"EXCELLENT point.
Just 24 hours ago on January 6th Democrats and the media spent all day saying if Ashli Babbitt didn’t put herself in the position to be shot she’d be alive, But today, that same argument for the activist in Minneapolis is nowhere to be found…. The hypocrisy"
(twitter.com)
🤡 MSM Conspiracy Theory 🤡
They did not have a kind word to say about Ashli Babbitt as a white woman victim of a LE shooting. In fact, they were horrid!
It is not about the person, it is about the NARRATIVE! They are bloviating about Good b/c it fits their anti-ICE and pro-invasion NARRATIVE.
Whereas Ashli had to be TRASHED as part of the J-6 NARRATIVE.
“Bloviating” kek - great word choice
It's all so tiresome and worse yet, there are people who still buy the narrative. Also, +5 points for the use of the word "bloviating" I forgot that word even exists.
HA! It just popped into my mind when trying to describe their hypocritical narrative!
“Y’all just spent all yesterday, January 6th, talking about Ashli Babbitt. If she didn’t riot, if she didn’t put herself in that situation, she’d be here today. And now that lady in Minneapolis that unfortunately put herself in a situation that cost her life, now…. (All the sudden) ‘that is murder, that is terrible. We need to do something about this. There needs to be accountability.’”
The hypocrisy is off the charts...
https://nitter.net/i/status/2009142943219896358
The leftist love being hypocritical. They think it demoralizes us. Conservatives have been pointing out THEIR hypocrisy since the days of Rush Limbaugh! Pointing out their hypocrisy had no affect on their thinking or behavior at all! You can’t reason with them. We can’t establish a basis for reason & understanding. It is probably their most successful psychological op. It stops us.
They do not care about people with our principles & values - except to make money off us. It is why they celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death. Why they trash Christianity & religions that value life, people in those religions seek to become kinder wiser people. Become better & non-violent people & step away from “sin.” Yet the left accepts Islam. The Bolshevik mindset. Hypocrisy. Incongruity.
I like the new term many younger folks on our side has, no f*cks given. NFG. Now we do what we want anyway.
Excellent.
If this cunt had gotten her way, that Ice Agent would have died instead and things would be very different. They would be saying The Ice Agents had no business being there and that it's his own fault for being dead. She would be their new national hero.
If you applied logical symmetry here, then the argument could be made that Ashli Babbitt did deserve to be shot and killed, the same as this woman in Minneapolis did....
If the rule is “entering a restricted area or escalating a confrontation makes a shooting justified,” then that standard applies regardless of whether the person is pro-Trump, anti-ICE, left, right, etc. If the rule is different, like “harm had to be imminent” or “other options existed” , then that standard also applies regardless of the politics.
You can’t switch standards depending on who the shooter or the victim is.
So if liberals are being hypocrites for changing their stance, based on who it happened to, the exact same thing can be said of here. 🤦♀️
Glass houses, people.
Your point doesn’t work. There are numerous instances where the supporters of left entered the Capital in protest. Possibly too many to count! No one shot them without warning. Byrd simply shot Ashli. No “Freeze!” “Stop, or I will shoot!”
Ashli wasn’t given instructions by a law enforcement officer. He wasn’t standing in front of her. Like the Bolshevik coward he is he shot her from cover, from the side.
Was the woman who was shot even a protester? If so, is that illegal now? They had no right to try to open her door, did they?
👆👆👆Do your home work, her spouse was there filming, the woman chase and harass the ICE in two or more vehicles and to block the Feds. So awnswer to your three questions 1) FAFO 2) FAFO 3) FAFO here’s some comments off a YouTube posting * It’s very difficult to understand what would cause a sane person to deliberately interfere with the legal actions of law enforcement. All I can think is that such people are delusional, manipulated, paid to do this, or all three. I suppose you reap what you sow. * As a mother of 3 you wouldn’t catch me in the street acting like a dumbass* Is that why she was 10 hours away from her kids to block ICE agents? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIYmQPFYeyk
Do you have a link showing her harassing ICE prior to the shooting?
NFG.
I’m not arguing the two incidents are identical on the facts or tactics. I’m arguing about the standard people are using.
The standard Democrats used about Ashli was basically: “She shouldn’t have been there / she put herself in that situation, so the shooting is on her.” That’s not a detailed use-of-force analysis, that’s a blame-the-victim shortcut.
A lot of comments here are now using the same shortcut about the Minneapolis woman: “She put herself in that situation, so the shooting is on her.”
