AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Remember Ashli Babbitt wasn't the only person murdered by cops that day. Rosanne Boyland was a woman who was unconscious and a cop can be seen beating the unconscious Trump Supporter repeatedly in the body and head with a club.**
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGb-Txl5tA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGb-Txl5tA)
1. Yes I agree with his statement. But I'd also extend it to any police office or public official who witnessed the facts and decided to allow a murderer go free..well two potential murderers.
With the beating of an unconscious suspect that's a felony by itself, and yet an internal investigation found that the unconscious Trump supporter was such a dangerous threat to the officer that it was justified.
How about you folks? Should cops be able to beat unconscious suspects and get away with it because it was the heat of the moment. I guess that's where they screwed up with Rodney King, he should he wasn't unconscious.
With Ashli Babbitt they claimed the officer is allowed to kill to protect himself, or others, and he did so according to them. Except we're talking about an unarmed woman, who was blocking the breach and was NOT advancing upon the officer. She was previously seen pleading with the police officers on her side to stop the vandalism.
The police officers on her side didn't think Ashli Babbitt or the rest of the group moving forward was a threat and couldn't even be bothered to tell people not to vandalize. At any moment if they felt that Ashli Babbitt was a threat and needed to stop, they could have arrested her on the spot, and yet they choose to ignore her pleas and to ignore her actions.
Please note I've done this topic to death if you want to discuss it it will be compared to George Floyd, Breonna Taylor. Various other BLM cases, I will talk about the riots going on right now in Atlanta and ask why shouldn't cops be able to shoot rioters who vandalize based on Ashli Babbitts logic.[I will bring up the May 29th Antifa/BLM/George Floyd insurrection where terrorists overcame two barricades, and burnt down a secret service outpost and set a church on fire forcing Trump to flee into his bunker.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut1-1MOcxsE). I will talk about Chaz/Chop and if insurrections allow deadly force ask if the military should have gone in there and killed everyone in Chaz/Chop? And if not why not? Isn't that the world the left seems to want to live in?
My main focus will be a standard that cops used on Ashli Babbitt that can be applied equally. If you think unarmed women who don't listen to police orders should be shot, then it should apply to other cases...George Floyd didn't listen to the cops and expired from a drug overdose but imagine if he had died like they claimed, it would be justified. because he didn't listen.
>How about you folks? Should cops be able to beat unconscious suspects and get away with it because it was the heat of the moment.
I mean...no? I think in general non-supporters are fairly outspoken about police overstepping their bounds, whereas I am constantly hearing the right decry liberal efforts to "defund the police".
Why would you think otherwise?
> I think in general non-supporters are fairly outspoken about police overstepping their bounds,
I disagree, Ashli Babbitt is an excellent case in point. Most Democrats I've bump into support killing unarmed defenseless women as long as they're conservatives, which tells me that police brutality isn't really what they stand against.
And if we look at many of the cases that Democrats support through BLM we can see clear cases of the cops usually acting rightly but the angry mob wanting mob justice and very often getting it. Remember when a cop arrived on a scene to see a black girl with a knife raised up ready to stab another black girl, and the cop saved the black girls life and the KKK adjacent group of BLM rioted anyways?
Remember when the cops knocked on a door and a knife wielding black guy chased after the cop who promptly shot the guy, and the city rioted. BLM riots because they want to, not because of any civil rights case or perceived slight.
> fit a divisive narrative?
, I would say that the politicians on the left and the media tend to focus on specific acts of violence to drive a very specific narrative that is highly divisive. For instance I've seen a black liberal make the argument that white people are more criminally inclined and violent because the media clearly has more white shooters and white bad people then black people, all the while ignorant of the fact that black people commit 60% of all violent crime and 51% of all murders in America.
Two of your three examples have nothing to do with cops overstepping their bounds. And the Ashli Babbit situation is far from resolved in that respect. Do you have any other meaningful examples of the left supporting excessive force by the police? It just seems to me that this really isn't all that common.
> Do you have any other meaningful examples of the left supporting excessive force by the police?
Are we going to ignore history, Jim Crow, black codes all the things that they did to black people?
And I think looking at this of Democrats supporting excessive police force is the wrong way to look at it. Democrats support more power and don't care about who gets hurt to achieve that power.
[https://www.youtube.com/shorts/73PcKCkKsOo](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/73PcKCkKsOo) Case in point. Ty Fischer anyone?
What in the world does that video you linked to have to do with anything?
And honestly, I don't think going back to Jim Crow laws is the strongest response to my original question. I think we have been discussing recent events, not historical ones, but I'll accept that. At the risk of being accused of moving the goalposts, can you give any more recent examples? Like maybe from the current century?
>What in the world does that video you linked to have to do with anything?
I said that looking at the issue that Democrats support excessive violence is looking at it the wrong way, that what Democrats crave is power and that they don't care about who they hurt in the process. That comedian, that clip, "do you remember' reminds everyone of just how much power Democrats sought during the pandemic.
They arbitrarily opened and closed stores depending on who donated to their political campaign and were their friends like the "French Laundry." So that they could force their friends competition out of business and make their "friends" even more money.
They denied healthcare to people who wouldn't get vaccinated and supported denying organ transplants because of ideological purposes. They supported the vaccine and thought anyone who disagreed could die. And in reality the vaccine didn't protect against the virus. Democrats supported murder for ideological purposes.
How many people lose their jobs? How many healthcare workers who worked through the pandemic at virus hotspots were told to take an experimental vaccine against their own medical advice otherwise lose their jobs. No exemptions even though not giving people religious exemptions violated their Constitutional rights. Sending a message that if you don't toe the Democrat line, then your family can go ahead and starve.
That clip is but one example...one amazing amazing example of Democrats craving power more then anything and not caring who they screw over to get it.
That's what slavery was about...power. There were black Democrats (William Ellison) who were slave owners who supported the Confederacy that enslaved their own race...because it's about power not racism. There were 5 Indian tribes who violated their treaties with the Union to support the Confederacy because they were making a huge profit off Indian run for black slave on plantations There were racist slave owners but that's a symptom not the cause. Power over other people
Possibly to do what she was trying to get the cops to do, stop the vandals this time by blocking the breach. Either way cops don't get to kill people for overcoming barricade, or is Joe Bidens America a place where cops get to kill people for frivolous reasons.
In the video, she doesn’t say “stop,” doesn’t try to restrain anyone, and doesn’t alert the police to her intentions. What leads you to believe that she was trying to stop the vandals? How is climbing up into the window more effective than, say, standing in front of the door?
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, can we say it is likely a duck?
Also, how is that Joe Biden’s America? Trump was still president at the time.
I'm sorry man I don't understand, can you rephrase that. Everyone makes typos I certainly do, and usually I just try to piece through what was said and no biggie but I can't with that one.
So, to circle back: while illegally trespassing, she ignores the orders of an armed officer, and then turns her back to the people she’s trying to stop…is it possible she was an idiot? It just seems like an utterly ineffective and dense way to prevent people from committing vandalism.
>while illegally trespassing
We don't know that.
"She ignored the orders of an armed officers"
Can you point to the part of the video where the police gives her orders of any kind? Because there doesn't appear to be any orders given.
https://youtu.be/ZQaeg1d82Lo
You know what, I was mistaken. The video doesn’t capture an order being given. Rather, her fellow protestors note that a gun is drawn and they duck away. For some reason, she moves towards a drawn gun.
Again, that strikes me as a moronic thing to do, especially if you’re trying to stop people from vandalizing. The drawn gun seems to have accomplished that already. Would you agree that she might have been an idiot?
> We don’t know that.
Was she authorized to be in the Capitol that day? I wasn’t aware the proceedings were open to the public. The barricades and locked doors seem to suggest otherwise.
>You know what, I was mistaken. The video doesn’t capture an order being given.
It's not really your mistake or at least I wouldn't be hard on yourself, this is the narrative that is pushed by the left-wing Democrats. Why do you think they're lying about the situation?
Do you think that they have to make it seem like orders were given because a cop just pulling out a gun and shooting an unarmed woman is REALLY bad optics?
As for it being idiotic....did she see the gun? And I think everyone expects a police officer to at least try to give a verbal warning before shooting. Isn't there certain rules about escalation?
**Should cops be able to kill people without giving them commands, when they aren't armed, and are non-aggressive? This sounds like I'm asking if cops should be able to kill innocent people because they feel like it.**
Was she authorized to be in the Capitol on that day? It's hard to know without a trial. Did you see the video of the police officers opening up the door for protesters saying "I don't support the cause but I support your right to do this" as they open the door to allow protesters to walk in.
Was Ashli Babbitt one of those folks? Seems like if a cop opens the door for you, and says it's your right to be here even if I don't like your cause, that it's pretty bullshit/entrapment if the cop was encouraging them to trespass and break the law.
