What Is The Difference Between The Wright And Babbitt Shootings?

Photo: Brooklyn Center Police Department

Below is my column in USA Today on charging decisions in the Wright and Babbitt shootings. The sharp contrast in the two decisions raises serious questions over the legal and political issues that rage around such cases.

Here is the column:

Within an hour of each other, charging decisions in two lethal police shootings were announced with strikingly different conclusions. The decisions reached in the shootings of Daunte Wright in Minnesota and Ashli Babbitt in Washington highlight concerns over the political and legal elements that can influence such decisions. The timing of the two decisions that involved two chaotic situations raises questions why charges were filed in Minnesota, but not in Washington.

In the Minnesota shooting, police were attempting to arrest Wright who, after a traffic stop, was found to have an outstanding warrant for fleeing police with an unlicensed firearm. Wright broke free of officers while he was being handcuffed and jumped back into the car to drive away. Kim Potter decided to deploy her stun gun against Wright, which would likely be viewed as a reasonable level of force in that circumstance. However, in the struggle, Potter grabbed her service weapon rather than her Taser. In the video, the officer is heard yelling “taser, taser, taser” before she swears and says, “Holy S**t I just shot him.”

Weapon confusion cases

The case has tragically familiar elements as a “weapon confusion” case. There are so many such weapon-confusion cases that departments have tried a variety of solutions, from adding special training to new designs for stun guns. The problem is such training can be lost to the fog and frenzy of the violent scene.

The case is similar to what happened in 2009, when Bay Area Rapid Transit officers struggled with Oscar Grant to arrest him. With Grant on the ground, BART officer Johannes Mehserle warned he was about to use a Taser but then grabbed his service weapon and fired a fatal round into Grant’s back.

The videotape of the incident showed Mehserle moving his thumb over his weapon as you would to release a safety on the Taser. (His service weapon did not have that type of safety release). The jury rejected second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter charges but found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Unlike past cases, the prosecutors did not overcharge Potter. However, under the criminal provision, the prosecutors must show that the 26-year veteran “creat[ed] an unreasonable risk, and consciously [took] chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.” The question is whether a possible split-second mistake legally constitutes a conscious choice of an officer.

The Babbitt shooting

In Washington, the Justice Department announced that it would not charge the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 riot. The decision in Washington had a number of striking differences. Potter was charged within a few days. It has been months since Babbitt was shot in the Capitol. The identity of the responsible officer has not been made public. Babbitt was an unarmed Air Force veteran without a criminal record. While she was clearly trespassing and at the forefront of a riot, there is no claim that she was threatening any officer or possible person with serious bodily injury or death. Indeed, near her were other officers who could have been hit by the round. (Babbitt was trying to climb through a broken door in the Speaker’s Lobby as police fought back the mob).

If the officer intended to shoot Babbitt, it would not likely meet the standard for a justified shooting under governing cases like Tennessee v. Garner (1985). If the officer fired blindly or wildly, it would appear to have many of the same negligent elements as the Wright shooting.

In rejecting charges, the Justice Department statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it noted that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’”  It stressed that this element requires a showing of “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”

Of course, “weapons confusion” cases are often caused by an officer’s acting out of “fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or poor judgment.” Yet, in one case an officer is charged and in the other the officer is cleared.

An uncertain line

For the public, the line of distinction can be hard to discern. For officers, that uncertain line can be the difference between discipline and incarceration. Officers have to be able to see that line clearly in carrying out duties with often in split second decisions in violent incidents.

Both of these deaths were tragic. There was a clearly different political contexts and timelines for the decisions. After Babbitt’s death, there was no outcry over her death because she was part of an infamous riot that stopped a constitutional process of certifying presidential electoral votes. Yet, the shooting does not appear any more justified than the Wright shooting, which was likely an accident. The Justice Department indicates an intentional shot was fired by an officer either at Babbitt or the mob generally. It does not explain which.

Violent riots are unfortunately common today in cities ranging from Minneapolis to Portland to Washington. The use of live rounds however have never been authorized absent a particularized showing of a significant threat to an officer or others. Nothing in the announcement in the Babbitt case answers how such a showing was made by the officer.

In the end, these cases capture the uncertain line in these cases of when mistakes or errors by police are criminal matters. There is a credible basis for the charge in the Wright shooting, but a jury will now have to decide if this was a conscious decision or tragic (but noncriminal) mistake. All such cases are highly fact specific. However, the Babbitt decision leaves more questions than answers for the public and police alike.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

295 thoughts on “What Is The Difference Between The Wright And Babbitt Shootings?”

  1. The difference between these two scenarios is night and day. Babbitt was trying to break into the Capitol to stop Congress from accepting certified election results. She had no right to be where she was, and the crowd she was with was intending to lynch Pence. Daunte was shot by a 26-year veteran who grabbed a service revolver instead of a taser. Nothing Daunte did created any risk of harm to the police officer. She was trained to have her service weapon on her dominant side and the taser on her non-dominant side. She was experienced. There were other police there for back up. There’s no excuse for killing Daunte whatsoever. There’s also no excuse for Babbitt to be trying to break into the Capitol to prevent Joe Biden from assuming office. She was in the wrong.

