Biden DOJ Authorizes Police to Use Lethal Force Against Trespassers - Protestors - Resistors.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: carewemust

Murder implies Ashli babbitt was innocent. She wasn't.

What was she guilty of?

Giving federal security cause to believe she was a genuine threat to the elected officials they were hired to protect.

That’s a laugh, didn’t the asshole shoot her through the door window or something?
If you think they were doing their duty, what is your take on the cops shooting these criminals of late, who were in the act of conducting criminal activities, they were genuine threats to the officers and citizens right?

Whataboutism doesn't change the fact she was actively in violation of federal law and there was no predicting her intentions or her threat level. I guess they could have posted a sign saying "all trespassers past this point may be fired upon" because intruders need that kind of warning.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: carewemust

Murder implies Ashli babbitt was innocent. She wasn't.

What was she guilty of?

Giving federal security cause to believe she was a genuine threat to the elected officials they were hired to protect.

Let's look at that for a moment...
Source

The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay the police for their "services."

In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

So you're telling me the same police who we as citizens have zero authority or court identified right to look to for protection are in DC killing unarmed protestors in the name of protecting elected official's well being (from ridiculously misperceived threats)? and you're not seeing the huge glaring asininity in this?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Pointing out glaring hypocrisy and double standards isn't whataboutism.


Although I'm sure you'd like jt to be.

Wait ...so if I’m carrying in a restaurant in Florida and a BLM mob enters and disrupts my dinner, compelling me to raise a fist for the cause, and knocks over my pina collada and eats my bang bang shrimp I can dust ‘em ? Cool

originally posted by: Zrtst
Wait ...so if I’m carrying in a restaurant in Florida and a BLM mob enters and disrupts my dinner, compelling me to raise a fist for the cause, and knocks over my pina collada and eats my bang bang shrimp I can dust ‘em ? Cool

Sounds good to me

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: carewemust

Murder implies Ashli babbitt was innocent. She wasn't.

What was she guilty of?

Giving federal security cause to believe she was a genuine threat to the elected officials they were hired to protect.

Let's look at that for a moment...
Source

The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay the police for their "services."

In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

So you're telling me the same police who we as citizens have zero authority or court identified right to look to for protection are in DC killing unarmed protestors in the name of protecting elected official's well being (from ridiculously misperceived threats)? and you're not seeing the huge glaring asininity in this?

Would you have preferred the protesting mob successfully entered the Senate chamber and confronted those officials in whatever manner they deemed appropriate?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Like the Kavanaugh hearings?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: carewemust

Murder implies Ashli babbitt was innocent. She wasn't.

What was she guilty of?

Giving federal security cause to believe she was a genuine threat to the elected officials they were hired to protect.

Let's look at that for a moment...
Source

The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay the police for their "services."

In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

So you're telling me the same police who we as citizens have zero authority or court identified right to look to for protection are in DC killing unarmed protestors in the name of protecting elected official's well being (from ridiculously misperceived threats)? and you're not seeing the huge glaring asininity in this?

Just wanted to bump the very important info you posted that most are not aware of! Yet they want to take away our ability/rights away to protect ourselves.....

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: carewemust

Murder implies Ashli babbitt was innocent. She wasn't.

She was never convicted of anything 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: carewemust

Murder implies Ashli babbitt was innocent. She wasn't.

She was never convicted of anything 😎

Neither was the officer who shot her.

¯|_(ツ)_/¯

ETA:

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. 

www.justice.gov...

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: rigel4
USA on the slippery slope to unrest.. orchestrated by the left on behalf of their Russian masters.
Knowingly or other wise .. yes I believe thats whats happening .

It's called "the handing over of America". It's most likely CHINA behind it, though.

Its wrong and despite me not being American .. boils my pi55.

The Left should hang their heads.. or better still have them hanged .

If it wasn't for ATS having such a strong anti-violence policy, I could tell you exactly what might be done, if things get out of hand.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: carewemust

Murder implies Ashli babbitt was innocent. She wasn't.

The guys/girls who break into stores and steal what they want are not "innocent". Therefore they can be murdered by police arriving on the scene. You agree with Biden's DOJ, I see.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

She was there with the rest, looking for trouble.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: carewemust

Murder implies Ashli babbitt was innocent. She wasn't.

The guys/girls who break into stores and steal what they want are not "innocent". Therefore they can be murdered by police arriving on the scene. You agree with Biden's DOJ, I see.

One would think you might have found some solace in this development, as it finally gives local authorities the green light to deal with Antifa and BLM thugs once and for all.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: carewemust

Minneapolis Mayor just called for unrest. He said he's not asking for calm and a movement needs to be started that stops their unarmed black men from being shot in the streets by police. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

That is insane!

If ANTIFA and BLM are involved in the ensuing unrest, the Mayor and his family will not be safe either. Those terrorists attacked the mayor of Portland last year.

He was on their side, but wouldn't give them but 90% of what they wanted.

Democrat terrorists are the worst! Each one removed from society makes the world a better place.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Trueman

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: carewemust

Murder implies Ashli babbitt was innocent. She wasn't.

What was she guilty of?

She did something stupid.

You enter by force in a building with people with guns inside. You'll not gonna make it and you know it.

Unless you're black apparently, and then anything done to stop you is beyond the pale (see what I did there).

Exactly. In that case you get upgraded to martyr and your family to millionaires.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Ah yes, investigations published by biased insiders 🤣

Racists !! 😬

Ashli Babbitt Proves U.S. Now Has Two-Tiered Justice System—Whites Are At Bottom

a reply to: TzarChasm

She had no outstanding warrants either !!!😬

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: carewemust

Murder implies Ashli babbitt was innocent. She wasn't.

What was she guilty of?

Giving federal security cause to believe she was a genuine threat to the elected officials they were hired to protect.

Let's look at that for a moment...
Source

The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay the police for their "services."

In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

So you're telling me the same police who we as citizens have zero authority or court identified right to look to for protection are in DC killing unarmed protestors in the name of protecting elected official's well being (from ridiculously misperceived threats)? and you're not seeing the huge glaring asininity in this?

Would you have preferred the protesting mob successfully entered the Senate chamber and confronted those officials in whatever manner they deemed appropriate?

Versus the murder of an unarmed protestor? Yes, yes I would and dare I say so would the nation's founding fathers. Redress of grievances is part of the job description and, if any of those elected are unwilling to perform that duty, they need to be shown the door. THEY are the ones occupying and trespassing on property owned by We the People, not the other way around.