No Good Reason
-
@jolly said in No Good Reason:
Another question: Why weren't the officers on her side of the wall not using their weapons? Why were these the only shots fired?
My question for you is why are you glorifying these people?
@aqua-letifer said in No Good Reason:
@jolly said in No Good Reason:
Another question: Why weren't the officers on her side of the wall not using their weapons? Why were these the only shots fired?
My question for you is why are you glorifying these people?
This story could go either way.
Ms. Babbitt could become a hero similar to Crispus Attucks.
The story is similar, it just needs to age for a while.
Or she could fade into the sands of time.
Either way, for some people her glory is just as real as Mr. Attucks'.
-
Lad, when you fire a bullet into a human, it doesn't always travel in a straight line. Especially non-frangible hollowpoints, which is what he was carrying. There is definitely danger of a pass-through or a ricochet.
Secondly, is leaning in, considered breached? Was the officer or those under his protection in imminent peril?
Third, the officer pulled his weapon and as you have admitted, aimed for four seconds. I didn't hear, but did he issue any verbal commands?
Fourth, there were other armed officers on his side of the wall. Why didn't they defend the wall and shoot some of the other rioters?
Fifth, are you aware this officer already had a documented problem with handling his weapon?
Sixth, why wasn't the officer interviewed after the shooting? That's standard practice in any law enforcement shooting.
-
@jolly said in No Good Reason:
Another question: Why weren't the officers on her side of the wall not using their weapons? Why were these the only shots fired?
My question for you is why are you glorifying these people?
@aqua-letifer said in No Good Reason:
@jolly said in No Good Reason:
Another question: Why weren't the officers on her side of the wall not using their weapons? Why were these the only shots fired?
My question for you is why are you glorifying these people?
Is Justice blind? Or just convenient?
-
I think the standard response when people are shot by the police is "You know, if only they'd done what they were told and acted respectfully, none of this would have happened".
-
I think the standard response when people are shot by the police is "You know, if only they'd done what they were told and acted respectfully, none of this would have happened".
@doctor-phibes said in No Good Reason:
I think the standard response when people are shot by the police is "You know, if only they'd done what they were told and acted respectfully, none of this would have happened".
You have a point.
But, let's apply that standard evenly. Secondly, let us investigate each and every police shooting in a like manner.
-
Ashli was a white woman. If she had been black, the narrative would be completely different. It would be a racist shooting.
We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on. -
So let's recap. George said the officer fired into a crowd without warning.
I disagreed, specifically around the fact that the officer shot Ashley directly and "not into a crowd".
You asked which side of the wall she was on.
I showed evidence of how he shot her as she entered the other side of the wall. I also agreed that it was fortunate the bullet didn't pass through Ashley and ricochet.
You then moved on to 6 other questions.
So out of respect, here are my answers:
Secondly, is leaning in, considered breached?
Yes, it's pretty clear from the video she was leading the charge into the other side.
Was the officer or those under his protection in imminent peril?
Yes, based on the mob breaching every other barrier until then, and then storming down locked doors/windows they had barricaded with freaking chairs. Ashley represented the tip of the mob spear. At some point, the peril becomes imminent. (What would you do if a mob had broken into your house and then another locked door, and then busted open the final locked door between you and your family?
Third, the officer pulled his weapon and as you have admitted, aimed for four seconds. I didn't hear, but did he issue any verbal commands?
Yes he did. Yelling them, actually.
Fourth, there were other armed officers on his side of the wall. Why didn't they defend the wall and shoot some of the other rioters?
They were defending the wall. Byrd was just the first person to shoot. Luckily only one shot was needed to stop the advance.
Fifth, are you aware this officer already had a documented problem with handling his weapon?
I am not.
Sixth, why wasn't the officer interviewed after the shooting? That's standard practice in any law enforcement shooting.
I am not familiar whether he was or wasn't. I would imagine he should've been processed like any other cop shooting.
-
Ashli was a white woman. If she had been black, the narrative would be completely different. It would be a racist shooting.
@improviso said in No Good Reason:
Ashli was a white woman. If she had been black, the narrative would be completely different. It would be a racist shooting.
Absolutely. We'd also see different levels of interest and reasonable doubt here in TNCR.
-
So, he shot her with a 9x19 or a .40 S&W. There's not enough force in either cartridge, even with multiple hits, to fling somebody back. Therefore, I'm not convinced by your leaning argument.
Secondly, no other officer fired. You don't stop an enraged mob with one officer firing, do you?
Third, I'd say walking off and leaving your loaded handgun on a lavatory counter in a public restroom is not good weapon retention.
Fourth, the shooting was given an absolute Ole'! of an investigation, which is a miscarriage of justice, not that justice matters much anymore.
-
These people were not complying with officers who had drawn weapons.
A non-compliant mob could be reasonably interpreted as a deadly threat against police officers.
I don’t understand the defense.
@xenon said in No Good Reason:
These people were not complying with officers who had drawn weapons.
A non-compliant mob could be reasonably interpreted as a deadly threat against police officers.
I don’t understand the defense.
There isn't really a defence. The only valid complaint is if the investigation was somehow sub-par.
-
Interview with the guy that pulled the trigger.
Link to video -
Interview with the guy that pulled the trigger.
Link to video@xenon said in No Good Reason:
Interview with the guy that pulled the trigger.
It's a long way from an interview by a news organization to a statement made, under oath, to an investigating body.