    1. “The difference between these two scenarios is night and day. ”
      Yes it is. Duante Wright was an accused violent Felon with an outstanding warrant.
      Babbit was a protestor.

      “Babbitt was trying to break into the Capitol to stop Congress from accepting certified election results.”
      Kavanaugh protestors sought to stop Congress from consenting to the appointment of Kavanaugh as a supreme court justice.

      There is litterally no difference betweent eh Kavanaugh protestors and the Jan. 6 protestors – EXCEPT, that Congress infringed on the Jan 6 protestors by locking them out of the capital.

      Both sought to thwart congress from doing something that was inside the power of congress to do or not do.

      “She had no right to be where she was”
      Of course she did. The US capital is a public building and we protest the actions of congress all the time.
      Right now BLM is in the OK capital trying to thwart the OK legislature from passing anti-rioting laws.
      That is their right – so long as they are not violent.

      “and the crowd she was with was intending to lynch Pence.”
      BLM protestors shout “Kill Pigs” all the time – do we shoot them ?

      “Daunte was shot by a 26-year veteran who grabbed a service revolver instead of a taser.”
      Correct – an accident.

      “Nothing Daunte did created any risk of harm to the police officer. ”
      In correct – he was placed under arrest as a result of outstanding felony warrants, and he FORCIBLY resisted and tried to flee police.
      He re-netered his care – where officers could not know whether he had weapons – just recently an officer was shot in EXACTLY the same circumstances. A woman resisting arrest got back into her car to flee, and pulled a gun from under the seat and shot the officer before he killed her.

      In Nutacha world – does an officer have to wait before a fleaing felon shoots them before they can respond ?

      Regardless, Duante Wright was a clear danger.

      “She was trained to have her service weapon on her dominant side and the taser on her non-dominant side. She was experienced. There were other police there for back up. There’s no excuse for killing Daunte whatsoever.”
      Of course there is. it was an accident. Those happen.

      The police conduct 1000 arrests at Traffic stops EVERY DAY. Every once in a while mistakes will be made and someone will be killed.
      50-100 times a year a police officer is killed in one of these arrests. That means about once in every 3000-7500 arrests a police officer gets killed.

      We had something similar with Breona Taylor. The police had a no-knock warrant that they attempted to serve in the middle of the night.
      The officers serving the warrant made the MISTAKE of doing a know and announce before breaking in. That SOUNDS benign, but it is a serious procedural mistake. If you are going to do knock and announce you do it during the day and you must assure that those inside know that you are the police. The shock and awe of a no knock warrant is specifically to move fast enough that the people you shack and awe do not have time to respond with weapons – which they can do – if they do not know it is the police. And which they did with Breona Taylor.

      Taylor was killed as a result of a police mistake. But she as not MURDERED.
      Wright was killed as a result of a police mistake. But he was not MURDERED.

      In BOTH instances the police had the power to use deadly force – BTW Tasers are considered deadly force.
      We would all prefer that ofc. Potter had actually pulled her taser. But legally there is no difference between shooting a taser and shooting a gun. Both are considered deadly force.

      Babbit was murdered. The officer who shot her did NOT meet the legal requirements to use deadly force.

      First he was a federal officer – and federal and state law is different. A federal police officer can only use deadly force against an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another.
      There is no shooting people who are tresspassing on public (or private) property exception. There is no exception for shooting protestors.
      Even had Babbit been armed – which she was not – a Federal officer could not shoot her until she raised the weapon.

      But Babbit was not armed. There were no warrants for her arrest. There were no immediate threats to the officer or others.
      Congress had already left the speakers lobby. And the other officers that were blocking the protestors from getting to the speakers lobby had backed down and moved out of the way as soon as the lobby was cleared.

      “There’s also no excuse for Babbitt to be trying to break into the Capitol to prevent Joe Biden from assuming office”
      Of course there is. Babbit is absolutely entitled to demand that Congress refuse to certify the election.
      Just as BLM is free to go to the OK capital and demand that OK not enact new anti-rioting laws.
      Just as Kavanaugh protestors are free to go to the US capital and into hearing rooms, cloak rooms, private bathrooms, private elevators, and private senators offices to demand that Senators not confirm Kavanaugh.

      There is absolutely no difference.

      What was different on Jan. 6th is that Congress while in session locked protestors out so that they could not protest.
      That was a violation of their rights.

      “She was in the wrong.”
      If true, That does not matter. But honestly we do not know if that is true.

      AZ and NV are in the process of auditing their 2020 elections. Democrats have fought tooth and nail to prevent that.

      It is possible that the results will confirm Biden’s election. It is possible they will confirm large scale fraud.