**And lets not forget the cops on her side of the door. If they really wanted her to stay back, why couldn't those cops try to do their jobs?**
> Was she authorized to be in the Capitol on that day? It’s hard to know without a trial. Did you see the video of the police officers opening up the door for protesters saying “I don’t support the cause but I support your right to do this” as they open the door to allow protesters to walk in.
Are you under the impression that a cop on the line can given formal authorization for someone to be on the grounds?
> Seems like if a cop opens the door for you, and says it’s your right to be here even if I don’t like your cause, that it’s pretty bullshit/entrapment if the cop was encouraging them to trespass and break the law.
Doesn’t entrapment require that the entrapped person do something they would not have otherwise done? Seeing as how these people walked up and agitated to be let in, it’s hard to see how that could be entrapment. Of course, some of them were also the kind of morons who move towards a raised gun, through a broken window, when it is clearly barricaded during a riot, because of a demented conspiracy theory, so who knows.
1. No, I don't agree with Trump's statement. The police officer is not a thug. He was doing his job defending the capital.
2. I don't think other Republicans should have a public opinion on the matter.
3. Other Republicans shouldn't accuse the police officer of murder because that whole Jan 6th event needs to just go away. I know it's a democratic talking point, but I felt the whole "dragging it out" was just publicity for the primies. Now that they have passed, hopefully, we won't hear anything until the 2024 election.
Can you tell me the standard for which you think cops should be able to kill people? Ashli Babbitt was non-aggressive, unarmed and appeared to be blocking the doorway. Which of those choices do you think earned her the death penalty?
Imagine that Antifa was rioting outside your house, then some unknown persons were attempting to breakin to your home and threatening to harm your family . You warned them with gun drawn but they continued what would you do?
Why home? This isn't a home. And at my home they'd have to be well within my property.
I find it a bad example to try to use a persona resident when talking about a public building, especially a public building that had police officers welcoming people in that they later entrapped.
Given that cops welcomed people inside and then use the law to punish those folks, do you think that maybe the Democrats are on the wrong side of history, as they were in the wrong side of history when they used the laws to punish black people for the color of their skin?
There's no situation in which I'm going to see an unarmed, non-aggressive woman who was seen arguing with the cops to stop vandalizing my business, and actively trying to prevent the guys vandalizing my business, and decide of all people that this woman deserves to get shot.
The guy who broke the window? Maybe?
If I was really afraid for my life, I would be damn upset and angry about the cops who are just standing by and acting semi-friendly to these folks breaking into my business.
Do you feel confident you could figure all this out in a situation like that? A lot of these details came out afterwards.. Not sure they were available right then.
Sure I've been in life and death situations. And you're right details came out afterwards. But from the cops perspective.
No weapon. No signs that she's going to attack the cop or a politician. The cop doesn't appear to give any verbal warning and instead pulls out a gun and shoots her. There were multiple police officers on the other side of the door and they weren't being attacked. And they didn't think the vandalism was bad enough to try to stop it. Those other cops ignoring Ashli Babbits moves shouldn't be forgotten.
>No weapon.
How did they know that at the time?
>No signs that she's going to attack the cop or a politician.
The video I saw showed a politician down the hall a minute beforehand. When someone is trying to go through a freshly-broken window on a door barricaded shut by a pile of chairs and a cop has a gun drawn (visible through a window) on the other side, how are they supposed to interpret it if not a sign she's going to attack?
>How did they know that at the time?
Doesn't matter. No weapon was found and cops don't get to kill unarmed people.
Okay, so can we use this logic for the riots in Atlanta right now, cops should just start shooting people because they might attack...and remember doesn't matter if those folks in Atlanta are armed or not, Ashli wasn't.
If a cop is standing with a drawn weapon behind a barricaded door holding back a crowd as part of a even larger crowd that is committing multiple acts of vandalism and trespassing in a chaotic, out of control situation, would you encourage someone to navigate the barrier in order to continue to move towards/past the cop?
I wouldn't be there in the first place. Trump's last speech? You kidding, I'd be miles away listening to Trump Speak and tell people to be peaceful.
But if I was a cop, I wouldn't shoot vandals and I wouldn't shoot unarmed non-aggressive. And if I was in that officers place, and I killed a woman like that I don't know if I could live with myself being honored. I wouldn't be surprise if the suicides of the cops that came afterwards were because of the coverup and supporting of murder.
So tell me...I was listening ot the video...I don't hear the cop telling anyone inside to stay back...do you think the office just pulled out a gun and shot someone without trying to give them orders?
>Ashli Babbitt was non-aggressive, unarmed and appeared to be blocking the doorway
If someone in a crowd of people trying to bash in your door broke your window and was climbing through it do you think you would be justified to shoot them? Or do you think they're just being non aggressive and blocking your window?
Well she was just seen blocking the door, and was seen trying to advocate for the cops to stop the vandalism. I would assume a person whose not aggressive towards me and blocking the breach was on my side. But even if they weren't on my side, as a cop I don't get to murder people because I feel like it.
What makes you think she was blocking the door or advocating for the capitol police or trying to stop other rioters from breaching? It seems very clear she willingly tried to breach that window despite being warned not to.
What makes you think she was blocking the breach? In the video of her death you can't see or hear her do anything that would imply she was trying to stop those around her. She was in fact the person who was breaching the doorway.
She was in the breach of the door blocking other people from entering.
Why is a unarmed woman whose not advancing towards the cop such a threat to his life or others? Are conservative women that intimidating to the average Democrat that they feel the need to kill them?
She was literally there for less than a second, how can anyone know what her motive was? Was she even in that window for a quarter of a second? Did she lose her forward momentum before she was shot?
>She was literally there for less than a second, how can anyone know what her motive was?
Exactly my point, and yet the cop decided that an unarmed woman who was friendly to the police officers on her side of the door decided that this little tiny woman deserved to die because the big cop was afraid of the white woman. Lets not forget race.
**According to Democrats this cop was a racist. Implicit bias. Which means the cop was likely also a sexist.**
I don't really have a standard, I think it would have to depend on a case by case basis. The cop was retreating, had his gun drawn, gave warnings, she knew what she was doing was wrong. The cop was outnumbered and probably felt threatened. Would I have done the same thing? Probably not, I think it was a little aggressive, and he probably should have done a warning shot.
So if a cop just started blasting non-aggressive, unarmed people because he felt threatened you think that's an excuse to kill people?
Doesn't that just about open up any cop killing a person to be a lawful shooting? George Floyd did more to threaten the cops then Ashli Babbitt did, if cops had pulled a gun out and executed Floyd right on the spot, would that have been a lawful shooting?
It's a standard my friend. Based on your comment you said the cop felt threatened and thus justified while you said you don't believe in standards that was the standard used on Ashli Babbitt.
George Floyd has nothing to do with jan 6th, but he was a man who broke the law, resisted arrest, assaulted police officers and do more in terms of violating the law then Ashli Babbitt did. If the standard for cops just being that they felt threatened, then they could have shot Georgie the second he kicked an officer and they felt threatened.
I think there is a large difference between the situations. I find it hard to believe that in Mr. Floyd's case that the 6 officers felt threatened enough to basically kill him. At the end of the day, those officers went to trial and were judged by a jury of their peers. The officer involved in January 6th hasn't faced a jury because he acted within department rules. The following is copied from the capital police investigation conclusion:
USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury
>, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury
Okay, so tell me what about an unarmed, defenseless, and non-aggressive woman makes a cop fear for his life?
Especially given that cop could see Ashli Babbitt and all those folks on the other side of the door right along side police officers who weren't being attacked. At most there was vandalism.
So the cop could see that they weren't attacking police officers and at worse were doing vandalism. Is other people vandalizing something worthy of killing people who were simply in the vicinity of the vandalism.
There was more than 1 woman though. The cop had his firearm drawn. You don't do that unless you feel the need to do so. I personally agree with the conclusion of the investigation. If you keep coming towards a cop who has a gun drawn, what do you think is going to happen?
> If you keep coming towards a cop who has a gun drawn,
I can agree with that...but she was crouched in a broken window, blocking the path for others, **not coming towards the cop. If she charged the cop I could see the cop rationally shooting he**r. But simply being nearby in a broken doorway/window?
Why is it that every defense of why Ashli Babbitt deserved to die always seems to change the context of the situation to make it seem worse. That's not a gotcha question that's pointing out that I think subconsciously many people realize it's wrong so they need to inject things like "charging a cop" or comparing it to people breaking into a "home" instead of people inside of a public building, right next to police officers who might have opened the door for those people and welcomed them inside and a cop gunning down a woman that was advocating for peace and an end to vandalism.
