assailed him.
He was there before the riot started and, evidence would suggest, completely prepared for what happened.
A better prepared person should have been able to defuse a situation without deadly force.
Not only that, but had the kid left his rifle at home I doubt he would have been challenged nor had to shoot anyone.
It was a situation entirely of his own making.
It's like he was a bait car without police backup.
And here sarcasmic argues that women deserve to be raped for not diffusing the situation peacefully with the psychotic leftist who can't control its own behavior that rapes her.
I said nothing of the sort. What Rittenhouse did was self defense. Yes. I've always said that. Aaaannnnddd he created the situation. That doesn't excuse those who attacked him. However they wouldn't have done so if he'd left his rifle at home.
"She brought it on herself by wearing that dress"
but had the kid left his rifle at home I doubt he would have been challenged nor had to shoot anyone.
Again we see that left wingers' conclusions are driven entirely by their fantasy thinking.
A better prepared person should have been able to defuse a situation without deadly force.
This is a pretty revealing comment on a thread about Babbitt. He doesn't place this standard on a veteran cop. Instead he places it on a random citizen. But the standard itself is ridiculous. Rosenbaum was mentally ill and off his meds, but to place the blame on Rittenhouse sarc needs to pretend Rosenbaum was rational. So he does.
There's no serious thought here, only an effort to ensure blame goes to the politically desired person.
Except that you have zero comments of mine in support of the left since they only exist in the small minds of people who interpret any criticism of their beloved far-right as support for the left.
Rittenhouse acted in self defense. He created the situation he was in, but that doesn't justify people attacking him.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
A better prepared person should have been able to defuse a situation without deadly force.
Nope. A better prepared person would've kept a convicted child molester behind bars, in the dirt, or on house arrest where he couldn't assault anyone else. Kyle was more prepared to do the job than the justice system that put child molesters on the streets of Kenosha.
assault anyone else
Assault anyone else, set fire to or destroy property that wasn't his, block streets, interrupt business...
He was wrongfully charged with murder and his accusers played the race card despite the fact that those who he shot were white. That is worthy of sympathy.
Repent, Tony.
Who is Ray Epps?
https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
Isn't he the guy who was also at the BLM (the other one) standoff with the Bundys?
Not sure if he was specifically there or not. I think that was just Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, whom Epps had a relationship with. And Rhodes is another federal protected individual.
Also while digging through, I saw Revolver published a follow up on Epps, recently (linked below).
https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
That entire site is a cesspool of clickbaity conspiratorial garbage. It doesn't deserve the traffic nor the attention.
So no actual evidence based issue with their reporting. Got ya.
So why is Ray Epps not arrested after all his actions and speech on those days?
Amazing how fast all 3 statists who claim to be libertarian jump in to justify cops shooting an unarmed protestor.
Hundreds of stupid people with fists is not "unarmed."
Lol. Wow Tony. You win today's dumbass award. Even with sarc trying hard.
So you think it's only acceptable to shoot in self-defense if the attacker has a gun?
Is it an equal or more powerful gun? What are the particulars of this newfound self-defense subtlety? Did you watch the video?
The cops lives were never in danger in the hallways. 3 cops were on babbitt side of the door and had gins down and not engaging. There were multiple cops on the other side of a window only one person can go through at a time. They could see she was unarmed as both hands were on the window sill.
Want to try again?
They should have shot more of them?
Yes,
So it's okay to shoot an unarmed woman even if you weren't in danger of losing your life at all?
Do either of you afford this same standard to Kyle Rittenhouse? Tony's past post suggests not... again, please repent.
They are claiming cops could have opened fire all the time at blm protests.
There was a very real danger of the thugs getting to and hurting a member of congress.
There is very real danger in your existence.
Don't cry when you face the consequences.
It is a testament to the restraint of the Capital Police that more were not shot.
Lol. Wow. Now do the blm riots when you assholes were freaking out about cops picking up violent protestors in vans.
In this thread: Tony calls all of the BLM protests armed.
Ashli Babbitt was no angel? Next you'll probably try to tell me that Brian Sicknick wasn't beaten to death with a fire extinguisher.
A year-late article half-condoning her execution, half-excoriating the people pissing on her grave is a pretty shitty way to start digging yourself out of a credibility hole that fucking deep.
P.S.- Despite your childish assertions Mr. Lancaster, a person need not be of the purity of God made flesh in order to be a martyr. Joan of Arc, William Wallace, and Nathan Hale were no peacekeepers. Ellsworth is considered a martyr for rather openly abrogating free speech on behalf of Lincoln. So, the notion that her actions on Jan. 6th alone void her for martyrdom is itself pretty self-serving in the manner one would expect from a morally-bankrupt media.
Two days short of a year.
Wow.
And they used the intern to do it.
Two days short of a year and just shy of saying "She got what she deserved on Jan. 6th for her actions on Jan. 6th."
Even the American military erects statues and names training grounds and weapons of war in admiration fallen opponents' devotion to their cause. Reason's attempt at placing itself ahead of the curve morally with "Let's not piss on their graves." is laughable.
At least Reason finally published something on it, even though there are some issues with the content.
"We should condemn this media tactic when applied to black men and women killed by police, and we should condemn it in Babbitt's case, too."
What the ever-living fucking FUCK does genitalia or melanin content have to do with being killed by the Police?
Read the FBI stats and the 4th Amendment and apologize, Lancaster.
^
"The events of that day are sufficient to determine that she was not the righteous figure that the former president and his supporters are making her out to be."
Why does this matter?
Shooting unarmed protesters is indefensible--even if the unarmed protester isn't a righteous figure.
Some "libertarians" are so pathetic, they'd defend socialism if Trump said capitalism was a good thing.
I guess. Can you cite even one example of a libertarian doing so?
Take a look at plenty of comment pages and that should give you a good idea.
I read the comments here pretty much every day. Don’t recall ever seeing any of the libertarians defending socialism.
She was not protesting anything, she was trying to bust down a door and murder Congress.
Who was she, she-hulk?
C'mon Tony muster at least a shred of objective integrity and be more factually correct: "She was trying to bust down a door and murder Congress empty handed."
She wasn't empty-handed, she had an entire mob full of idiots behind her.
What were they going to do once they broke down that door? Demand conversation and tea service?
Probably what they did, which is walk around and take pictures.
"The White House is bigger than I thought!"
Tony thinks the riots were at the white house lol.
Tony is retarded.
They were a couple months prior, and Reason ran numerous pearl clutching articles decrying the (alleged) use of tear gas.
Should have shot them all apparently.
What needs to be done to the left, needs to be done.
Otherwise, all our lives are over.
She wasn't empty-handed, she had an entire mob full of idiots behind her.
In her backpack? I don't think you know what the words "empty handed" mean.
It is absolutely defendable. The officer had no way of knowing the rioters trying to break into the Speaker’s Lobby were unarmed.
That is something we know, after the fact.
Maybe you oughta give that same standard to Kyle Rittenhouse and plenty of police officers, that standard of "uh, they could be armed, so BANG!" Ditto with the Kent State incident.