      Most likely all they will do is confirm the election was lawless and indeterinant. But even that is worth knowing.

      It is likelyu we will know several things if these audits are completed:

      We will know whether the vote scanning and counting process was conducted honestly.
      It is near certain we will find problems. Just as Ofc. Potter accidentally shot Duante Wright – honest mistakes are ALWAYS made.
      But honest mistakes tend to balance out. If we see a patter of mistakes that heavily favors one candidate – these are not mistakes they are bias.

      we should know the extent of both mistakes and bias.
      These are detectable and correctable problems.

      We will know whether there were forged ballots,
      We will know whether ballots were counted multiple times.
      Both of these are detectable and correctable.

      There are problems that we MIGHT detect – but can not correct.
      We will know when these audits are over how many ballots were accepted from invalid or non-existant voters.
      We have never before done a large scale check as to whether there the KNOWN problems with this are large or small.
      Voters addresses and other information will be checked and we will know the number of ballots that should have been rejected.
      We will know the number of ballots that should have been rejected for mismatched signatures.
      We will likely know the number of ballots that should have been rejected because of their postmarks.

      The Audits in AZ and NV are highly unlikely no matter what happens to reverse the election.
      The election has been certified and that can not be undone.
      But they will give us an excellent idea of what the impacts of the lawlessly conducted election actually are.

      All that said – Alishi Babbit – right or wrong, is completely justified in demanding that the house and senate no certify the 2020 presidential eleciton. Just as BLM protesters are free to demand that OK not strengthen Anti-Riot laws, and Kavanaugh protestors are free to demand that the Senate not confirm him.

      Protestors are ALWAYS free to demand that lawmakers act, or refuse to act – they are even free to do so when they are wrong.

  2. Babbitt was shot while doing a home invasion. Advancing forward. And anyone who has seen her youtube recordings can tell you, most likely raging like an out of control lunatic who upon gaining entry into the vestibule she was crawling through the window to access, would give every impression of someone seeking to do harm to the politicians in that location.

    Wright was terrified and running from a) the prospects of consequences of the warrant he knew was out on him, and b) terrified of submitting to the police who, right down the street, had one of its members on trial for killing a man of the same race who had, indeed, submitted to the police.

    Apples and organges, Turley. Just curious if you’re arguing what you are for monetary purposes or rather that you truly believe the rhetoric you’re spouting.

    1. “Babbitt was shot while doing a home invasion. ”
      The capital is not a home. it is a public building.

      You have still not established that Babbit was going through the window.

      “And anyone who has seen her youtube recordings can tell you, most likely raging like an out of control lunatic”
      Does not matter – the same can be said of BLM leaders.

      I have zero interest in even knowing Babbits political leanings of sanity.
      They are irrelevant. Crimes are determined by actions and facts.

      “who upon gaining entry into the vestibule she was crawling through the window to access, would give every impression of someone seeking to do harm to the politicians in that location.”

      Not the standard. First – murder is not justified by speculation about what someone might do in the future.
      Next, it is not justified by an impression or a beleif – only by action.
      And finally – the politicians had already left.

      “Wright was terrified”
      Probably – though I notice that you have suddenly decided that you can justify things based on your guesses as to the state of mind of others.

      Wright had good reason to be terrified – he had warrants outstanding against him for violent crimes committed with guns.

      The police were likely to shoot him at the slightest provocation – and they did.
      Wright was resisting arrest, and fleeing.

      “and running from a) the prospects of consequences of the warrant he knew was out on him”
      Absolutely. What do you think happens when you commit violent crimes and warrants are issued ?

      Grow up. ALL LAW is ultimately enforced by “Men with guns” – and you resist them, you could end up dead.

      If you have a problem with that – do not make the laws that “men with guns” enforce. Again ALL LAW is enforced by FORCE.

      If you have a warrant against you – someone with guns is coming after you. If that warrant is for violent crimes with guns – they are going to treat you as very dangerous.

      Todate there is no claim that the warrants were in error, that Wright was not a dangerous criminal.

      Regardless we do not enforce warrants with nerf balls.

      “b) terrified of submitting to the police who, right down the street, had one of its members on trial for killing a man of the same race who had, indeed, submitted to the police.”

      And yet Floyd died of a heart attack after a 3 times fatal drug overdose, with a 98% blood oxygen ration (i.e. there was no way he was suffocated) and Floyd did not “submit” – watch ALL the video. it took a long time to get Flyod into hand cuffs and into the police car.
      Once there he tried to destroy the police car. He was removed and put on the ground specifically because he was NOT complying.

      “Just curious if you’re arguing what you are for monetary purposes or rather that you truly believe the rhetoric you’re spouting.”

      Typical leftist. You are arguing so badly, and tripping over your own arguments – that it MUST be that whoever is opposing you is paid.

      I am not. But if anyone out there wishes to pay me. I would be happy to take money to write what I already write for free.

      Regardless, I am glad that you think my arguments are so good that someone might pay for them.