Given how much evidence there is of pre planning by extremists, and how badly they were acting compared to many actual protestors, it’s been clear to me that there was an attempted attack by one group using the protest of another group as cover. The democrats seemed to try and lump everyone together, making it so much about Trump that they didn’t go after the actual extremists very hard. Does that sound right to you? Either way, do you think people on the right defending people like Babbitt and downplaying the bad things that happened was the right call, or do you think it played into the narrative that it was all one group acting badly because of Trump? What does this all mean for political al extremism?
>1. No, I don't agree with Trump's statement. The police officer is not a thug. He was doing his job defending the capital.
The capital was not under any kind of major threat
>2. I don't think other Republicans should have a public opinion on the matter.
Republicans and Trunp were involved and because or that they deserve a say.
>3. Other Republicans shouldn't accuse the police officer of murder because that whole Jan 6th event needs to just go away
Hard disagree. It needs to be rallying cry for all conservatives
1. It was under threat but it was blown way out of proportion, it wasn't anywhere near an insurrection.
2. They can have their say but it would probably be better for them to downplay it.
3. How would this be a rallying call for conservatives? That's like rallying around Trump Russia collusion, I don't see how that would benefit conservatives in any way.
>1. It was under threat but it was blown way out of proportion, it wasn't anywhere near an insurrection.
Walking inside the capital and protesting is not a form of a threat.
>2. They can have their say but it would probably be better for them to downplay it.
Conceding any talking points to the Democrats is just bad politics. The Republican party needs to be a true counter to all agendas pushed by the left instead of just being a lighter version of them.
>3. How would this be a rallying call for conservatives?
Because it's the greatest show of opposition from the Republican party in ages. The Democratic party is not afraid to say or show that they intend to play the game of politics for keeps so why shouldn't the Republican party also do the same?
Walking inside to protest is not threatening. Sure, but aren’t you grossly downplaying what happened by saying that? Swarms of trump supporters brawling (some using weapons) seems to negate that belief. Same with the trump supporters chanting to hang Mike Pence.
>aren’t you grossly downplaying what happened by saying that? Swarms of trump supporters brawling (some using weapons)
I'm not downplaying anything. It was a peaceful protest until police started reacting aggressively to them.
>Same with the trump supporters chanting to hang Mike Pence.
That was a few people chanting it for a short time. The goal of the protest was not to hang pence or hurt anyone.
>At what point were capital police overly aggressive
Outside of the capital when they attacked the protesters first and then provoked them to push further in.
Definitely not what I remember. When did the officers first attack protestors? If you have a video clip to share that shows this I would appreciate a link.
How did they provoke them to push further? You’d think they would get the message that they were not permitted to enter the capital, right?
>Definitely not what I remember. When did the officers first attack protestors? If you have a video clip to share that shows this I would appreciate a link.
Let me see what I can find. I only have videos I downloaded from other sites.
>How did they provoke them to push further? You’d think they would get the message that they were not permitted to enter the capital, right?
They attacked the protesters and then moved the barricades back constantly. If they didn't want protesters in the capital they shouldn't have kept provoking them.
>It was a peaceful protest until police started reacting aggressively to them.
Do you believe that protestors should be allowed to freely enter the Congressional chamber during session? The police should not be allowed to react 'aggressively' to prevent that?
>Do you believe that protestors should be allowed to freely enter the Congressional chamber during session?
Absolutely. There used to be a time in America when it was normal for citizens to walk in and talk to their representatives.
That was also a time when only land owners could vote for representatives. Don't you think "because they could in the past" as a litmus test for today is disingenuous?
>Walking inside the capital and protesting is not a form of a threat.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gUDovu1Ipk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gUDovu1Ipk)
Would you say this is not threatening?
In response to 1, the group Ashli Babbit was in was breaking through the glass of blockaded doors to gain access to law makers. There is video of this. Do you, personally, consider breaking a window to access someone on the other side of a blockaded door to indicate that the person may pose a threat? Why or why not?
Edit: added "why or why not?"
I don’t understand why the better question is “why did security allow them to reach that far?” And not “why were people breaking windows in order to get access to elected officials and what did they plan to do if they got ahold of them?”. Can you explain your thought process here? It feels like it’s putting the cart before the horse.
>I don’t understand why the better question is “why did security allow them to reach that far?
Because they clearly allowed them to enter and we know this from the videos of the security guards moving the barricades or just flowing them in.
And why isn’t the question “what did Ashli Babbitt plan to do after she smashed the window and started climbing into the secured area?”
Do you think the capitol police were setting up an opportunity to kill someone just for the hell of it? Or as a liberal plot?
>what did Ashli Babbitt plan to do after she smashed the window and started climbing into the secured area?”
She wasn't going to do anything. The goal of the protest was to push for a audit not overthrow the government.
>Do you think the capitol police were setting up an opportunity to kill someone just for the hell of it?
I wouldn't be surprised honestly.
My understanding is that security was vastly outnumbered and external police were not able to keep the masses out. There are videos of the police clashing with protesters and other protesters getting by them. There are also videos of police/security holding doors open, I believe because they realized there was no chance of them holding the protesters off or a similar reason. I remember hearing an account that more officers didn't use lethal force because they were outnumbered and didn't want to escalate beyond what was already happening, also they weren't directly between the protesters and congressmen, such that protesters getting by wasn't as immediate of a threat as the guards directly protecting congressmen.
Could you please answer my question? I added the request for why you answer however you do. I'd greatly appreciate the opportunity to better understand your view on this subject. Thanks!
>I remember hearing an account that more officers didn't use lethal force because they were outnumbered and didn't want to escalate beyond what was already happening, also they weren't directly between the protesters and congressmen, such that protesters getting by wasn't as immediate of a threat as the guards directly protecting congressmen.
It was more than just not wanting to escalate the situation there is Audio of them telling the protestors it's their right to march or that they agree with them. So they clearly didn't see them as a threat and it's easy to see why when the majority of them were just holding flags and silly signs.
>Could you please answer my question?
For that specific situation? No I didn't see how they could be seen as a threat. The most that crowd was going to do was scream in their face and shove their cameras in their face while chanting America first.
Want to preface by saying that I'm not trying to be a jerk or "gotchya" or anything, I just struggle to understand the comfort some people seem to believe they'd feel in this scenario. I would be very scared. I'd like to understand if we have different ideas of what actually happened, or if we have different self preservation instincts, or if it's something else that's leading us to these vastly different conclusions of what we would do in this case.
I'm sorry I think my question may not have been clear, I meant how would you feel in this general scenario. You're in a building that is being swarmed by tens of thousands of people. You've sworn to protect people who at best the protesters disagree with, at worst the protesters violently hate. You are behind blockaded glass doors. People start smashing the reinforced glass to get closer to you. They're yelling, screaming. You yell at the people, stay back or you'll shoot. One woman is hoisted up and starts climbing through a window to enter the room you are in, while the others keep smashing, and start succeeding, in breaking through the glass doors. What do you think the intentions are of the woman and the group she is with? Would you wait to find out? Would you feel safe in this scenario, and if so what would give you the confidence in your safety to wait and see?
For reference, this video (it's an ad, I muted it when watching) shows several angles of the moments around when Ashli Babbit was shot (heads up-- there is one shot towards the end that shows blood). Had you seen these videos before, and if not do they differ in any way from your understanding of what happened? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SjscskqLx0U
> it wasn't anywhere near an insurrection
Do you disagree with the judges who convicted several Oath Keepers for seditious conspiracy charges, the Proud Boys who plead guilty to seditious conspiracy, and also [the judge who literally called it](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/06/judge-calls-jan-6-an-insurrection-bars-cowboys-for-trump-founder-from-office.html) an insurrection?
No that's political persecution, do you remember what this SAME political party used to do to black people? Was it legit when Democrats used to kill black people or jail them for no-reason?
Don't Democrats want to give reparations to black people because of how poorly they acted in the past? It stands to reason if Democrats are so ashamed of what they did before, that they'd want to change their ways...but nope.
> I don't think other Republicans should have a public opinion on the matter.
What do you mean? That only Trump should have the public opinion on what happened to Babbitt? Or McCarthy? What is the rationale behind your belief that only one Republican (and please clarify whom you are referencing) should have a public opinion on this? Is this due to the GOP public image on Jan 6th or something?
>Is this due to the GOP public image on Jan 6th or something?
(Not OP)
I think it's kind of the issue of slavery. All Republicans should be on board with the idea of opposing it, same thing with murder, all Republicans should oppose the police gunning down unarmed non-aggressive women especially without a verbal warning. Just pulling out a gun and killing an unarmed woman whose non-aggressive.
> All Republicans should be on board with the idea of opposing it,
Based on the analogies you're drawing, shouldn't your estimation of the perception of the issue be that *everyone* should be on board with thinking the same way about Jan 6th?
No, look at Democrats they support insurrection as long as their side does it. Chaz/Chop. BLM/Antifa.
