US Capitol Police refuse to release their own use of force guidelines. Who shot Ashley Babbitt?

[bullets13]

54 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

So you would of been ok with the Seattle Police shooting all these rioters that stormed and took over the police station? If so, we may have found some common ground. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Personally I wouldn't have had any problem either instance with them being shot.  I guess I'm different than some, but I would expect capitol police to have a lower threshold for lethal force when people are actively rioting and trying to enter chambers where politicians are located (although I understand they've yet to release their use of force policy).  I would expect for capitol police to shoot if BLM activists were trying to breach a room where Trump was located.  But who knows.  I don't disagree with anyone that there's a double standard in these instances.  But that said, just because there would've been outrage if roles and races were different doesn't mean that I have an issue with this lady getting shot.  I thought officers showed a lot of restraint overall.   Someone getting shot is a pretty predictable outcome when an angry mob breaches the capital, breaks out windows and tries to enter chambers where sitting members of the house and senate are being protected by capitol police.  

[tvc184]

On 5/27/2021 at 8:40 AM, Big girl said:

If someone is coming into your house through a window, along with an angry mob, what are you going to do? Yet, some of you are ok with an officer shooting someone that is running away

 

You have way more right of self defense under state law to protect your home than the government (in this case; police) does both under state law, federal law and US Constitution by way of Supreme Court decisions.

Your use of deadly force to protect your (or your neighbor’s) home is regulated by state law. A police officer cannot use deadly force to prevent crimes as by state law and the Constitution. The police can only use deadly force to stop a risk of serious injury or death.

So someone coming through “your” window and protecting your home is not even in the same discussion as the police use of deadly force to stop a crime.

Can an officer use deadly force for someone going through your window? Yes if it is to prevent the criminal’s use of force against you and there is a reasonable belief to back that up.  For example, a criminal going into your home with a weapon or who might be about to kidnap someone can justify the use of deadly force by the police to protect the victims inside of the home. It is not to prevent the crime but to  prevent injury or the threat of serious injury.  State law however gives a person the right to protect his home almost without question from a burglary (called breaking and entering in some states). In Garner v. Tennessee from the Supreme Court, an officer shot and killed a burglar who was committing the crime of  Burglary of a Habitation (in TX at that time A first-degree felony or equal to murder in penalty) at night, fleeing with property in his hands. There is no doubt the crime was at night, that it was a felony in progress, that the police were not likely to catch him and he was escaping with property. With all of those established facts, The Supreme Court ruled and it was unlawful for the officer to use deadly force to stop the crime. At the time the suspect was not endangering anyone and even though a homeowner could have lawfully shot and killed a suspect to get the property back, it was completely unconstitutional for the officer to do so.

So when you ask, what would you do when someone is breaking in your home with a mob behind have them, it does not even matter if it’s a mob. A single person entering your home could lawfully justify the use of deadly force. That in no way translate to a police officer standing his ground and using deadly force against an unarmed person to prevent a crime.  Add to that the fact that if an officer is standing with several other officers, even the use of deadly force to protect themselves must be taken into consideration the reasonableness at that moment. An unarmed 250 pound man coming at a lone 120 pound female police officer is much more likely to justify deadly force than the same 250 pound unarmed man coming at three 200 pound male officers. The Supreme Court has said you have to look at what is reasonable at that time. In this case, if there are several police officers and at the moment being approached by an unarmed 130 pound female, is deadly force justified under the circumstances? I think that would be tough to prove however if it is or if it is not, it has nothing to do with a person coming through “your” window.

As far as the police shooting a person who is fleeing, that can be justified if the person has committed a violent crime because there is a reasonable belief that the person will commit another violent crime in order to escape or possibly grab a hostage. And example from this area about 15 years ago, a man had just shot his ex-wife and her current boyfriend. One of them died and the other was seriously injured. After a high-speed car chase the suspect ran on foot it was shot and killed by the police. That was ruled to be justified by the grand jury because of the violent crime that was just committed and the likelihood of another violent crime. It is the violence or threat of violence that justifies the government/police deadly force intervention, not because there was a serious crime in progress. That was stated in Garner. In Garner the Supreme Court through out the police use deadly deadly force to even stop a fleeing felon. To make sure that is clear, the Supreme Court said that the police cannot use deadly force merely to stop a felony. 

[tvc184]

7 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Personally I wouldn't have had any problem either instance with them being shot.  I guess I'm different than some, but I would expect capitol police to have a lower threshold for lethal force when people are actively rioting and trying to enter chambers where politicians are located.  I would expect for capitol police to shoot if BLM activists were trying to breach a room where Trump was located.  But who knows.  I don't disagree with anyone that there's a double standard in these instances.  But that said, just because there would've been outrage if roles and races were different doesn't mean that I have an issue with this lady getting shot.  I thought officers showed a lot of restraint overall.   Someone getting shot is a pretty predictable outcome when an angry mob breaches the capital, breaks out windows and tries to enter chambers where sitting members of the house and senate are being protected by capitol police.  

