A quick video by "Liberty Doll" (a nerd-hot 2A advocate) on the case of Mark "Choppa" Manley, an upstanding black man targeted and raided by the ATF.
An ALL-OUT RAID, complete with flash-bang grenades, full-auto carrying jackboots and all ... on an innocent family.
Thank God no one was killed this time and there are agents that definitely should be in jail for this.
Posted for those that think unconstitutional actions like red flag laws and performing search/seizure based on anonymous sources are a good thing and those that doubt the alphabet agencies are fully corrupted.
Where's the media attention? Where are the "civil rights" advocates ? I think it's obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J--vFOybVPM
for those that have trouble bringing up videos from this site, it was posted on YouTube by "Liberty Doll" and the video title is "2A Advocate Raided By The ATF"
I know of her mmm mmm
back when she was blond . :grin:.
She look different without her glasses on.
after having a kid and getting more nerdy (current)
oh . and she has a sense of humor .. when I first saw the "blonde" pic above, my comment was something like "keep both, they're great ! One being a little bigger than the other is normal." :cool:
QuotePosted for those that think unconstitutional actions like red flag laws and performing search/seizure based on anonymous sources are a good thing and those that doubt the alphabet agencies are fully corrupted.
wonder who that could be :grin:
There is perfect and there is permissive. I don't like any gun laws. I think you should be able to own a rocket launcher if you want. On the other hand, if we don't get a grip on known nutters, we will all lose our rights.
In the same way we punish those who break the law (or should) police who pull this kind of stuff should be punished. The guy who shot Babbet, for example, should not have been able to carry a weapon and probably should have lost his job long ago.
I recognize the potential abuse of red flag laws. I don't have a good answer. Red flag laws may or may not work. I have not seen an analysis from those states that have passed them.
We can stay in pursuit of perfection and end up with nothing.
>On the other hand, if we don't get a grip on known nutters, we will all lose our rights.
>I recognize the potential abuse of red flag laws. I don't have a good answer.
Archie Bunker had the answers to the nutter problem, way back in the 60s or 70s as posted recently on another topic.. :grin: :grin:
https://youtube.com/shorts/g7L6QOk5tf4?si=FpbhXHEUEJF1Tcky
Probably not going to happen :grin:
I don't think so . lol :wink:
Kathy, I actually didn't have anyone specific in mind (except maybe Terri), but ok, whatever :cheesy:
removal of ... due process, the right to face an accuser, and the concept of innocent until proven guilty isn't the answer to anything ... except how to achieve tyranny.
this case happens to be a wonderful example of that ... except the tyrants were not competent enough to achieve their objective.
The abuse of red flag laws is no longer a matter of potential. The real-world examples are already piling up.
The "problems" that red flag laws are supposedly written to address were largely created by bad court decisions becoming law and by idiotic laws passed as a knee-jerk reaction to "protect" the mentally ill and imagined rights of habitual criminals. Trying to correct bad laws with other bad laws is just foolishness.
It isn't a question of pursuing perfection. It is a question of whether you are willing to erode or destroy the basis of the rule of law in pursuit of an imagined "good".
btw ...Babbit was shot while a group was in the process of breaching a locked door and she was in the group. The window was broken through and open at the time of the shot. The officer fired a little prematurely for my tastes (he should have waited until someone broke the plane of the doorway/window). And as almost always in cop shootings, I question his marksmanship (there's some doubt as to exactly what she was doing at the time and whether she was the target of the officer).
She was either part of the breaching of the door or otherwise put herself in harm's way. Sorry to burst bubbles, but lethal force was justified to protect the area beyond the doors. The cops on the mob side of the doors .. that stepped aside to allow the mob to hack into them ... should face more repercussions than the officer that fired the weapon.
and your use of the word "permissive" left me utterly confused. Could you explain what you meant?