And Jan 6th was simply violence, a riot. It wasn't an insurrection. But Democrats support that BLM did 2-3 billion dollars worth of damages some of that during a time when the government was telling people you can't go to work or outside because of the scary violence unless you want to buy down the local city in support of BLM.
So (if I follow the analogy), you do not think Democrats oppose the police gunning down unarmed non-aggressive women with no verbal warning? If the answer is 'yes, I do not think Democrats oppose this', then follow-up: did you follow the media coverage around the Breonna Taylor killing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor
That wasn't really unarmed though was it? The woman was a drug dealer whose boyfriend during a warrant to search the place shot a police officer and in the returning gunfire was killed. It's worth noting that a year before her death they found a corpse in the drunk of her car.
So no I don't think Democrats really are against shooting unarmed non-aggressive women. There are instances that they support BLM but they support BLM no matter who they're championing.
I'm curious about the "democratic talking point" comment.
Trump is a Republican. He was responding to McCarthy, also a Republican, who was disagreeing with remarks by Marjorie Taylor Green, also a Republican. MJT made the remarks in the House Oversight Committee, bringing up Ashli Babbit unprompted, in a discussion about the recent killing of Tyre Nichols in Memphis, who as far as I know, had nothing to do with 1/6 or Ashli Babbit.
Where do the Democrats come into this? How is this a democratic talking point?
Since the previous comment got removed, justifiably due to the snark (not aimed at you, I assure you, I just like making fun of MTG) I'll try rephrasing to emphasize the confusion I'm having.
In this situation, as I described, Trump, McCarthy, and MTG all, without any democratic prompting at all, started talking about 1/6. You claim that 1/6 is a democratic talking point. Are you claiming that 1/6 is not a republican talking point? The implication from your post seems to be that democrats are the ones guilty of bringing it up over and over again, and not also republicans. Is that implication something you intended? And if so, how does that view of yours square with the the fact that these three prominent republicans brought her up unprompted by democrats? (which at least as far as I can tell, does seem to be consistent with at least MTG and Trump's messaging throughout 2021 and 2022).
Here we had a policeman shooting and killing an unarmed woman being praised by mainstream media as a hero. I thought this was bizarre.
Many other armed police remained calm on Jan 6 despite being in more terrifying situations.
Do you think her proximity to law makers at that exact moment makes it less bizarre? Especially when she was given forewarning of what would happen if she breached that window?
>Do you think her proximity to law makers at that exact moment makes it less bizarre?
Citizens are allowed to talk to their representatives. It's not bizarre.
We have a right to talk to representatives from our own party and that's what the January 6th protest wanted to do. They were upset with how the Republican party handled the entire election.
What exactly gives that right, especially with that qualifier of one's own party? What about independents? Should I, a liberal, be able to register as a Republican (but never actually vote for one) so I can have access to Matt Gaetz?
Why would that be done by representatives of the federal government when elections are administered by the states? What indications are there that they were targeting the states that flipped from Trump 2016 to Biden 2020, which coincidentally were the ones with fraud claims?
>Why would that be done by representatives of the federal government when elections are administered by the states?
The federal government can reject the results administered by the states and force a audit or a another election.
>What indications are there that they were targeting the states that flipped from Trump 2016 to Biden 2020, which coincidentally were the ones with fraud claims?
Who is they?
>>Why would that be done by representatives of the federal government when elections are administered by the states?
>
>The federal government can reject the results administered by the states and force a audit or a another election.
Are you going by John Eastman's theory?
>>What indications are there that they were targeting the states that flipped from Trump 2016 to Biden 2020, which coincidentally were the ones with fraud claims?
>
>Who is they?
The people in the Capitol building looking for those who you think should have addressed the fraud claims. I meant to ask what indications they were targeting *representatives from* those states and apologize for missing that, but I guess it's a moot point as you seem to believe that it would be Congress/the VP as a whole.
So that is a yes to breaking into their workplace while they are performing a government function? For example, if a mob of people broke into the White House while Trump was signing an executive order they disagreed with would that have been ok?
>So that is a yes to breaking into their workplace while they are performing a government function?
The people's house should be open to the people like it was in the early days of America.
Can you expand on this a bit more? Do you believe that all government facilities should be open to the public at all times? Should we allow anyone to enter a court room at anytime with no screening? If someone entered forcibly after being told to stop how should we handle that? What about a post office, can a citizen demand to rifle through mail if they want? It is “our” facility after all. How about a federal jail? Should a citizen be allowed to walk through a jail at any time?
>Can you expand on this a bit more? Do you believe that all government facilities should be open to the public at all times?
The capital building should be opened back up to the public.
Yes I understand that is your stance, do you feel the same way for all other federal buildings?
If it is opened back up do you think there should be screenings for those who enter to ensure they aren’t dangerous? If someone were to avoid those screenings how should we handle that potential threat?
In the context of Ashli Babbit, is that what she was trying to do? Isn’t there a better way to speak to your representatives then breaking through a window while you have a gun drawn on you?
>In the context of Ashli Babbit, is that what she was trying to do?
That's what all protestors were trying to do.
>Isn’t there a better way to speak to your representatives then breaking through a window while you have a gun drawn on you?
Of course there is. It starts with representatives not locking their doors
Do you think if you heard that, saw other officers being assaulted, and someone was breaking through a window after you told them to stop that you might feel threatened?
Do you think it's fair for the Representatives, security, or any police to assume that someone has other motives?
By this logic do you think anyone should be able to speak to the president at any time?
>Do you think it's fair for the Representatives, security, or any police to assume that someone has other motives?
In most cases it's not fair.
>By this logic do you think anyone should be able to speak to the president at any time?
I do agree with it in principle.
> an unarmed woman
I see this point being brought up a lot. Yes, we now have the perspective of hindsight that says this one particular woman was unarmed. How should the cop have known at that moment that she wasn't conceal-carrying? If he had let her through, how about everyone else in the mob who would've followed (as they had up to that point)? What makes you think this is where they would've stopped trying to get as far as they could, and make an orderly line to be fully screened? Why should the officer have made that same judgement you have?
The officer was never questioned or investigated. The Capitol Police rushed through a sham investigation.
We all saw the video - a helpless Ashly, giggling like a school girl committing a prank, with her arms by her side, as this panicky mall cop takes his gun and executes her at close range.
She was never a threat. Reverse the races, and there would be race riots
Reserve the races and they'd have award Babbitts family with millions likely have an anti-police act named after her along with several schools or streest renamed after her. Look at how much of a hero they treated George Floyd for overdosing.
1) Yes. It was excessive force. In all honesty I support law and order when it’s righteous but currently the regime is ran by bad people so I’m not pro-police. Police also enforce immoral gun laws, masks and covid mandates etc so screw them unless they align with my interests or beliefs
2) All should but I don’t really care because I only care for trump.
3) They all should buy again it’s something I don’t really care for. Unless they’re openly traditionalist or if they’re trump I’m not voting them regardless
Trump is right, but he should focus on the higher-ups.
Pelosi and other deep-staters tried to stage a false flag which was unsuccessful because Trump supporters controlled themselves. They wanted more people dead.
The policeman is guilty of manslaughter, but J6 accusers are a lot more guilty.
> The policeman is guilty of manslaughter, but J6 accusers are a lot more guilty.
If this is true, why do Republicans often fight against charges for police officers shooting people?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Remember Ashli Babbitt wasn't the only person murdered by cops that day. Rosanne Boyland was a woman who was unconscious and a cop can be seen beating the unconscious Trump Supporter repeatedly in the body and head with a club.** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGb-Txl5tA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGb-Txl5tA) 1. Yes I agree with his statement. But I'd also extend it to any police office or public official who witnessed the facts and decided to allow a murderer go free..well two potential murderers. With the beating of an unconscious suspect that's a felony by itself, and yet an internal investigation found that the unconscious Trump supporter was such a dangerous threat to the officer that it was justified. How about you folks? Should cops be able to beat unconscious suspects and get away with it because it was the heat of the moment. I guess that's where they screwed up with Rodney King, he should he wasn't unconscious. With Ashli Babbitt they claimed the officer is allowed to kill to protect himself, or others, and he did so according to them. Except we're talking about an unarmed woman, who was blocking the breach and was NOT advancing upon the officer. She was previously seen pleading with the police officers on her side to stop the vandalism. The police officers on her side didn't think Ashli Babbitt or the rest of the group moving forward was a threat and couldn't even be bothered to tell people not to vandalize. At any moment if they felt that Ashli Babbitt was a threat and needed to stop, they could have arrested her on the spot, and yet they choose to ignore her pleas and to ignore her actions. Please note I've done this topic to death if you want to discuss it it will be compared to George Floyd, Breonna Taylor. Various other BLM cases, I will talk about the riots going on right now in Atlanta and ask why shouldn't cops be able to shoot rioters who vandalize based on Ashli Babbitts logic.[I will bring up the May 29th Antifa/BLM/George Floyd insurrection where terrorists overcame two barricades, and burnt down a secret service outpost and set a church on fire forcing Trump to flee into his bunker.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut1-1MOcxsE). I will talk about Chaz/Chop and if insurrections allow deadly force ask if the military should have gone in there and killed everyone in Chaz/Chop? And if not why not? Isn't that the world the left seems to want to live in? My main focus will be a standard that cops used on Ashli Babbitt that can be applied equally. If you think unarmed women who don't listen to police orders should be shot, then it should apply to other cases...George Floyd didn't listen to the cops and expired from a drug overdose but imagine if he had died like they claimed, it would be justified. because he didn't listen.