If our standard is actually:
..then that standard has to be applied consistently to both cases, regardless of whose side the victim was on.
My point is, either we reject the lazy “she put herself there” logic in both cases, or we accept it in both cases.
We don’t get intellectual honesty by switching rules based on which side we like. 🤷♀️
Both shooting were by law enforcement. Both protesters. One perp was given numerous warnings. One was simply shot.
Legal Basis: Under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b), accelerating a vehicle toward a federal officer constitutes assault with a deadly weapon (up to 20 years imprisonment), justifying deadly force per Supreme Court precedents like Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989), which emphasize objective reasonableness in high-risk encounters.
You just shifted from “she put herself there” to a completely different standard, "imminent lethal threat + legal use of force doctrine."
That’s exactly the distinction I’ve been arguing needs to be applied consistently. 🤷♀️
If the standard is imminent lethal threat, and objective reasonableness (Graham), and necessity/ proportionality, then yes, pointing a vehicle at an officer is legally treated as lethal force, and that gives the Minneapolis shooting a stronger justification on the merits than the Ashli case.
But notice what follows logically from your argument. Under this standard, the ICE shooting may be justified, and Ashli’s shooting requires scrutiny.
Not because of who they voted for, but because the threat profile is different.
That is not what Democrats were saying about Ashli. Their line was:
That’s not a use of force standard at all, it’s a blame shortcut.
So to be clear, if you want to argue these cases on law + threat + necessity, I’m with you.
If the argument is “she put herself there so it’s justified,” then you’re copying the same shortcut the media used on Ashli.
I’m not trying to make the two events identical. I’m trying to separate criteria from narrative shortcuts.
Consistent standard = consistent conclusions, even when the outcomes differ.
That's called intellectual honesty, and it's something that should be a default, not something that should have to be pointed out to people. 🤷♀️
If you do not review all the information you can not make a fair judgement. Yes, judgement.
You want to eliminate all of the information. Distill it down to “she put herself in that situation.” Disregard any further choices either woman made, or the choice people who also put themselves in that situation made.
I’m actually doing the opposite of what you’re describing.
I’m not eliminating information, I’m refusing to let one piece of information (“she put herself in that situation”) become the entire standard for justification.
My whole point has been if we use the actual full criteria (threat level, intent, proportionality, reasonable alternatives, legal doctrine), the two cases produce different evaluations.
If we use the shortcut (“she put herself there”), then the two cases produce the same evaluation and that shortcut is exactly what Democrats used on Ashli.
That’s why I keep separating (A) Narrative shortcut vs. (B) Full use-of-force analysis
I don’t want to collapse everything into (A). I’m saying if people here criticize Democrats for using (A), they shouldn’t switch to (A) themselves just because the victim is someone they dislike. 🤷♀️
If the argument is (B) the full context and legal standards, then we’re on the same page, and the outcomes diverge logically.
So to be clear, I'm not asking anyone to ignore facts. I’m asking us to decide which standard we’re using, and to apply it consistently. That's it. I can't make it more simple than that. Just use the same standards and apply them consistently. I don't think that's an irrational or complicated stance. 🤷♀️
Ah, I don’t disagree with you, other than the “excuse” the left used should not be considered a standard. They don’t have standards.
But there is a stark difference in that Ashli Babbit was not trying to kill her shooter whereas this woman was trying to kill her shooter. This just makes the media’s sole objective of controlling public opinion blatantly obvious. As Mika famously said, “that is our job.“
https://youtu.be/vZpxwlQFz_U?feature=shared
I agree there’s a factual difference in intent and level of threat.
But notice what happens to the argument if we use your standard instead of the one Democrats used.
Your standard here is basically a lethal attack on an officer (using a car as a weapon) = much stronger case for a justified shooting and an unarmed person in a restricted area, not actively attacking = much weaker case, requires a harder look.
That’s a coherent standard. If we adopt that rule, it automatically means the media’s “she put herself there, so it’s fine she was shot” about Ashli is garbage and anyone here saying “she put herself there, so it’s fine she was shot” about the Minneapolis woman is also using garbage logic.
That’s all I’m pointing at. 🤷♀️
If we want to judge these events by imminent lethal threat + necessity of force, I’m on board. If we justify one case (or attack the other) with the lazy “she put herself in that situation” line, we’re copying the same narrative shortcut we say we hate.
The media is absolutely running a narrative. But if we don’t lock down our own standards, we end up running one too. 🤷♀️
Read the post I just made and get back to me.
I read your post.
