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

bob99 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, you believe a one page statement about the investigation and also a statement from a congressman. Why you think it's important for him to be a republican I don't understand. I guess you think that gives the statement more credibility. I would like to know more about the actual investigation....was the officers social media remarks brought up? What was all the evidence they looked at? Why did the 3 officers outside the door leave? You're just going to take what they say as gospel. Ok.
 
bob99 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Did they consider his social media postings during the investigation of his shooting?
 
bob99 said:
You are opposed to the police union openly supporting Trump in the 2020 election? That is being politically neutral? Kind of balances out the teacher's union support for Biden?
Click to expand...
Stop! Seriously You went from individuals to organizations. If you can't see the political bias in that federal officer I can't help you. It's why officers need to stay politically clean. That officer should have been suspended or fired. Period! He was compromised in thought. He stated his bias thru social media. I'm guessing a Klan member would make a good law enforcement officer
 
Last edited:
bob99 said:
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?
Click to expand...
DOJ? Lol ...You need to look at the double standards being implemented by the Federal LAW enforcement divisions. Just so you get my point. No single individual representing a law enforcement agency should have any public political views. That included MAGA
 
winbypin said:
Yes, you believe a one page statement about the investigation and also a statement from a congressman. Why you think it's important for him to be a republican I don't understand. I guess you think that gives the statement more credibility. I would like to know more about the actual investigation....was the officers social media remarks brought up? What was all the evidence they looked at? Why did the 3 officers outside the door leave? You're just going to take what they say as gospel. Ok.
Click to expand...
The officers outside the door stood down due to being outnumbered. The rioters have already waded through other police lines, what are 3 police officers supposed to do? What does the officer's social remarks have to do with that moment in time? He wasn't there for politically purposes, he was there as a paid federal employee to perform a duty he was hired and trained for. HE WAS WHERE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. He was exonerated. What rights, privileges or immunities was Babbitt denied? She had no right to be in the Capitol.

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law​

prev | next
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
 
winbypin said:
Did they consider his social media postings during the investigation of his shooting?
Click to expand...
I don't know. What difference should that make? No one who illegally entered the Capitol had any rights to be there. The officer was found not to have violated this code.

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law​

 
I enjoy wrestling said:
Stop! Seriously You went from individuals to organizations. If you can't see the political bias in that federal officer I can't help you. It's why officers need to stay politically clean. That officer should have been suspended or fired. Period! He was compromised in thought. He stated his bias thru social media. I'm guessing a Klan member would make a good law enforcement officer
Click to expand...
If the officers that Tucker claimed let the rioters in, gave unlawful tours and aid and abetted the rioters should be suspended or fired. If it is a case of all the officers acting in what they felt was in the best interest of what the situation was at that time than no they shouldn't be fired. To the best of my knowledge the officer is still employed as a capitol police officer with many years of service. Why do you think your personal opinion should out weigh the conclusions of the DOJ and the capitol police departments findings? What legal facts are you basing your opinion on Rassler?
Capitol Police Officer Who Fatally Shot …
After interviewing multiple witnesses and reviewing all the available evidence, including video and radio calls, the United States Capitol Police has completed the internal investigation into the fatal shooting of Ms. Ashli Babbitt, which occurred in the Speaker's Lobby on January 6," the department said in a statement.

"USCP's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer's conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."
The Capitol Police's decision comes after the Justice Department in April said it would not pursue charges against the officer who fatally shot Babbitt as she attempted to breach a barricaded, shattered glass door leading to the House chamber.
 
I enjoy wrestling said:
DOJ? Lol ...You need to look at the double standards being implemented by the Federal LAW enforcement divisions. Just so you get my point. No single individual representing a law enforcement agency should have any public political views. That included MAGA
Click to expand...
We wouldn't have many police officers nationwide. Why are police officers allowed to vote? Why are police unions allowed to donate to political candidates and openly endorse candidates as a union body? Be reasonable Rassler.
As far as the DOJ, are you talking 100% proof or just your personal view?
 
bob99 said:
Are you denying what I posted? Police don't vote or support certain candidates over others? They are humans, not robots.
Click to expand...
You're getting good at diversion. We are talking about individuals expressing public political viewpoints. Can you even understand why it's not permitted? Pssst. Let's go to trial. Prejudice
 
I enjoy wrestling said:
You're getting good at diversion. We are talking about individuals expressing public political viewpoints. Can you even understand why it's not permitted? Pssst. Let's go to trial. Prejudice
Click to expand...
It happens Rassler.It can't be stopped or controlled. Police don't have any freedom of speech? Would make an interesting trial.
Miami officer facing discipline after wearing Trump …
1679159399572.png
 
I enjoy wrestling said:
One last point. You are aware of Capitol officer fired for wearing a hat? In fact you could say 2
Click to expand...
Yes. He claimed to be wearing it for his own protection. The capitol police did internal investigations. I have no reason to doubt their conclusions. I was not privilege to their investigations and will trust their judgment concerning their findings.
 
