Probably because:
1. There were 3 officers against a couple thousand protestors. So their options were pretty limited. And they likely valued their own safety as the rioters were already threatening them. We know for a fact several rioters absolutely intended to harm lawmakers, so it seems like they were correct in assuming there was an active threat.
2. It was pandemonium and communication likely was poor, as it tends to be during a riot.
It's almost like, once the potential threat was eliminated, there was no need for anyone else to fire.
Outside the barricaded door? No there wasn't. There were 3 officers against a mob. They stood aside, the window was broken. Babbitt was lifted up and tried to get in. She was told to stop or they would shoot. Several people yelled that he had a gun. Babbitt continued and was shot.There were a lot more than 3 officers there. Try a few hundred.
Yes, some were chanting harm. I would have been too if I would have been standing there protesting peacefully and getting rubber bullets/flash grenades for my. trouble. They had plenty opportunity to harm while inside but didn't.
Did anyone else try climbing through the window?
Would you justify shooting a crazy person that was trying to break into your house through a window? In this scenario you do not know if she does or does not carry a weaponNo, but if you want to justify killing an unarmed woman then that's your right but not a legal one.
However, instead of feelings and FAFO stuff that has nothing to do with the legal system I'm going by the law.
As I showed above with Turley's legal opinion that there's no way anyway can justify one unarmed woman getting shot in a window with several officers in the area. There is no imminent threat.
As Turley said with this whacky thought process that came out of the investigation cops can open fire every time a protestor tries to trespass and occupy a building.
The imminent threat is a couple thousand angry people breaking into a government building, many threatening harm against the people the officers were trying to protect, and even the officers themselves.No, but if you want to justify killing an unarmed woman then that's your right but not a legal one.
However, instead of feelings and FAFO stuff that has nothing to do with the legal system I'm going by the law.
As I showed above with Turley's legal opinion that there's no way anyway can justify one unarmed woman getting shot in a window with several officers in the area. There is no imminent threat.
As Turley said with this whacky thought process that came out of the investigation cops can open fire every time a protestor tries to trespass and occupy a building.
Would you justify shooting a crazy person that was trying to break into your house through a window? In this scenario you do not know if she does or does not carry a weapon
The US Capitol is not exactly your average public building. I was honestly surprised the Secret Service didn't take matters into their own hands a lot earlier.A personal residence is not the same as a public building.
The imminent threat is a couple thousand angry people breaking into a government building, many threatening harm against the people the officers were trying to protect.
The US Capitol is not exactly your average public building. I was honestly surprised the Secret Service didn't take matters into their own hands a lot earlier.
How do you suppose the Secret Service would deal with a crazy person trying to break into the White House, a government building?
Three cops, not 2.Most of these people were invited in.
You don't understand what imminent means under the law. It means this very second. There were two cops on Babbitt's side of the door who left the area. Why didn't those two cops do anything?
Not a single person was on the White House lawn during the Floyd riots.We had that exact situation happen during the Floyd Riots. The president was escorted to a bunker.
The Secret Service didn't shoot anyone.
Three cops, not 2.
And I will post this again since apparently you missed it the first time:
Probably because:
1. There were 3 officers against a couple thousand protestors. So their options were pretty limited. And they likely valued their own safety as the rioters were already threatening them. We know for a fact several rioters absolutely intended to harm lawmakers, so it seems like they were correct in assuming there was an active threat.
2. It was pandemonium and communication likely was poor, as it tends to be during a riot.
Not a single person was on the White House lawn during the Floyd riots.
Why do you insist on blatantly lying?
If anyone rushed the White House in a threatening way, they would be shot on site, no questions asked.I could have been mistaken how far they got but don't call me a liar you bootlicking twerp.
NopeIf anyone rushed the White House in a threatening way, they would be shot on site, no questions asked.
There were 3 on one side and 2 on the other. The 2, on Babbit's side left a few minutes before the shooting.
Well yeah, that is under Weak on Crime Obummer.Nope
The Omar Gonzalez incident (2014)
- A U.S. Army veteran jumped the White House fence, ran across the lawn, and entered the front door, making it to the East Room before being apprehended by security.
- The incident prompted the resignation of the Secret Service Director and spurred a security review.