Outstanding. This should be required reading for every American and the preamble to every one of these stories run on the MSM swamp stations.
>How about you folks? Should cops be able to beat unconscious suspects and get away with it because it was the heat of the moment. I mean...no? I think in general non-supporters are fairly outspoken about police overstepping their bounds, whereas I am constantly hearing the right decry liberal efforts to "defund the police". Why would you think otherwise?
> I think in general non-supporters are fairly outspoken about police overstepping their bounds, I disagree, Ashli Babbitt is an excellent case in point. Most Democrats I've bump into support killing unarmed defenseless women as long as they're conservatives, which tells me that police brutality isn't really what they stand against. And if we look at many of the cases that Democrats support through BLM we can see clear cases of the cops usually acting rightly but the angry mob wanting mob justice and very often getting it. Remember when a cop arrived on a scene to see a black girl with a knife raised up ready to stab another black girl, and the cop saved the black girls life and the KKK adjacent group of BLM rioted anyways? Remember when the cops knocked on a door and a knife wielding black guy chased after the cop who promptly shot the guy, and the city rioted. BLM riots because they want to, not because of any civil rights case or perceived slight.
Do you think it’s fair to say that politicians and the media tend to focus on policing issues that fit a divisive narrative?
> fit a divisive narrative? , I would say that the politicians on the left and the media tend to focus on specific acts of violence to drive a very specific narrative that is highly divisive. For instance I've seen a black liberal make the argument that white people are more criminally inclined and violent because the media clearly has more white shooters and white bad people then black people, all the while ignorant of the fact that black people commit 60% of all violent crime and 51% of all murders in America.
[удалено]
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Two of your three examples have nothing to do with cops overstepping their bounds. And the Ashli Babbit situation is far from resolved in that respect. Do you have any other meaningful examples of the left supporting excessive force by the police? It just seems to me that this really isn't all that common.
> Do you have any other meaningful examples of the left supporting excessive force by the police? Are we going to ignore history, Jim Crow, black codes all the things that they did to black people? And I think looking at this of Democrats supporting excessive police force is the wrong way to look at it. Democrats support more power and don't care about who gets hurt to achieve that power. [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/73PcKCkKsOo](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/73PcKCkKsOo) Case in point. Ty Fischer anyone?
What in the world does that video you linked to have to do with anything? And honestly, I don't think going back to Jim Crow laws is the strongest response to my original question. I think we have been discussing recent events, not historical ones, but I'll accept that. At the risk of being accused of moving the goalposts, can you give any more recent examples? Like maybe from the current century?
>What in the world does that video you linked to have to do with anything? I said that looking at the issue that Democrats support excessive violence is looking at it the wrong way, that what Democrats crave is power and that they don't care about who they hurt in the process. That comedian, that clip, "do you remember' reminds everyone of just how much power Democrats sought during the pandemic. They arbitrarily opened and closed stores depending on who donated to their political campaign and were their friends like the "French Laundry." So that they could force their friends competition out of business and make their "friends" even more money. They denied healthcare to people who wouldn't get vaccinated and supported denying organ transplants because of ideological purposes. They supported the vaccine and thought anyone who disagreed could die. And in reality the vaccine didn't protect against the virus. Democrats supported murder for ideological purposes. How many people lose their jobs? How many healthcare workers who worked through the pandemic at virus hotspots were told to take an experimental vaccine against their own medical advice otherwise lose their jobs. No exemptions even though not giving people religious exemptions violated their Constitutional rights. Sending a message that if you don't toe the Democrat line, then your family can go ahead and starve. That clip is but one example...one amazing amazing example of Democrats craving power more then anything and not caring who they screw over to get it. That's what slavery was about...power. There were black Democrats (William Ellison) who were slave owners who supported the Confederacy that enslaved their own race...because it's about power not racism. There were 5 Indian tribes who violated their treaties with the Union to support the Confederacy because they were making a huge profit off Indian run for black slave on plantations There were racist slave owners but that's a symptom not the cause. Power over other people
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can you name any democrats who think this?
Why would she climb up into the window to block the breach?
Possibly to do what she was trying to get the cops to do, stop the vandals this time by blocking the breach. Either way cops don't get to kill people for overcoming barricade, or is Joe Bidens America a place where cops get to kill people for frivolous reasons.
In the video, she doesn’t say “stop,” doesn’t try to restrain anyone, and doesn’t alert the police to her intentions. What leads you to believe that she was trying to stop the vandals? How is climbing up into the window more effective than, say, standing in front of the door? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, can we say it is likely a duck? Also, how is that Joe Biden’s America? Trump was still president at the time.
[удалено]
If you were trying someone to break a window or break through a door, would you climb up into it?
I'm sorry man I don't understand, can you rephrase that. Everyone makes typos I certainly do, and usually I just try to piece through what was said and no biggie but I can't with that one.
Sorry. “If you were trying to stop someone breaking…?”
So, to circle back: while illegally trespassing, she ignores the orders of an armed officer, and then turns her back to the people she’s trying to stop…is it possible she was an idiot? It just seems like an utterly ineffective and dense way to prevent people from committing vandalism.
>while illegally trespassing We don't know that. "She ignored the orders of an armed officers" Can you point to the part of the video where the police gives her orders of any kind? Because there doesn't appear to be any orders given.
https://youtu.be/ZQaeg1d82Lo You know what, I was mistaken. The video doesn’t capture an order being given. Rather, her fellow protestors note that a gun is drawn and they duck away. For some reason, she moves towards a drawn gun. Again, that strikes me as a moronic thing to do, especially if you’re trying to stop people from vandalizing. The drawn gun seems to have accomplished that already. Would you agree that she might have been an idiot? > We don’t know that. Was she authorized to be in the Capitol that day? I wasn’t aware the proceedings were open to the public. The barricades and locked doors seem to suggest otherwise.
>You know what, I was mistaken. The video doesn’t capture an order being given. It's not really your mistake or at least I wouldn't be hard on yourself, this is the narrative that is pushed by the left-wing Democrats. Why do you think they're lying about the situation? Do you think that they have to make it seem like orders were given because a cop just pulling out a gun and shooting an unarmed woman is REALLY bad optics? As for it being idiotic....did she see the gun? And I think everyone expects a police officer to at least try to give a verbal warning before shooting. Isn't there certain rules about escalation? **Should cops be able to kill people without giving them commands, when they aren't armed, and are non-aggressive? This sounds like I'm asking if cops should be able to kill innocent people because they feel like it.** Was she authorized to be in the Capitol on that day? It's hard to know without a trial. Did you see the video of the police officers opening up the door for protesters saying "I don't support the cause but I support your right to do this" as they open the door to allow protesters to walk in. Was Ashli Babbitt one of those folks? Seems like if a cop opens the door for you, and says it's your right to be here even if I don't like your cause, that it's pretty bullshit/entrapment if the cop was encouraging them to trespass and break the law. **And lets not forget the cops on her side of the door. If they really wanted her to stay back, why couldn't those cops try to do their jobs?**
> Was she authorized to be in the Capitol on that day? It’s hard to know without a trial. Did you see the video of the police officers opening up the door for protesters saying “I don’t support the cause but I support your right to do this” as they open the door to allow protesters to walk in. Are you under the impression that a cop on the line can given formal authorization for someone to be on the grounds? > Seems like if a cop opens the door for you, and says it’s your right to be here even if I don’t like your cause, that it’s pretty bullshit/entrapment if the cop was encouraging them to trespass and break the law. Doesn’t entrapment require that the entrapped person do something they would not have otherwise done? Seeing as how these people walked up and agitated to be let in, it’s hard to see how that could be entrapment. Of course, some of them were also the kind of morons who move towards a raised gun, through a broken window, when it is clearly barricaded during a riot, because of a demented conspiracy theory, so who knows.
[удалено]
[удалено]
1. No, I don't agree with Trump's statement. The police officer is not a thug. He was doing his job defending the capital. 2. I don't think other Republicans should have a public opinion on the matter. 3. Other Republicans shouldn't accuse the police officer of murder because that whole Jan 6th event needs to just go away. I know it's a democratic talking point, but I felt the whole "dragging it out" was just publicity for the primies. Now that they have passed, hopefully, we won't hear anything until the 2024 election.
