Tucker showing video of the Jan 6th , that has never been shown

Happier said:
He is there to protect our government leaders and did his job.

You should run through airport security yelling about committing violent acts and let us know the reaction of security.
Click to expand...
That officer needed to be scrutinized like every other policeman. Seems federal carries a different level of scrutiny.
 
bob99 said:
Doubt it. Everyone there was breaking the law. If for no other reason, the Capitol was shut down due to covid. They could have shot people for not wearing a mask😁
Click to expand...
Next time you get pulled over for speeding maybe the cop will just shoot you. After all, you were breaking the law.
 
Happier said:
You guys are usually OK shooting unarmed suspect in cuffs or running away in the back in a public street. She was breaking down the last barrier protecting our Legislatures from a violent mob that was intentionally trying to disrupt the certification of the election.
Click to expand...
Ok....you're choosing to be dumb again. Cool.

I said two years ago that she didn't comply to the police and got herself shot. You comply, you increase your odds of not getting shot immensely. Glad you're onboard finally with that concept.

Disruption of an election isn't a death sentence. If she was a threat to the police or others, sure. I don't know if that was the reality but she didn't stop climbing through the window....so that is on her.
 
winbypin said:
Next time you get pulled over for speeding maybe the cop will just shoot you. After all, you were breaking the law.
Click to expand...
If I am speeding in a prohibited area where I had absolutely no legal right to be there, refused the police commands and left my brain at home, maybe I would deserve to be shot.
 
All visitors to the Capitol are required to go through security screening.
Did any of the rioters go through security screening? So there was no way of knowing what the rioters had on them.
Did anyone know what Babbitt had in her backpack or pockets? Why should the officer be expected to take that chance?
1679097118082.png

Utah student allegedly brought bomb to school in his backpack and tried to detonate it​

From Bombings to Explosive-Filled Backpacks: How It Unfolded
Could a new reward solve Jan 6’s biggest mystery? Inside the hunt …
Connecticut man charged after pipe bombs found in backpack
South Carolina teen faces adult charges for school attack — (Reuters …
 
bob99 said:
If I am speeding in a prohibited area where I had absolutely no legal right to be there, refused the police commands and left my brain at home, maybe I would deserve to be shot.
Click to expand...
Moving the goal posts I see. Even so....driving someplace you shouldn't be is not a capital offense.
 
bob99 said:
All visitors to the Capitol are required to go through security screening.
Did any of the rioters go through security screening? So there was no way of knowing what the rioters had on them.
Did anyone know what Babbitt had in her backpack or pockets? Why should the officer be expected to take that chance?
View attachment 39875

Utah student allegedly brought bomb to school in his backpack and tried to detonate it​

From Bombings to Explosive-Filled Backpacks: How It Unfolded
Could a new reward solve Jan 6’s biggest mystery? Inside the hunt …
Connecticut man charged after pipe bombs found in backpack
South Carolina teen faces adult charges for school attack — (Reuters …
Click to expand...
You keep saying how visitors are supposed to act or the rules they are supposed to follow like that means anything. Obviously they were not visitors.

Why should the police take the chance? It's their job. They could have easily pulled her down from inside or even from behind.
 
winbypin said:
Moving the goal posts I see. Even so....driving someplace you shouldn't be is not a capital offense.
Click to expand...
Making comparable examples. If I crash through a gate of a military complex and I am driving recklessly and refuse commands to stop, yes it could be a capital offense. And who fault would that be?
 
Last edited:
bob99 said:
Making comparable examples. If crash through a gate of a military complex and I am driving recklessly and refuse commands to stop, yes it could be a capital offense. And who fault would that be?
Click to expand...
Lol. Ok. You got me in your extreme example. But the capitol is not the same thing as a military base.
 
winbypin said:
You keep saying how visitors are supposed to act or the rules they are supposed to follow like that means anything. Obviously they were not visitors.

Why should the police take the chance? It's their job. They could have easily pulled her down from inside or even from behind.
Click to expand...
Each officer is responsible for their own decisions and do their jobs as they see fit. You are right. Obviously they were not visitors. They were a criminal element intent on breaking the law. At no time would you be allowed to bring an unchecked backpack into the Capitol. The officer had no idea if Babbitt was armed or not. It has already been proven that he was within his rights to use deadly force. He was forced to be in that situation. Nobody forced Babbitt to do anything. It is quite clear and indisputable who was in the right that day and who was in the wrong. How can you say otherwise?
 
winbypin said:
Lol. Ok. You got me in your extreme example. But the capitol is not the same thing as a military base.
Click to expand...
With the right command and troops deployed in advance like they should have been, it could be handled as a military position.
 
bob99 said:
Each officer is responsible for their own decisions and do their jobs as they see fit. You are right. Obviously they were not visitors. They were a criminal element intent on breaking the law. At no time would you be allowed to bring an unchecked backpack into the Capitol. The officer had no idea if Babbitt was armed or not. It has already been proven that he was within his rights to use deadly force. He was forced to be in that situation. Nobody forced Babbitt to do anything. It is quite clear and indisputable who was in the right that day and who was in the wrong. How can you say otherwise?
Click to expand...
Each officer follows the same guidelines when it comes to the use of deadly force. Lots of people had unchecked backpacks that day. Why were they not shot? You keep saying the officer was within his rights because he was cleared by the government. Do you ever stop to consider based on the circumstances that there was no way he would not be cleared even if he didn't handle the situation correctly? I think you put way too much faith in what the government tells you to be fact.
 
bob99 said:
With the right command and troops deployed in advance like they should have been, it could be handled as a military position.
Click to expand...
Yes. And if they leveled the area and paved it they could have another airport.

Either way it's neither s military base or airport.
 
winbypin said:
Each officer follows the same guidelines when it comes to the use of deadly force. Lots of people had unchecked backpacks that day. Why were they not shot? You keep saying the officer was within his rights because he was cleared by the government. Do you ever stop to consider based on the circumstances that there was no way he would not be cleared even if he didn't handle the situation correctly? I think you put way too much faith in what the government tells you to be fact.
Click to expand...
I still contend the officer was the only one to do his job to the best of his ability. Why do you think he did anything wrong? Was he supposed to be there? Was he paid to be there? Was it his job to protect the government officials? What about Babbitt? Was she legally at the Capitol? Did she ignore locked doors that were barricaded? Did she ignore commands? Did she decide to climb through windows that had been vandalized to try and gain access to a restricted area? Did anyone force her to be there? Why was she wearing a backpack? No reason for the officer to be concerned? He had his weapon drawn and yet she still decided to break in? Why would anyone with half a brain charge a police officer with his weapon drawn? I don't need the government to tell me the facts. I stated the facts and I was able to watch it all unfold on live tv. Babbitt was in the wrong and she paid for her stupidity. Nobody to blame but herself.
 
winbypin said:
Yes. And if they leveled the area and paved it they could have another airport.

Either way it's neither s military base or airport.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. It is a federal building, the heart of our government. It should be protected and legally can be protected.
 
I enjoy wrestling said:
Should Police officers be political activist?
Click to expand...
Was the officer a political activist the day of the riot, or was he a police officer on the clock doing his job where he was assigned to be? A political activist? Are you suggesting that all police officers be scrutinized? If as many are claiming on here, numerous police ended up aid and abetting the rioters. Doesn't that make them political activists too?
 
bob99 said:
I still contend the officer was the only one to do his job to the best of his ability. Why do you think he did anything wrong? Was he supposed to be there? Was he paid to be there? Was it his job to protect the government officials? What about Babbitt? Was she legally at the Capitol? Did she ignore locked doors that were barricaded? Did she ignore commands? Did she decide to climb through windows that had been vandalized to try and gain access to a restricted area? Did anyone force her to be there? Why was she wearing a backpack? No reason for the officer to be concerned? He had his weapon drawn and yet she still decided to break in? Why would anyone with half a brain charge a police officer with his weapon drawn? I don't need the government to tell me the facts. I stated the facts and I was able to watch it all unfold on live tv. Babbitt was in the wrong and she paid for her stupidity. Nobody to blame but herself.
Click to expand...
We can agree on that....babbitt brought it on herself. I think the police had an opportunity to secure her first but that is neither here nor there. I do think they rushed to clear the officer though because of our current political climate. I didn't see her charging an officer though...I feel like you added that to help you settle that in your mind. But yes, you're believing what the government is telling you in regards to clearing that officer. I don't remember seeing that hearing on TV.
 
Last edited:
bob99 said:
Was the officer a political activist the day of the riot, or was he a police officer on the clock doing his job where he was assigned to be? A political activist? Are you suggesting that all police officers be scrutinized? If as many are claiming on here, numerous police ended up aid and abetting the rioters. Doesn't that make them political activists too?
Click to expand...
You don't want police to stay politically neutral? Seriously?
 
Happier said:
He is there to protect our government leaders and did his job.

You should run through airport security yelling about committing violent acts and let us know the reaction of security.
Click to expand...
So he was the only one out of thousands that did his job?

You’ve become a cheap parody of yourself.
 
bob99 said:
Was the officer a political activist the day of the riot, or was he a police officer on the clock doing his job where he was assigned to be? A political activist? Are you suggesting that all police officers be scrutinized? If as many are claiming on here, numerous police ended up aid and abetting the rioters. Doesn't that make them political activists too?
Click to expand...
I saw his social media posts, which were conveniently deleted after his hate filled murder.
 
winbypin said:
We can agree on that....babbitt brought it on herself. I think the police had an opportunity to secure her first but that is neither here nor there. I do think they rushed to clear the officer though because of our current political climate. I didn't see her charging an officer though...I feel like you added that to help you settle that in your mind. But yes, you're believing what the govermtis telling you in regards to clearing that officer. I don't remember seeing that hearing on TV.
Click to expand...
Why is her death such a major sticking point with you? Have you ever stopped to thing that one death might have been enough to lower the temperature and saved lives? That one officer was alone. By shooting Babbitt he stopped the rioters from trying to breach the Capitol lobby for a period of time. Did he give more time for the Chambers to be evacuated and to put himself out of immediate harm's way? A Republican Representative stated he felt the officer's action saved lives. He was there, I wasn't. I will take his word for it. He has first hand information. Bottom line is what did the officer do that was illegal? He made a snap decision in a moment of crisis. That is his job. We do have the results of the hearing.
Department of Justice Closes Investigation into the Death of Ashli …
The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. In order to establish a violation of this statute, prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer acted willfully to deprive Ms. Babbitt of a right protected by the Constitution or other law, here the Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure. Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.

The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter.
 
OldSoulon said:
I saw his social media posts, which were conveniently deleted after his hate filled murder.
Click to expand...
Ok? If the DOJ felt that would prevent him from properly doing his job I would thing they would fire him. Human nature is a thing. Should all police officers be fired for their political views? Who exactly did the vast majority of police support in 2020?
 
BlueDevil2022 said:
no i was not in DC on Jan 6 but I do know people who were there.

No, i consider Wash DC to be a bright shiny thing and that local municipal government to be the most important level of government in the US.

I don't give a toss who is POTUS and do not consider the election that occurs once every 4 years to be election of the Emperor or King of US to be the most important election, or the office of POTUS to be the most important office in the US govt

I wouldn't even think of attending a rally held by any candidate for POTUS.

I don't think the determination of that election is the most important by any stretch of the imagination. Don't care who gets it.

How other people view it is interesting. I'd estimate that 50% of the attendees at the Stop the Steal rally did not even vote in Nov 2020 and if they did, it was the only time they voted since 2016 if they voted in 2016
Click to expand...
Of course you know people who were there.
 
bob99 said:
I have always opposed all riots and have been the only one who have consistently advocated for lethal force. The BLM threads were pretty much everybody in agreement. I don't remember the left leaning members giving much support to BLM violent rioters. You people on the extreme right like to use the BLM rots as a strawman on this site. You keep pointing to the BLM as an excuse for the 1/6 riot. Maybe you have a point with some of the leftists in real life outside of yappi, but you don't seem to get much rebuttal here on yappi. For some reason I can't understand, the right goes off the rail over the 1/6 riot. There is no question that laws were broken, police officers attacked and beaten, the capital was vandalized. items were stolen and government officials had to be taken to a safe area for their own protection. There is no doubt of the guilt of the participants on that day. The people committed these acts of their own freewill. No one was forced to participate. What they did was a conscience choice on their part and they have nobody but themselves to blame. What is the uproar about? There is nothing out there that can exonerate their guilt. Their penalty covers a large spectrum according to the degree of their guilt. Non violent and just everyday stupid gets a mild punishment. Violent and totally stupid and proud of it, a more appropriate and stiffer sentence. What about that isn't fair.
Click to expand...
The right "goes off the rails" about the false narrative that it was an attempt to overthrow the government used as a smear against conservatives. No one has defended the people involved, the narrative is the issue. You keep throwing out the strawman that having an issue with the "official "narrative equals support for those actions.

There's also a right way and wrong way to hold people accountable. For people who were on video merely wandering around taking selfies causing no damage and assaulting no one send them a fine for trespassing and be done with it. You don't sicc the hounds on them to the ends of the earth, drag them back to DC for a spectacle, brand them terrorists ruining their lives. That's not justice, that's political retribution for being conservatives.
 
y2h said:
For people who were on video merely wandering around taking selfies causing no damage and assaulting no one send them a fine for trespassing and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the penalty they received are pretty much in line with what you want.
"An additional 100 rioters have been sentenced to periods of home detention, while most sentences have included fines, community service and probation for low-level offenses like illegally parading or demonstrating in the Capitol, which is a misdemeanor."
y2h said:
The right "goes off the rails" about the false narrative that it was an attempt to overthrow the government used as a smear against conservatives. No one has defended the people involved, the narrative is the issue. You keep throwing out the strawman that having an issue with the "official "narrative equals support for those actions.
Click to expand...
What do you expect to change? The right is watching the right wing newscasts and the left is watching the left wing newscasts. Their minds are already made up. If no one is defending the people involved, why do you keep bringing them up? Why do you care if the left wants to keep calling 1/6 an insurrection? You can't change their minds, so why bother? Is the committee capable of doing anything to change your mind? Do you thing Tucker Carlson is capable of changing anybodies mind on the left? If you read through this thread, it isn't about the 1/6 narrative. It is about the participants. The narrative should be that these criminals in all the illegal activities should be held accountable for their actions to try to ensure it never happens again. This wasn't done in past riots and disorderly conduct events. Let's do it from now on and send a message. Keep doing the right thing on the 1/6 riot and come down hard on the Antifa criminals activities. From this point forward, don't make it a political football. Handle these events as the unlawful illegal acts they truly are.

"By Debra Heine March 6, 2023 The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is charging 23 anti-police agitators with domestic terrorism after violent riots in Atlanta on Sunday left a police training facility on fire, the Daily Mail reported Monday. The rioters were arrested near the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center, dubbed “Cop City.”

Good for Georgia. Don't stop at 23, get them all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top