Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

Jaw said:
All he could see was her coming through the window and people filling the entire space behind and beside her attacking the barricade they had set up. It was reasonable to believe they had to be stopped before any of them got in the room.
Click to expand...

The barricade was holding and not broken down.

She was the only one going through a window.

Byrd had a ton of Backup behind him. He wasn't in danger nor was anybody else.

I could understand the shooting if the doors were breached. You fire at will then.
 
mqt said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1967986189136519573

As has been the case a lot lately, Texas remains well ahead of the curve when it comes to trampling the free speech of its citizens.
Click to expand...

He's a student that could easily be argued is breaking student conduct policy.

Is this somehow different than a student coming dressed in a KKK outfit during a BLM rally on campus? Wouldn't you agree that would break student conduct policy.
 
Garmel said:
If he was alone I could possibly understand. There were too many cops there behind him and nobody was in imminent danger.
Click to expand...
There were thousands of people rushing in. Many of which legitimately wanted to hurt Pelosi, Pence, and others. But somehow, the Cops just should have assumed they weren't in any danger? Get real dude

He didn't fire randomly, or without cause, or even without warning. They repeatedly warned her. She played stupid games and she got a stupid prize.
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
There were thousands of people rushing in. Many of which legitimately wanted to hurt Pelosi, Pence, and others. But somehow, the Cops just should have assumed they weren't in any danger? Get real dude

He didn't fire randomly, or without cause, or even without warning. They repeatedly warned her. She played stupid games and she got a stupid prize.
Click to expand...

You get real. There was a barrier that nobody had traversed. She was shot while unarmed. One woman crawled through a window and was shot by one cop. There were other cops behind Byrd. Why didn't anyone else shoot if anyone was in imminent danger?

As I said if the barrier (doors) had fallen they should open fire. As is all Byrd had to do was drag her down out of the window.

You can warn all you want but you can't shoot an unarmed person unless there is immediate danger.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
You get real. There was a barrier that nobody had traversed. She was shot while unarmed. One woman crawled through a window and was shot by one cop. There were other cops behind Byrd. Why didn't anyone else shoot if anyone was in imminent danger?

As I said if the barrier had fallen I would open fire. As is all Byrd had to do was drag her down out of the window.

You can warn all you want but you can't shoot an unarmed person unless there is immediate danger.
Click to expand...
FAFO?
 
Garmel said:
You get real. There was a barrier that nobody had traversed. She was shot while unarmed. One woman crawled through a window and was shot by one cop. There were other cops behind Byrd. Why didn't anyone else shoot if anyone was in imminent danger?

As I said if the barrier (doors) had fallen they should open fire. As is all Byrd had to do was drag her down out of the window.

You can warn all you want but you can't shoot an unarmed person unless there is immediate danger.
Click to expand...
There were tons of people behind her. How were they planning on arresting all of them if they attempted to do the same? Not only that, at that moment, their job wasn't to arrest anyone. It was to protect the others.

These people were absolutely a threat and they were acting in a manner that was theatening. Whether they had weapons is irrelevant and certainly the officers had no idea if they had weapons or not.

They told her repeatedly to stop. She didn't. That's the end of it.
 
Carp said:
He's a student that could easily be argued is breaking student conduct policy.

Is this somehow different than a student coming dressed in a KKK outfit during a BLM rally on campus? Wouldn't you agree that would break student conduct policy.
Click to expand...
I have no issues with Texas State expelling a student much in the same way I have no issue with a company firing an employee. I question the actions of the Governor of Texas directly demanding that action of one of his state schools.

Also, despite many of my social positions, you might be surprised to find I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for expelling those students either. I think it’s the wrong approach to the issue.
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
There were tons of people behind her. How were they planning on arresting all of them if they attempted to do the same? Not only that, at that moment, their job wasn't to arrest anyone. It was to protect the others.

These people were absolutely a threat and they were acting in a manner that was theatening. Whether they had weapons is irrelevant and certainly the officers had no idea if they had weapons or not.

They told her repeatedly to stop. She didn't. That's the end of it.
Click to expand...

If they were such a danger why did the cops let them in?

Why did only one cop shoot?

There were two cops on the other side with the protestors close to Babbitt. They left a few minutes before she was shot. If there was such a danger why did they leave?

The evidence doesn't back up what you're saying.
 
chop2chip said:
It’s why I come back to my original post

FAFO
Click to expand...

You may have a point but that's not a legal answer.

Here's legal expert Jonathan Turley's issue on what bothered him on the Babbitt case investigations:

"Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.'

 
Garmel said:
If they were such a danger why did the cops let them in?

Why did only one cop shoot?

There were two cops on the other side with the protestors close to Babbitt. They left a few minutes before she was shot. If there was such a danger why did they leave?

The evidence doesn't back up what you're saying.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top