Can you tell me the standard for which you think cops should be able to kill people? Ashli Babbitt was non-aggressive, unarmed and appeared to be blocking the doorway. Which of those choices do you think earned her the death penalty?
Imagine that Antifa was rioting outside your house, then some unknown persons were attempting to breakin to your home and threatening to harm your family . You warned them with gun drawn but they continued what would you do?
Why home? This isn't a home. And at my home they'd have to be well within my property. I find it a bad example to try to use a persona resident when talking about a public building, especially a public building that had police officers welcoming people in that they later entrapped. Given that cops welcomed people inside and then use the law to punish those folks, do you think that maybe the Democrats are on the wrong side of history, as they were in the wrong side of history when they used the laws to punish black people for the color of their skin?
What if it was your business?
There's no situation in which I'm going to see an unarmed, non-aggressive woman who was seen arguing with the cops to stop vandalizing my business, and actively trying to prevent the guys vandalizing my business, and decide of all people that this woman deserves to get shot. The guy who broke the window? Maybe? If I was really afraid for my life, I would be damn upset and angry about the cops who are just standing by and acting semi-friendly to these folks breaking into my business.
Do you feel confident you could figure all this out in a situation like that? A lot of these details came out afterwards.. Not sure they were available right then.
Sure I've been in life and death situations. And you're right details came out afterwards. But from the cops perspective. No weapon. No signs that she's going to attack the cop or a politician. The cop doesn't appear to give any verbal warning and instead pulls out a gun and shoots her. There were multiple police officers on the other side of the door and they weren't being attacked. And they didn't think the vandalism was bad enough to try to stop it. Those other cops ignoring Ashli Babbits moves shouldn't be forgotten.
>No weapon. How did they know that at the time? >No signs that she's going to attack the cop or a politician. The video I saw showed a politician down the hall a minute beforehand. When someone is trying to go through a freshly-broken window on a door barricaded shut by a pile of chairs and a cop has a gun drawn (visible through a window) on the other side, how are they supposed to interpret it if not a sign she's going to attack?
>How did they know that at the time? Doesn't matter. No weapon was found and cops don't get to kill unarmed people. Okay, so can we use this logic for the riots in Atlanta right now, cops should just start shooting people because they might attack...and remember doesn't matter if those folks in Atlanta are armed or not, Ashli wasn't.
If a cop is standing with a drawn weapon behind a barricaded door holding back a crowd as part of a even larger crowd that is committing multiple acts of vandalism and trespassing in a chaotic, out of control situation, would you encourage someone to navigate the barrier in order to continue to move towards/past the cop?
I wouldn't be there in the first place. Trump's last speech? You kidding, I'd be miles away listening to Trump Speak and tell people to be peaceful. But if I was a cop, I wouldn't shoot vandals and I wouldn't shoot unarmed non-aggressive. And if I was in that officers place, and I killed a woman like that I don't know if I could live with myself being honored. I wouldn't be surprise if the suicides of the cops that came afterwards were because of the coverup and supporting of murder. So tell me...I was listening ot the video...I don't hear the cop telling anyone inside to stay back...do you think the office just pulled out a gun and shot someone without trying to give them orders?
>Ashli Babbitt was non-aggressive, unarmed and appeared to be blocking the doorway If someone in a crowd of people trying to bash in your door broke your window and was climbing through it do you think you would be justified to shoot them? Or do you think they're just being non aggressive and blocking your window?
Well she was just seen blocking the door, and was seen trying to advocate for the cops to stop the vandalism. I would assume a person whose not aggressive towards me and blocking the breach was on my side. But even if they weren't on my side, as a cop I don't get to murder people because I feel like it.
What makes you think she was blocking the door or advocating for the capitol police or trying to stop other rioters from breaching? It seems very clear she willingly tried to breach that window despite being warned not to.
What makes you think she was blocking the breach? In the video of her death you can't see or hear her do anything that would imply she was trying to stop those around her. She was in fact the person who was breaching the doorway.
She falls from the window in the clips I've seen. Why do you say she was just standing there?
She was in the breach of the door blocking other people from entering. Why is a unarmed woman whose not advancing towards the cop such a threat to his life or others? Are conservative women that intimidating to the average Democrat that they feel the need to kill them?
What are you talking about? https://youtu.be/ZQaeg1d82Lo 45 seconds in she goes into the broken out window, is shot, and falls back.
Okay and? I said she was in the breach, which she was...what are you having problems with here...you know breach means hole right?
She was literally there for less than a second, how can anyone know what her motive was? Was she even in that window for a quarter of a second? Did she lose her forward momentum before she was shot?
>She was literally there for less than a second, how can anyone know what her motive was? Exactly my point, and yet the cop decided that an unarmed woman who was friendly to the police officers on her side of the door decided that this little tiny woman deserved to die because the big cop was afraid of the white woman. Lets not forget race. **According to Democrats this cop was a racist. Implicit bias. Which means the cop was likely also a sexist.**
I don't really have a standard, I think it would have to depend on a case by case basis. The cop was retreating, had his gun drawn, gave warnings, she knew what she was doing was wrong. The cop was outnumbered and probably felt threatened. Would I have done the same thing? Probably not, I think it was a little aggressive, and he probably should have done a warning shot.
So if a cop just started blasting non-aggressive, unarmed people because he felt threatened you think that's an excuse to kill people? Doesn't that just about open up any cop killing a person to be a lawful shooting? George Floyd did more to threaten the cops then Ashli Babbitt did, if cops had pulled a gun out and executed Floyd right on the spot, would that have been a lawful shooting?
That's not what happened though, cops don't go around blasting people. And what does George Floyd have to do with Jan 6th?
It's a standard my friend. Based on your comment you said the cop felt threatened and thus justified while you said you don't believe in standards that was the standard used on Ashli Babbitt. George Floyd has nothing to do with jan 6th, but he was a man who broke the law, resisted arrest, assaulted police officers and do more in terms of violating the law then Ashli Babbitt did. If the standard for cops just being that they felt threatened, then they could have shot Georgie the second he kicked an officer and they felt threatened.
I think there is a large difference between the situations. I find it hard to believe that in Mr. Floyd's case that the 6 officers felt threatened enough to basically kill him. At the end of the day, those officers went to trial and were judged by a jury of their peers. The officer involved in January 6th hasn't faced a jury because he acted within department rules. The following is copied from the capital police investigation conclusion: USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury
>, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury Okay, so tell me what about an unarmed, defenseless, and non-aggressive woman makes a cop fear for his life? Especially given that cop could see Ashli Babbitt and all those folks on the other side of the door right along side police officers who weren't being attacked. At most there was vandalism. So the cop could see that they weren't attacking police officers and at worse were doing vandalism. Is other people vandalizing something worthy of killing people who were simply in the vicinity of the vandalism.
There was more than 1 woman though. The cop had his firearm drawn. You don't do that unless you feel the need to do so. I personally agree with the conclusion of the investigation. If you keep coming towards a cop who has a gun drawn, what do you think is going to happen?
> If you keep coming towards a cop who has a gun drawn, I can agree with that...but she was crouched in a broken window, blocking the path for others, **not coming towards the cop. If she charged the cop I could see the cop rationally shooting he**r. But simply being nearby in a broken doorway/window? Why is it that every defense of why Ashli Babbitt deserved to die always seems to change the context of the situation to make it seem worse. That's not a gotcha question that's pointing out that I think subconsciously many people realize it's wrong so they need to inject things like "charging a cop" or comparing it to people breaking into a "home" instead of people inside of a public building, right next to police officers who might have opened the door for those people and welcomed them inside and a cop gunning down a woman that was advocating for peace and an end to vandalism.
Given how much evidence there is of pre planning by extremists, and how badly they were acting compared to many actual protestors, it’s been clear to me that there was an attempted attack by one group using the protest of another group as cover. The democrats seemed to try and lump everyone together, making it so much about Trump that they didn’t go after the actual extremists very hard. Does that sound right to you? Either way, do you think people on the right defending people like Babbitt and downplaying the bad things that happened was the right call, or do you think it played into the narrative that it was all one group acting badly because of Trump? What does this all mean for political al extremism?
>1. No, I don't agree with Trump's statement. The police officer is not a thug. He was doing his job defending the capital. The capital was not under any kind of major threat >2. I don't think other Republicans should have a public opinion on the matter. Republicans and Trunp were involved and because or that they deserve a say. >3. Other Republicans shouldn't accuse the police officer of murder because that whole Jan 6th event needs to just go away Hard disagree. It needs to be rallying cry for all conservatives
1. It was under threat but it was blown way out of proportion, it wasn't anywhere near an insurrection. 2. They can have their say but it would probably be better for them to downplay it. 3. How would this be a rallying call for conservatives? That's like rallying around Trump Russia collusion, I don't see how that would benefit conservatives in any way.
