A Big Mystery
- Thread starter sk8knight
- Start date
With the Babbitt shooting, I think you had an unusual situation where every single stakeholder in that story was on the same page in protecting his identity. From Pelosi, to McCarthy, to the DC press corp. I'm sure plenty of journos either know the name or could easily find out, but it's probably a career destroyer if your byline names him when the stars have aligned like that. So there's just no incentive whatsoever to go down that road.
I think your question works better the other way. Use the Babbitt shooting as an example of the value in protecting the ID during the emotional aftermath of a controversial shooting when possible. But it only works if the press is on board and that's going to be a pretty unique situation.
I would be more than happy to keep the names of officers in these situations confidential unless charged with crimes. However, that is the opposite way that public sentiment, spurred on by groups like BLM, are moving the ball on this issue. As such, the federal organizations should be following the same patterns, at the very least. Otherwise, once again, we are looking at a different set of rules for the federal government as everyone else, which should not happen in this country without explicit and great cause.
I don't think this is case of federal organizations getting special treatment as much as it is a unique political outcome from a very unusual set of circumstances. But it makes more sense to hold this up as an example to strive towards then try to drag this situation down into the mud with all the others.
Also, I think there's a big distinction between using the force of government to keep his name secret - threatening journalists with prosecution for example - versus a situation where interests happen to have aligned to keep his name secret.
WTF? The emphasis on naming names is placed on 'controversial' shootings.
Do you consider protecting the Senate chamber and our Senators from an insurrectionist mob breaking into the Capitol as controversial??!?
Do you consider this to be different than the guy in Kenosha that got shot by police?
I do think there is some controversy in this woman being shot. I'd like to know what other means of de-escalation were tried or could have been used. I understand that it was a stressful situation, but we should probably hold this encounter to the same standard that we do when a cop has to use deadly force. That normally involves a pretty public investigation.I notice you didn't answer MY question.
I can see where you're coming from. I generally agree but I can't release the feeling that it would've been different had the political parties been switched.
wow.
The mob was busting their way into the Capitol for crying out loud. The victim was charging through a broken window!!!
So a threat existed and the police used deadly force. Can we keep that standard up for all cops in any situation?
I would say that this woman probably didn't present as big of a threat as someone that reaches for a cops gun or pulls a knife on them, but that's only because we haven't had any sort of comprehensive investigation into it. Did she tell them she had a bomb or a gun?
I'm still blown away that you and sk8 actually want to 'out' the police officer who was trying to stop a mob from breaking into the Capitol building. I'm sure one of those wacko right-wing militia groups would love to kidnap him and hold a mock murder trial before killing him.
This world keeps getting crazier and crazier.
Oh please. You've been against every single police officer in every case based only on the immediate media reaction. You have no leg to stand on trying to act all self-righteous.
This isn't about the unnamed police officer; this is about our federal government creating rules for itself that no one else has to live by and the media backing them up as long as it suits their political activism.
So please tell us, why do you want to 'out' the Capitol cop in THIS case?
Maybe you should start a government insurrection. How about it, Mr. Patriot?
Are you afraid that his life may be in danger or that he may not get a fair trial if they identify him? I guess I just don't totally understand why you are suggesting that other police officers should be subjected to a different level of scrutiny than this one.
Fair Trial??!? WTF??? He's a frickin' HERO for crying out loud!
And YES, his life may be in danger if some Chuds like those idiot militiamen in Michigan were to decide to target him for revenge.
There's a Grand Canyon-wide difference between a cop charged with shooting an unarmed guy for a routine traffic stop or home disturbance and a hero valiantly defending our capitol against an insurgent mob.
And yet one little gunshot and nobody else breached that door... do you think she stops if pepper spray is used instead? How about a taser? Did he have to shoot her in the neck?
These are all questions people ask when an unarmed black person is shot by police. Why would they be out of bounds now?
Good Lord, talk about false equivalencies!
This wasn't one lone rioter busting into the Capitol, she was part of a frickin' MOB! Christ, have you SEEN the video??!?
Trying to compare a man who swore an oath to protect the US Senators on the floor above him to a traffic cop playing Rambo shows incredible disrespect to the victims of police violence AND to the brave officer who defended our Capitol that day!!!
