Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, April 16, 2021

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

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

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

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Wright was pulled over on a charge fishing expedition and shot by "mistake."

Babbitt was actively engaged in an armed insurrection and was shot as she tried to force her way into an area where lawmakers were being protected by officers.

Any other questions?

#1 | Posted by qcp at 2021-04-16 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"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."

#2 | Posted by eberly at 2021-04-16 11:32 AM | Reply

One was attacking, the other was fleeing.

#3 | Posted by bored at 2021-04-16 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let's pretend for a minute that Babbit escaped from the insurrection without being shot nor detained by police but she's identified....a few days later she is pulled over in a traffic stop and the same thing happens as did with Wright. Babbit is shot dead under similar circumstances after police identify her as an insurrectionist and attempt to take her into custody.

Does the crime of the insurrection matter anymore? It seems to matter regarding when she was shot....but what if it were days or even weeks later and it happens in a traffic stop.

Same outrage? Same brutal cops who are over the line for shooting her in a traffic stop but completely justified when she was in the Capitol?

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2021-04-16 11:48 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#4 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 202

Killing Babbitt likely saved innocent lives.

I guess I miss your point, or maybe think it trivial.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2021-04-16 11:57 AM | Reply

-Killing Babbitt likely saved innocent lives.

Okay...maybe but not sure how you come to that conclusion. she was unarmed. No outstanding warrants, right? regarding firearms?

Was she a right wing kook that could have been very dangerous? absolutely.

-I guess I miss your point, or maybe think it trivial.

I'm just asking questions

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2021-04-16 12:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Does the crime of the insurrection matter anymore?"

Does the crime of first-degree felony aggravated robbery with a firearm matter anymore?
Does the crime of an expired registration tag and an obstructed rear view mirror matter anymore?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-16 12:21 PM | Reply

I don't think this Wright person was in the capital building at the head of a dangerous mob.

She was.

#8 | Posted by Tor at 2021-04-16 12:30 PM | Reply

not sure how you come to that conclusion.

#6 | POSTED BY EBERLY

A BATTLE was being fought. Babbitt, an aggressor, was first through the last physical barrier separating the ENEMY she was a part of from innocent civilians that ENEMY intended to harm.

A more economic and appropriate use of force is hard to imagine. Killing Babbitt kept the others from exploiting the breach, leading to more deaths on both sides.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2021-04-16 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

9

Yep. I see your point.

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2021-04-16 12:50 PM | Reply

"One was attacking, the other was fleeing."

Who was she attacking? Did she hurt anyone?

Should the cops in Portland be shooting the attackers there?

#11 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-16 01:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Does the crime of the insurrection matter anymore?"

I think that some of our progressive friends are conflating two separate concepts. On a different thread, several of our friends commented that Babbitt deserved to be shot because she was part of the insurgency. In fact at least one person claimed that not enough insurgents were shot. That's silly, given that there was exactly zero threat from these insurgents accomplishing anything other than vandalism, which we have seen occur across the nation in other similar riots. Like everyone else, they would be entitled to due process. The notion that they should die for their beliefs is far more vulgar than that of most of the insurgents.

The other issue has to do with the threat posed by Ashli Babbitt. She was part of a violent group demonstrating non-compliance. It's reasonable that the Capitol Police viewed her as a threat, and the reasonable response to that action is to terminate the threat. What I have trouble with is the notion that, it was OK here, but with anyone who is black, shooting them is an unjustified, racist action.

There are two incidents that I can think of where a black person was killed under completely unjustified circumstances. Philando Castille and Breonna Taylor. In every other case, the suspect was a known criminal with a violent past, engaged in violence or resistance, or a potential threat to life, limb, or eyesight. It baffles me why the social justice crowd puts George Floyd, a violent criminal drug addict who was resisting arrest, on such a pedestal.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-16 01:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"A BATTLE was being fought. Babbitt"

Battles have been fought nightly in Portland for the last year, by anarchist who want to overthrow society.

Should the police be setting up machine gun nests around federal buildings, or should we do this the right way and let the military handle the insurgents?

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-16 01:38 PM | Reply

"A more economic and appropriate use of force is hard to imagine. Killing Babbitt kept the others from exploiting the breach, leading to more deaths on both sides."

Do you think killing a protester as a means of setting an example would be a good tactic in the future when dealing with riotous mobs?

It doesn't seem to be working all that well in Myanmar.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-16 01:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Do you think killing a protester as a means of setting an example would be a good tactic in the future when dealing with riotous mobs?

14 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Find an analogous situation and we'll talk about it.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2021-04-16 01:47 PM | Reply

"there was exactly zero threat from these insurgents"

Ye gods.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2021-04-16 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Do you think killing a protester as a means of setting an example would be a good tactic in the future when dealing with riotous mobs?"

Why kill a protester, doesn't it make more sense to kill someone who is part of the riotous mob?

Or maybe just kill a kitten.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-16 02:01 PM | Reply

"In every other case, the suspect was a known criminal with a violent past, engaged in violence or resistance, or a potential threat to life, limb, or eyesight."

Tamir Rice.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-16 02:02 PM | Reply

Elijah McClain.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-16 02:05 PM | Reply

The other issue has to do with the threat posed by Ashli Babbitt. She was part of a violent group demonstrating non-compliance.

Non-compliance?

What are you understating the facts?

