Search results

What about them ? Nope. You think that's somehow an insult. :tearsofjoy:

The mob she was a part of was threatening human life. She just made a whole series of bad decisions which ultimately cost her her life. Tragic to be sure, and entirely avoidable on her part. Her decision to be out front at that moment was incredibly ill-advised. But that's what can happen...

From what I've read - at least in some instances - possibly because they couldn't identify discrete targets (the individuals actually doing the throwing) No. :tearsofjoy:

No - I what I'm asking is what was it that she did, specifically. Describe her conduct: Did she hurl a Molitov Cocktail ? Light a match and set a trashcan on fire ? What exactly ?

No - the mob was NOT "subjected to deadly force". Just one member of it was. The particular one who failed to comply with a specific lawful order from a law enforcement officer. Remember ? Probably depends on the exact circumstances in any given situation. In terms of looters, probably not...

LOL ... I'm not trying. How's the pillows holding up ? :tearsofjoy:

Regarding Sperry's recent "article", if the lawyer for Babbit's family has some real evidence, he can present it in court where a judge and jury can weigh it and render a verdict.

What did her conduct consist of ? Sentences often vary according to particular circumstances.

My position is that given the totality of the circumstances, and the conduct of the mob she was part of, the shooting was justified - based on her ignoring and failing to comply with a lawful order from a law enforcement officer. She should have just complied. Let me know if you need me to...

Nope. Unless I accidentally run across it, you'll be waiting a very looonng time. :tearsofjoy: Well, what would expect them to say ? :tearsofjoy:

Sure ... that's the ticket ! :tearsofjoy:

Almost Half of Federal Cases Against Portland Rioters Have Been Dismissed Like I was sayin' ... :rolleyes:

She was armed ... with a mob of violent rioters. And she told the officers that they wouldn't stop. What evidence is there to back up that claim ? Please tell me that it's something more than merely wishful thinking. :rolleyes:

Portland rioter gets 4 years for arson, assault :rolleyes:

Feral anti-vaxxer loons going nuts ... "To Own The Libs !!!" :oops:

Oh no - the Gateway Pundit ??? It was probably in the "packet captures" ... :tearsofjoy:

Every case where an officer elects to use deadly force is judged on its own merits in light of the particular circumstances. Seems to me that's how it ought to be. So any hopes for free-fire zones in the future is probably a tad bit misplaced at this point. :rolleyes:

No, that's wrong. The decision to prosecute and take cases to trial is based on having sufficient evidence for a high probability of obtaining a conviction. That's how the DOJ looks at whether to bring charges and try cases. There was some previous discussion of this in regards to the Mueller...

"Trump appointee ..."

Clearly NOT "unarmed" ...