That was kinda incoherent.
Kyle Rittenhouse was armed and not bothered by any police — so completely different scenario. What do you see as the relevance of Kyle to Ashli?
Mike Laursen could be armed if anybody ever happens to see it.
They could see her hands retard.
USUALLY, when confronted with cases of self-defense, or in this case, defense of property, we tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender, who after all is attempting to defend rights, against an aggressor who is attempting to violate rights.
Take any home invasion case ever written about here at Reason. 99% of the time, the benefit of the doubt is given to the defender.
And yet with St. Ashli Babbitt the Martyr, the standard has changed, the burden has changed, and now the benefit of the doubt should rest with the attacker? Hmm I wonder why.
If Babbitt had been a Democrat or a Mexican we all know conservatives would have been cheering her death.
Principals, not principles.
Typical progressive, sarcasmic projects his own personality disorder onto others and then argues that his own fantasy proves his point despite reality.
You break into my house or my House, you put your life in jeopardy. Saving democracy is a Bid Deal. This was a mob, Bent on stopping the peaceful transfer of power…Defending that is important and thus the officer was absolutely correct in using deadly force. What if, what if, Pence had been hung? Nancy cut to pieces? Etc…
"You break into my house or my House, you put your life in jeopardy."
She didn't break into anybody's house. She was an unarmed protester on public property. And if there's any threat to democracy here, it's progressive sickos who defend shooting unarmed protesters in the name of democracy.
"She didn't break into anybody's house. She was an unarmed protester on public property."
If I break into a nuclear weapons site, even as an "unarmed protester", this fits the same bill. The guards there will be completely licensed and justified to kill me on the spot! Especially I am I am the advance spear-point of hundreds of "peaceful protesters" behind me! Don't mess with nuke-weapons! And don't mess with democracy! WHY is this so hard?
You know, after the fact, that she was unarmed. You are being illogical if you think your having this knowledge means the police guarding the Capitol had that knowledge at the time.
Maybe you oughta give that same standard to Kyle Rittenhouse and plenty of police officers, that standard of "uh, they could be armed, so BANG!" Ditto with the Kent State incident.
Still incoherent the second time around.
Mike Laursen has a very low IQ
An unarmed mob, roughly 20 people around the door Babbitt was near, against 300 armed cops and a thousand national guard on standby (authorized for use of helping the police by Trump himself).
Also did you even bother investigating if certification is even needed? Because most scholars say it can be done simply in state houses and doesn't require meeting at the Capitol. It is largely a show event.
Delaying it by an hour wouldn't have changed shit.
The fainting daisies here to justify the shooting is astounding to watch.
No principles at all.
There were not 300 "armed cops" in that particular office space and the "thousand national guard on standby" were no where near enough to engage the people trying to break into that area.
There were 300 active Capitol Police officers on site dummy.
On site does not matter. There were only two between Babbit and Members of Congress.
There are 6 cops on the video alone retard. Congress had already been evacuated.
Is everything liberals rely on a fucking lie?
And? It wouldn't have been difficult for the other 298 to arrive, assuming we grant your claim.
Not enough to engage? Then how did they get all the insurrectionists to leave within an hour?
Also did you even bother investigating if certification is even needed? Because most scholars say it can be done simply in state houses and doesn't require meeting at the Capitol. It is largely a show event.
Tilden won the popular vote in 1876. The Electoral College debate wasn't settled until Mar. 2 1877 in Hayes' favor. The result caused many Southern Blacks to be disenfranchised because the terms of Hayes' election dictated that he cede antebellum South to Democrats (who went on to enact Jim Crow).
And you think any of that would have happened if they hadn't shot this one woman (and no one else). Bullshit. There was zero chance of any congresscritters getting killed or harmed and no evidence that that was even something anyone intended to do. And there was no possible outcome of the protest that would have stopped the election being certified on that very day.
No evidence other then their stated intent and their actions. You think the angry mob which had already beaten police would have had the self-control to leave Members of Congress alone?
"Beaten police"? Care to point where this happened without the police being the aggressor?
Let me guess. You are going to count setting us barricades and standing behind them as police aggression.
They'd still be making excuses. People did die at the riot. A cop died.
A cop died 2 days later of a stroke with no injuries from the day.
How many people would have died, do you suppose, if Ashli Babbitt wasn't shot and those goons were allowed to smash through those doors?
Zero.
How do you know that?
Can you or Tony show evidence otherwise?
Of course not. Nobody here can show evidence of a counterfactual. Longtobefree cannot show evidence of his “zero” claim, either.
You can see in the video there are only a dozen or so people in the stairway with her, only one or two of which make any effort to help her through the door. Most are spread up the stairs to the next level. Seconds after Babbitt is killed several officers in tactical gear arrive from the rear calmly moving through the crowd without opposition.
Despite the insane left pretending this was a mob intent on lynching people this area was not that crowded and most people are calmly watching and/or taking video. But instead of recognizing reality left wingers assert the fantasy they want their acolytes to repeat. You accept this role because you have internalized the narrative and thus ignore the facts.
How many people would die, do you suppose, if I don't shoot you?
4. One less than did. Other woman killed by cops. 3 of natural causes.
An amazingly low body count for such a violent situation. Sure, it sucks to be the idiot in the line of the bullet, but she did put herself in that situation, as moronic as she was to believe it was in service of anything but a grift.
She was trespassing. Blm riots killed dozens of people without an officer shooting a single one. Amazing how you have less principles than sarc.
Well, several people were killed by right-wingers and cops at BLM protesters. There were more than 9,000 BLM protests, so another very low body count all things considered.
There was one Antifa who shot someone. The cops quickly murdered him in retribution, of course.
“Protests” lol
If I want to watch people suck cop dick I'll go to my local hiking trail.
Or you'll just do it yourself, as you are now.
Internally everything you just said is a lie.
Literally* not internally.
Fuck off, lying mutt.
Only one person died, and it wasn’t a cop.
Your house is fine. A public place not so much. Her actions did not meet the standard of care (force) used.
Democracy wasn't in danger, this wasn't an "insurrection" no matter how much the media and one party wants it to be. There was ZERO chance of the government of the United States being overthrown or the results of an election being overturned. Zero. The people involved committed crimes, they are being dealt with according to our criminal justice system, as they should be.
Republicans are quickly passing laws around the country to make sure they can steal the next one, though. They probably stole 2000, and possibly stole 2004.
Now they're pretending to be all against stealing elections. Typical.
I say make the Republican party illegal for their crimes, just to be safe.
Lol.
And the Democrats are threatening to end Senate filibusters in the name of unconstitutionally federalizing elections so they can steal all future races.
You guys just made up out of thin air the idea that elections are the sole purview of state legislatures, which can decide whether they even want to have democratic elections at all. That's the whole coup, dude, and it's why you must be stopped.
Congress had to stop the states doing this before when they were Jim Crowing their way to undemocratic power. The states should stop being so racist and corrupt and the feds wouldn't need to fix things for them.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to set election rules.