#20 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-04-16 02:31 PM | Reply

No difference. They were both criminals. I suppose hairs could be split, such as it is, even prostitutes have a pecking order.

#21 | Posted by FSUknowit at 2021-04-16 05:45 PM | Reply

#11 Ex-air force skank was breaking into a secure area while disobeying lawful orders. Comply or die.

The cop saved tax payers money on her pension. Justified kill.

#22 | Posted by bored at 2021-04-16 06:37 PM | Reply

Sadbomber is a fugging moron.

#23 | Posted by Angrydad at 2021-04-16 09:05 PM | Reply

The timing of the two decisions that involved two chaotic situations raises questions why charges were filed in Minnesota, but not in Washington

You have to be a real racist s&^% heap to even utter this.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-17 12:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes, this is a safe space to be a racist ass.

Everything is going according to Lee Atwater's plan.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-17 12:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"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."
#2 | POSTED BY EBERLY

And?

He was killed because of presupposition.

Babbitt was killed because she was a dumb insurrectionist pile of chit who breached a barricade set during the storming of our capitol building.

Anybody conflating these two cases is an idiot. Period.

Probably racist too.

But definitely an idiot.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-17 12:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Find an analogous situation and we'll talk about it."

Sure. Portland.

The next time a projectile is thrown at police, should they open fire?

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-17 03:33 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why kill a protester, doesn't it make more sense to kill someone who is part of the riotous mob?"

I don't know? Does it?

And when do you make the distinction between protester and riotous mob? Were all of the people at the Capitol building that day part of a riotous mob?

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-17 03:38 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What are you understating the facts?"

I'm presupposing the Capitol Police ordered her to stop destroying public property before they shot her.

And even so, does the destruction of public property warrant police shooting someone? What about unlawful entry of a public property?

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-17 03:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What are you understating the facts?"

I'm presupposing the Capitol Police ordered her to stop destroying public property before they shot her.

And even so, does the destruction of public property warrant police shooting someone? What about unlawful entry of a public property?

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-17 03:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You have to be a real racist s&^% heap to even utter this."

Here is the bio on your real racist s&^% heap:

Bio
JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school's history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law " leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.

In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor " only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.

In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.

Full bio here:

jonathanturley.org

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-17 03:44 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Babbitt was killed because she was a dumb insurrectionist pile of chit who breached a barricade set during the storming of our capitol building."

Should police be cleared hot to use lethal force when rioters breach barricades?

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-17 03:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Posted by madbomber

The disgusting stupidity displayed by this revolting excuse for a human being is appalling.

Garbage like this is the problem.

#33 | Posted by Angrydad at 2021-04-17 10:45 AM | Reply

Protesting is a constitutionally protected right. Violence isn't.

When an armed crowd threatens to murder elected officials, then assaults the police protecting them, then breaks into the location of those elected officials seeking to find them. Kill them all.

#34 | Posted by bored at 2021-04-17 12:33 PM | Reply

Should police be cleared hot to use lethal force when rioters breach barricades?

#32 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Why are you so desperate to normalize insurrection?

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-17 12:40 PM | Reply

Follow up question:
Why are you so desperate to normalize lethal force by the police?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-17 12:45 PM | Reply

Why are you so desperate to normalize insurrection?
#35 | POSTED BY JPW

He's a Trumper.

Those are his people he's defending.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-17 01:21 PM | Reply

Gods. How can anyone still not understand the facts about The Babbitt case? It has to be willful at this point.

Angry mob outnumbering the police 10 to 1. Murdered cop already has happened. Dozens more injured, some badly. Weapons removed from protestors on the exterior. All of this coming over the radio.

Cops don't have to justify seeing a weapon to deploy deadly force. They need to be in fear for their lives, or the lives of the innocents around them. That's the standard. These particular cops had lawmakers on the other side of the door that they have sworn to protect. They get to assume the girl at the head of the mob smashing through the door they were telling her to stop coming through is there kill or maim them and their protectees.

It really is that simple. Stop comparing apples to space ships.

#38 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-18 12:43 AM | Reply

Seriously. If you have to ask...

One situation was during an insurrection. One was not.

#39 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-04-18 12:07 PM | Reply

How can anyone still not understand the facts about The Babbitt case? It has to be willful at this point.

It's worse than that.

It's an attempt to normalize insurrectionists.

Seriously. If you have to ask...

Trolls gonna troll.

But this is worse than that.

This is equating a woman shot, while breaking through a barrier, during an attempted insurrection, with armed rioters, where police officers were being beaten and killed, chanting "Hang Mike Pence"...

To a guy who was pulled over at 2 pm in a traffic stop which ended up in his death.

Regardless of whether he was fleeing from arrest or not. There was no reason to shoot or taser him. It wasn't a life or death situation and had the guy driven off. They had his driver's license, they could have arrested him at any time. It wasn't urgent he be arrested for an outstanding warrant.

Bill collectors don't need to carry guns or tasers.

What it really all comes down to.

Is making excuses for the death of a white woman by comparing her to a black man.

There's zero relation between the two events.

Unless you're racist.

Then Wright being black justifies him being murdered. Just his presence is as egregious as attempting to over turn American democracy.

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-18 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"There's zero relation between the two events.

Unless you're racist. "

This!

Exactly.

#41 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-04-18 03:02 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort