Not really, breaking through reinforced interior chambers to get at congress is different to buying a banana with a 3 dollar note. Neither deserved to die but one activity seems to invite being killed more than the other.
Funny how you fail to mention the actual difference. Ashley Babbitt was killed on purpose without warning while surrounded by armed police who were chillin with the protestors.
George Floyd was killed accidently due to his own negligence and drug use. All the people surrounding Floyd were begging with him to just chill out and let the police put him in the car with the AC but you see its hard to chill out when you just swallowed a bag full of drugs.
Get that shit out of here shill.
Except she was told to get back and if George was killed accidently due to his own [negligence] (This means foolish actions) then she was too, but by all means shout shill as if it makes your argument anymore coherent. You either agree GF "killing" and babbits is similar or you don't. If you don't then you're against the OP submission and if it is similar then you should be happy - because now everyone's going to start putting babbit statues everywhere for fat white people to kneel in front of praying.
Absolutely not. In what way did her actions require the immediate use of deadly force a d show me where any of the cops standing behind her was stopping her from doing what she was doing. If two other armed officers saw no immediate need to harm her then way did the coward who came out of hiding, which Ashley could not of seen, and execute her?
Stop the steal in this case means to suspend/alter/change the certification of an election via physical presence (This is terrorism).
Barricades are an explicit message to not come any closer.
She was explicitly told to get back
Progressed into the interior through a door
Got shot
If they pulled over a black guy on the roadside and told him to not move and he moved towards the officer you'd have zero issue with them being shot, sort out your inconsistencies. Before you tell me "but but but but but the election was stolen", OK, if that is what people sincerely believed whilst "stopping the steal" there ought to have been 50k people there, armed, discharging their constitutional duty to overthrow corrupt government. If not, then the "executioners" (loaded leftist language) were compelled to operate under the assumption that, until proven otherwise, the election was fair, even if there were as yet unresolved questions and challenges going on.
"The other officers didn't shoot" isn't an argument as to whether or not one other officer meets the standards needed to fire, what if for instance one officer saw a knife drawn and fired in some other scenario - the idea that one took action and they didn't all fire together like clockwork from an anime scene is ridiculous.
Not really, breaking through reinforced interior chambers to get at congress is different to buying a banana with a 3 dollar note. Neither deserved to die but one activity seems to invite being killed more than the other.
Funny how you fail to mention the actual difference. Ashley Babbitt was killed on purpose without warning while surrounded by armed police who were chillin with the protestors. George Floyd was killed accidently due to his own negligence and drug use. All the people surrounding Floyd were begging with him to just chill out and let the police put him in the car with the AC but you see its hard to chill out when you just swallowed a bag full of drugs. Get that shit out of here shill.
Except she was told to get back and if George was killed accidently due to his own [negligence] (This means foolish actions) then she was too, but by all means shout shill as if it makes your argument anymore coherent. You either agree GF "killing" and babbits is similar or you don't. If you don't then you're against the OP submission and if it is similar then you should be happy - because now everyone's going to start putting babbit statues everywhere for fat white people to kneel in front of praying.
Absolutely not. In what way did her actions require the immediate use of deadly force a d show me where any of the cops standing behind her was stopping her from doing what she was doing. If two other armed officers saw no immediate need to harm her then way did the coward who came out of hiding, which Ashley could not of seen, and execute her?
Purpose of the breach was to "stop the steal".
Stop the steal in this case means to suspend/alter/change the certification of an election via physical presence (This is terrorism).
Barricades are an explicit message to not come any closer.
She was explicitly told to get back
Progressed into the interior through a door
Got shot
If they pulled over a black guy on the roadside and told him to not move and he moved towards the officer you'd have zero issue with them being shot, sort out your inconsistencies. Before you tell me "but but but but but the election was stolen", OK, if that is what people sincerely believed whilst "stopping the steal" there ought to have been 50k people there, armed, discharging their constitutional duty to overthrow corrupt government. If not, then the "executioners" (loaded leftist language) were compelled to operate under the assumption that, until proven otherwise, the election was fair, even if there were as yet unresolved questions and challenges going on.
"The other officers didn't shoot" isn't an argument as to whether or not one other officer meets the standards needed to fire, what if for instance one officer saw a knife drawn and fired in some other scenario - the idea that one took action and they didn't all fire together like clockwork from an anime scene is ridiculous.