Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your changing the paremeters of the question as it relates the THE RIOTS that caused 2 billions in property damage AND LOSS OF LIFE.
Give us a straight answer this time IF YOU CAN. (if you can't, we understand).
No I'm not. The parameters of the question is wrong to begin with. I'm ok with people doing what it takes to protect their own property.
You are also ignoring that the mission statements for DC police and Capitol Police are different. Their roles are different.... You are also equating a public street to a breached government building while officials are in session.
Two different things....
The answer and my stance is clear and straight.... you just refuse to see it.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,627 posts, read 12,553,459 times
Reputation: 10485
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
Of course each and every event is taken into consideration. No two situations are identical. Not every home invasion results in a shooting... but a home invasion that does is covered under certain legal protections. It is a weak "what about.." argument you are presenting.
A person has the right to protect themselves whether they are at home or in public, no?
My response was to your comment, so if you now want to scream "what about.." then you should aim it at yourself and not at the person responding to your "what about.." comments.
Quote:
If a protester was shot rushing Obama and if the secret service deemed it necessary to shoot to kill, I doubt it would be considered murder. Especially when the president is involved. I'd say the protester is lucky that the agent didn't shoot. Not all incidents like this will result in a shooting and not all incidents will not involve a shooting.... no one is stating otherwise.
You were the one stating that you "expect" secret service to behave in the same manner as the Babbitt shooter. I simply showed you that they have not behaved in that manner, shoot first ask questions later, when they can see that the person is unarmed and could be stopped, using orders to stop, or taken down without shooting them.
Quote:
As for individual violent protesters, charged... I doubt it would stick.
Why should it not stick if there is video evidence proving a felony was committed and when the violent protester admits they'd committed a violent felony? Anyway, who really knows if they'd stick or not, since they AG's refuse to prosecute.
Quote:
I personally think if their property and self was in danger, they certainly should do what it takes. I don't think it would be considered murder. Now the devil is in the details.... like boundaries of what is considered breach of property. You cannot threaten a person with a firearm if they are standing on public property for example...
You say that a person cannot defend their life if the person threatening their life is standing on public property? wow.
Quote:
Again the premise of your argument is based on two unreasonable assumptions; 1) all incidents are the same and whether a shooting did or did not occur equates to justification 2) in the heat of the moment it is reasonable for the officer to know whether the person is unarmed or armed. You are also ignoring that 100s of individuals broke and breached into a government building while in session.. You conveniently are ignoring that.
No not all incidences are the same and I'm not ignoring that the protesters were welcomed and ushered into the building by the cops.
In the act of a criminal deed, the person is choosing to violate codes .
They or their family don't get to receive compensation for being part of an insurrection.
It's like paying a terrorist family, who's kin hijacked a plane, slammed it into a building and then said, it's the buildings fault my kin died!! Pay up! The lunacy of this lady's actions played it's part. She had a choice that day... She chose wrong.
A person has the right to protect themselves whether they are at home or in public, no?
My response was to your comment, so if you now want to scream "what about.." then you should aim it at yourself and not at the person responding to your "what about.." comments.
No... your problem is you are equating the outcome of an incident to justification. That is incorrect. Its pretty darn simple.
Of course you have the right to protect yourself on public property... I did not say otherwise. A person cannot threaten with a firearm a person standing on public property even if you are standing on private.
Your response also now introduces another fallacy people tend to bring up regarding. public property (one that is paid by tax payers) doesn't equate to public accessible property (government offices / courts or military for example). Similarly, public accessible property doesn't equate to public property (ie a mall is still private property). Again... weak stance.
Incidentally, Babbitt was not ushered into the controlled space. It was a barricaded door and climbing through a broken glass in the door. Again.. weak stance.
PS. "As for individual violent protesters, charged... I doubt it would stick." Was incorrect... I meant the individuals protecting armed against violent protesters charged,... I doubt it would stick". A reference to the couple charged with protecting their property.... I believe they were well within their right.. However, the details is that the protesters were allegedly on public street. Apologies for the confusion.
In the act of a criminal deed, the person is choosing to violate codes .
