No charges for Ashli Babbitt’s killer

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Life is violence by very definition. The peaceful calm of idyllic 1950's suburbia is a myth, and anything approximating it is less than a blip in the scope of history. To think otherwise is naivety.

I must agree. The struggle for survival has to be violent. To compromise is not progress. So much as settling. One must achieve the best.

But striving for the best is greedy. Not surviving. The balance lies somewhere in between. Sir.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Lets see if I can explain this to you; when I joined the navy I wanted to be part of something larger than myself. I took the oath with the clear understanding about what I was agreeing to even as a 17 year old. Before we took the oath a JAG officer came in and explained the oath. The first, and most important part, of the oath is what? Supporting and defending Constitution. That comes before obeying orders. Anyone can read the Constitution and understand most of it. Thinking about it reveals new truths as you have to wrestle with what is what. Supporting and defending the Constitution supersedes everything else including obeying orders.
The second part is about obeying the orders of the president and the officers appointed over me. Now the question has been asked about how can a boot enlisted man decide what is right or not. The short answer, is yes, he or she can do that. We are not expected, nor does the service want robots who follow each and every order without failure. We think and we act in the best interest of the service.
Do you understand what a lawful order is? Not all orders are lawful. We can decide which ones are lawful but heaven help you if you're wrong. Very likely some form of investigation will second guess your choice. They may decided that you were right and a superior was wrong and you can still be punished for the good of the service. At My Lai, the court found that Lt. Calley had superseded his orders by ordering the shooting of innocent villagers. He compounded the offense by trying to cover it up as did officers over him. A service member, enlisted or commissioned, can refuse to obey such as order. I'm pretty sure that no one was punished for not obeying that order. They just wanted to forget that sometimes the average soldier is right.
Now, as for January 6th. Any active duty soldier would be subject to those laws. Were there orders issued? The only person who could issue them would the president of the United States. That was Donald Trump. Go back and listen to what was said. Trump gave no orders to invade the capital. He said to march peacefully to the capital. He did not say to break windows or tear open doors. There are those who came ready to each thing. I would like to know who those people were. Who came with ladders and ropes, who came with clubs, who came with shields, and who came with their faces hidden. No orders were given so each person there, and this only pertains to active duty personnel, had to follow their own reasoning. A veteran (not active duty) does not face punishment from the UCMJ but it has been instilled in each and every one of us to defend the Constitution. Take away a lawful order is is within each of us to decide what that means. We're not wrong about defending and supporting against ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC but we may be misinformed by the media and cannot make a good decision. The oath says that there will be domestic threats to the Constitution. What will they look like? We have bunch of poorly disciplined, black clad wannabees who call everyone who disagrees with them a Nazi. They have no idea what their talking about but they actually believe their BS. So if your opponents are Nazis, then what are your limits in fighting them? That is there defense. "My enemy is truly awful so I can do anything to resist them." Inject some common sense and knowledge, they can't make that case and they lose all credibility.
NO ONE has proven that there were no election irregularities and it is fairly obvious to the most casual viewer that things did happen. Most of the country believes that according to Rasmussen. The left could put this whole thing to bed by supporting a complete and deep investigation of election fraud in every precinct. Proving no election fraud, or failing that, insufficient fraud to affect the outcome of the election would make the GOP appear to be silly. So why don't the democrats do exactly that?
Now some criminal activity did occur at the capital; trespass, vandalism, theft, and some assaults. What didn't happen was insurrection, revolution, or a highly organized attempt to seat Trump in the Oval Office. These are the charges made by the left. Trump was still the president. No one had to be removed by armed force. No fire fights in the buildings. No hostages. Compared to what had been happening the previous year, these were just demonstrations and nothing much beyond that.

Everybody has to decide what freedom is worth to them. They may by wrong or they may be right and still get punished. The only people truly subject to the scrutiny of this thread are the active duty military.

[reddog1951]

insurrection n

: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. ;also. : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…

Definition seems to fit. There was NO domestic threat and they DID disrupt the function of ESTABLISHED government. Do you really believe that the dude in horns and the idiot with his feet on Pelosi's desk were defending the Constitution or protecting against domestic threat? Neither of those asses have the sense God gave a green goose.

Sorry, but your attempts to justify violence and the disruption of LAWFUL government are pitiful. That is NOT the process for change within our democratic society. Wrong is wrong, and many of the participants will be legally and rightfully punished. All except one was lucky;if they had been invading the Israeli Knesset, it is likely none would have walked away alive.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Take off your shit stained glasses. There was nothing in what I wrote that justified violence. You just see what you want to see. It's useless to try to talk to you. You go on the too stupid to breath list.

[onthemovie]

the 1950s life and lifestyle is no myth, I was there for the entire decade. You need to see a shrink!

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

insurrection n

: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. ;also. : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…

Definition seems to fit. There was NO domestic threat and they DID disrupt the function of ESTABLISHED government. Do you really believe that the dude in horns and the idiot with his feet on Pelosi's desk were defending the Constitution or protecting against domestic threat? Neither of those asses have the sense God gave a green goose.

Sorry, but your attempts to justify violence and the disruption of LAWFUL government are pitiful. That is NOT the process for change within our democratic society. Wrong is wrong, and many of the participants will be legally and rightfully punished. All except one was lucky;if they had been invading the Israeli Knesset, it is likely none would have walked away alive.

Let me re-summarize my previous point:

1.) To you, and the Establishment, these people are terrorists/insurrectionists.

2.) To us, you and the Establishment are terrorists/insurrectionist.