It grants the means and manner to be extended to the legislature if states with uniform rules set by congress. But it has always been interpreted as limited rules from congress such as age, not means and manner. You ignorant fuck.
They probably stole 2000, and possibly stole 2004.
Baseless accusations of election fraud undermine Democracy... except when left wingers make them.
Democracy is in danger from Democrats who rationalize the shooting of unarmed protesters.
I don't need to rationalize the killing of people who threaten to overthrow my democratic government. I hope more of you die before this is all over. Enough to send the message that you lost.
Of course, again, you're all killing yourselves anyway via the Herman Cain Award route, so maybe you'll take care of yourselves.
You need to stop eating shit.
Actually, you do need to come up with some rationalization to shoot an unarmed person, regardless of that person's motive. If cops can attempt that, you can too. Get going, or repent of your evil ways.
No, not as they should be.
Most of those in custody are political prisoners whose human rights have been violated for nearly a year.
Most of those who committed crimes are free because they're working for the FBI/left
It was a coup, and it was quite close to succeeding. It very easily could have gone the other way.
It was a coup, and it was quite close to succeeding.
I love that the loons' reaction to their insanity being mocked is doubling down on their insanity.
So sure, a few hundred or so unarmed rioters were "close to succeeding" in an to overthrow the government which didn't even include an effort to overthrow the government.
What a pack of fools.
"It was a coup"
Yes, 2020 was a coup. You are guilty of participating in it. You have pushed the limits of our mercy too far.
Good to know you've forfeit your life
If she was a black woman shot by police during a BLM riot while she was burning down a building because Trump won in 2016, there would be a memorial for her and flags at half mast.
And her actions would have been applauded as “Standing up for democracy!”
Most of the violence and arson caused during BLM protests were caused by right-wing infiltrators too.
There's no way you can get around the fact that right-wingers are doing almost all of the political violence today and have been for some time. Remember when they blew up an entire building in Oklahoma? BLM ever do that?
Fuck you.
Goddamn you are an evil piece of shit.
The truth hurts, as they say.
I've never been bothered by it, personally.
'Evil piece of shit' generally outlines not being bothered by the truth or hurting people.
He may be an evil piece of shit, but he's speaking the truth. The vast majority of violence and looting happened in situations where a previously peaceful protest was violently broken up by cops, by undercover cops who had infiltrated the BLM crowd instigating it, by mostly white kid "anarchists" and "accelerationists" who simply used the protests as an excuse and cover for their actions.
Of course, the conservative/Liebertarian lizard-brain id will read what I wrote above as some sort of blanket apology for the people who were ostensibly part of the protests in some genuine fashion that later went on to loot, burn or commit violence. It's not, I don't condone any of the violence, unless it was in self defense (including against police).
There are Twitter and Reddit threads hundreds of posts long documenting, on video, the abusive violent behavior of cops against peaceful protestors including elderly people who were doing nothing wrong. You are an apologist for those people, and therefore are also an evil piece of shit.
Leftists are a virus, and it's time to deliver the consequences their lies deserve.
Of course, the conservative/Liebertarian lizard-brain id will read what I wrote above as some sort of blanket apology
Blanket wishcasting is more like it. But I do love it when those who are stupidly simplistic accuse other people of being stupidly simplistic.
BlueAnon is out in force tonight.
And what evidence is there for that? Some video of a guy with an umbrella?
You must live under a rock. Umbrella man has been identified but not charged. Needless to say he's a right winger.
The vast majority of those arrested during the protests, riots and other demonstrations had no affiliation with any leftist or BLM groups; they were mostly bored, destructive kids (predominantly white, hmm...) who decided to take advantage of the chaos to either 1) further their desires for a new civil war or race war or 2) act out their violent fantasies and get someone else (or another movement) blamed for them.
The federal police shot in Oakland were killed by a self-professed boogaloo boi.
It happened again somewhere else. You think that's not indicative of a trend or worthy of further reading/investigation? Hmm...I wonder why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article243553662.html
David Dorn and others would like to have a word with you.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/07/05/say-their-names-20-people-killed-in-the-george-floyd-riots-n592577
You think you know anything about me? Fuck off.
No, I don't think that two murders and some vague shit about rioters being white indicates a trend. Do you think that BLM adjacent rioters being white is evidence that they are right wing provocateurs?
Most of the violence and arson caused during BLM protests were caused by right-wing infiltrators too.
It's revealing to see left wingers use the same tactics they claim prove people crazy when used by right wingers. It's hard to guess whether he's sop stupid he doesn't get this or if he's just such a liar this sort of contradiction isn't relevant.
Leftists are guilty of literally everything they accuse others of.
It's mass psychosis, and it's extremely dangerous.
That’s just a story you tell yourself because it sounds better than reality.
Guess we will never know because she was none of those things.
If Floyd is of any indication, Brian is likely right.
"While the story may be salacious, it has no bearing on the events that led to Babbitt's death."
Nothing like Reason waiting a entire year to run a story about the shooting of unarmed Ashli Babbitt by an Capitol Police Officer who violated multiple policies but was exonerated without any scrutiny (while Derek Chauvin followed Minneapolis police policies but was convicted of murdering a much larger violent criminal who was resisting arrest and overdosing on fentenyl).
Even worse, instead of running an objective article denouncing Babbitt's killing, Reason runs an article criticizing a partisan left wing AP story that trashed Babbitt.
It wasn't a year - white Mike.
I have no sympathy for her and her ilk. She was part of a violent mob breaking into the U.S. Capitol with the stated intent of doing mayhem, violence, and subverting constitutional democracy.
It's not about having sympathy, it's about not using irrelevant and salacious past personal information as if it matters to the case at hand. She was breaking into the Capitol Building offices with a mob, she got shot and it was completely justified. Leave it at that.
LOL, what are you saying? Is the AP holding a posthumous trial for her or something? How is this any different from the smear campaigns perpetrated against Trayvon Martin or Eric Garner? Do you deny that the conservative, and in many cases "liberal" or commercial, media do that on the regular?
What smear campaigns?
And BTW yes it IS about sympathy. There's no criminal or civil case against her, so this is all about sympathy, which the AP story was trying to inform with additional context about her character. As a result of learning what was in the article, I am less sympathetic to Ashli Babbit and some of the myths and inaccuracies about her have been put to bed.
Trumpkins and the right at large sympathize with Ashley Babbit, do they not? So yeah, this IS all about sympathy.
You seem like you're ready to die.
Friendly advice: commit suicide as soon as possible.
"...She was breaking into the Capitol Building offices with a mob, she got shot and it was completely justified..."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Leave it at that.
Well, not quite: Fuck off and die, TDS-addled asshole.
Are you the Winston from 1984?
"in which police acted wrongly and used excessive force"
The author refers to the Michael Brown incident. Is this to mean that the police officer was wrong in THAT case? Shooting a much larger man who had just strong-arm robbed a store, assaulted the officer in his car and then charged the officer with the clear intent to assault him again? I thought that one had been completely explained as a justified shooting.
