Facilities vital to national security. Do you think the lists of facilities vital to national security are public?
I’ve already provided actual policy that contradicts your Wikipedia/LLM “research” about approved federal deadly force use.
I’m done.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Congress just put Ashli Babbitt’s killer on notice… he’s got 1 week…
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
Facilities vital to national security. Do you think the lists of facilities vital to national security are public?
I’ve already provided actual policy that contradicts your Wikipedia/LLM “research” about approved federal deadly force use.
I’m done.
Dench
NES Member
I dont subscribe to the "play stupid games win stupid prizes" philosophy. The reason is people often use this saying to justify things that probably didnt need to happen.
Could/should she of been arrested for tresspass? No doubt. But the way she was shot when fully put in context is anything but an easy sell.
Tartakovsky
NES Member
Did you really “break in” if capitol police ushered you inside?
lol thanks for playing. people jump over the fence at the White House all the time, they don’t get shot. People try to breach the perimeter at CIA and FBI facilities and they don’t get shot. People breach the security at groom lake and don’t get shot. Couple foreigners just breached the security at a military base recently and didn’t get shot. If you can come up with just one facility where you will be shot for crossing a line or a fence I’d like to see it. Or just one example where it’s happened lawfully I’m all eyes.
Jumping an outer perimeter fence and wandering around the outer grounds of a facility =/= trying to smash your way into an inner sensitive area.
Show me an example when people have breached a building and tried to smash their way into a further secure area? Just because it’s rare doesn’t mean there is no authorization for deadly force. You’re either dense or obtuse.
You want just one example? US Capitol Police vs Ashli Babbit. Supported by actual federal policy.
lol you should have stayed done. I’d ask for a fifth time if you can name just ONE facility out of the “lots” you said there were where It is lawful to shoot trespassers at but clearly you made it up. Thanks for playing.Jumping an outer perimeter fence and wandering around the outer grounds of a facility =/= trying to smash your way into an inner sensitive area.
Show me an example when people have breached a building and tried to smash their way into a further secure area? Just because it’s rare doesn’t mean there is no authorization for deadly force. You’re either dense or obtuse.
You want just one example? US Capitol Police vs Ashli Babbit. Supported by actual federal policy.
For those following along, I was being sarcastic. The answer is no. There is no public list of facilities vital to national security. So you need to use your brain when federal organizations have public policy that says they can use deadly force to protect things vital to national security.
Really? took me about 2 seconds to find a dozen lists with specific locations. Some examples,
For those following along, I was being sarcastic. The answer is no. There is no public list of facilities vital to national security. So you need to use your brain when federal organizations have public policy that says they can use deadly force to protect things vital to national security.
I provide those unlike SOOMMME people.
Last edited:
Really? took me about 2 seconds to find a dozen lists with specific locations. Some examples
You can find lists of various federal facilities. And yes, one can infer facilities which may be vital to national security. Not the same thing as what you asked for.
Gaslighting central to insinuate that you’re the one providing examples. You’re just going to completely ignore the actual policy I provided that proved your LLM “research” false?
__________________________________
Bottom line for those wondering, YES, certain federal security is authorized to use deadly force merely to protect certain property, specifically including property and activities vital to national security.
Yes, protecting a congressional chamber in session is related to protecting national security interests.
While true, it doesn’t mean that ALL the people in the Capitol building were peacefully protesting. There is video evidence to the contrary.
For those people peacefully walking in the building after being let in by Capitol police, they should not have had the legal firestorm brought down on their lives the way they did. It was a travesty.
Grendizer138
NES Member
Even in your moved goal post scenario, deadly force still needs to be justified.
As to this specific event, you believe deadly force was justified to kill Ashli Babbitt, I do not. That’s fine, but please spare us of how objective and brave you are for this take.
Dench
NES Member
No ones saying otherwise. Babbit broke a window, correct? Tresspass and forcing entry. Both things she could of been arrested for.
But instead we're lead to believe that shooting her was the only way she could be stopped.