I enjoy wrestling said:
Stop! Seriously You went from individuals to organizations. If you can't see the political bias in that federal officer I can't help you. It's why officers need to stay politically clean. That officer should have been suspended or fired. Period! He was compromised in thought. He stated his bias thru social media. I'm guessing a Klan member would make a good law enforcement officer
Click to expand...
Can you imagine if a cop shot a black woman and had Klan propaganda all over their social media footprint?

I'm sure the prevailing wisdom would be nothing to see here, what's the problem?
 
bob99 said:
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."

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.
Click to expand...
You always tell us most people in the country are in the middle then babble about changing the minds of left or right.

When the media is dominated by a leftist narrative that influences your people in the middle. Facts matter. Setting the record straight matters. You are arguing for a one sided narrative to stand.
 
bob99 said:
I don't know. What difference should that make? No one who illegally entered the Capitol had any rights to be there. The officer was found not to have violated this code.

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law​

Click to expand...
It could make a huge difference. People, including police officers, have been fired because of their extreme online political views.
 
bob99 said:
The officers outside the door stood down due to being outnumbered. The rioters have already waded through other police lines, what are 3 police officers supposed to do? What does the officer's social remarks have to do with that moment in time? He wasn't there for politically purposes, he was there as a paid federal employee to perform a duty he was hired and trained for. HE WAS WHERE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. He was exonerated. What rights, privileges or immunities was Babbitt denied? She had no right to be in the Capitol.

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law​

prev | next
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Click to expand...
The three officers could have pulled her down and stopped her. Even pointed out that the people inside had their guns drawn, ready to shoot. More came up the stairs right after she got shot.
 
bob99 said:
If the officers that Tucker claimed let the rioters in, gave unlawful tours and aid and abetted the rioters should be suspended or fired. If it is a case of all the officers acting in what they felt was in the best interest of what the situation was at that time than no they shouldn't be fired. To the best of my knowledge the officer is still employed as a capitol police officer with many years of service. Why do you think your personal opinion should out weigh the conclusions of the DOJ and the capitol police departments findings? What legal facts are you basing your opinion on Rassler?
Capitol Police Officer Who Fatally Shot …
After interviewing multiple witnesses and reviewing all the available evidence, including video and radio calls, the United States Capitol Police has completed the internal investigation into the fatal shooting of Ms. Ashli Babbitt, which occurred in the Speaker's Lobby on January 6," the department said in a statement.

"USCP's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer's conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."
The Capitol Police's decision comes after the Justice Department in April said it would not pursue charges against the officer who fatally shot Babbitt as she attempted to breach a barricaded, shattered glass door leading to the House chamber.
Click to expand...
I believe that officer was also reprimanded for leaving his loaded service weapon in a capital bathroom. Depsite his "many years of service."
 
bob99 said:
Yes. He claimed to be wearing it for his own protection. The capitol police did internal investigations. I have no reason to doubt their conclusions. I was not privilege to their investigations and will trust their judgment concerning their findings.
Click to expand...
They really appreciate your blind trust.
 
y2h said:
You always tell us most people in the country are in the middle then babble about changing the minds of left or right.

When the media is dominated by a leftist narrative that influences your people in the middle. Facts matter. Setting the record straight matters. You are arguing for a one sided narrative to stand.
Click to expand...
The middle has to watch these newscasts and believe what we are hearing. We would have to make a steady diet of the newsfeed the way the left and right does. If you are exclusively following one or the other all you know is a one sided narrative.
 
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?
Click to expand...
no.


bob99 said:
Did she decide to climb through windows that had been vandalized to try and gain access to a restricted area?
Click to expand...

yes

bob99 said:
Did anyone force her to be there? Why was she wearing a backpack? No reason for the officer to be concerned?
Click to expand...
yes he had good reason for concern, certainly.


bob99 said:
He had his weapon drawn and yet she still decided to break in?
Click to expand...