The use of excessive force in the Michael Brown case started when the officer used his vehicle to try corralling the two kids on the street at which time he reached out of his patrol car (contrary to his story about Brown reaching in) to try putting Brown in a headlock.
I haven't seen much actual detail about the "strong arm" robbery, but I'm reasonably sure that neither Brown nor his friend were armed.
The events of the shooting itself are, despite no federal charges being brought, subject to interpretation and far from cemented in unison fact. That the Holder DOJ didn't indict is predicated on the difficulty it would have been to secure a conviction as well as the conflicting witness testimony.
Gee...kinda makes a strong case for ALWAYS wearing body cams, doesn't it? I wonder why officer Wilson wasn't wearing one? Was the Ferguson PD underfunded and don't have any/many of them? Was Wilson going against policy by not wearing the one he was assigned? Makes no difference at the end of the day because a body camera - no matter why he didn't have one - would've relegated all this endless debate about the events to the trash can.
You seem like you're ready to die.
Friendly advice: commit suicide as soon as possible.
Excessive force? Brown literally tried to steal the weapon from Wilson. That's absolutely grounds for self-defense.
We have no need to shoot Trump cultists when they are systematically killing themselves.
But you're right that the salacious details of these goobers' lives are irrelevant to their crimes. You can tell by looking at them that they are utter trash. What goes unsaid in the clean, educated liberal parts of the country is just how shocked we were to learn how vast the population is of unwashed mole people in this country. It was bound to get embarrassing when they started figuring out how to use Facebook.
But I knew. I have relatives from the backwoods. They weren't doing anyone any harm until they decided they were worthy of having political opinions. What's next, are they going to start designing skyscrapers and bridges? Writing novels?
But as a good liberal, I can't but see the Ashli Bubbas as anything but victims. Very rich, sophisticated people run FOX News and Facebook and TPUSA. They wouldn't be caught dead having a drink with any of these hill people, of course, but they are happy to use them for their own ends. Only now they're just starting to worry that maybe they're killing too many of you to win elections anymore. What a sticky situation: so much Ivermectin to sell, and a shrinking marketplace.
Oh well, you can hear the elites thinking, maybe we'll just take over the banks and steal their money instead.
Why would Trump cultists refuse a vaccine that was developed during the Trump administration and that Trump seems to be pretty proud of as an accomplishment and has taken himself?
By Tony's definition, black people being more statistically likely to be killed by police officers would be them systematically killing themselves. Conspiracy kooks with official documentation every step along their conspiracy is just nuts but extrapolating motives and outcomes from selective and vague associations is just how science and discovery of truth works.
I know right. They are turning on Trump rather than turning on their belief in the Jew vaccine conspiracy.
I'm not so surprised. People are strongly motivated not to feel stupid. Even the most rabid Trump supporter "just wishes he wouldn't tweet so much." The cult leader is always expendable in favor of the cult beliefs.
Keep on coping, faggot.
Or you don't understand why people refuse the vaccine.
Because they think Facebook is feeding them the news.
Shit! You think Nancy Pelosi's going to invite an Okie fag over for cocktails?
You're just a complete F-ing idiot
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/
There's the video of the entire incident. You tell me, if that mob were made up of black people, would you be defending them? Would you give a shit if every single one of them were mowed down?
That is a siege, that is not a mostly peaceful tour of the statues.
Go fuck yourself, liar.
I do not have the skills to fake a video like that.
You’ve tried though.
Why do you think race has anything to do with it? You say that as if crowds of black protesters getting mowed down is a regular occurrence. There have been tons of much more violent BLM protests/riots and no one got mowed down.
Why do you think race has anything to do with it?
Because he's racist. He needs black people to die in order to justify his outrage at it.
Lots of people died because of Trump. All of a sudden I'm supposed to care about this one person, who was, on video, violently defying police and assaulting the US capitol and American democracy itself?
Anyone crying about her death is being rather selective.
Did more people die because of Biden?
Not yet.
Kill yourself
More people have died of COVID since Biden was sworn in then died under Trump, look it up. And this despite Biden having a vaccine that Trump handed him.
Also how many people "have disappeared" in Afghanistan since Biden's inept pull out?
Don't forget that family Biden droned!
^What you say when you ignore that Biden made a 40 yr. career of being tough on crime.
More people died because of Biden before Trump even took office.
He wasn't my first choice in the primary.
Lots of people died because of Trump.
Stupidly wrong. This just shows left wingers are incapable of understanding anything. Their entire analysis consists of blaming everything on whoever is most politically convenient. Reality is entirely irrelevant.
This is why their opinions are useless and also why they are incapable of improving. They don't care enough to get better because all they're interested in is the political outcome.
"...This is why their opinions are useless and also why they are incapable of improving..."
And why the steaming piles of shit should be muted: Willfully ignorant and proud of it.
Oh, so you mean like how the conservative media attempts to vilify any person killed as part of a protest or for selling "loosie" cigarettes?
Compared to those smear campaigns, usually carried out after the person is dead at the hands (or guns) of police and/or vigilantes, the treatment afforded to Ashli Babbit is incredibly tame.
Does this installment mean that Reason will now be taking up the cause of pointing out that the criminal history of every person killed by a cop in the future is irrelevant to the issues surrounding their shootings or deaths by other means?
Only if they can blame Trump.
Can you show proof of this? I'm sure the media shows otherwise, Ormand.
"...Babbitt's behavior on January 6 is sufficient by itself to demonstrate that she is not worthy of martyr status..."
Yeah, crawling through a window, unarmed, and getting murdered by a cop really means you're NWS, right Lancaster?
Fuck off and die, slaver.
Out of curiosity, when is the DOJ gonna look into that insurrection from summer of 2020 when part of Seattle seceded from the US to form the nation of CHAZ (late CHOP)? Or that other insurrection in 2020 where they attacked the White House, forcing the Secret Service to move the president to a secure location? Or that other other insurrection where the city of Portland had over a 100 straight nights of riots, including trying to set a federal courthouse on fire multiple times with people inside?
It doesn't matter. The comparison to Floyd is flawed. Floyd actually is convicted felon who once kidnapped a pregnant woman at gunpoint. He was overdosing on drugs at the scene which is probably why the chokehold, an approved non-lethal restraint method, was lethal.
You've duct taped yourself in both sides-ism if you think these two are comparable. Babbitt was outright murdered since the immediate use of deadly is not justified.
The choke hold was not necessary in Floyd's case either but the intent was that it was non-lethal.
"Serial burglars shouldn't be sentenced to more than 20 yrs. in prison!" - ENB
[Silence about summarily executing first-time trespassers.] - Reason Magazine
I really wish that Reason would just quit trying to portray the shooting of Michael Brown as somehow not justified. Brown was a hulking thug who had moments before the shooting, strong armed and robbed a small business. When asked to get out of the middle of the street and walk on the sidewalk, he attacked the police officer and attempted to take his firearm resulting in his being shot in the hand. Then when the officer attempted to arrest him he charged the officer and was killed. No normal human with two or more functional brain cells would suggest that there was anything illegal, unethical or immoral about that shooting.