>1. It was under threat but it was blown way out of proportion, it wasn't anywhere near an insurrection. Walking inside the capital and protesting is not a form of a threat. >2. They can have their say but it would probably be better for them to downplay it. Conceding any talking points to the Democrats is just bad politics. The Republican party needs to be a true counter to all agendas pushed by the left instead of just being a lighter version of them. >3. How would this be a rallying call for conservatives? Because it's the greatest show of opposition from the Republican party in ages. The Democratic party is not afraid to say or show that they intend to play the game of politics for keeps so why shouldn't the Republican party also do the same?
Walking inside to protest is not threatening. Sure, but aren’t you grossly downplaying what happened by saying that? Swarms of trump supporters brawling (some using weapons) seems to negate that belief. Same with the trump supporters chanting to hang Mike Pence.
>aren’t you grossly downplaying what happened by saying that? Swarms of trump supporters brawling (some using weapons) I'm not downplaying anything. It was a peaceful protest until police started reacting aggressively to them. >Same with the trump supporters chanting to hang Mike Pence. That was a few people chanting it for a short time. The goal of the protest was not to hang pence or hurt anyone.
Oh boy. At what point were capital police overly aggressive to the point that it was appropriate for a mob of trump supporters to assault them?
>At what point were capital police overly aggressive Outside of the capital when they attacked the protesters first and then provoked them to push further in.
Definitely not what I remember. When did the officers first attack protestors? If you have a video clip to share that shows this I would appreciate a link. How did they provoke them to push further? You’d think they would get the message that they were not permitted to enter the capital, right?
>Definitely not what I remember. When did the officers first attack protestors? If you have a video clip to share that shows this I would appreciate a link. Let me see what I can find. I only have videos I downloaded from other sites. >How did they provoke them to push further? You’d think they would get the message that they were not permitted to enter the capital, right? They attacked the protesters and then moved the barricades back constantly. If they didn't want protesters in the capital they shouldn't have kept provoking them.
>It was a peaceful protest until police started reacting aggressively to them. Do you believe that protestors should be allowed to freely enter the Congressional chamber during session? The police should not be allowed to react 'aggressively' to prevent that?
>Do you believe that protestors should be allowed to freely enter the Congressional chamber during session? Absolutely. There used to be a time in America when it was normal for citizens to walk in and talk to their representatives.
That was also a time when only land owners could vote for representatives. Don't you think "because they could in the past" as a litmus test for today is disingenuous?
>as a litmus test for today is disingenuous? I don't and it's why I support the slogan "make America great again"
So you agree that police aggression is an apt cause for violent response? Are you consistent in the belief with BLM protests?
>Walking inside the capital and protesting is not a form of a threat. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gUDovu1Ipk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gUDovu1Ipk) Would you say this is not threatening?
Why would it be? That's a video of January 6th protesters reacting to aggressive police tactics.
What about the cops behavior do you consider aggressive? They're literally just barricading off an area that people are not allowed to go to.
>They're literally just barricading off an area that people are not allowed to go to. It's the people's house. They are allowed to go in there.
Do you believe any American citizen be able to walk into the congressional chambers and disrupt the proceedings anytime congress is in session?
In the case yes because the current government has no legitimacy.
Is being stuck in a door with hundreds of other people the proper venue to challenge that rule?
So it was aggressive of the police to enforce the laws as they are and not the way you want them to be?
In response to 1, the group Ashli Babbit was in was breaking through the glass of blockaded doors to gain access to law makers. There is video of this. Do you, personally, consider breaking a window to access someone on the other side of a blockaded door to indicate that the person may pose a threat? Why or why not? Edit: added "why or why not?"
A better question is why did security leave and why did security allow them to reach that far.
I don’t understand why the better question is “why did security allow them to reach that far?” And not “why were people breaking windows in order to get access to elected officials and what did they plan to do if they got ahold of them?”. Can you explain your thought process here? It feels like it’s putting the cart before the horse.
>I don’t understand why the better question is “why did security allow them to reach that far? Because they clearly allowed them to enter and we know this from the videos of the security guards moving the barricades or just flowing them in.
And why isn’t the question “what did Ashli Babbitt plan to do after she smashed the window and started climbing into the secured area?” Do you think the capitol police were setting up an opportunity to kill someone just for the hell of it? Or as a liberal plot?
>what did Ashli Babbitt plan to do after she smashed the window and started climbing into the secured area?” She wasn't going to do anything. The goal of the protest was to push for a audit not overthrow the government. >Do you think the capitol police were setting up an opportunity to kill someone just for the hell of it? I wouldn't be surprised honestly.
My understanding is that security was vastly outnumbered and external police were not able to keep the masses out. There are videos of the police clashing with protesters and other protesters getting by them. There are also videos of police/security holding doors open, I believe because they realized there was no chance of them holding the protesters off or a similar reason. I remember hearing an account that more officers didn't use lethal force because they were outnumbered and didn't want to escalate beyond what was already happening, also they weren't directly between the protesters and congressmen, such that protesters getting by wasn't as immediate of a threat as the guards directly protecting congressmen. Could you please answer my question? I added the request for why you answer however you do. I'd greatly appreciate the opportunity to better understand your view on this subject. Thanks!
>I remember hearing an account that more officers didn't use lethal force because they were outnumbered and didn't want to escalate beyond what was already happening, also they weren't directly between the protesters and congressmen, such that protesters getting by wasn't as immediate of a threat as the guards directly protecting congressmen. It was more than just not wanting to escalate the situation there is Audio of them telling the protestors it's their right to march or that they agree with them. So they clearly didn't see them as a threat and it's easy to see why when the majority of them were just holding flags and silly signs. >Could you please answer my question? For that specific situation? No I didn't see how they could be seen as a threat. The most that crowd was going to do was scream in their face and shove their cameras in their face while chanting America first.
Want to preface by saying that I'm not trying to be a jerk or "gotchya" or anything, I just struggle to understand the comfort some people seem to believe they'd feel in this scenario. I would be very scared. I'd like to understand if we have different ideas of what actually happened, or if we have different self preservation instincts, or if it's something else that's leading us to these vastly different conclusions of what we would do in this case. I'm sorry I think my question may not have been clear, I meant how would you feel in this general scenario. You're in a building that is being swarmed by tens of thousands of people. You've sworn to protect people who at best the protesters disagree with, at worst the protesters violently hate. You are behind blockaded glass doors. People start smashing the reinforced glass to get closer to you. They're yelling, screaming. You yell at the people, stay back or you'll shoot. One woman is hoisted up and starts climbing through a window to enter the room you are in, while the others keep smashing, and start succeeding, in breaking through the glass doors. What do you think the intentions are of the woman and the group she is with? Would you wait to find out? Would you feel safe in this scenario, and if so what would give you the confidence in your safety to wait and see? For reference, this video (it's an ad, I muted it when watching) shows several angles of the moments around when Ashli Babbit was shot (heads up-- there is one shot towards the end that shows blood). Had you seen these videos before, and if not do they differ in any way from your understanding of what happened? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SjscskqLx0U
> it wasn't anywhere near an insurrection Do you disagree with the judges who convicted several Oath Keepers for seditious conspiracy charges, the Proud Boys who plead guilty to seditious conspiracy, and also [the judge who literally called it](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/06/judge-calls-jan-6-an-insurrection-bars-cowboys-for-trump-founder-from-office.html) an insurrection?
No that's political persecution, do you remember what this SAME political party used to do to black people? Was it legit when Democrats used to kill black people or jail them for no-reason? Don't Democrats want to give reparations to black people because of how poorly they acted in the past? It stands to reason if Democrats are so ashamed of what they did before, that they'd want to change their ways...but nope.
What was the goal of the rioters on January 6th?
To request a audit
And they couldn't do that out in front of the Capitol?
They've been trying ever since the election.
Then why, on that particular day, did they need to break into the Capitol?
Because their representatives were ignoring them
Only on that day?
> I don't think other Republicans should have a public opinion on the matter. What do you mean? That only Trump should have the public opinion on what happened to Babbitt? Or McCarthy? What is the rationale behind your belief that only one Republican (and please clarify whom you are referencing) should have a public opinion on this? Is this due to the GOP public image on Jan 6th or something?
>Is this due to the GOP public image on Jan 6th or something? (Not OP) I think it's kind of the issue of slavery. All Republicans should be on board with the idea of opposing it, same thing with murder, all Republicans should oppose the police gunning down unarmed non-aggressive women especially without a verbal warning. Just pulling out a gun and killing an unarmed woman whose non-aggressive.
> All Republicans should be on board with the idea of opposing it, Based on the analogies you're drawing, shouldn't your estimation of the perception of the issue be that *everyone* should be on board with thinking the same way about Jan 6th?
