January 6th Bipartisan Commission

koobookie wrote:

ramage wrote: In my opinion the taking of a human life in cold blood is much graver than the argument over the legality of an election.

Using your logic, the murder of unarmed protestors by Czar Nicholas in St Petersburg, 1905, was justified.

Apples and oranges comparing the czar to Babbitt. One was a world leader. The other was rioting and breaking into a federal building.

As much as I hate to get down into the gutter and argue your "opinion" of the situation, it was not in cold blood. She was unlawfully breaking into a federal building and, in the process, threatening the lives of the capitol police, along with the lawmakers in the building. She knew she was breaking the law. To call it cold blooded and argue that "she was unarmed" is to show just how willfully ignorant you are of the situation.

Put yourself in the place of the officer - what would you do if you saw rioters breaking windows and crawling through, with flagpoles, bats, and bear spray for weapons? How would you know she was unarmed? Would you just stand aside and say "oh, well." Or would you do your sworn duty to protect the building and the people within? Come on, think hard about this.

So you would give officers that same latitude in situations where they are in other buildings being broken into by rioters? I think it's interesting how so many cops have been put on media trial for shootings where they really were defending themselves against much bigger and stronger adversaries (Michael Brown for one). You also just called ramage "willfully ignorant"... I thought you were not going to use that term to describe people here anymore? The woman was indeed unarmed regardless of how many times someone wants to argue she was. Backpacks are not lethal weapons... if they were they would be banned from every school and college campus.

I am sorry, before I can reply I need to know what this means:

So you would give officers that same latitude in situations where they are in other buildings being broken into by rioters?

I do not want to misinterpret your words. Please explain.

homeagain wrote:

homeagain wrote: www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/...hooting-trump-qanon/

JMO.....THIS outcome (her death) was inevitable,SHE CHOOSE to walk a perilous path...reaching for
something that was out of range. The mindset was obsessive and dangerous....the end result was
tragic,but foreseeable.

READ AGAIN the call for anarchy,by this woman...NOW read the official definition

an·ar·chy
/ˈanərkē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: anarchy

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
h
Similar:
lawlessness

absence of government
nihilism
mobocracy
revolution
insurrection
riot
rebellion
mutiny
disorder
disorganization
misrule
chaos
tumult
turmoil
mayhem
pandemonium
h
Opposite:
government

order
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Origin
mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler’.
Translate anarchy to
Use over time for: anarchy
Definitions from Oxford Languages

THE CHOICE was made,SHE purposefully put herself in danger.....it was not murder,it was a defensive move against an intruder,who was WARNED. Her death was on her, NO ONE ELSE.

AGAIN,let me re-cap the event....it seem the details have been some how forgotten.

ramage wrote: I am sorry, before I can reply I need to know what this means:

So you would give officers that same latitude in situations where they are in other buildings being broken into by rioters?

I do not want to misinterpret your words. Please explain.

It was a question to HA. She believes that a cop has the right to shoot an unarmed person if that unarmed person is breaking into a building and the officer feels threatened.

This would never be acceptable in our society if the situation was a different building and it was a black woman who was not carrying a weapon.

Maybe someone could find a story where an unarmed person was shot for whatever reason and the left was not up in arms about it. I haven't ever seen that story.

Tell me, Rick, how would the Capitol Police officers have know Babbitt was unarmed?

This post is still a mystery to me:
"So you would give officers that same latitude in situations where they are in other buildings being broken into by rioters?"

Capitol Police officers knew she was unarmed because they searched her body after shooting her.

That's an interesting concept, however not new. Shot first ask questions later.

ramage wrote: Capitol Police officers knew she was unarmed because they searched her body after shooting her.

Many on this board have claimed that, since she was unarmed, she was killed in cold blood - some have even said "executed." To make that a true statement, they would have to have known she was unarmed prior to pulling the trigger. How would they have known that she was unarmed?

In reality, none of us were there, none of us know for certain the situation. It was investigated by the Department of Justice and the officer was cleared. I realize that, for whatever reason, you cannot accept that report.

She was attempting to breach the United States Capitol in an insurrection and was killed attempting to break into a secured area where Members of Congress were meeting.

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

A Republican-appointed judge just smacked down GOP deniers on January 6

The violent insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6 was a dark day in American history. The attempted rewriting of what actually happened that day -- when more than 100 police officers were injured and five people died -- by former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies is even more noxious.

On Wednesday, a federal judge named Royce Lamberth had had enough. Lamberth used the first sentencing hearing for a defendant charged in the attack on the Capitol to blast Republicans trying to cast January 6 as anything other than a violent riot aimed at stopping the wheels of democracy from turning.

"I'm especially troubled by the accounts of some members of Congress that January 6 was just a day of tourists walking through the Capitol," Lamberth said. "I don't know what planet they were on. ... This was not a peaceful demonstration. It was not an accident that it turned violent; it was intended to halt the very functioning of our government."

Lamberth, who was appointed to his judgeship by the late Republican president Ronald Reagan, added that newly released videos from inside the riot that day "will show the attempt of some congressman to rewrite history that these were tourists walking through the capitol is utter nonsense."

www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/politics/january-...urrection/index.html

Yet these same politicians don't want an investigation. I wonder why? Oh well, the House is going to set up their own investigation without the help of the Senate.

Reading back through this thread, I'm still struggling to understand why Republicans oppose a Congressional Investigation. If it was "antifa" or BLM masquerading as Trump supporters, wouldn't the Republicans want to know and prove that?