Why does any of that matter?
These people are symbols of a political movement. The particulars of their lives are totally irrelevant.
This article is just a preparation for the cluster of leftist narrative building for jan6.
His lungs were literally filled with fluid at death, a sign of an overdose, and had more than double what coroner's claim is a lethal amount. The original coroner's report in fact said it was likely a drug overdose and they didn't change it "until he watched the video."
Babbitt was shot in the neck and killed immediately
Sarcasmic has pointed out that she was actually shot in the shoulder. Sure, it was from the side and below, so the bullet transected her trachea, but she wasn't 'shot in the neck'. It also took her minutes to die as she drowned in her own blood.
The mental and physical distress Floyd was experiencing as a result of swallowing his stash is most likely why he requested being removed from the police vehicle, which directly led to him being prone on his stomach with Chauvin pinning him down.
The reasoning was not merely "drug user bad".
You might want to rethink your take on Brown...the cop did not act in extreme force. That myth perpetuated by the media and the Obama admin killed two cops in NYC and eight in Dallas..or did you forget about that one? The media sure did...
Did I miss the thousands of outraged articles from Billy Binnion about the Capitol Police's summary execution of Babbitt?
Note that the article joins with The Establishment in refusing to mention the name of Babbitt's executioner.
Another #LibertarianMoment from the sellouts at Reason.
Did you expect something different from woke liberal Trump hating Reason?
Here is what Reason should be asking.
Some real question on Jan. 6th.
Pelosi admitted she was given intelligence on there being a riot. That means there is a paper trail of that government intelligence.
Why did the Democrats not enter that into evidence in the second impeachment and trial if it pointed to Trump or any right-wing organization?
Why has it not been subpoenaed in the Jan. 6th House inquiry if it points to Trump or any right wing organization?
Why is Pelosi not being subpoenaed?
Why are Republican NOT screaming for that intelligence to be released if it exonerates Trump?
Seems to me both sides have something to hide here. What? Will we ever hear who that intelligence pointed too? Left-wing organizations? Left-wing organizations and Democratic operatives? Or maybe a coalition of Democrats and anti -Trump Republicans?
We have been told they have that intelligence, we have never been told what it showed, and neither side seem in a hurry to have it exposed!
Odd for Reason to be out in front of a story.
The leftist narrative building began ON Jan 6, when FBI sent at least 49 agents provocateurs to infiltrate the otherwise peaceful demonstration and commit all the violence. There is plenty of video proving this, which the government has withheld from the public and from all those they maliciously arrested. Then they've held them all in solitary confinement and tortured them in every way possible to elicit false confessions, which has worked on most of them. And finally the Congressional committee, which exists only to further the fraud that an "insurrection" occurred. Everybody without exception has known that was a lie since day one.
Result: a continuation of the terrorism aimed at making it no longer safely possible for the Right to engage in any peaceful demonstrations, lest they be infiltrated, false-flagged, smeared,, and persecuted. Heads need to literally roll over the whole mess and every single one of them is on the Democratic side.
Look at the front page of the online Washington Post. They’ve been doing this for a couple of days and there’ll probably be a crescendo on Thursday.
It doesn't matter if fentanyl killed Floyd. Kneeling on a man's neck for that long is still attempted murder, and Chauvin deserves to be in prison for it. (He should get a retrial because threatening jury members and a BLM supporter sneaking onto the jury cannot be allowed to stand, but the attempted murder is still a fact.)
I'm not certain about the cause of death one way or another. But I think it's worth pointing out that there is no single "lethal dose" for opioids. Inherent and developed tolerance for such drugs varies widely and what would kill most people easily could well be a normal dose for a junky. Also, it's still possible to murder someone who has overdosed.
If Floyd had been hit by a cab that day instead of being pinned under Chauvin, would you argue that the cab driver had no role in Floyd's death?
The DoJ footage recently released after many fights in the courts show the vast majority of protestors walking around taking pictures staying between the ropes in the hallways, no violence.
The vast majority of cases resolved, near 80%, have been for entering and staying inside a federal building.
But leftists including Mike and Jeff want to pretend this was an insurrection.
FBI sent at least 49 agents provocateurs to infiltrate the otherwise peaceful demonstration and commit all the violence.
Is this what Tucker Carlson told you?
Delusionals are the new Deplorables.
We will use the word "insurrection" unless and until evidence warrants using "treason" instead.
Here is reality: the former president's mind is so emotionally unintelligent and impaired by malignant narcissism and sociopathy that he cannot process the concept of not winning. To preserve this fiction, his psychopathy created an alternative plane held together by mass psychogenic illness, and you and yours giddily moved in.
What matters most is your precious groupthink, which is why the GQP tolerates no internal opposition.
You purposely ignore the mountains of evidence (growing taller and thicker daily) that those who committed ballot fraud were predominately Republican and that Trump and his anti-democracy henchmen in Congress and among #TheReligiousWhite desperately worked several fronts to steal the election from Biden.
Also, the insurrectionists who defiled our Capitol a year ago would like a word with you.
They're sick and tired of you trying to rob their public display of Trump fealty and give it to people who weren't even there.
It isnt attempted murder dumbass. And even the prosecution stopped saying knee on knock on say 2. It was on his shoulder.
How ignorant are you?
"It doesn't matter if fentanyl killed Floyd."
You'd think so...but somebody's history is somehow relevant to a cop murdering an unarmed woman based on this article, so learn something new.
Chauvin was not on his neck you lying leftist POS. Any more debunked theories to float for saint floyd?
Knee on neck*
Hence why I included the fact of the fluid in the lungs which ties together with an overdose. Along with the original autopsy.
He in fact had multiple drugs in his system.
Also. The below is all from the link after:
When asked on direct if any of the other notable factors everyone knew the defense would raise on cross—the existing cardiovascular disease with 75% to 90% occlusion of all three major coronary arteries, the hypertension-induced enlarged heart, the presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine in Floyd’s system, the adrenaline induced by Floyd’s poorly made decision to fight four police officers for 10 minutes—could any of that have been the cause of Floyd’s death.
The answer was a flat no, period. Floyd’s death could only be attributable to asphyxia complicated by law enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression.
Good for the state, right?
On cross examination, however, both Thomas and Baker agreed that every single one of those factors, by themselves, even in the absence of any police involvement, or any of the other factors, if viewed in isolation could be an entirely reasonable cause of death for an official death certificate. (I’m amalgamating the responses of both Thomas and Baker, as they were so similar—video of their individual cross-examination testimony is embedded below for those wishing a more granular sense of what each said.)
In other words, had Floyd been found dead at home and autopsy revealed the 75% to 90% occlusion of his three major coronary arteries, would it have been reasonable for a medical examiner to attribute cause of death to that heart condition? Yes.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/chauvin-trial-day-10-wrap-up-defense-raises-more-reasonable-doubt-with-state-witnesses/
In our judicial system that is more than enough for reasonable doubt. Unless one is a martyr.
