Continuation Rioters storm and occupy the US Capitol - part 2

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Tucker on fox saying it's time for 'transparency' about Ashli Babbitt and her death.
He wants to know if the cop has a history of being 'reckless' as the family attorney believes. Apparently they are hiding the cops identity because they don't have a good explanation for the shooting.

Video in link

https://twitter.com/SHEsus__Christ/s...15514862600200

Extremely qualified statement, but I agree it's pretty grotesque that a cop can kill a member of the public while on duty and their identity is not a matter of public record automatically even months after the fact. Likewise for any reports about the use of force. Babbit's surviving family have the right to this information, even though I have no reason to believe that any info will lead to any successful wrongful death lawsuit or criminal complaint against the cop that escorted this CHUD to the forever box.

The rest of the lawsuit sounds like pure bunkum, but there should be complete transparency. I suspect that transparency will confirm what the video of Babbitt getting 360 no-scoped clearly showed, she got rightly shot dead by Capitol security because she was taking part in a violent coup attempt.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Of course, if Ashley Babbit had been black, we'd be hearing crickets chirping!

Well, difference is you have to shoot a few n______S to keep the others in line,but Babbit was a member of the Master race.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's unbelievable that a mob of violent angry people trying to get in a room where the people they want to attack are holed up should be viewed like that. We all saw it, multiple times. She was unfortunate enough to be the first person through the door (window in the door). WTF did the mob expect? No one had shot at them yet ergo no one would? The people inside would let them in?

Of course this is just Carlson upping his ratings by saying outrageous things.

Tucker is playing to the White Supremist crowd with "How dare the police shoot a WHITE WOMAN?".

I am shocked..SHOCKED I tell you..to hear that.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Extremely qualified statement, but I agree it's pretty grotesque that a cop can kill a member of the public while on duty and their identity is not a matter of public record automatically even months after the fact.

Why? My opinion is we release suspects names too quickly in most cases. A crime has even been identified at all, right? So this guy isn't even a "suspect". Not seeing a pubic benefit to identifying him publicly.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Why? My opinion is we release suspects names too quickly in most cases. A crime has even been identified at all, right? So this guy isn't even a "suspect". Not seeing a pubic benefit to identifying him publicly.

Because an agent of the state used force, in this case lethal force, against a member of the public. Regardless of whether or not it was justified (all indications it was), such incidents should be a matter of public record, or at the very least available to the involved parties (or their next of kin).

Like you say, there's no crime here. There's no investigation that might be sensitive because the suspect, Babbitt, is dead and cannot be prosecuted. The records should be available to her family, even if that means they go running off on some fruitless lawsuit and propaganda tour. It's their right to file losing lawsuits or go on Fox News to talk about how their Q-poisoned, CHUD daughter is actually a martyr.

Do you honestly not see why it's a problem for agents of the state to be able to kill members of the public anonymously?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Extremely qualified statement, but I agree it's pretty grotesque that a cop can kill a member of the public while on duty and their identity is not a matter of public record automatically even months after the fact. Likewise for any reports about the use of force. Babbit's surviving family have the right to this information, even though I have no reason to believe that any info will lead to any successful wrongful death lawsuit or criminal complaint against the cop that escorted this CHUD to the forever box.

The rest of the lawsuit sounds like pure bunkum, but there should be complete transparency. I suspect that transparency will confirm what the video of Babbitt getting 360 no-scoped clearly showed, she got rightly shot dead by Capitol security because she was taking part in a violent coup attempt.

I think you need to consider the circumstances here. There are idiots in Dump's cult making death threats against mere election workers and their family members. His name should definitely not be released. We have the video. We know what happened.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I think you need to consider the circumstances here. There are idiots in Dump's cult making death threats against mere election workers and their family members. His name should definitely not be released. We have the video. We know what happened.

Perhaps, but I have no idea if such concerns are a legitimate reason to not respond to a FOIA request.

To be honest, refusing to turn over information that the family likely has the right to possess is only adding fuel to the conspiratorial fire. The cops could easily be setting this family up for a minor legal win in order to compel these records, which will only validate the false narrative that the killing was improper.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Perhaps, but I have no idea if such concerns are a legitimate reason to not respond to a FOIA request.