On the threat question, I’m actually with you. Ashli wasn’t presenting the same kind of imminent lethal threat that a vehicle aimed at an officer does. A car used as a weapon is legally treated as lethal force. That’s exactly why I’ve been pushing this distinction so hard.
If our standard is imminent lethal threat + objective reasonableness + necessity/proportionality, then the ICE shooting has a much stronger legal justification, and the Ashli shooting looks far weaker and deserves serious scrutiny.
If our “standard” is just “she put herself in that situation”, then both shootings get waved away the same way, and that’s the lazy shortcut the media used on Ashli.
You’re basically doing what I’m arguing for. Throwing out the “she put herself there” rhetoric and replacing it with actual use of force criteria.
Once you do that, you’ve already admitted the media’s line on Ashli was garbage, and you’ve also undercut the people here who are using that same shortcut on the Minneapolis woman. 🤷♀️
So I’m not trying to ignore context or downplay the threat difference. I’m saying either we use the real standard(threat, intent, alternatives, necessity), in which case the two cases are not equivalent and the media’s take on Ashli collapses.
Or we use the shortcut (“she put herself there”), in which case it applies to both cases and everyone using it is copying the same logic they claim to hate.
You’ve picked #1. That’s my entire point. 🤷♀️
Ok, thank you! If just interfering with law enforcement by standing in the way, or some other non-threatening action but still interfering, is justification to be shot by a cop, we would be no better than former East Germany or North Korea. There is one caveat, however; if you refuse to obey the order of a cop, regardless of whether you think the order is illegal or otherwise shouldn't be followed, then you ARE putting yourself in a position where you could be shot by a cop. The lesson that is not learned by too many people is, just obey the cop, it may be humiliating, it may be inconvenient, but you WILL NOT BE SHOT if you just obey the instructions.
Another comparison to Ashli Babbitt that I use in situations like this. And I know I am in the minority.
There were so many things that happened on J6 and afterwards that make my blood boil. I can barely think about it without being outraged. But Ashli Babbit isn't one of them. She was crawling through a broken window with a backpack on where things were barricaded and "riots" happening.
I definitely don't think she deserved to be killed but she put herself in a position where it could happen. She wasn't just protesting or walking into an open-door trap. She poked the bear. The bear bit. That is exactly how I see the situation in Minneapolis. Don't do that shit.
Look, someone using the same set of standards, no matter which side the person was on.
Bravo. 👏👏👏👏
(100% not sarcastic. Seriously, it's refreshing to see someone be able to be rational and logical about stuff and not fall into full on tribalism.)
They can't think for themselves and see the hypocrisy. They only follow the Herd. What happened on Jan. 6th was a knife in the back of the strong American Spirit.
How do we know the woman who was shot was an activist? Looks like she was about to maneuver, saw the truck, waved them to 'go ahead', and they then thought they had the right to aggressively open her door and surround her with weapons drawn... Those agents should be fired and general training implemented. These ICE guys are just going around lawlessly assaulting American civilians, even innocent bystanders. Protest is still legal btw. This is not winning hearts and minds.
Good point.
If that was a bunch of FBI/DEA/ATF agents and their targets were supposed "domestic terrorists" (the Democrats' version), then people here would be raising all sorts of hell about government overreach, and swinging their dicks around with all their "FAFO" talk in regards to what they would do to those agents, talking about self defense and their second amendment rights. 🤷♀️
But because it's ICE, they're given a free pass. Government agents are the big heroes here. 🙄 Because they think it won't involve them (because obviously they're not illegal immigrants). Until we have some patriots with Hispanic ancestry (Yes, there are some!) and they get pulled over just because of how they look. 🤷♀️ Then the narrative will change, I'm guessing.
My point is basically that I'm not suddenly going to be licking the taints of government agents and defending them of any and every move they make simply because their jobs happen to align with one of my political stances. They're still government agents, so most of them are going to be working on the Peter Principle and a good bit of them are going to be utterly incompetent, because that's how it works with government employees.
Acting like ICE agents are all above reproach and immune from bad judgement simply because they happen to be doing a job we agree with is just asinine.
Totally.
Ashli Babbit was no threat to that idiot who shot her. A car being driven at you is a threat! Did that stupid capital cop tell Ashli to stop? I don't think so, I think he just saw her in that window and shot. Total coward and totally irresponsible for someone with a gun!
u/#commandertrump
The hypocrisy of the psychotic left is truly breathtaking. But this is exactly what people have always had to deal with in communist countries. The truth is whatever the regime says it is, even if your own eyes tell you otherwise. It's sickness.
And the npc retarded eat this up.