Are you referring to the old question that is sometimes asked in Civics classes, back when schools had them?
"A man jumps off the roof of a large building intending to commit suicide. In an apartment in the same building a husband and wife are arguing. The Wife grabs a pistol and fires it at her husband. it missed him, goes out the window, hits and kills the falling man. Is it murder, manslaughter or no crime?"
Yet the black-clad people who busted the windows and let everybody in have vanished into the wind.......
Footage of people staying between the ropes in the Capitol rotunda was released very shortly after the events of January 6th. There's no way to know if they were "the vast majority", or if they all continued to remain peaceful, but certainly many did, and the applying the word "insurrection" to the events of that day is a stretch.
Don’t fear the revolt!
(insurrection)!
All our times have come
Here, but now they’re gone
Seasons don’t fear the revolt
Nor do the wind, the sun, or the rain
(We can be like they are)
Come on, baby
(Don’t fear the revolt)
Baby, take my hand
(Don’t fear the revolt)
We’ll be able to fly
Baby, I’m your man
La, la la, la la
La, la la, la la
Valentine is done
Here but now they’re gone
Horst Wessel and Ashli Babbs
Are together in eternity
(Horst Wessel and Ashli Babbitt)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel
Is your only determination of evidence based on who said something? This the same as you dismissing multiple well published doctors for appearing on Rogan?
Ask Ray Epps, as the FBI still hasn't indicted him for urging lots of Trump supporters to walk over to the Capitol (long before Trump spoke at the Jan 6 rally) and initiated breaches at various Capitol entrances with his thugs, none of whom appear to have been charged by the FBI (likely because all were deep staters who worked for the FBI, DOJ, Biden, Pelosi and/or Schumer to frame and blame Trump and his supporters yet again (for crimes committed by Democrats).
Revisionists busy at work as always. If there is anything that fundamentally characterizes Trumpism and the modern American right, it is the love of extreme falsehoods.
The idea that the FBI had 49 infiltrators instigate the entire event appears obvious conspiracy fantasy of the kind we've become sadly used to. There is no evidence this is true and lots of contrary evidence.
The people who actually did break windows and beat cops with flagpoles etc. have easily confirmed history as passionate Trump dupes and are on record that they were not either antifa or FBI. Jonathan Gennaro Mellis: "Don't you dare try to tell me that people are blaming this on antifa and BLM. We proudly take responsibility for storming the Castle."
Inconvenient truths abound. The obsession with lying about it isn't going to make real patriots any less on alert about demagogue/conspiracy culture anytime soon.
The black-clad people busting the windows last year were the Proud Boys and other right wing militia and militia wanna-bees.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/972564176/antifa-didnt-storm-the-capitol-just-ask-the-rioters
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conspiracy-theories-paint-fraudulent-reality-of-jan-6-riot
Jesse yes it's the same. Tucker Carlson repeating falsehoods about the FBI doesn't make them true – he's literally in the (lucrative) business of providing his market things to be angry about.
Finding someone with a doctor title to say something you want to believe doesn't make that true either. "The extra terrestrials are five feet tall and one or two of them are around 230 years old... at least 18 operate with our facility. They're able to use their own voice by telepathy to talk to you." – Dr Boyd Bushman.
"Tucker Carlson repeating falsehoods about the FBI doesn't make them true..."
Yeah, thank goodness we have Rachel Maddow to set the record straight.
are you even aware of the resumes of the doctors you are dismissing? I looked at their qualifications and made a judgment. You claim they are on rogan so they are unqualified.
They listed dozens of papers and studies by name, all peer reviewed. They are 2 of the most published doctors around, both having stints at Harvard and other notable universities.
Do you want to continue looking like an idiot?
Oh. So unexplained videos don't exist. Whatever the government told you as the narrative is correct. Hmm.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/06/27/new-jan-6-video-shows-police-walk-away-after-black-clad-men-smash-windows-fbi-uninterested-1094598/
The Whitmer kidnapping wasn't agent led as well I'm assuming?
And no I'm not saying they are fbi agents in the video. I'm asking why they haven't been arrested. Why the cops stood down. Why the DoJ only released the video after fighting it in courts for 8 months.
You blindly accept the government's word.
Why won’t they release all the footage if they have nothing to hide?
Consider rejecting tribal partisan pop media entirely.
Such as what you did with the doctors on Rogan just now? Lol. I see how you avoided that response.
I don't listen to either but at least Jan 6 happened. Maddow made her entire living for months off a Pee Dossier that was complete fiction.
You think she’s a reliable news source?
"You claim they are on rogan so they are unqualified"
This is continuing strawman. I suspect when people do this compulsively they are generally locked in ingroup/outgroup mode, so unable to really hear what others are saying.
Medical effectiveness of drugs is not tested by looking for someone with valid credentials to give you an opinion. It is tested in studies, looking for quality of controls and statistical power and replication.
I'm sorry that it wasn't a conspiracy after all. Again.
What doctor is still advocating the ivermectin cover-up and what studies are they citing? Check if they are still citing the Israel study that kicked this whole thing off, before digging yourself in always deeper here.
Manslaughter as the firing in non self defense is a criminal act. If she was firing in self defense no crime.
Cause of death was neither concrete nor lead poisoning. It was covid.
Lol. Sarca new years resolution to try and not troll or be a leftist shit lasted less than a week.
The conspiracy theories you hear online are a product – they are sold to you for money and ad impressions. They make you angry because that is the experience you paid for.
Assuming they are true is a significant leap of logic. Why would they be?
What evidence is there that Epps was an FBI plant who instigated violence, as opposed to being one of endless voices you can hear on videos as the mob fell into the sort of energy that is common to mobs?
Some interviews with him here, just to check against your conspiracy theory
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10347577/Ex-Marine-accused-FBI-plant-sent-incite-Jan-6-riot-pictured-ranch.html
You are an unhappy individual. An unregistered high capacity assault fire extinguisher.
Good thing they showed more than just qualification and credentials, no? As JesseAz stated, they also had data.'
If you want to refute the data, do so.
Oh. So the numerous cited papers they cited on the program don't exist.
Sorry man, you are full of shit. All your assertions are without any evidence. Just your presupposes beliefs.
Everything you have claimed others do you are literally doing here. It is hilarious.
Why are we talking about vaccinating children that statistically have 0% chance of falling ill from Covid?
Must be the science...
"You blindly accept the government's word"
No, I skeptically question the conspiracy theorists' word. The burden of proof is on you as claimant.
I think you reverse the burden of proof – prove it wasn't secret FBI ops! – because you take it as a premise that the FBI was continually undertaking secret campaigns to undermine Trump. Because *he* told you this, without evidence.
The fact that someone says someone was not arrested isn't particularly compelling proof of this FBI conspiracy, sorry.
It may be somewhat alien to understand how skeptics approach claims like this and why we approach them with skepticism.
Why dismiss the Israel study that supports an idea that goes against your ideology? You can't simply ignore a study. That does not make the study magically disappear from reality.