To be honest, refusing to turn over information that the family likely has the right to possess is only adding fuel to the conspiratorial fire. The cops could easily be setting this family up for a minor legal win in order to compel these records, which will only validate the false narrative that the killing was improper.

That armada has already sailed.

There are instances when courts protect the identity of certain people. This one is legit. I don't see a judge ordering that name released but who knows.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That armada has already sailed.

There are instances when courts protect the identity of certain people. This one is legit. I don't see a judge ordering that name released but who knows.

WAPO claims that the cops did not respond at all to the FOIA request. Even if they were going to deny the request, a response of some kind with an explanation is required.

I wish there were better discussion in the press about what contexts a FOIA denial is permissible and if it seems likely that such criteria are met in this case.

Breaking the laws when it comes to FOIA request is probably not the best way to handle this nutbag family, and it could even disadvantage them in court later.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ba6_story.html

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Because an agent of the state used force, in this case lethal force, against a member of the public. Regardless of whether or not it was justified (all indications it was), such incidents should be a matter of public record, or at the very least available to the involved parties (or their next of kin).

Like you say, there's no crime here. There's no investigation that might be sensitive because the suspect, Babbitt, is dead and cannot be prosecuted. The records should be available to her family, even if that means they go running off on some fruitless lawsuit and propaganda tour. It's their right to file losing lawsuits or go on Fox News to talk about how their Q-poisoned, CHUD daughter is actually a martyr.

Do you honestly not see why it's a problem for agents of the state to be able to kill members of the public anonymously?

This sounds to me like you are just re-stating your opinion but not giving me any reasons to change my mind.

The officer isn't anonymous, he is known to people with a need to know.

Two good reasons to not make his name public are to not aid parties intending to to take his revenge and to not remove his anonymity without good reason. If the officer was reasonably suspected of a crime it might be different but that's not the case.

[portlandatheist]

On CNN.com
"Proud Boys descended into dysfunction and finger-pointing as members were arrested in US Capitol riot, new messages show"

Quote:

The same person went on to criticize other Proud Boys who handled communications and security on January 6, saying, "I mean, ******, 'tifa looks like professionals compared to us," referring to Antifa.

LOL. Yup, they sure do. Some clowns are even more clownish than others.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

On CNN.com
"Proud Boys descended into dysfunction and finger-pointing as members were arrested in US Capitol riot, new messages show"

LOL. Yup, they sure do. Some clowns are even more clownish than others.

Antifa sure is good. They managed to keep their participation in the Walk to the Capitol secret before, during and since.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Do you honestly not see why it's a problem for agents of the state to be able to kill members of the public anonymously?

Do you honestly not see why it's a problem for anyone involved in the killing of a terrorist to have their name publicised when there are several million goggle-eyed, bat-**** crazy terrorist-supporting Trumpistas making death threats against anyone not on their side? Remember, these are the same bunch of scumbag froot loops who threatened the lives of Lt Col Vindman and Christine Blasey-Ford for telling the truth before Congress, and threatened to kill Vice President Mike Pence for not doing what they wanted, even though there was no way for him to do it.

If a Delta Force team took out a terrorist cell in Columbia, would you expect JSOC to publicise the names of the soldiers involved?

If a Secret Service agent killed someone while they were attempting to assassinate POTUS, would you expect the Secretary of Homeland Security to publish the name of the agent involved?

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Do you honestly not see why it's a problem for anyone involved in the killing of a terrorist to have their name publicised when there are several million goggle-eyed, bat-**** crazy terrorist-supporting Trumpistas making death threats against anyone not on their side? Remember, these are the same bunch of scumbag froot loops who threatened the lives of Lt Col Vindman and Christine Blasey-Ford for telling the truth before Congress, and threatened to kill Vice President Mike Pence for not doing what they wanted, even though there was no way for him to do it.

If a Delta Force team took out a terrorist cell in Columbia, would you expect JSOC to publicise the names of the soldiers involved?

If a Secret Service agent killed someone while they were attempting to assassinate POTUS, would you expect the Secretary of Homeland Security to publish the name of the agent involved?

I agree 100%, keep his identity anonymous, it would basically ruin his life to release his name. the traitors are extremely fortunate that only a few of them died.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

I agree 100%, keep his identity anonymous, it would basically ruin his life to release his name. the traitors are extremely fortunate that only a few of them died.