      But in the end that is irrelevant. Every lawyer before the supreme court is paid.
      The court does not care. It does not matter. What matters is the law and constitution.
      Or facts, logic reason.

      Why is it you keep returning over and over to stupid fallacious arguments ?

      1. John, over and over again you cover every argument made. There will be no counterargument because there is none. Despite that he will repeat his arguments over and over again like he has been doing for years. As time passes and he is found to be wrong he will deny his previous statements.

        Bravo John for the ability to counter most of these arguments with counterarguments that will stand the test of time.

        1. S(tupid) Meyer’s comment is laughable, as are most of his remarks.

          No one gives two hoots about the comments section of this blog. John’s comments will end up where they rightly belong, along with the rest of this blog’s comments — in the
          dustbin of history.

          John Say bloviates and pontificates…and nothing that he says matters.

          1. Take note Anonymous the Stupid couldn’t provide a single counterargument to the many John Say made. ATS fired all his rounds and none of them came close to the target so now instead of providing counter arguments he runs away.

        2. Actually none of his arguments stand the amount of time it takes to post them. They are funny though.

          EB

          1. Bug, I’m waiting for you to say something intelligent that I can respond to. I think I will have to wait a long time.

            SM

            1. You can’t respond because you don’t have anything to contribute other than with rhetoric spoon fed to you. Makes for a long wait because I will never respond to that lower level nonsense. Best you just give up and converse back and forth with the people that watch the same channel as you and are terrified to venture away from it in the slightest bit.

              EB

              1. Bug, you attempt to copy prior insults but you don’t know how to relate them to any discussion taking place.

                If you have a point, make it without surrounding the point in a word salad and never end up finishing your point. I provided you with an article that provides significant numbers to promote your factual understanding of the situation. Was it too difficult for you? If you prefer me to summarize a few facts from it I will gladly do so and explain them. I have done so before and you ran away so I figured it would be best to provide a very excellent article by an expert. Discussion of the facts is better than you running away or posting silly responses that have no meaning.

                SM

              2. The evidence is that you are the one living in a bubble.

                SM appears familiar with more information from a variety of sources than you do.

                Regardless, you seem to think that snark and speculation about hypothetical sources is argument.
                It is not.

                If Hitler said the sun rose today – it would be true, no matter how many times you respond that Hitler is evil and not to be trusted.

                If you really beleive in your position – then honestly debate it. If you make your best arguments and listen tot he best arguments of others it is likely we will move towards what is true and moral.

                “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

                ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

          2. If you have a problem with then EB – then you should be able to produce a counter argument

            Ad Hominem Fallacy: Denigrating when arguments are lacking

              1. “This isn’t a debate forum, John. It’s a place for people to comment.”

                So post the latest news about your pets.

                Are you clueless anonymous – this is a forum for the discussion of controversial topics. Particularly those with legal facets.
                That is the definition of debate.

                You are free to do whatever you please here. Only Turley and Daren can restrain you.

                But most posters here are advocating for their ideas and in conflict and debate with those of opposing ideas.

                Even you do exactly that when you have an argument.
                You degenerate from argument to ad hominem when your argument fails.

                Is anyone here to comment about there pets ?
                Is this DailyKOS were there is a near monoculture of leftist sycophants ?

                This is a place were ideas and oppinions clash – that goes by another name DEBATE.

                “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
                ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

                This is why the clash of ideas is critical. And why this is not merely a forum for random comments.

                1. “…this is a forum for the discussion of controversial topics.” -John Say

                  John Say might want this blog to be “a forum for the discussion of controversial topics”… but, alas, it’s just the comments section of a blog — a place for people to post their “thoughts.” And, yes, sometimes, there’s a bit of back and forth…, but John wants it to be something it isn’t.

                  1. “John Say might want this blog to be “a forum for the discussion of controversial topics””
                    It is not about what I want.
                    I do not pick the topics – you do not pick the topics.
                    You know that,

                    ” but, alas, it’s just the comments section of a blog — a place for people to post their “thoughts.””
                    Yup – on controversial topics.

                    ” And, yes, sometimes, there’s a bit of back and forth…, but John wants it to be something it isn’t.”
                    Nope – that is your problem.
                    Further, you do not have control.
                    You can post your “thoughts” and pretend that no one will respond, pretend that no one will disagree or point out their flaws.
                    But you can not prevent that.

                    You are on the wrong side of reality.

                    1. Anonymous – you lost this one – like you use most.

                      You lost it among other reasons because you keep DEBATING whether exchanges on this blog constitute debate.

                      That is an own goal.

                    1. The structure of the comments section doesn’t lend itself to lengthy debates.

                      People may choose to engage in little debates, but it’s a choice.

                      Not every response has to be an argument, whether you like it or not. Sometimes a comment is just a comment. Debate is not a requirement.

                    2. “The structure of the comments section doesn’t lend itself to lengthy debates.”
                      False – this is not twitter.
                      The comment section is near optimal for lengthy debates.

                      “People may choose to engage in little debates, but it’s a choice.”
                      Certainly.

                      But like it or not you CHOOSE to engage in a debate when you challenge someone else’s position or present a position that will likely be challenged.

                      Nearly all the posts here are debate in some form.

                      Further that is likely true by design.

                      “Not every response has to be an argument, whether you like it or not.”
                      Correct, but nearly all are. You are engaging in a debate right now. You CHOSE to do so.

                      “Sometimes a comment is just a comment.”
                      Probably false. I can not think of a single comment that is not also something else.

                      “Debate is not a requirement.”
                      posting is not a requirement.

                      Debate is not a requirement – even if you are on stage in a oxford-style debate.

                    3. You are correct that you have the choice to debate.

                      You continually make that choice.
                      Just as you have been doing, as you keep debating now.

                      You can opt out whenever you want.
                      But you can not opt out merely by claiming you are not debating.

                      Nor are you opting out by responding with fallacies.

                      Nor does claiming that you are not debating leave you free to offer fallacy, ad hominem, or poor argument without criticism.

                    4. You do not control the world.

                      There may be places that you can push your positions without rebutal,
                      but this is not one of those.

                      When you offer your position, when you criticise others on an open forum,
                      where you have no control, your are engaging in debate – whether you like it or not.

                      There are places that you can say whatever you wish – without rebutal or criticism.
                      This is not one of those. Nor are you entitled to make it so.

                      Right now you are in a debate over whether comments on this forum are typically debate.

                      You chose to debate. You set the topic. But you do not control the rebutal.
                      You only control whether and how you respond.

                      Further you can opt yourself out of a debate – though you do not seem to understand that can not be accomplished merely by denying you are debating. But you can not chose for others. You can only end one side of the debate.

                      As is typical of leftists – you claim control over others and of the world that you do not have.

                      You can engage in debate, or you can disengage, but whatever you do you can not silence others who continue to engage.
                      Nor can you avoid criticism for the remarks you make.

                      None of us can. Posters here have to put up with the idiotic argument and fallacies that those of you on the left continually offer.
                      But we do not have to be silent about them. We are free to counter them, to criticise them. That is called debate. It is also free speech.

                      You have silenced that in many places. So far not here.

                    5. To John Say:

                      Yep, ‘sometimes a comment is just a comment.’

                      Reply or don’t reply. I certainly don’t care.

                      And by all means, keep providing multiple responses, when just one would suffice.

                      It seems pretty clear that — in John’s world — more is better.

                    6. “To John Say:

                      Yep, ‘sometimes a comment is just a comment.’”

                      How many posts here are about the weather ?

                      Just about every post on this site falls into one of two categories.

                      It is a post about an issue – usually the one that Turley was writing about, but not always.

                      It is a post attacking the person of someone else who posted on an issue.

                      Again how many posts can you find that are not one or the other of these ?

                      The first form is an argument, the 2nd is a fallacious response to an argument.

                      None are “just comments”.

                      If you post something that is neither an argument nor a personal attack or fallacy, it is unlikely anyone will respond.

                      “And by all means, keep providing multiple responses, when just one would suffice.”
                      Why do you care ? Read, don’t. No one is infringing on your liberty.

                      It is not like the blog comment space is a limited resource that must be conserved.

                      “It seems pretty clear that — in John’s world — more is better.”
                      It seems pretty clear than you take offense at not being able to control others.
                      It seems pretty clear that you flatter me. You constantly attack me, you must not have an argument.

      2. “Grow up. ALL LAW is ultimately enforced by “Men with guns” – and you resist them, you could end up dead.”

        You can not resist them and end up dead, too. You sound mentally unbalanced, John. Is everything alright at home?

        EB

        1. ““Grow up. ALL LAW is ultimately enforced by “Men with guns” – and you resist them, you could end up dead.”

          “You can not resist them and end up dead, too. “”

          Eric Garner would beg to differ. George Floyd would beg to differ. Duante Wright would beg to differ.

          “You sound mentally unbalanced, John. Is everything alright at home?”
          I beleive that question is for you.

          1. Maybe I should’ve put an asterisk around the word ‘not’ like this…, *not*. Floyd did not resist in a way warranting a death sentence. He panicked. As did Wright and Garner. If you were in the same situation, knowing the odds, knowing the liklihood of your surviving the encounter you found yourself, you’d panic too.

            You know, this is a place for shorter responses. I’ve contributed to production companies and magazines where any of your scattershot, long winded, unfocused diatribes would’ve been dismissed summarily from discussion — let alone publication. So your shorter responses are certainly welcome in comparison with the true to form and vomitous contributions to chaotic distraction that you regularly toss out. Suggestion: try to boil your points to, like, ten words. Then stick to your theme. Anything else just comes across like the sound of a motor revving out of control and has the same sort of effect on a reader.