How about engaging in a debate with those scientists instead of censorship?
Ivermectin is still used across the globe as part of an anti viral regiment. See Japan as an example. So is HcQ. If you bothered to listen to the doctors or research instead of making evidence free claims you would know that.
You've proven yourself ignorant.
Always happy to look at data. A rare event in these claims.
Have you independently looked into ivermectin studies?
The doctors cite dozens of studies if you were interested in education. You are not.
Thats strange. I posted an actual video. You criticized Tucker Carlson. And repeated a given government narrative without providing a single accompanying fact.
It would be really surprising if the FBI wasn't involved somehow. That doesn't mean it was. But it's not an unreasonable working hypothesis.
Apologies, looks like it was an Egypt study not Israel and I misremembered. It was a study that claimed large and strong results early on that gave the main boost to the whole hysteria.
The study was later retracted as the data didn't hold up.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93658
"First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases and websites... Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions"
Is this like the study pushed by governments and who saying ivermectin was a dangerous drug then quickly retracted?
By the way. It is telling you jumped straight to ivermectin when the doctors in question point to a multiple treatment anti viral away early in treatment protocols. They both day it doesn't help with already hospitalized patients, but does help in early onset as many papers show.
What you are referring to is late stage treatment for the retraction. A study set up to fail and ignore the early use.
Of course if you were interested you would listen to both podcasts and go find the CITED papers they mention in regards to early treatment.
But you're not interested.
he is obviously just trolling here... why engage?
the dishonesty in his reasoning is transparent
You have no refutation. Try again.
He’s just another moby.
"Actual video" of what? I just scanned it. People claiming there were violent participants who haven't been charged is what it seemed to be about. What do you think it means?
Again, I think this just goes to the approaches skeptics take to things may seem alien to those more enthusiastic about conspiracy theories. The relevant logical principle is 'Occam's razor' if you are not familiar. There are many prosaic explanations why the FBI has not caught and charged every participant at the Capitol event.
"without providing a single accompanying fact."
You are still trying to reverse burden of proof. I am not the one advancing an FBI Jan 6 conspiracy claim.
You scanned it then dismissed it and then provided yet again zero facts. Let me guess. Fbi wasn't involved with the Whitmer kidnapping plot either?
They now claim that the dossier was never important.
Again. Blind acceptance of government narrative.
Epps did more to incite the crowds to violence than Qanon Shaman did (who actually encouraged people to be peaceful and respectful). QS is going to jail. Epps is still a free man.
Don't you find that odd?
troll
So fascinating.
There is literally no "government narrative" here. There is a conspiracy narrative about a former Oath Keeper and marine that was circulated by outrage/conspiracy media, without supporting evidence other than a clip of the guy saying 'let's get in the Capitol' like hundreds of others.
Again you are falling into false choice fallacy – either you accept the conspiracy theory blindly without logic, or you are "blindly accepting the government narrative".
This is just a game conspiracy theorists play to increase uptake of their theories. You don't want to be a govt stooge do you? Well listen up. How in the world do you expect grown rational people to fall for this?
Obviously failed reasoning.
Leftists have no talent.
They are a virus and an imminent threat to us all.
"he cannot process the concept of not winning"
Seems true enough, but of course this way he lives in the grey area of whether he is lying or believes it is part of some genuine manipulative genius on his part.
He has some unguarded moments where he can't help winking about his skill in deception, so it is certainly not *all* impairment. Such as his reported comment about "the more beautiful word called disinformation" –
"Are you talking about disinformation or are you talking about lies? There is a more beautiful word called disinformation.”
"https://twitter.com/philiprucker/status/1417223494513922049?lang=en
and of course his famous references to his success with "truthful hyperbole."
...
"They're sick and tired of you trying to rob their public display of Trump fealty and give it to people who weren't even there"
Ouch. Dead on though.
I remember how amazing it was that the "antifa" conspiracy theory ripped through partisan/outrage media so fast after the event. But then, of course it did.
I don't think there is any kind or quantity of evidence that could bring loyalists back to something approximating reason.
Man, it sure would suck if nobody had been charged with insurrection…..
Exactly. They are not out in front of this. They are the pre-chorus.
This is why I’m leading in the Cutty Sarc Bowl
What about Epps asshole? You skipped that you dumbass debunker. And there is more than just him that day stirring up trouble. Rioting was wrong but there was a set up there.
I wonder what the “reason” take
Would have been on the Boston massacre?
Well there's also evidence of Epps' picture being Suspect @16 on the FBI's list of wanted suspects with a reward posted for information leading to his identification, then, after he was identified, that picture vanishing from their list with no subpoenas issued for Epps' arrest.
Curiously, the FBI seems to have no interest whatsoever in a person who has been shown on video to be loudly and openly encouraging people to breach the Capitol. The man hasn't been arrested, charged, detained, officially questioned ... nothing. Can you think of a reason why a person who we know to have played a prominent role in urging the crowd to enter the Capitol is not a person of interest to the FBI?
It took three paragraphs for you to say nothing.
For fake liberty.
"somehow"... sure. There was a story about one Proud Boy who was apparently an FBI informant and relayed updates as the day's events unfolded. No evidence he was a provocateur or caused anything. In fact his testimony contradicts prosecution of Proud Boys as having had a conspiracy to initiate the mob event – just seems like they were all swept up in it.
If you read the President's exhortations about stolen election and imagine yourself in the crowd it's not real hard to imagine why it got ugly.
Did you scan the questions in the revolver link below. Did you figure out why Ray Epps hasn't been arrested yet was person if interest 6 and any reporter who asks who he is is visited by the feds?
Why the person who was responsible for cutting down the barriers before the proud Boys ever arrived is still unidentified even though he had been initially arrested and released Jan 5th?
Are you even interested in anything but the government and Pelosi narrative?
You keep asking for concrete evidence but how much have you actually looked into?
You are willfully uninterested.
I'm certain the FBI had agents involved and on the scene. The only question is whether they were observers and spies or provocateurs and leaders. One is them doing their job. The other is unacceptable.
We know that they have done the latter in the past. There were FBI agents in the Black Panthers and Dr King's groups who actively egged on violence. There were entire communist/anarchist "revolutionary" groups in the 70s that were led by or almost entirely comprised of undercover agents.
We know the Whitmer kidnapping group had so many agents in leading positions that at the very least, it's not absurd to claim that it would never have existed without FBI involvement.
So while the evidence isn't solid, it is not out of character.
The czarist secret police employed the tactics the FBI is using now, we’ll see how it works I guess.
Free speech, even merely reckless speech, isn't actionable by the police (nor should it be). So no it's not odd that a person who uttered reckless speech wasn't prosecuted but a person who was actually documented trespassing in the Capitol was, regardless of his speech.
He’s a half wit.
You continue not to cite anything. For the fourth or fifth time, when you make claims, you are actually the one who has burden of proof. If you would like me to provide a citation to support something I am saying, you are always welcome to ask.
e.g. here is a detailed survey of fourteen randomized controlled trials on ivermectin, finding no statistical success relative to placebo.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full
Do you really not know what the stated answer is, or how to look up what the offered reasoning is?