I am quite fine with keeping the officer anonymous for various reasons listed by you and others. With that said, though, if it's true that a properly applicable FOIA request is simply being completely ignored to accomplish that, rather than simply denied with the good cause that we may see to do so, that's a separate issue and plenty problematic itself.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

On CNN.com
"Proud Boys descended into dysfunction and finger-pointing as members were arrested in US Capitol riot, new messages show"

LOL. Yup, they sure do. Some clowns are even more clownish than others.

Soo...a bunch of local chapters, like when other serious street gangs collapse? Or will the muppets realize the problem and stay home?

[JoeMorgue]

Congressional Gold Medal vote for January 6 police officers overwhelmingly passes House as 21 Republicans vote no

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/15/polit...ote/index.html

At this point if you are going to site there and argument that some members of Congress were and are literally on the side of the Insurrectionists, I'm going to demand you explain what would be different if they were.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Do you honestly not see why it's a problem for anyone involved in the killing of a terrorist to have their name publicised when there are several million goggle-eyed, bat-**** crazy terrorist-supporting Trumpistas making death threats against anyone not on their side?

I think you're missing a huge piece of the puzzle.

SuburbanTurkey doesn't care because we're talking about a cop. A cop in danger goes beyond "acceptable losses" and into "positive net good" for him.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I think you're missing a huge piece of the puzzle.

SuburbanTurkey doesn't care because we're talking about a cop. A cop in danger goes beyond "acceptable losses" and into "positive net good" for him.

I would complain, but meh. My animus towards the police isn't my reasoning, but I suppose this personal attack is close enough to the truth to let slide.

It's an interesting example where right wing CHUDs, normally those quick to ask why someone who is mishandled by the police didn't "follow orders", are now seeing how the system circles the wagons and even makes the notion of recourse near impossible. I'm not holding my breath that there will be a come to Jesus moment for these people, but it's nice to dream.

Speaking of motivated reasoning, perhaps you can set aside the fact that you (and I) are both probably pretty happy this CHUD got shot dead and consider whether or not it's an acceptable state of affairs that someone's next of kin can't even access basic information about a fatal police shooting. How is there supposed to be any meaningful oversight into use of force if the police can anonymously kill members of the public, exonerate themselves, and bury all the details in the dark?

A credible fear of violent retaliation by unhinged conspiracy mongers may very well be a good reason to deny a FOIA request. The cops should have responded rather than just trying to ignore the law regarding public records. Perhaps they're just hoping to delay the release until after the CHUDs have moved onto a new outrage of the week and have largely forgotten about their "martyr" Babbitt.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Speaking of motivated reasoning, perhaps you can set aside the fact that you (and I) are both probably pretty happy this CHUD got shot dead and consider whether or not it's an acceptable state of affairs that someone's next of kin can't even access basic information about a fatal police shooting.

I had people clutching their pearls at me for being on team "Bright Pink Mist" as to the Insurrectionists a long time ago. I find the fact one single person was allowed to cross the threshold into the actual Capital to be a massive shame. You don't fail to hold a position that badly. If anything I'll criticize the police for not shooting a LOT more people.

Where we differ is that I think Law Enforcement has become so toxic that it needs a gutting and full top/down rebuilt, while you are just living some sort of "I'm mad I missed the 60s" Berkeley fantasy and hate the idea of cops so much that you can't bring yourself to have their existence as a positive in any narrative.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I had people clutching their pearls at me for being on team "Bright Pink Mist" as to the Insurrectionists a long time ago. I find the fact one single person was allowed to cross the threshold into the actual Capital to be a massive shame. You don't fail to hold a position that badly. If anything I'll criticize the police for not shooting a LOT more people.

Where we differ is that I think Law Enforcement has become so toxic that it needs a gutting and full top/down rebuilt, while you are just living some sort of "I'm mad I missed the 60s" Berkeley fantasy and hate the idea of cops so much that you can't bring yourself to have their existence as a positive in any narrative.

I'm not sure why you quoted that particular part of my post if you weren't going to reply to it in any meaningful way.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Let me guess... they live somewhere in or near "Deliverance" country

Oddly, not really. He lives 20 minutes outside of Atlantic City, and an hour from Philly. Not exactly cut off from civilization. He's what we call a Piney, a semi-redneck from the Jersey Pine Barrens. Thing is, I never heard him say a peep about politics. If it didn't fire a projectile or get him high, he had no use for it. Just a happy-go-lucky Wildman. I honestly don't know how to process this.