            EB

            1. “Maybe I should’ve put an asterisk around the word ‘not’ like this…, *not*. Floyd did not resist in a way warranting a death sentence. He panicked. As did Wright and Garner. If you were in the same situation, knowing the odds, knowing the liklihood of your surviving the encounter you found yourself, you’d panic too.”

              False and irrelevant.

              We are not talking about “death sentences”.

              There are atleast 1000 instances were police end up in a tense confrontation with someone every single day.
              Between 50 and 100 of those every year end up with the police officer dead. Every single cop in the country hears about every one of those.
              Confrontations with police are dangerous. They are dangerous for them. They are dangerous for you.

              But they are the natural consequence of law enforcement. If you are not going to enforce the law – do not pass the law.
              The police are not there to legislate. They are not there to decide if a law is a good law or a bad one. They swore to uphold the law.

              That is the nature of those confrontations. There is no magical bubble gun that will eliminate all risk.
              We can discuss ways to do better. Contra the left policing has improved dramatically over the past several decades.

              Many of us watched the Rodney King video. Floyd was no Rodney King. If you listened to the prosecution experts – the techniques that Chauvin used were deliberately chosen policy to descalate. In the past Floyd’s compliance would have been acheived with billy clubs.
              Several experts testified that officers were taught to do a chauvin had done – and that it frequently was done for as much as 15 minutes.
              Other experts testified that a 160lb man can stand on a 300lb man (or most any other adult) forever without suffocating them.

              Regardless, though the evidence presented at trial was such that Chauvin never should have been charged, that is not my point.

              Floyd was passing a counterfeit $20, likely for his drug dealer in return for drugs. He was high at the time he was arrested.
              He was out of control before the police arrived. He ingested 3 times a fatal dose of Fentanyl – either before the police arrived or when he was in the back of the police car. He was out of control and destructive in the police car. He was removed from the car for his own safety.

              Was Floyd Panicked ? Possibly. SO WHAT ?

              What is your answer – not just to deal with this specific situation but the nearly half a million that occur each year – all too many of which result in violence and death.

              Do police enforce the law ? If not – why do we have laws ?

              If we are going to enforce the law – how are we going to deal with not merely the Floyds and the Garner’s and the wrights, but the even more numerous instances were a police stop turns into an ambush of the officer. that has happened several times in TX in the past month.
              Accross the country probably dozens of times.

              We have all kinds of choices. Those choices have consequences.

              IF we are going to prosecute and jail officers when things go wrong – then we can expect that we will have fewer people willing to be police and that the police will be more tepid in enforcing the law.

              That sounds like what BLM and the left want – and that is a perfectly valid choice.
              But it comes with unintended consequences – that we are just seeing the begining of. It comes with a rise in violent crimes. It comes with more children being killed, more rapes, more murders. It may even come with more violence at police stops. If law enforcement changes their approach to a police stop – so will criminals. If you know that the police will be less agressive, you might be more inclinded to respond with violence yourself. We will see.

              Regardless as with myriads of other issues – I will be happy to discuss improving policing, improving arrests.
              But unlike those on the left – I do not beleive there is a magical solution.

              So long as we have laws – they will be enforce by men with guns. And some of us will “panick” as you claim and the confrontation will not go well and someone will die. That is the nature of laws and their enforcement.

              1. Had to stop into this libertarian slop soon into it. If you want debate, pick a point a stick to it and stick to it as it’s nuance is explored. You sound like a child having a temper tantrum right now. On top of that, read the room. The days of early trumpism have gone by, so doing the fox news ‘i’m going to say shocking crap to make the libs freak out’ tactic is just old and tired.

                You’re the guy at the cocktail party that talks just to hear himself talk despite not being well versed in the subjects you address.

                EB

                1. “You’re the guy at the cocktail party that talks just to hear himself talk”

                  Bug, quite the contrary, John is the guy that intelligent people talk to when they want more information. He answers your postings at the beginning of his posts so the point is made even though you don’t like to listen. Much of the rest of his stuff is theory and examples. Even if you don’t like the rest you can’t complain about his direct answers.

                  SM

                2. “You’re the guy at the cocktail party that talks just to hear himself talk despite not being well versed in the subjects you address.”

                  lol

                  +100

                  …and one looks for any excuse to get away from him.

                  1. You do not need excuses.

                    Read, don’t.
                    Reply, don’t.

                    But you do not seem to be able to let go.

                    You constantly respond to arguments with attacks on my person, my character, my style, full of bizarre assumptions that are both wrong and beyond your ability to know.

                    Regardless, you have choices. But if you choose to respond to arguments with personal attacks – then my replies will dissect and your personal attacks.

                    I would much rather deal with actual issues – rather than waste time dismantling your personal ill informed and irrelevant personal attacks.

                3. “Had to stop into this libertarian slop soon into it.”
                  And you are complaining about my writing ?

                  Regardless, why is the label you attach to an argument relevant ?
                  Most of my arguments are facts, logic, reason
                  most have significant historical, support, Those that relate to economics – have substantial economic data to support them.