Next:

That is NOT the process for change within our democratic society.

3.) We're a republic, not a democracy.

4.) That's ivory tower bullshit. You need to read a history book.

Wrong is wrong, and many of the participants will be legally and rightfully punished. All except one was lucky;if they had been invading the Israeli Knesset, it is likely none would have walked away alive.

Like I said, you win patriot games, you win patriot prizes.

Maybe we should treat the BLM and Antifa protestors like terrorists since they're using violence and intimidation to effect political change, which is the actual definition of terrorism. Mow the whole crowd down.

[nevergaveitathought]

he just doesn't get it

his typing flies past the logic and fair meanings of posters and is unresponsive to points made

and when you attempt to reiterate

he merely redoubles his efforts with more inapplicable zealousness

[preggolover89]

Originally Posted by bambino

Floyd was a criminal. Babbit was a veteran. Floyd resisted arrest, Babbit was shot without warning. Are you really trying to make an argument here? From past posts, you’re not very good at it.

I guess trespassing isn't a crime anymore?

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Okay, so why did the officer and only that officer fire one shot? If there was fear in the ranks then why not a fusilade of shots by more than one officer? Sounds like that officer violated procedures and should face discipline and his identity should be revealed.

Because that officer was the only one at that post. Watch the video. One shot did the job, did it not? Did anyone else come through that door/window? Did anyone come closer to the people the officer was protecting?

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Seriously? In what world is it ok to shoot someone who you have no idea if they’re armed or not? Can I just blast some random guy who is j-walking because he’s committing a crime and may or may not be armed? Should cops be allowed to open up on someone who ran a stop sign? Your justification for killing this girl is truly frightening, the EXACT shit that genocide is made of.

In the world where masses of people have just stormed the Capitol screaming about lynching elected officials and those elected officials are 100 feet behind you (not proven but I'd bet large sums of money this was the case).

[Jacuzzme]

Did you dream that happened or was it in a movie?

[reddog1951]

I am not the one unresponsive to points made.

I asked for a rational justification for the disruption of legitimate congressional business and what is replied is:

"Easy answer: They were defending the Constitution against the "Domestic Enemies" inside the building holding a vote."

Sorry, but not rational at all. How in the hell is that defending the constitution? How in the hell do you rationalize that any one man, or for that matter a few hundred as a group have the right to determine what is a domestic enemy on their own volition?

By that perverted logic, one person, or a small group has similar justification to likewise disrupt any city council meeting simply because they don't like the leash law under consideration.

Sorry, they may not have liked the results of the election, they may have felt that it was "stolen"...I'm not arguing those points at all...but they crossed a line that cannot be tolerated to be crossed by unlawfully entering the Capital, disrupting lawful congressional business and somehow thinking they could force their will upon duly elected representatives of the American people.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

I am not the one unresponsive to points made.

I asked for a rational justification for the disruption of legitimate congressional business and what is replied is:

"Easy answer: They were defending the Constitution against the "Domestic Enemies" inside the building holding a vote."

Sorry, but not rational at all. How in the hell is that defending the constitution? How in the hell do you rationalize that any one man, or for that matter a few hundred as a group have the right to determine what is a domestic enemy on their own volition?

By that perverted logic, one person, or a small group has similar justification to likewise disrupt any city council meeting simply because they don't like the leash law under consideration.

Sorry, they may not have liked the results of the election, they may have felt that it was "stolen"...I'm not arguing those points at all...but they crossed a line that cannot be tolerated to be crossed by unlawfully entering the Capital, disrupting lawful congressional business and somehow thinking they could force their will upon duly elected representatives of the American people.

Do you feel the same bout the antheifa members storming state houses looting and rioting and holding police precincts and neighborhoods hostage?
btw Many many more died during those "protected" protests with millions of dollars in damage!

[reddog1951]

Do you feel the same bout the antheifa members storming state houses looting and rioting and holding police precincts and neighborhoods hostage?
btw Many many more died during those "protected" protests with millions of dollars in damage!

ABSOLUTELY. As well as the insane plot(s) to kidnap elected officials.

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Sorry, but not rational at all. How in the hell is that defending the constitution? How in the hell do you rationalize that any one man, or for that matter a few hundred as a group have the right to determine what is a domestic enemy on their own volition?

By that perverted logic, one person, or a small group has similar justification to likewise disrupt any city council meeting simply because they don't like the leash law under consideration.

Sorry, they may not have liked the results of the election, they may have felt that it was "stolen"...I'm not arguing those points at all...but they crossed a line that cannot be tolerated to be crossed by unlawfully entering the Capital, disrupting lawful congressional business and somehow thinking they could force their will upon duly elected representatives of the American people.

Shit like that happens daily. Rationality is subjective. And one man's reason is another man's excuse. The winner decides what is "Truth".

To you, it was "unlawfully entering the Capital, disrupting lawful congressional business and somehow thinking they could force their will upon duly elected representatives of the American people."

To them, it was "lawfully entering the Capital, halting unlawful congressional business and stopping them from forcing their will as unlawfully elected representatives onto the American people."

To you, they sound crazy or stupid. To them, you sound crazy or stupid. Functionally, we're left here:

[reddog1951]

"To them, it was "lawfully entering the Capital, halting unlawful congressional business and stopping them from forcing their will as unlawfully elected representatives onto the American people."

Please list the members of Congress that day who were unlawfully elected.

[rexdutchman]

Is what's gonna happen in MIN , well is it INSURRECTION Is the siege of Portland Insurrection
Or unlawful terrorist activity Just a question