Others could address these questions, but there is little point if there is no authentic interest in what is real, only partisan/grievance games.
And again avoids providing any citations for baseless assertions while demanding cited term papers from others.
It isnhilarious how you've dismissed both doctors without listening to their arguments.
"we know to have played a prominent role in urging the crowd to enter the Capitol"
We do not know it was prominent. Videos are full of such comments.
"Can you think of a reason why a person .. is not a person of interest to the FBI"
We don't really know the FBI considered him uninteresting. Why should we not just think they focused effort on people who committed crimes?
Same principle as above – Occam's razor. The logic isn't "can you prove this conspiracy theory isn't true?" You should be able to show something compelling that it is true.
When the claim is more extraordinary – e.g. assumes a criminal conspiracy among the FBI against the President that is kept quiet – you are "multiplying variables" per Occam's razor.
Meanwhile we literally have tons of people on record saying "Hellooo I busted in to fight for Trump and I'm proud of it" and y'all conspiracy theorists can't get them to shut up.
This could literally be a textbook entry on Occam's razor. The culprits have confessed, but you are sure we must believe in shadowy FBI culprits for whom the only evidence is "there's some guy who said something that didn't get arrested". Striking.
Can you think of a reason why a person who we know to have played a prominent role in urging the crowd to enter the Capitol is not a person of interest to the FBI?
His "level of prominence" is in doubt. And I can think of any number of reasons why the FBI would decide not to pursue prosecution of him that don't rely on paranoid conspiracy fantasies:
- The FBI decided his crimes were no longer significant enough to be worth pursuing
- The FBI negotiated with Ray Epps and settled whatever matter that was needed to everyone's satisfaction, without drama or press release
- The FBI *now* convinced Ray Epps to work with them in order to help prosecute more Jan. 6 criminals
These are all WAY more likely scenarios than "the FBI got scared shitless when they read this explosive expose' story on this right-wing nutball conspiracy website, realized their entire fake cover story was about to be blown, and, having no idea about how Internet archives work, clumsily tried to cover up their perfidy by scrubbing his name from the most wanted list". Does that even seem reasonable to you? The FBI being intimidated by what MAGA goobers are saying on some website? C'mon.
We do know it was prominent dumbass he is on video at breach post 1 before trumps speech ended. He was on video recruiting. He is on video talking to Capitol Police at the steps. He is on video at the front of the crowd urging people to enter the Capitol.
This is multiple videos.
You are again willfully ignorant.
Jeff. The doj has charged multiple people who crossed the red fence line and didn't enter the building. He is prominently at the steps of the Capitol past other people already charged. Youre full of shit.
My apologies for your inconvenience. I'm afraid I cannot guarantee instantaneous replies or even that I will have time to reply to all responses, though I make a good faith attempt to respond to all attempts at reasoned argument.
I'm afraid your invective does not strike me as a sign of good faith discussion, or of confidence in your ideas.
"there is more than just him that day stirring up trouble"
Yes, there were lots and lots of people stirring up trouble. They thought the election and their country was being stolen from them. You can ask them. Perhaps that would not stir you to action, but it did them.
Responded on Epps above. In short, what about him? That someone was not arrested by the FBI is not really even suggestive evidence that the FBI was engaging in a criminal plot to instigate violence to embarrass a President who had already lost an election.
It doesn't matter. The leftists will lie and use the government to assault you no matter what. Reality is their enemy because it threatens their fantasy.
So fuck it.
Make their boogeyman real.
The evidence for the "it was a setup" claim rests ENTIRELY on the hypothesis that what Epps DID was so egregious, so heinous, that it is unconscionable that the FBI would refuse to prosecute him (if that is in fact what they did - we don't actually know what the FBI's final decision was with regards to Epps) - and that the only reasonable explanation for why they wouldn't prosecute him is if there was some sinister conspiracy between the FBI and Epps.
So, then, let's look at Epps' ACTIONS on Jan. 6:
- He rushed through the barricades (like a lot of people)
- He stepped a little bit inside the Capitol, and then left.
So, is this crime REALLY so heinous, so egregious, that there is no reasonable reason why the FBI would decline to prosecute, other than conspiracy? Answer: no. Especially compared with all of the other crimes that were committed that day, most of which were far more serious than that - vandalism, theft, bodily injury, property destruction, etc. What Epps did was so incredibly mild compared to all that.
And, what Epps SAID, about "our job is to storm the Capitol", is completely irrelevant, because free speech, even reckless speech, is and shouldn't be prosecutable.
This is typical for how conspiracy theorists try to get their message across:
- They try to obscure the central assumption behind the logic, because it really is weak.
- Then they add a bunch of irrelevant details, like "oh look at all the people pointing at him shouting 'Fed', that must mean something!" - no it doesn't, it's just the opinion of a bunch of people.
- They try to apply a definitive and certain meaning to circumstances and situations that have legitimate uncertainty and ambiguity, such as when it was observed the FBI took down Epps' picture from the Most Wanted list. There are MANY MANY possible and legitimate and completely plausible non-conspiratorial reasons for this, but the conspiracy theorist wants you to believe that there is ONE AND ONLY ONE reason, and that is it's evidence of a coverup.
Don't fall for this bullshit.
New videos were literally just released from a lawsuit at the end of last year. 80% of the charges so far was entering and remaining on government property. What the fuck is your argument? The video exists. Watch it.
Your character is already badly broken, Goldilicks Gorillashit. I had nothing to do with it!
Shut your mouth =P
https://thenationalpulse.com/2021/05/05/dems-to-erect-permanent-insurrection-memorial/
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $120 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ,go to tech tab for work detail,.......... Visit Here
Well what does this imply? Mr. Melted liberty Debunker - obviously another plant. Who pays your salary to defend the system. The FBI? You show up at certain times to fight. Fight hard with a lot of misdirection. Because you say so? Give us a dam cite.
Ah, yet more strong evidence of the conspiracy. A forum commenter who doesn't comment on every article for a given publication. What explanations
"Give us a dam cite"
Meaning – "prove our conspiracy theory *isn't* real". The answer is no.
Where claims are testable, I am the only one in the discussion offering citations, e.g. who actually cited medical studies on ivermectin. I've repeatedly cited articles that debunk conspiracy claims.
But as repeated many times I am operating by old/standard rules of reasoning which I recognize are rejected by and alien to conspiracy enthusiasts. That doesn't make them any less logically valid though:
* burden of proof. If you are making a claim, it is your job to provide evidence. Saying 'Epps urged people to go into the Capitol and hasn't been arrested' is not evidence of your exciting FBI criminal conspiracy against poor martyr Trump. Support your claim. Cite something.
* Occam's razor. See above. Look it up. Take deep breaths and think about what is real.
If you would like to explain why these rules of logic no longer apply in post-truth 2021, perhaps because they are inconvenient to taking political power, please go ahead.