Those questions aren't out of bounds and of course they should be asked. Anytime an LEO plays judge, jury, and executioner, we should have a very high standard. In that moment, a government employee has stripped a citizen of their most fundamental right without due process. I get why emotionally we want to give officers the benefit of the doubt. But from a "government vs individual rights" perspective, the burden should absolutely be on the government to justify an irreversible act.
I think this issue is a good test of people who claim to put the ethos of the Constitution first. If your inclination is to defend law enforcement by default, you're probably more authoritarian than you are constitutionalist.
When there's an active shooter situation, no one is going to criticize officers who shoot back. When an officer is one-v-one against an unarmed individual, there are going to be questions. But I think one officer defending legislators behind a barricaded door while an angry mobs powers through isn't that controversial. People aren't focused on those questions because there's universal support for the officer based on the entirety of the days events and video of the incident.
In the crucible of the moment it may have been reasonable. But we don’t know. We have very little information and no one in the larger media is demanding more evidence. In fact, they went out of their way to paint this woman as a lunatic, something that NEVER happens.
I want to know what lead to this officer’s actions. Was it his decision alone or did someone else room tell him to fire on anyone who came through that door. What was the justification for use of force in that situation at that time. It may seem obvious to all of us with what the media has told us but they are always wrong on all of these incidents.
Holy Cow! Mister Law Enforcement doesn't know if one lone officer defending US Senators behind a barricaded door while an angry mob smashes their way through is justifiable? Aren't you the same guy defending Chauvin's role in George Floyd's death?
If ONLY there was video footage of the incident so we could see what the officer saw and clear this 'mystery' up, right?*
I guarantee there was video footage of this incident. I also guarantee that video evidence is not sufficient in a due process investigation and trial. You are smart enough to understand that. You're just shilling for your team as you always are.
Pardon me, WHO is shilling here?
I'm not the one trying to discount videotaped evidence in order to question the actions of a lone Capitol cop defending his country from an angry insurgent mob.
I'm having a hard time avoiding the conclusion that you're just too stupid to understand that video doesn't tell the whole story.
So somehow the Capitol building footage of the lone cop shooting as an angry mob smashes through the entrance doesn't tell the whole story?
Instead of a pat on the back for standing up to defend our country, this officer should be identified and charged with manslaughter/murder?
Given than I'm 'too stupid to understand,' please explain to those of us not versed in the intricacies of law enforcement what it was that led you to the conclusion that this officer should be 'outed' and face prosecution for killing a capital rioter climbing through a window that she and her angry mob buddies just broke?
I already explained that before. Stop going in circles.
I also never said "prosecuted." I just want to same transparency that Ben Crump wants and that you say that you want. You think that you'd be in support of that.
In asking for 'transparency,' you are implying that the Capitol shooting was controversial because we sure as hell don't publicly identify all police officer shootings.
So what made the Capitol riot shooting controversial?
Why in God's name would you want to 'out' an American hero when there are crazyass radical militia in this country who would love to have a new face to put on their bullseye board?
How can you claim that person is a hero without knowing if what he or she did was justified or not?
THERE WAS A F*KING VIDEO OF THE ENTIRE SCENE!!!!
Oops, I forgot, video doesn't 'tell the whole story.' 🙄
He shot her literally feet from a squad of officers who were standing with that group. I’m a big proponent of play stupid games, win stupid prizes and I’ve already said that I’m not going to shed any tears over those people trying to break through that door. But I think we deserve to know law enforcement’s thought process in how they handled that situation and I think we need to hear why that officer felt justified in shooting at that point when the others standing in and amongst the crowd did not. I don’t need a prosecution, just release the results of the investigation.
Or don’t and don’t clamor for all the other agencies to release their’s whenever a lawyer decides he wants to stir up a mob and extort another city for millions in the name of a higher calling.
Either way, I’m fine. I’d prefer the anonymity, personally. But let’s not have it both ways.
And yes, this video didn’t tell the whole story either. You have no idea who that officer is, who else is in that room, what warnings were given, what orders were given, what was happening out of sight of the camera, etc from that video. It’s just a piece of the whole puzzle.
Latest posts
-
-
Gus will right this ship. Y’all need to come down from the ledge.- Latest: hootyhoogoknights1
-
-
-