She didn't know he was there, weapon or no weapon
bob99 said:
Why would anyone with half a brain charge a police officer with his weapon drawn?
Click to expand...
She did not charge any police officer with weapon drawn.
bob99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

the above statement is utter nonsense.
bob99 said:
Babbitt was in the wrong and she paid for her stupidity. Nobody to blame but herself.
Click to expand...

She paid with her life for what she did, stupid or not.
 
winbypin said:
I believe that officer was also reprimanded for leaving his loaded service weapon in a capital bathroom. Depsite his "many years of service."
Click to expand...
"Byrd at the time said that with his rank as a lieutenant and his role as commander of the House chambers section, he told his colleagues that he expected to “be treated differently” in terms of consequences. Byrd did remain on the job in the days after his weapon was discovered.
In the NBC News interview, Byrd described the episode as a “terrible mistake."
“I owned up to it. I was penalized for it. I moved on,” he said.
That gun left in the bathroom was just one in a rash of similar cases in which Capitol Police officers left their weapons in bathroom stalls, to be found by Capitol Visitors’ Center employees, custodial staff and once even a 7- or 8-year-old child visiting the Capitol with his parents.
The pattern led to scrutiny of the department’s training and professional accountability mechanisms, but if internal reviews were conducted and recommendations were made to the Capitol Police Board, no findings were made public.
 
BlueDevil2022 said:
She didn't know he was there, weapon or no weapon
Click to expand...
Was she deaf? You can clearly hear someone yelling gun on the video.
BlueDevil2022 said:
She did not charge any police officer with weapon drawn.
Click to expand...
She didn't get shot?
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.
Click to expand...
BlueDevil2022 said:
the above statement is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Based on what? Can disprove anything I have posted?
 
bob99 said:
Was she deaf? You can clearly hear someone yelling gun on the video.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of her hearing abilities there were people yelling and screaming all over the place she evidently didn't hear Sullivan yelling {There's a gun There's a gun!
bob99 said:
She didn't get shot?
Click to expand...

BlueDevil2022 said:
She did not charge any police officer with weapon drawn.
Click to expand...
She didn't get shot?

She apparently suffered gunshot wound to the neck, but she never charged any police officer with a drawn weapon which is the nonsense you keep repeating incessantly and it is absolutely not true: it is rubbish.
bob99 said:
Based on what? Can disprove anything I have posted?
Click to expand...
bob99 said:
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.

this is utter nonsense and rubbish: nobody was able to "watch it all unfold on live tv" in fact as it happened there were very limited video of isolated incidents broadcast on live TV as the only video inside the Capitol was from CSPAN broadcast which essentially ended when the Joint Session went into recess.

You have a tendency to make wildly inaccurate statements. as to proving or disproving any "facts" you might have posted there is no need or even any possibility since most of your statements of facts are wild speculation and based on nothing,

such as the "fact" you keep repeating incessantly that Babbitt "charged police officers with weapons drawn" it is easy to disprove, she didn't charge into the officer who shot her and there was only one officer, hidden from her sight on the other side of the hallway from the door she climbed through and he issued no commands anybody knows of.

jaydenx video disproves your nonsense in fact. 34:56 elapsed in this version


see the gun on the far left side of the speakers lobby hallway?
1679184584256.png


see babbit falling from the opening on the far right side??

1679184693127.png


so yes I can disprove your incessant nonsense that she charged police officers with weapons drawn

it is totally disproven and shown to be utter nonsense and rubbish

and I can prove that the statement you made you "watched it all unfold live on tv" is utter nonsense and rubbish

the JaydenX video was not published by John Earl Sullivan until days if not weeks, after the events unfolded.
 
Last edited:
bob99 said:
Was she deaf? You can clearly hear someone yelling gun on the video.

She didn't get shot?


Based on what? Can disprove anything I have posted?
Click to expand...
you posted this image to support your rubbish assertion that Babbitt "charged police officers with guns drawn"

your text "did anybody force HER to try to climb through a broken window to enter a room that was barricaded to keep people out " proves that you posted this photo as the Babbitt shooting scene.

that is utter nonsense and rubbish dude.

wildily inaccurate rubbish
1679190862224.png



THIS is the babbitt shooting scene:

1679191332600.png



1679191578175.png



conclusion: you either intentionally tried to mislead OR

you simply have not a clue what you are talking about.

1679192479764.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top