Yes, a mob could potentially justify deadly force if a serious threat to officers or someone beyond the officers that they were trying to protect. Like always, we have to look at the facts or reasonable beliefs known to the officers at that moment. Where were are the people who are being protected? Where are they trapped and nearby? Did they have a means of evacuation (which I thought they did) such as through a passageway or tunnel so therefore not in an immediate threat? Was the small window on the door that she was crawling through the only means of entry rather than the reenforced doors themselves which could not have been breached  at that moment? Looking at these likelihoods which was surely known to the capital police, why did apparently only one officer feel threatened enough to draw a weapon?

There might be some very reasonable answers to justify the use of force however they are not very forthcoming in explanation, which police agencies and governments normally do in other similar situations. This one has been marked by silence including not even discussing policy, which I find very strange. 

[Big girl]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

1.  A private home is completely different than a public place. 

2. A person during the day breaks into a private business, should the police be able to shoot them?

If they a part of a violent mob, yes.

[Big girl]

Is it okay to shoot someone who is running away?

[LumRaiderFan]

8 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Is it okay to shoot someone who is running away?

Why don't you read TVC's response, he already answered that.

[baddog]

25 minutes ago, Big girl said:

If they a part of a violent mob, yes.

Then it is ok to shoot antifa and blm thugs who are burning and looting cities. You can’t have it both ways. 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Then it is ok to shoot antifa and blm thugs who are burning and looting cities. You can’t have it both ways. 

In Texas, stopping an arson in progress is justification for using deadly force as is theft in the nighttime....   but not for the police unless it is directly endangering someone’s life. 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

Is it okay to shoot someone who is running away?

In some cases, yes.

For the police it is lawful to shoot someone running away who has committed a violent crime and there’s a further danger to the community or the officer. 

For a citizen under Texas law, deadly force is justified in stopping someone from escaping with property from a burglary, robbery or theft during the night time if there is a reasonable belief  that the property would not be recovered by other means or would endanger of the person  trying to cover the property. The use of deadly force to recover such property is absolutely not authorized for a police officer.

[baddog]

6 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

In Texas, stopping an arson in progress is justification for using deadly force as is theft in the nighttime....   but not for the police unless it is directly endangering someone’s life. 

I’m sorry, that’s dumb. 

[tvc184]

17 minutes ago, baddog said:

I’m sorry, that’s dumb. 

Which part?

[baddog]

25 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Which part?

The “but not for police....”

[tvc184]

48 minutes ago, baddog said:

I’m sorry, that’s dumb. 

It’s from the Fourth Amendment under an unreasonable seizure. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unlawful to use deadly force for a crime it is not using or threatening to use deadly force.

I don’t know that I disagree with that. In Texas using a credit card without permission is a felony. If a 16-year-old kid uses a stolen credit card to buy $10 worth of gas, should I be able to shoot him (as a police officer) in the back to stop him? In my opinion I should not.

Arson might be a bad example because in arson you could always say that it might seriously injure or kill someone in or near a building. When it is clearly a non-violent crime however, I don’t think the police should be able to shoot people, especially in the back. For apprehending a violent criminal, that is absolutely a different issue.

[thetragichippy]

3 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Personally I wouldn't have had any problem either instance with them being shot.  I guess I'm different than some, but I would expect capitol police to have a lower threshold for lethal force when people are actively rioting and trying to enter chambers where politicians are located (although I understand they've yet to release their use of force policy).  I would expect for capitol police to shoot if BLM activists were trying to breach a room where Trump was located.  But who knows.  I don't disagree with anyone that there's a double standard in these instances.  But that said, just because there would've been outrage if roles and races were different doesn't mean that I have an issue with this lady getting shot.  I thought officers showed a lot of restraint overall.   Someone getting shot is a pretty predictable outcome when an angry mob breaches the capital, breaks out windows and tries to enter chambers where sitting members of the house and senate are being protected by capitol police.  

I don't disagree with your stance, we just don't know all the facts or policies as you have stated. The only thing I'm against is the media being able to control how a situation is looked at. I believe someone made a distinction between this shooting heath and the Floyd death.  I honestly don't think Chauvin meant to or wanted to kill Floyd, but I do know this cop wanted to kill Babbitt. The way the media covered both is disturbing to me.

[SmashMouth]

6 hours ago, Big girl said:

When that person is part of a violent mob, entering through a window they broke, yep. Are you okay with officers shooting people who are running away?

Was she running away? Why are you asking that question?