"Deliverance" country isn't a place. It's a state of mind. All too common among the sort of people on the Trump Crazy Train.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I'm not sure why you quoted that particular part of my post if you weren't going to reply to it in any meaningful way.

My point is there no version of any narrative where a cop can even be neutral, much less good, with you.

You think the concept of cop is tainted and see it as your duty to point out that even the cop who ran into the burning building to save the orphans didn't separate his trash or whatever.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

My point is there no version of any narrative where a cop can even be neutral, much less good, with you.

You think the concept of cop is tainted and see it as your duty to point out that even the cop who ran into the burning building to save the orphans didn't separate his trash or whatever.

As far as all available evidence shows, it's a clean shoot. Babbitt got unlucky because she finally ran into a cop in the Capitol that took their duty seriously. The shooting is a model of police restraint and proportionality when it comes to use of force in stressful situations.

I don't see what moralizing about good or bad cops has to do with whether or not police departments have to obey the law when it comes to FOIA requests.

That's the point I keep making. The cops didn't deny the FOIA request citing one of the exemptions allowed by law, they simply did not respond as required. This is a subversion of the law, which was passed as an explicit means of holding the government accountable to the public, that governs what is or is not considered public info.

My point is simple. The cops should obey the law when it comes to FOIA requests, even when the process is being used by people I don't like.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

.....

That's the point I keep making. The cops didn't deny the FOIA request citing one of the exemptions allowed by law, they simply did not respond as required. This is a subversion of the law, which was passed as an explicit means of holding the government accountable to the public, that governs what is or is not considered public info.
....

Are the Capitol Police actually subject to FOIA regulations? The Congress has routinely exempted itself from laws that apply to the rest of the government. If so, is there a deadline for a response? Other departments routinely "slow walk" inconvenient FOIA requests. I don't think we can say "If you don't answer my question this week, you're breaking the law."

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

As far as all available evidence shows, it's a clean shoot. Babbitt got unlucky because she finally ran into a cop in the Capitol that took their duty seriously. The shooting is a model of police restraint and proportionality when it comes to use of force in stressful situations.

I don't see what moralizing about good or bad cops has to do with whether or not police departments have to obey the law when it comes to FOIA requests.

That's the point I keep making. The cops didn't deny the FOIA request citing one of the exemptions allowed by law, they simply did not respond as required. This is a subversion of the law, which was passed as an explicit means of holding the government accountable to the public, that governs what is or is not considered public info.

My point is simple. The cops should obey the law when it comes to FOIA requests, even when the process is being used by people I don't like.

Yeah but given the current situation maybe revealing this officer's name would be a bad idea.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yeah but given the current situation maybe revealing this officer's name would be a bad idea.

There's a lawful way to deny a FOIA request that isn't being followed here.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Are the Capitol Police actually subject to FOIA regulations? The Congress has routinely exempted itself from laws that apply to the rest of the government. If so, is there a deadline for a response? Other departments routinely "slow walk" inconvenient FOIA requests. I don't think we can say "If you don't answer my question this week, you're breaking the law."

Yes, the FOIA law itself is quite toothless and many government agencies routinely blow off deadlines until forced by a judge to comply. It's a real weakness to the FOIA system and is maliciously used to undermine the spirit of the law. Unless people are willing to spend money on legal fees, the government can basically ignore a FOIA request.

Seems to me a bad PR move to give these CHUDs an issue where they might actually secure a small win in the courts. There's a good chance that they will prevail in getting these documents handed over by court order, and the right wing conspiracy machine will parade this minor victory as proof of a larger malfeasance.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

There's a lawful way to deny a FOIA request that isn't being followed here.

How do you know that?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

How do you know that?

As reported by the press, it's one of the elements they are suing for:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ba6_story.html

Quote:

Aaron Babbitt said he requested the records in April under the Freedom of Information Act and got no reply. He said the city has neither provided records nor demonstrated “that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production.”

The D.C. government has not yet responded to the lawsuit in court. An initial hearing before a judge is scheduled for Sept. 3.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The GOP legislators who voted not to give medals to the Capitol Police. House approves Congressional Gold Medals for Jan. 6 police officers. 21 Republicans voted no.