They or their family don't get to receive compensation for being part of an insurrection.
It's like paying a terrorist family, who's kin hijacked a plane, slammed it into a building and then said, it's the buildings fault my kin died!! Pay up! The lunacy of this lady's actions played it's part. She had a choice that day... She chose wrong.
$ 12. Million. Is what the family seeks. The Capitol Police and the Officer will be served within 10 days.
You.,, and others , are missing the point....still.
This wasn’t a residence,, it was not a “ home invasion””
It was not an “ insurrection”.. as no Proceedings have legally declared it so. It is just a description of the events , an opinion.
Trespassing is not enough to be shot dead.
A “ terrorist “ may not be an American Citizen, protected by the Bill. Of Rights. The Government can’t have an Officer shoot and kill a citizen, an. Unarmed citizen, unlike the lies. Spread by Leftist MSM about some other shootings..
Pay attention. This Lawsuit is based on Constitutional Matters.
A true and honest media would treat this as they treat all the other situations in which Police kill citizens. However that is another story.
$ 12. Million. Is what the family seeks. The Capitol Police and the Officer will be served within 10 days.
You.,, and others , are missing the point....still.
This wasn’t a residence,, it was not a “ home invasion””
It was not an “ insurrection”.. as no Proceedings have legally declared it so. It is just a description of the events , an opinion.
Trespassing is not enough to be shot dead.
A “ terrorist “ may not be an American Citizen, protected by the Bill. Of Rights. The Government can’t have an Officer shoot and kill a citizen, an. Unarmed citizen, unlike the lies. Spread by Leftist MSM about some other shootings..
Pay attention. This Lawsuit is based on Constitutional Matters.
A true and honest media would treat this as they treat all the other situations in which Police kill citizens. However that is another story.
"Hang Mike Pence" was being chanted.. That's a very odd thing to say for being a trespasser. Trespassing legally is entering without permission. It assumes no violent intent or burglary. If it does, it escalates to home invasion. Sure it wasn't a residence but I doubt that matters to those injured and threatened.
"Hang Mike Pence" was being chanted.. That's a very odd thing to say for being a trespasser. Trespassing legally assumes entering without permission. It assumes no violent intent or burglary. If it does, it escalates to home invasion.
What happened sure didn't look non-violent.....
It is irrelevant.
Had the noose been. Around Pence’’s neck , and she was ready to open the. Trap door, then she could be shot. A clear and defined reason.
Mere words can not institute a deadly response. Unless those words are a justifiable reason, to defend oneself. The Capitol Police Officer. Was not in harm’’s way from a small unarmed woman.
You still don’t get it. It wasn’t a home.
And the part about the Constitutional issues appears to be way over your head.
$ 12. Million. Is what the family seeks. The Capitol Police and the Officer will be served within 10 days.
You.,, and others , are missing the point....still.
This wasn’t a residence,, it was not a “ home invasion””
It was not an “ insurrection”.. as no Proceedings have legally declared it so. It is just a description of the events , an opinion.
Trespassing is not enough to be shot dead.
A “ terrorist “ may not be an American Citizen, protected by the Bill. Of Rights. The Government can’t have an Officer shoot and kill a citizen, an. Unarmed citizen, unlike the lies. Spread by Leftist MSM about some other shootings..
Pay attention. This Lawsuit is based on Constitutional Matters.
A true and honest media would treat this as they treat all the other situations in which Police kill citizens. However that is another story.
Unarmed citizens are shot by law enforcement almost daily.
This lawsuit is based on....nothing. Ashli Babbitt participated in a violent effort to invade the Capital in an attempt to subvert our government proceeding with a lawful election. The building was barricaded and locked. Some of the participants in the riot were armed. The police weren't just protecting a building, they were protecting the people who were there legally, who were there to fulfill their obligations as elected officials. Trying to prevent those people from fulfilling their obligations, to the point of violence, can result in violence and even death. Ashli Babbitt's family has an uphill battle on this one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No two situations are identical. Not every home invasion results in a shooting... but a home invasion that does is covered under certain legal protections. It is a weak "what about.." argument you are presenting.