"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 🤡
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. 🤷♀️
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.