Then why didn’t the police at the front door who were actually confronting a “violent mob” start shooting? Why was he the only one to fire his weapon? at a unarmed girl my 15 year old son could have bitch slapped back through the window? Honest question, You would have shot her in that moment?
Last edited:
“Babbit broke a window” is a gross oversimplification of what was going on. I’m assuming you’ve watched the video. A group is attempting to smash their way into a barricaded hallway in a still secure part of the nation’s Capitol. A building which at the time still houses numerous members of Congress. She’s not just some lone person running around the Capitol smashing shit. Not saying shooting her was the only possible outcome here — but it doesn’t seem like anyone wants to have an honest conversation about this here. Getting shot is a very foreseeable part of breaking your way into different parts of the Capitol.
It’s certainly not as clear cut as some of you are making it out to be. Also not a cop, don’t have to think about that shit. I don’t know what/who was in that hallway, what other info he was going off of, etc. I will tell you that if I got shot in her exact circumstance, I wouldn’t be surprised — as compared to say Daniel Shaver or all the other folks who are in fact executed by trigger happy cops.
You’re ignoring the fact that in the microcosm of the day that took place in that hallway one of the foreseeable outcomes was you get shot. It would be great if she was just taken into custody. If they had properly secured the building in the first place, likely she’d still be alive. But what ended up happening is she was part of a group within the building, where at least some folks were working on trying to physically smash their way into a barricaded hallway. Then she got shot. Excessive force? Quite possibly. But nobody should be shocked by that outcome, or neccessary expect anything different if they tried it somewhere else.
Instead, “because Trump,” she is some sort of martyr.
Grendizer138
NES Member
“Don’t wear a short skirt if you don’t want to get raped” - crazymjb, probably
Nah… just don’t be involved in a riot and then try to smash your way into a barricaded hallway in the US Capitol protected by armed police if you don’t want to get shot.
Replay this scenario with different cops in different buildings and 75% of the time it ends the same way.
Im not saying it was great policing. But you guys keep ignoring that.
Again — mental gymnastics to fit your desired narrative.
You can question whether it was justified or not. I’m just providing evidence that federal policy sometimes authorizes deadly force for protection of property. It doesn’t matter if the person trying to smash their way in to access that property is armed or not.
You were definitely downplaying what she was doing. She wasn’t just breaking a window. She was part of a mob of people trying to break through a barricaded door to gain entry into a secure part of the Capitol.
Maybe people should instead be questioning why those officers weren’t doing anything when a violent group was trying to bust through the door. What they were doing was clearly illegal and violent.
And that small female was but one member of a group, working together. She was the unlucky member of that group.
75% Of the time! Funny how you and others keep saying that this should be expected, one would expect that many examples are to be found of this happening yet no one can come up with just ONE example of it ever happening before this? When the Hatfield Federal Courthouse was attacked by 1000 violent protesters were any of them shot? How about when the Supreme Court Kavanaugh hearings were overrun? Anyone shot? How about the 2017 capital riot? Anyone shot? Church near the White House set a blaze? All way more violent yet no one shot? yet for some here it is reasonable to expect something to happen to oneself that has never happened to anyone before? Amazing.
She sure wasn’t shot because she 1. Stayed home, 2. Didn’t break into the Capitol, 3. Wasn’t part part of a mob trying to break into a secured part of the building
Maybe my % is off. Considering we have running threads of people being summarily executed by the police, I think it’s fair to say it’s not s good idea to f*** with them in a secured federal building if you want to live a long time.
Whole scenario was a clusterf***, for sure.
Nope, it’s not. I think a valid defense would probably be “it was a total chaotic f*** show, we had barricaded the hallway and they were attempting to breach it.”
MSM narrative is horse shit. It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a chaotic riot. But in a chaotic riot inside the Capitol, you might get shot. The alternative news narrative is also a crock.
cstockwell
NES Member
And this thread reminds me of why @Marty McFly and I are starting an onlyfans with gay midget stars. We will retire in a year with many people here it seems. Thank you in advance for your patronage.
Marty McFly
NES Member
That's not what I meant by we are short staffed but i like it!
Dibs on acting!
cstockwell
NES Member
I was talking about height not about...but OK. have at it.