                  While many are “libertarian” as you say, they are also accepted by a wide assortment of economic schools, and most of the economic nobel prizes. I linked to work by nobel laureate Gary Becker regarding the fact that any business preference – including racial discrimination that does not improve value or lower cost is inherently self defeating. Libertarians have said that for a long time.
                  Many economists – libertarain or not are also saying it – BECAUSE THE DATA BEARS IT OUT.

                  I am not libertarian because it appeals to me. Communism certainly has greater appeal. I am libertain because that is how the world actually works.

                  “If you want debate, pick a point a stick to it and stick to it as it’s nuance is explored.”
                  Another leftist giving orders.

                  I have a better suggestion – I will post as I please, You may do the same.

                  “You sound like a child having a temper tantrum right now.”
                  Try a mirror. Children try to order others arround and think they can demand control of everything.
                  Adults learn what is in their control and what is not.
                  You still have not figured that out.
                  Behaving like a toddler is your problem.

                  “On top of that, read the room.”
                  Again giving orders.

                  Also stupid – should Galleleo have “read the room” ?

                  And even stupider – maybe you should take your own advice – THIS room is NOT DailyKOS.
                  Left wingnuts may not be a fringe minority here, but they certainly do not set the tenor of “the room”.

                  “The days of early trumpism have gone by, so doing the fox news”
                  Not a Trumpist. Don’t follow fox much.

                  Do you understand how stupid your mind reading arguments are when you are wrong.

                  How many times have I linked to or quoted Tucker Carlson ? Anyone from fox ?

                  How many times PER DAY do I quote John Stuart Mill ? Adam Smith ? Thomas Jefferson

                  These and most of the others I cite have stood the test of time.
                  They are NOT Rachel Maddow or Tucker Carlson.
                  These will be studied and cited 200 years from now.

                  Or if you need someone more Current – I have cited Naseem Talib several times in the past few days.

                  “‘i’m going to say shocking crap to make the libs freak out’ tactic is just old and tired.”
                  Is this supposed to be an argument ? If so what is the actual argument ?

                  Should I not speak the truth because YOU will take it as shocking and freak out ?
                  This seems to be your problem not mine.

                  Regardless, rather than fixating on YOUR emotional reaction, or nonsense like this is “old” – why not make an argument if you have one.

                  Much of what I cite is LITERALLY old – it has stood the test of time.
                  Mill has one of the highest estimated IQ’s of any noteable thinker.
                  Do I need to cite the bonefides of Jefferson or Adam Smith ?

                  “You’re the guy at the cocktail party that talks just to hear himself talk despite not being well versed in the subjects you address.”

                  Maybe you could focus on the subject matter – ANY subject matter.

                  You keep ranting about your emotional misperceptions of my style. Aside from being wrong – these are not relevant.
                  If you think I am wrong – make a counter argument.
                  rather than constantly engaging in ad hominem.

                  “an ad hominen attack against the person, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message.”

                  ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable

                  If you have not figured it out – I do not give a flying crap what you think about me.
                  I have no interest in your critiques of my writing, my personality, my style, etc.
                  These are irrelevant, immature, and wrong.

            2. “You know, this is a place for shorter responses.”
              It is ?

              Where is the rule or policy to that effect ?

              Again you demand control of things you do not control.

              “I’ve contributed to production companies and magazines where any of your scattershot, long winded, unfocused diatribes would’ve been dismissed summarily from discussion — let alone publication.”

              So what ? I have been publishes in several professional journals. This is not a magazines or professional journal. I am not paid to post.

              You are free to read my posts – or not.

              I have found a balance to the quality of my posts and the effort that I put in that is satisfactory to me. No one is paying me for these posts.
              If they did I would take their advice. I am not even slightly interested in yours.

              “So your shorter responses are certainly welcome in comparison with the true to form and vomitous contributions to chaotic distraction that you regularly toss out. Suggestion: try to boil your points to, like, ten words. Then stick to your theme. Anything else just comes across like the sound of a motor revving out of control and has the same sort of effect on a reader.”

              If I have not made it clear – unless you are planning to pay me to write for you – I am not interested in your criticism of the writing style I use for blog posts.

              Read, Don’t, your choice.

              You can continue with these stupid stylistic criticisms or yours – which have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of any discussion.
              And I can decide whether I will ignore you – or attack you for demanding control of things you do not control.

              You are free to choose, I am free to choose.

                1. Bug, that is your loss. The refusal to address other opinions and facts, in this case the opinions of John Say, leaves you vulnerable to ignorance which increases rather than lessens. Perhaps that is the reason you lack so many pertinent details.

                2. “I either read the bare minimum of your posts or skip them entirely.”

                  You are perfectly free to do that.

                  You are even perfectly free to tell everyone that you have not read the things you are critiquing – rather than making an actually making an argument.

