Asylum Babbitt

[TheLiquidGuy]

Well, if she wasn't violent, why did she need to be shot?

She didn't.

[Omar]

She didn't.

Seems strange that the cop who shot her wasn't at least reprimanded or suspended, let alone prosecuted then.

[carolina73]

If you're genuinely upset about people smashing windows to try to get into a secured area, you leave. You don't try to climb through the broken window they just smashed in order to get into that protected space.

Your calling it secured but does it really meet that definition? It is a public building. Despite your false claims, the Congress were gone before she went through the window.

[TheLiquidGuy]

Seems strange that the cop who shot her wasn't at least reprimanded or suspended, let alone prosecuted then.

It doesn't seem strange to me at all.

There is an attitude that bullets make solutions to many problems that dont require them. The most unbelievable example of this is the "fleeing felon rule" which makes it ok to shoot dead a felon who likely poses a threat to the officer or other people or if they use a deadly weapon to escape. That may sound somewhat reasonable to some, but interpretation of the rule is problematic. Depending on the jurisdiction, you can legally and *righteously* be shot dead for attempting escape if you even drive in a car *near* police. The car technically becomes a deadly weapon. I've seen this more than a few times. The cops are in no danger of being hit by the vehicle, but because the suspect moves the car to escape while at gun point, they kill him. And they barely seem phased by it.

The point is that we have normalized deadly force for things that don't require it. Whether its BLM or Capitol rioter that gets shot, too many people view that as expected. Society should normalize a different standard. One that forces us to seek new tools/strategies to deal with these situations.

[carolina73]

Seems strange that the cop who shot her wasn't at least reprimanded or suspended, let alone prosecuted then.

Unless he was following an order, which I suspect he was and that is what they have to force him to give up or face the prosecution himself.

[carolina73]

It doesn't seem strange to me at all.

There is an attitude that bullets make solutions to many problems that dont require them. The most unbelievable example of this is the "fleeing felon rule" which makes it ok to shoot dead a felon who likely poses a threat to the officer or other people or if they use a deadly weapon to escape. That may sound somewhat reasonable to some, but interpretation of the rule is problematic. Depending on the jurisdiction, you can legally and *righteously* be shot dead for attempting escape if you even drive in a car *near* police. The car technically becomes a deadly weapon. I've seen this more than a few times. The cops are in no danger of being hit by the vehicle, but because the suspect moves the car to escape while at gun point, they kill him. And they barely seem phased by it.

The point is that we have normalized deadly force for things that don't require it. Whether its BLM or Capitol rioter that gets shot, too many people view that as expected. Society should normalize a different standard. One that forces us to seek new tools/strategies to deal with these situations.

That could cover a very wide range of scenarios. If a terrorist is driving down the street and you know he is heading into the building down the block loaded with explosives then I am sure you are going to say shoot him to stop him. If he is just jumping to get in his car with the new lethal weapon called a Trump flag or a hockey stick then you probably just want to take his license plate and get him later.

Am I right?

[TheLiquidGuy]

That could cover a very wide range of scenarios. If a terrorist is driving down the street and you know he is heading into the building down the block loaded with explosives then I am sure you are going to say shoot him to stop him. If he is just jumping to get in his car with the new lethal weapon called a Trump flag or a hockey stick then you probably just want to take his license plate and get him later.

Am I right?

What I am saying is that if you have thousands of unpaid parking tickets, the cops can shoot you dead for trying to escape from them by driving away in a car. The point is that deadly force is too often the go to solution.

[carolina73]

What I am saying is that if you have thousands of unpaid parking tickets, the cops can shoot you dead for trying to escape from them by driving away in a car. The point is that deadly force is too often the go to solution.

No doubt. Agreeing what that line is will be a continuing argument.

The drunk black guy fleeing the Wendy's parking lot in Atlanta should not have been shot until he attacked the cop, stole his taser and fired it at him.

[Cletus]

What I am saying is that if you have thousands of unpaid parking tickets, the cops can shoot you dead for trying to escape from them by driving away in a car.

That is absolutely untrue.

[Omar]

The point is that we have normalized deadly force for things that don't require it. Whether its BLM or Capitol rioter that gets shot, too many people view that as expected. Society should normalize a different standard. One that forces us to seek new tools/strategies to deal with these situations.

If it was a BLM rioter who was shot, I have a feeling there would have been media pressure on the cop and he most likely would have been prosecuted, or at the very least suspended while the incident was investigated. I'm less concerned with where the line is drawn exactly (at least for now), as I am with wanting to see that standard applied consistently. That way everyone is playing on an even playing field - "If I engage in this behavior, they will likely shoot me". Then you can make the decision accordingly.