Quote:

The Republicans who voted no were Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Michael Cloud (Texas), Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Bob Good (Va.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Andy Harris (Md.), Jody Hice (Ga.), Mary Miller (Ill.), Barry Moore (Ala.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Scott Perry (Pa.), John Rose (Tenn.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.), Chip Roy (Texas), and Greg Steube (Fla.).

[Captain_Swoop]

Tucker on fox says that the 'key people' involved in organising the attack haven't been charged because they are all FBI operatives.
These are the 'unindicted co-conspirators' mentioned in the indictments of the various Oathkeepers.

He's shocked!

I can’t keep up, it was peaceful, it was violent but lead by Antifa and now, it was violent but led by the FBI.

video in link

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/st...75737543725066

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The GOP legislators who voted not to give medals to the Capitol Police. House approves Congressional Gold Medals for Jan. 6 police officers. 21 Republicans voted no.

Just so its clear who these people are...

Thomas Massie (Ky.)

Andy Biggs (Ariz.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6
- signed Amicus brief in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election in four states

Lauren Boebert (Colo.)
- Probable 1/6 insurrection co-conspirator
- QAnon nutjob

Michael Cloud (Texas)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6
- signed Amicus brief in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election in four states

Andrew Clyde (Ga.)
- Probable 1/6 insurrection co-conspirator
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6

Warren Davidson (Ohio)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6

Matt Gaetz (Fla.)
- Accused sex trafficker
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6
- signed Amicus brief in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election in four states

Louie Gohmert (Texas)
- Dumbest person in all of Congress
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6
- signed Amicus brief in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election in four states

Bob Good (Va.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6

Paul Gosar (Ariz.)
- Probable 1/6 insurrection co-conspirator
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6

Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.)
- Probable 1/6 insurrection co-conspirator
- QAnon nutjob

Andy Harris (Md.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6
- signed Amicus brief in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election in four states

Jody Hice (Ga.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6
- signed Amicus brief in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election in four states

Mary Miller (Ill.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6

Barry Moore (Ala.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6

Ralph Norman (S.C.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6
- signed Amicus brief in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election in four states

Scott Perry (Pa.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6
- signed Amicus brief in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election in four states

John Rose (Tenn.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6
- signed Amicus brief in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election in four states

Matt Rosendale (Mont.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6

Chip Roy (Texas)

Greg Steube (Fla.)
- objected to the Electoral College count on 1/6
- signed Amicus brief in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election in four states

[jnelso99]

Huh - He says there were about 20 unindicted co-conspirators, and about 20 Republican congresspeople voted against the Congressional Gold Medals.

[bruto]

What's the matter with Massie and Roy? Overslept that day?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by jnelso99

Huh - He says there were about 20 unindicted co-conspirators, and about 20 Republican congresspeople voted against the Congressional Gold Medals.

Who says that?

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Who says that?

Tucker on fox says that the 'key people' involved in organising the attack haven't been charged because they are all FBI operatives.
These are the 'unindicted co-conspirators' mentioned in the indictments of the various Oathkeepers.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Tucker on fox says that the 'key people' involved in organising the attack haven't been charged because they are all FBI operatives.

I'd call him a ******* idiot, except that I know he does this to deliberately stoke his audience. He's worse than a ******* idiot. He's a ******* monster.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Tucker on fox says that the 'key people' involved in organising the attack haven't been charged because they are all FBI operatives.
These are the 'unindicted co-conspirators' mentioned in the indictments of the various Oathkeepers.

The problem with Tuckums is he doesn't have any idea what he is talking about.

There are several uses of terms such as "PERSON ONE", "PERSON TWO" etc, one of those is to allow an indictment to move forward knowing that there are other, known, but as yet not arrested people who are involved. This is most likely the case here. The FBI have previously stated they expect there will be about 550 people arrested and charged in relation to 1/6 by the time its all done... at time of writing, there have only been 521.. so there are about 30 others still at large that they are looking for.

The entire premise of his baseless conspiracy theory is predicated on his personal assumption that those unindicted co-conspirators are FBI Agents. I posted links to and quotes from the Oath Keeper indictment earlier in the thread. I have also read it beginning to end.... there is absolutely nothing in there that even remotely indicate this to be the case.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The problem with Tuckums is he doesn't have any idea what he is talking about.

He knows exactly what he's talking about. It's a performance.