And that never happened.
The lack of curiosity about why it never happened is...disappointing, but not surprising.
-
@xenon said in No Good Reason:
Interview with the guy that pulled the trigger.
It's a long way from an interview by a news organization to a statement made, under oath, to an investigating body.
And that never happened.
The lack of curiosity about why it never happened is...disappointing, but not surprising.
@george-k said in No Good Reason:
@xenon said in No Good Reason:
Interview with the guy that pulled the trigger.
It's a long way from an interview by a news organization to a statement made, under oath, to an investigating body.
And that never happened.
The lack of curiosity about why it never happened is...disappointing, but not surprising.
The Capitol Police said they reviewed the incident. I don't know what the standard here is anytime someone dies at the hands of the police. (Is there always a criminal investigation, in all States?)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
-
@george-k said in No Good Reason:
@xenon said in No Good Reason:
Interview with the guy that pulled the trigger.
It's a long way from an interview by a news organization to a statement made, under oath, to an investigating body.
And that never happened.
The lack of curiosity about why it never happened is...disappointing, but not surprising.
The Capitol Police said they reviewed the incident. I don't know what the standard here is anytime someone dies at the hands of the police. (Is there always a criminal investigation, in all States?)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
-
@george-k said in No Good Reason:
@xenon as @jolly pointed out, any time a LEO discharges his weapon it is SOP to hold an interview with the officer. All the more reason in this case because he has a history of being careless with firearms.
This didn't happen.
Is that a Police dept by dept. procedure or some sort of federal law across States?
Regardless - the 2nd link seems to suggest that he was interviewed
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia’s Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and the Civil Rights Division, with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), conducted a thorough investigation of Ms. Babbitt’s shooting. Officials examined video footage posted on social media, statements from the officer involved and other officers and witnesses to the events, physical evidence from the scene of the shooting, and the results of an autopsy. Based on that investigation, officials determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution. Officials from IAD informed a representative of Ms. Babbitt’s family today of this determination.
-
@george-k said in No Good Reason:
@xenon as @jolly pointed out, any time a LEO discharges his weapon it is SOP to hold an interview with the officer. All the more reason in this case because he has a history of being careless with firearms.
This didn't happen.
Is that a Police dept by dept. procedure or some sort of federal law across States?
Regardless - the 2nd link seems to suggest that he was interviewed
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia’s Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and the Civil Rights Division, with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), conducted a thorough investigation of Ms. Babbitt’s shooting. Officials examined video footage posted on social media, statements from the officer involved and other officers and witnesses to the events, physical evidence from the scene of the shooting, and the results of an autopsy. Based on that investigation, officials determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution. Officials from IAD informed a representative of Ms. Babbitt’s family today of this determination.
@xenon said in No Good Reason:
@george-k said in No Good Reason:
@xenon as @jolly pointed out, any time a LEO discharges his weapon it is SOP to hold an interview with the officer. All the more reason in this case because he has a history of being careless with firearms.
This didn't happen.
Is that a Police dept by dept. procedure or some sort of federal law across States?
Regardless - the 2nd link seems to suggest that he was interviewed
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia’s Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and the Civil Rights Division, with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), conducted a thorough investigation of Ms. Babbitt’s shooting. Officials examined video footage posted on social media, statements from the officer involved and other officers and witnesses to the events, physical evidence from the scene of the shooting, and the results of an autopsy. Based on that investigation, officials determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution. Officials from IAD informed a representative of Ms. Babbitt’s family today of this determination.
A "statement from the officer involved" is also a far cry from an interview in which questions were asked.
Was it an oral statement, or written (I'm guessing this)?
Also, a "criminal prosecution" is a far cry from disciplinary actions by the department.
So many questions...
Why?
-
@george-k said in No Good Reason:
@xenon as @jolly pointed out, any time a LEO discharges his weapon it is SOP to hold an interview with the officer. All the more reason in this case because he has a history of being careless with firearms.
This didn't happen.
Is that a Police dept by dept. procedure or some sort of federal law across States?
Regardless - the 2nd link seems to suggest that he was interviewed
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia’s Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and the Civil Rights Division, with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), conducted a thorough investigation of Ms. Babbitt’s shooting. Officials examined video footage posted on social media, statements from the officer involved and other officers and witnesses to the events, physical evidence from the scene of the shooting, and the results of an autopsy. Based on that investigation, officials determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution. Officials from IAD informed a representative of Ms. Babbitt’s family today of this determination.
@xenon said in No Good Reason:
suggest that he was interviewed
That is weird how the government web sites suggest that he was interviewed.
And all the right leaning web sites agree that he was never interviewed.
Weird
I suggest the "statements from the officer involved" were something like, "I'm taking the 5th".
-
I'll leave the "was the shooting justified" question to those who know more about shooting unarmed civilians without warning in closed environments with potential victims nearby to those who know more than I do.
What this all seems to point to is that Byrd was not interviewed or questioned. It also says that there's nothing to indicate criminal prosecution. Not all unjustified police shootings end up in criminal prosecution, do they - there are disciplinary standards that can be held against the officer.
The fact that these procedures, followed by countless law enforcement agencies around the country, were not followed smells of something. Show me how Byrd was held accountable, or exonerated (other than "no criminal prosecution), and I might change my opinion.
And that feeds the conspiracy theorists, and others.
