with weapons and barricades, they would justified like Kyle Rittenhouse, correct? The secret service agent who killed Ashli Babbit as she rabidly attempted to break through a barricade with the "Hang Mike Pence" crowd behind her is also warranted, right?
She put herself in danger by refusing to comply with police orders. All of these people would still be alive (walking in Blake’s case) if they had simply followed instructions.
Whether any of these incidents resulted from justified use of lethal force by police is a separate matter. Even when unjustified, it is still true that they put themselves in danger…needlessly.
None of this applies in the Rittenhouse case, imo.
Absolutely warped perspective.
Well argued, as well. As soon as you said, “No, not even close” I knew you had me on the ropes. How can anyone rebut something as persuasive as that?
Let’s start with your premise that they all belong in the same “if they had simply followed instructions” bucket.
Floyd, Blake, and Brooks died or were seriously injured because police officers deemed their blackness a threat. Your premise that the 3 blacks were complicit in their deaths reflects how tainted your belief system is. A jury has determined that George Floyd is a murder victim. Yet, he is still complicit for not submitting more decisively to the police officers?
Newsflash: many motorists and pedestrians are fussy or noncompliant or outright combative when stopped/detained by cops. [My guess is that I have prosecuted/defended 3000-4000 cases involving traffic stops, and have probably watched camera footage in 400-500]. Motorists can be defiant and complete assholes, but they aren’t shot. In fact, I have consistently witnessed outstanding policing and communication skills in dealing with such persons.
Ashli Babbitt wasn’t a traffic stop case. She was part of a large mob that had breached 3-4 lines of police, and was part of a frontal assault on the House/Senate, in the process of certifying a Presidential Election. The camera footage just prior to Babbitt being justifiably fired upon, reflects the gravity of the threat she and the mob/insurgents presented. It was legions more than a “if they had simply followed instructions” situation.
The fact that Babbitt was not armed is irrelevant and insulting to the police and agents who were defending a swiftly developing and dangerous scenario. Watch the video. All of it.
Babbitt deserved to be shot and killed. Trump recruited her. She drank the Kool Aid. Much like any terrorist across the globe.
Asserting that some people don't die in spite of not being cooperative is not actually an argument that they didn't also place themselves in danger.
Try harder.
Edit: HaHa! And I missed that "they deemed their blackness a threat" thing earlier. I'll give you a "D" for effort with that one. Who needs any actual evidence to make ridiculous assertions? Certainly not Conor Larkin, Esq.
armed, which was illegal for him as a minor, if he had just followed the law, those deaths wouldn’t have happened.
Taking a gun was a terrible call as well. Not spoken about is the fact that it was a terrible decision for the three other guys to go there as well (and not just because of the outcome for them personally). In fact, it was a terrible decision for anybody to be involved on either "side". That was not a protest, it was violent mayhem.
And right, her death isn't comparable to the Rittenhouse murders.
Just saying all of the insurrectionist that day were also lucky.
Well, I hope it's only you and Conor.
They never should have breached the interior of the building.
Any survivors would have been handled shovels. They could tend to their wounds on their own time.
Those dopes were lucky that only one was killed. It was amazing restraint.
"rabidly attempted to break through a barricade"...obviously you haven't seen the video.
I knew it!
you have a gun, do you use it?
It's just a question. But I'll bet you can't answer it directly with a simple answer of Yes or No.
To answer your question: I would use my gun if I fear for my life.
was also unarmed.
I think not. If she was than possibly justifiable to shut her down without killing her.
through a window after being told to stop. That will get you shot any day, and twice on Sunday.
Nope. It's all about who's doing what to who.
riot across state lines with an armalite rifle. None of this happens if he follows the law and doesn’t do that. Surely as a law and order guy, you agree with that point? On the self defense argument, I will respect what the jury decides. They heard the evidence. But he caused all this, plain and simple.
I think the whole thing was and continues to be a shitshow with nutties on both side fucking it up for us normals.
But here we are. We're all just snarky fucking bumper stickers on cars at this point!
our current lawless society stands whether it be BLM rioters, Babbit leading a mob through a broken window to get at evacuating lawmakers at the Capitol, or illegally getting a semi auto rifle, appointing yourself a vigilante deputy, and inserting yourself at 17 into the middle of that riot. What thee holy fook have we come to here?
he also happened to have a weapon. If he wanted to just put a bullet in him he could've it. But you agree that the capital police could've sprayed a bunch of bodies as well, right?
FYI it's not a narrative. I believe that is what the court testimony reflects. The armed "medic" himself testified that he was drawn on Rittenhouse.