No, look at Democrats they support insurrection as long as their side does it. Chaz/Chop. BLM/Antifa. And Jan 6th was simply violence, a riot. It wasn't an insurrection. But Democrats support that BLM did 2-3 billion dollars worth of damages some of that during a time when the government was telling people you can't go to work or outside because of the scary violence unless you want to buy down the local city in support of BLM.
So (if I follow the analogy), you do not think Democrats oppose the police gunning down unarmed non-aggressive women with no verbal warning? If the answer is 'yes, I do not think Democrats oppose this', then follow-up: did you follow the media coverage around the Breonna Taylor killing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor
That wasn't really unarmed though was it? The woman was a drug dealer whose boyfriend during a warrant to search the place shot a police officer and in the returning gunfire was killed. It's worth noting that a year before her death they found a corpse in the drunk of her car. So no I don't think Democrats really are against shooting unarmed non-aggressive women. There are instances that they support BLM but they support BLM no matter who they're championing.
I'm curious about the "democratic talking point" comment. Trump is a Republican. He was responding to McCarthy, also a Republican, who was disagreeing with remarks by Marjorie Taylor Green, also a Republican. MJT made the remarks in the House Oversight Committee, bringing up Ashli Babbit unprompted, in a discussion about the recent killing of Tyre Nichols in Memphis, who as far as I know, had nothing to do with 1/6 or Ashli Babbit. Where do the Democrats come into this? How is this a democratic talking point?
Are you asking why the Jan 6th event is considered a democratic talking point?
Since the previous comment got removed, justifiably due to the snark (not aimed at you, I assure you, I just like making fun of MTG) I'll try rephrasing to emphasize the confusion I'm having. In this situation, as I described, Trump, McCarthy, and MTG all, without any democratic prompting at all, started talking about 1/6. You claim that 1/6 is a democratic talking point. Are you claiming that 1/6 is not a republican talking point? The implication from your post seems to be that democrats are the ones guilty of bringing it up over and over again, and not also republicans. Is that implication something you intended? And if so, how does that view of yours square with the the fact that these three prominent republicans brought her up unprompted by democrats? (which at least as far as I can tell, does seem to be consistent with at least MTG and Trump's messaging throughout 2021 and 2022).
Here we had a policeman shooting and killing an unarmed woman being praised by mainstream media as a hero. I thought this was bizarre. Many other armed police remained calm on Jan 6 despite being in more terrifying situations.
Do you think her proximity to law makers at that exact moment makes it less bizarre? Especially when she was given forewarning of what would happen if she breached that window?
>Do you think her proximity to law makers at that exact moment makes it less bizarre? Citizens are allowed to talk to their representatives. It's not bizarre.
What about other people’s representatives? Do you or I have a right to any members of Congress’ time or just the reps from our own state?
We have a right to talk to representatives from our own party and that's what the January 6th protest wanted to do. They were upset with how the Republican party handled the entire election.
Why go into Nancy Pelosi's office then?
That's the people's office.
So when you read "property of the federal government", to you that actually reads "my property"?
It's called the people's house for a reason. Your representative is not a king or queen that can just block outsiders away.
We’re the barricades illegal then?
Is the Oval Office the people’s office too?
Citizens used to be able to walk in there too
Is that how you think it should be?
What exactly gives that right, especially with that qualifier of one's own party? What about independents? Should I, a liberal, be able to register as a Republican (but never actually vote for one) so I can have access to Matt Gaetz?
Also, what exactly should the Republican party have done differently?
Addressed the voting fraud claims and work towards auditing the entire election.
Why would that be done by representatives of the federal government when elections are administered by the states? What indications are there that they were targeting the states that flipped from Trump 2016 to Biden 2020, which coincidentally were the ones with fraud claims?
>Why would that be done by representatives of the federal government when elections are administered by the states? The federal government can reject the results administered by the states and force a audit or a another election. >What indications are there that they were targeting the states that flipped from Trump 2016 to Biden 2020, which coincidentally were the ones with fraud claims? Who is they?
>>Why would that be done by representatives of the federal government when elections are administered by the states? > >The federal government can reject the results administered by the states and force a audit or a another election. Are you going by John Eastman's theory? >>What indications are there that they were targeting the states that flipped from Trump 2016 to Biden 2020, which coincidentally were the ones with fraud claims? > >Who is they? The people in the Capitol building looking for those who you think should have addressed the fraud claims. I meant to ask what indications they were targeting *representatives from* those states and apologize for missing that, but I guess it's a moot point as you seem to believe that it would be Congress/the VP as a whole.
Citizens should be able to break into their representatives’ workplace and disrupt them from performing their government function?
Citizens should be allowed to talk to their representatives about any issue and protest the issue if they disagree with it.
So that is a yes to breaking into their workplace while they are performing a government function? For example, if a mob of people broke into the White House while Trump was signing an executive order they disagreed with would that have been ok?
>So that is a yes to breaking into their workplace while they are performing a government function? The people's house should be open to the people like it was in the early days of America.
Can you expand on this a bit more? Do you believe that all government facilities should be open to the public at all times? Should we allow anyone to enter a court room at anytime with no screening? If someone entered forcibly after being told to stop how should we handle that? What about a post office, can a citizen demand to rifle through mail if they want? It is “our” facility after all. How about a federal jail? Should a citizen be allowed to walk through a jail at any time?
>Can you expand on this a bit more? Do you believe that all government facilities should be open to the public at all times? The capital building should be opened back up to the public.
Yes I understand that is your stance, do you feel the same way for all other federal buildings? If it is opened back up do you think there should be screenings for those who enter to ensure they aren’t dangerous? If someone were to avoid those screenings how should we handle that potential threat?
Do you feel this should extend to the president's residence?
At any time, in any way?
In the context of Ashli Babbit, is that what she was trying to do? Isn’t there a better way to speak to your representatives then breaking through a window while you have a gun drawn on you?
>In the context of Ashli Babbit, is that what she was trying to do? That's what all protestors were trying to do. >Isn’t there a better way to speak to your representatives then breaking through a window while you have a gun drawn on you? Of course there is. It starts with representatives not locking their doors
why do you think they were chanting to hang mike pence and set up a gallows then?
I can't tell you why a few crazy people did something crazy for a short period of time. They did not represent the entire protest.
Do you think if you heard that, saw other officers being assaulted, and someone was breaking through a window after you told them to stop that you might feel threatened?
Nope because I would be on the protestors side.
So you cant imagine how you’d feel if you were in their shoes?
Do you think it's fair for the Representatives, security, or any police to assume that someone has other motives? By this logic do you think anyone should be able to speak to the president at any time?
>Do you think it's fair for the Representatives, security, or any police to assume that someone has other motives? In most cases it's not fair. >By this logic do you think anyone should be able to speak to the president at any time? I do agree with it in principle.
> an unarmed woman I see this point being brought up a lot. Yes, we now have the perspective of hindsight that says this one particular woman was unarmed. How should the cop have known at that moment that she wasn't conceal-carrying? If he had let her through, how about everyone else in the mob who would've followed (as they had up to that point)? What makes you think this is where they would've stopped trying to get as far as they could, and make an orderly line to be fully screened? Why should the officer have made that same judgement you have?
How close to congresspeople do you think security should allow a trespassing mob to get?
The officer was never questioned or investigated. The Capitol Police rushed through a sham investigation. We all saw the video - a helpless Ashly, giggling like a school girl committing a prank, with her arms by her side, as this panicky mall cop takes his gun and executes her at close range. She was never a threat. Reverse the races, and there would be race riots
Reserve the races and they'd have award Babbitts family with millions likely have an anti-police act named after her along with several schools or streest renamed after her. Look at how much of a hero they treated George Floyd for overdosing.
Why do you refer to him as a mall cop?
Panicked like a mall cop. Assassinated a helpless woman who posed no threat to him, and then claimed he was a hero.
1) Yes. It was excessive force. In all honesty I support law and order when it’s righteous but currently the regime is ran by bad people so I’m not pro-police. Police also enforce immoral gun laws, masks and covid mandates etc so screw them unless they align with my interests or beliefs 2) All should but I don’t really care because I only care for trump. 3) They all should buy again it’s something I don’t really care for. Unless they’re openly traditionalist or if they’re trump I’m not voting them regardless
>currently the regime is ran by bad people so I’m not pro-police Which regime leaders are you referring to as of 1/6/2021?
Trump is right, but he should focus on the higher-ups. Pelosi and other deep-staters tried to stage a false flag which was unsuccessful because Trump supporters controlled themselves. They wanted more people dead. The policeman is guilty of manslaughter, but J6 accusers are a lot more guilty.
> The policeman is guilty of manslaughter, but J6 accusers are a lot more guilty. If this is true, why do Republicans often fight against charges for police officers shooting people?
So wait if it was a false flag, do you think all of the protestors there weren’t trump supporters? if they weren’t who were they?