                  I would note that while I do not care whether you read my posts – it is pretty clear that you do more than skim them as you badly attack points deep into the post.

  3. https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2021/04/19/who-killed-ashli-babbitt-n2588074

    “”It’s no surprise that leftists celebrate the homicide of dissenting Americans – after all, for them, there’s nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot. And people like you are the right people.”

    “”…if you green light this kind of state violence, the left will inevitably move to the next level of state violence.”

    1. I’m on the left. I don’t celebrate her death or anyone else’s.

      Some sick people on the right and left celebrate others’ deaths. Most people on the right and left do not.

      1. “Some sick people on the right and left celebrate others’ deaths. Most people on the right and left do not.”

        Anonymous the Stupid certainly celebrates something about the deaths of individuals on the right. Look at how far he goes to justify the killing of an unarmed woman that wasn’t a threat yet at the same time wants maximum convictions for the deaths of criminals resisting arrest and known to be violent.

        I agree most people aren’t like that, but Anonymous the Stupid has proven he is.

  4. Another big difference is the complete absence of ANY Due Process in Potter’s case! She was fired and charged without an actual investigation. I can’t imagine not being a sh!tstorm from the Police Union!

    1. She wasn’t fired. She resigned, and she probably did so because it protected her pension, just in case she was fired after an investigation.

      1. That is a reasonable thought in today’s world where leftists control governments. The rule of law at times is near non-existent so those that will soon be political hatchet jobs have to disappear to preserve whatever they can. The left is bringing tyranny to our door step.

  5. If her husband were to file a civil action on behalf of himself and their minor children, the identity of the shooter and his background could be determined through discovery. I think the family would have a very good chance of prevailing on wrongful death and civil rights violation theories. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Justice Department offered them a hefty settlement in exchange for a confidentiality agreement. The federal government clearly wants this covered up. It kind of reminds me of Ruby Ridge, where an FBI sharpshooter shot and killed a young woman while she she standing on the porch of her cabin holding a baby in her arms. But the victims were supposedly “white separatists” living in rural Idaho so it was okay.

  6. This was clearly a politically motivated coverup by the justice department. Sadly, we have this over and over again. The video evidence is quite stunning. There were others facilitating the murder who were egging on the crowd, breaking windows and acting in concert. One of them even declared that Babbitt was dead when he had no business saying any such thing. This whole event stinks to high heaven. We don’t know for certain the identity of the shooter, his motivations, training or prejudices. The questionable activities by those around Babbitt, the shooter and the officers in the area should be put on put on the witness stand and/or charged as accessories to murder. I believe Babbitt was set up to be a point person by those around her who were up to no good.

    1. “The questionable activities by those around Babbitt, the shooter and the officers in the area should be put on put on the witness stand and/or charged as accessories to murder. I believe Babbitt was set up to be a point person by those around her who were up to no good.”

      Many of them have been arrested. An example is Zachary Alam, the guy in the Canada Goose hat who bashed in the window that Babbitt climbed through, using a helmet. Unless he pleads out without going to trial or pleads the 5th, nothing is stopping him from being questioned about it.

      You can find the names and charging documents for many of these people here –
      https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

      1. Thanks for that. I read the ‘statement of facts’ generated against Z. Alam. He seemed to be coordinating his activity with at least one other man in the immediate area. The Justice Department could do themselves a favor by running the video and stopping to identify the ones who have been arrested, the charges and if they were conspiring with each other. Still this give me no solace for the way Babbitt was gunned down.

        1. “The Justice Department could do themselves a favor by running the video and stopping to identify the ones who have been arrested, the charges and if they were conspiring with each other.”

          They have been doing that.

          Feel free to help in identifying people they haven’t yet identified by name –
          https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/capitol-violence-images/

          1. That looks like selective enforcement to me. The intent is not identifying those who have been charged so that the public can see. Has the FBI done the same with BLM / Antifa ‘insurrectionists’?

            1. Originally, none of those people had been identified and arrested. As they identify them, they arrest them. They’ve asked for the public’s help in identifying them.

              As for your question, look up the answer for yourself instead of asking me to research it for you. You’ll also want to figure out when the FBI is involved (versus state law enforcement). The FBI is clearly involved in this case because it occurred the Capitol grounds. They’re sometimes involved in investigations for events that aren’t on federal grounds, but that’s a case-by-case analysis. Lots of people have been arrested for illegal activity during BLM protests.

              1. No FBI investigations of other cases are not determined on a case by case basis.

                They are determined by the law.

                The FBI only has jurisdiction when federal laws are broken.

                There is no federal general police power.

            2. To a large extent the police have done the same with BLM and the riots.

              They even did the same with the Kavanaugh protests.

              What is disturbingly different with Jan 6, is that every single person arrested is being agressively charged and prosecuted.

              NONE of the kavaugh protestors were ultimatly prosecuted.

              There were large numbers of arressts associated with the riots – now and this summer.
              Charges were dropped on nearly all of these people.

Leave a Reply