Maria Bartiromo calls Ashli Babbitt 'A wonderful woman'...

I think of it as a letter of the size and form used to begin sentences and names.

 

capitol building in the capital city


i think

 

Oops. Fixed.

 

It's not, nor should they be held to different standards. Generally speaking, the standards cops are held to are very lacking. DA/PA serve to protect them. Ashli Babbitt and Breonna Taylor should have no different standard that George Floyd. But for some reason, they are.

 

That too.

 

Also, I remember a time when I could at least respect Democrats as civil libertarians but that facet of thier belief system has evaporated over the last 30-40 years. I respected men like Kennedy because of that, but a drastic 180 degree turn has been completed since his time.

 

I don't agree. Democrats are very much civil libertarians.

 

A real martyr would have used a suicide vest. Y'all Qaeda are too soft and yellow to be proper Trump jihadists, try though they may.

 

Yes, Trump is an brainless idiot much like the current President. That has nothing to do with why a young woman was unjustifiably killed by a cop on Jan. 6th.

Oh, I see. You think I am a Trump supporter...or even a conservative...so you attempted to level a partisaned attack.

That's funny.

 

I am sure there are a very few left, but they have become as rare as the dodo.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, even though it is based on limited information. Considering this fact alone, you are no longer making a reasoned argument but rather attempting to "sell me" an argument based on your weak reasoning to an emotional appeal of your interpretation of "fair justice". Hence, this is not a debate.

I will however post an excerpt of the DOJ's report of their investigation and their conclusion. It is linked so you can read the full report.

The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. In order to establish a violation of this statute, prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer acted willfully to deprive Ms. Babbitt of a right protected by the Constitution or other law, here the Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure. Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.

The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter.
​

Of course, any lawyer with enough judicial chutzpah is welcomed to challenge it, but I don't think that's you.

 

Only because the people who should be protesting her death are not interested in protesting her death. Where is White Lives Matter. org?

 

Trump is brainless because he thinks Babbitt was unjustifiably killed. Among other things.

 

From control over one's own body to the freedoms of speech and religion, the Democrats are quite libertarian. Not so much the GQP, which seeks to control women's reproductive rights and force Christianity on children in school. The GQP is also trying to limit voting access based on racism and the Big Lie.

 

...just on one hot button topic- Reproductive Rightsand sex. Other than that, you abandon the topic.

Is that a joke? Democrats constantly seek to limit free speech via "Fairmess Doctrine" and by encouraging the cancel culture.

And I'm an atheist, so while I have no personal stake in it the opposition to Hobby Lobby decision directly contradicts the position regarding freedom of religion

No, they aren't. They only are when it is politically advantageous. Perfect example is open borders. I believe in them because I believe in freedom of association. Democrats only support it for a voting advantage.

True, the GOP aren't libertarians and when one of them comes up and claims they are, it is usually bullshiite. But they attempted deflection is duly noted. But I put them on the same scale of libertarianism as I do Democrats. None of you believe in freedom unless it is politically advantageous. I believe in freedom because it should transcend politics.

 

Ashli Babbitt, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd were all vastly different cases, all were handled in vastly different ways. George Floyd's death resulted in a murder conviction, Breonna Taylor's family reached a $12 million dollar settlement and it was determined that the Capitol Police Officer was justified in shooting Ashli Babbitt in order to stop the advance of her and her co-insurrectionists in their quest to carry out the verbal violent threats they were making against Congress that was in the process of evacuating the Capitol when Babbitt breached the last line of defense between them and Congress. They were ALL held, equally, to the "standard" of the law the applied to their case.

 

Do you not realize that the Fairness Doctrine has not been around since 1987??? Nor did it do what you think it did.

 

No, they weren't. The only instance that was settled justly was George Floyd. The other cops got off pretty easy.

 

Do you not realize that Democrats have been attempting to reintroduce a version of it for over a decade?

 

And yet they haven't. I wish they would, but as stated in the link, the original scope of FD was broadcast providers. Today's media environment requires a different approach, one that may not be possible with existing law and the Constitution. But to make an argument that Democrats are using FD now is quite ridiculous.

 

Lol...see H.R. 4401. Obviously you arent aware.

Maybe you should hire a lawyer.

 

That was introduced in 2019. And from the looks of it, there has been no movement on this bill since then. It has 0 cosponsors in the house as of right now.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401/details

So, all that you are doing is showcasing your inability to defend your post because it is based on a false premise to begin with.

Feel free to get a lawyer to explain that to you.

 

It was always wrong to deify George Floyd. Who he was should have never mattered, be he a squeaky clean saint or a dirty criminal. The only thing that did actually matter is what happened to him and the circumstances that led to it. The same is true for Ashli Babbitt.

Who she was doesn't matter. What she was doing when she was killed does. I'm not sure if her being killed by law enforcement was justified or not. But in the court of public perception, especially when it comes to officer involved shootings, the only thing that seems to matter is whether she was breaking the law when it happened. She was. If people can be killed after shoplifting, after selling cigarettes, and all manner of other decidedly trivial offenses and the law & order types chalk it up to disobeying law enforcement, than this should be no different. There should not be a peep from those people on this, but yet they are up-in-arms.

Because it's been politicized, like all media promoted killings are. So now people take sides based on politics and bias, not facts, and certainly not on personal consistency.

 

What's with the hatred of a woman for being murdered by police? You are aware she served your country right?

 

that doesn't seem to be what she did. She was just in the presence of a police officer that chose to murder her.