"Nothing other than written objections and some legal challenges came out of Bryd killing her. Nothing else. Do you honestly think that if antifa had invaded the capital or the White House and an on armed antifa woman, a veteran to boot, was shot and killed, I’m sorry a black unarmed antifa veteran, was shot and killed by a white policeman who was then adjudicated anonymously and in private, you really don’t believe Washington DC and other cities would’ve burned?
Have you been drinking?"


 No.  I think you are correct, what I am saying is the complaints and defense of the actions would be the same.  Complaints being the verbal arguments that have enough substance to make no difference at all.  Defense meaning the verbal comments defending the actions of the police officer.

 The physical actions would be more impactful on a larger scale.  Larger means more, not the same or equal as you interpreted it last time I said that.

Quote:


You know this how? And you are implying that the Capital police have a different set of standards for the use of deadly force than any other police agency in the entire country ? Because congresspersons and Senators are O so much more important than the folks that elected them maybe?

If so, you know that, how?

Quote:


Because the window was a part of the door.

How big was the window in relation to the rest of the door? How much could he actually see? What, who, was he aiming at?

You can talk this rubbish all you want but you can't change the fact that this was not a legally justified shooting, or that this guy got a pass for purely political reasons.

You know this how? And you are implying that the Capital police have a different set of standards for the use of deadly force than any other police agency in the entire country ? Because congresspersons and Senators are O so much more important than the folks that elected them maybe?

If so, you know that, how?


 On 07/28/20 at 09:44:36 hrs. I posted about this very subject, 163 days before Ashley Babbitt was killed.  I stated I work with Federal agencies, and in this specific situation I am evaluating the ethics of an exercise designed around Federal Police response to large scale protests.

http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1595954676/0




And you are implying that the Capital police have a different set of standards for the use of deadly force than any other police agency in the entire country ?

 No.  I am saying your assessment that police have the "exact same" operational parameters regarding deadly force as "civilians" is wrong.  All police not just Capitol Police.  These of course vary by State.  There is no universal "deadly force" law for civilians in the US so how you can even evaluate that all police share the "exact same" criteria is fundamentally flawed because there is no "same" if you cross State lines.

 You disagree, you know this is incorrect how?



"How big was the window in relation to the rest of the door? How much could he actually see? What, who, was he aiming at?"

 Did you watch the two videos?  I can only assess that you need to ask that question because you never looked for yourself.  I could have someone create a scale of the window size to door ratio and give you a near exact number, but anyone can clearly see those windows are around 40% of that door size and her body was inside that frame.  

 How are you assessing that when he moved towards her and discharged his weapon at that distance that he could not see her inside that window frame?



"You can talk this rubbish all you want but you can't change the fact that this was not not a legally justified shooting, or that this guy got a pass for purely political reasons."

 Yeah I already said this was a possibility, but I can't control what you hear, I can only control what I say.  Just because I ask you how you are assessing that he could not see who he shot, and think your sentence structure combined suggests he shot THROUGH a solid door with no line of sight does not mean I am placing a value on his decision.

 It means I think you might be altering the facts.  Even if we agree, I'd rather use truth than manipulation to make my point.

Quote:


Please explain, how you posting that you are now playing with 'Breakaway' bottles, (movie props),

Proves that Capital Police can shoot and kill,
     anyone,  
(Without the slightest hint of any kind of threat)
only, because they are about to cross a line.
       

I see at least three guns pointed just feet from that door.
Stupid woman thought this was some kind of game.

Please explain, how you posting that you are now playing with 'Breakaway' bottles, (movie props),

Proves that Capital Police can shoot and kill,
    anyone,  
(Without the slightest hint of any kind of threat)
only, because they are about to cross a line.


 I never said it "proved" anything nor was I asked for proof.

 You can pretend that I was "playing with" breakaway bottles but anyone that reads that thread will know that those are used for training with Federal police forces in regards to large scale protests.  The actual topic.

 Jan 6th was a large scale protest, Federal police were present.  That's what I have been involved in the training for, and questioned the ethics of the training methods. Oldnslow asked how I knew, and my reference was I had already indicated I have done this type of training long before this event ever happened.  I knew because I had already seen the methods.  

 How do you know what is conducted in the training?

 The problem is you guys are equating my knowledge of a term to a statement of right or wrong, as usual.  If I ask a question I am not telling you you are wrong, I am asking you a question.  It's called adult conversation.

 So I make a post questioning the quality and ethics of Federal training before this event and you guys get all defensive because I think maybe he was following bad policy.  Now you want to debate if that policy even exists, as if that somehow changes the fact I think it's bad policy.

 First you said:

He shot THROUGH the F*ckin Door for cryin' out loud. I doubt he even knew who the he*l he hit till it was all over.


 So without evidence, even though it is widely available, you stated he shot blindly THROUGH a door.  Then you asked if this was even correct.

 See why I debate the accuracy of certain assessments around here?

 You want to question what I know.  I know I watched the videos before go around claiming this guy is shooting THROUGH doors not knowing if he even hit anyone.

 I'm ok talking about the decision to shoot and if it was a sound and legal judgement, but I am not ok with people using complacency, manipulation or lies as evidence.

 Can you determine, without a doubt, from the video.

 No.  I actually have admitted from the beginning that I do not know enough to say.  You however claim things, then ask if they are true.

 Can anyone on any video, or in person, without a doubt know what another human sees, how careful they are, and what part of the body they were aiming for?  Is your question, as posed, answerable in any situation, right or wrong, in any circumstance ever?

 All I can say is you have a lot to say about this and won't even look at the evidence.  So you ask questions you can get the answer to yourself, then assume this guy is using poor line-of-sight methods, or at least imply it.

 Watch the videos, look at the distance and fire-angle and you tell me what you think.  What I do know is you so far have refused to use widely available evidence.  Looking at the advancement footwork, posture, distance, line of sight, weapon-to-target elevation, and fire line geometry I would say no, he would not have hit anyone else - had a clear line of sight, and was aware of his target and what was beyond.  My evidence is two videos of the event and yours is what?

 If Babbitt was a guy crawling through that window with a bomb strapped to his chest and a pistol in his hand this would be considered a textbook shot from a physical engagement perspective.  So instead of trying, without evidence, to make it seem like this guy was some buffoon firing THROUGH doors not knowing if he hit anyone, just use actual real facts and assess if he made the correct decision.