I am actually in favor of shooting people who are breaking into a building but that's not the way they want things done. What ever happened to shooting them in the knee? What ever happened to that part about the threat needing to be deadly? Michael Byrd should be relegated to an unarmed guard's position checking trucks in at a steel mill after he's done his prison term.
QuoteThe "problems" that red flag laws are supposedly written to address were largely created by bad court decisions becoming law and by idiotic laws passed as a knee-jerk reaction to "protect" the mentally ill and imagined rights of habitual criminals. Trying to correct bad laws with other bad laws is just foolishness.
I don't disagree but we have had a number of women killed by abusive SOs that had restraining orders against them. IDK if disarming them would have made a difference. Is a restraining order enough court action to disarm someone?
Perfect vs permissive is a theological theory that God has a perfect plan for us, and when we mess that up, a permissive plan. :grin:
I agree that Babbitt was in the wrong. I also agree that the shooting was legal. Where I get ticked off is that if she had been an unarmed black woman and the so called cop who shot her had been white, we'd still be on fire. It ticks me off that he, of all people, should not have been there with a loaded weapon. In fact, if he had not been the shooter, I probably would have fallen firmly on the side of whatever cop shot her.
As it was, he appeared to do a panic shooting without situational awareness. He seemed not to be aware of the many armed LEOs that were right there. He seemed not to be communicating with his own people. He's dangerous and should not be armed. Should have lost his weapon when he left it in the bathroom for all to find.
Terri ... thanks to stupid court decisions over the years ... intentional placement of a shot to a specific part of the body is often taken as an "intent to maim or do grave bodily harm" and opens up the door to lawsuits or criminal charges in some States.
best not to mess with that juju ...
COM shot with the intent to "stop the threat" is the safest bet ... both legally and practically. It kinda ticks me off that things are that way, and is one of the reasons that I opt to NOT carry under normal circumstances... I would prefer to not be backed into the corner of having to kill when I don't really need to. I see having a gun as constricting in some ways ... but as I get older I'm losing the option of being able to use non-lethal options.
A mob, by its nature, is forceful and deadly.
I would have fired him at most. If it makes you feel any better, she was hit in the shoulder which isn't usually lethal. If he had waited a quarter second or so and done a head shot leaving her body hanging in the opening, I would have given him a commendation.
Animal, I don't carry with the intent to shoot. I have carried for 20 plus years and have calmed maybe a dozen situations without ever pulling it out. Just letting it be known of has always done the job.
QuoteI don't disagree but we have had a number of women killed by abusive SOs that had restraining orders against them. IDK if disarming them would have made a difference. Is a restraining order enough court action to disarm someone?
It wouldn't have helped Nichole as OJ preferred a knife. She knew he was more than abusive. It was no secret to the authorities yet she was not wise enough to stop it at the start. The first time he laid his hands on her she should have left then and maybe just maybe she would be alive today. Yet instead she stayed and enabled OJ to continue the abuse and boldness in it.
Now if She or Goldman had been packing a rod as 'Archie Bunkers words' lol 'in his little speech' lol, one might have saved the other or at least themself?
Back in the seventies in my area there was such a case where an abusive husband was found dead in a local small river after his head had been removed (cut off!). It was later that the wife who had been repeatedly abused was found to have done the deed. After a lengthly trial, she was acquitted of the murder charge against her. No gun used here either.
Every American has the right to defend him or herself, as well as their family.
Agree or disagree, even a nutter has the right to defend her or himself from another nutter as well. This is partially why we have a Second Amendment and 'equal rights'.....
Quoting Animal:
She was either part of the breaching of the door or otherwise put herself in harm's way. Sorry to burst bubbles, but lethal force was justified to protect the area beyond the doors. The cops on the mob side of the doors .. that stepped aside to allow the mob to hack into them ... should face more repercussions than the officer that fired the weapon.
See KathyPs topic Full Measure Jan 6
https://beemaster.com/forum/index.php?topic=57841.msg539547#msg539547
Therefore I agree. On the John Sullivan video taken at the time, Babbit was shown actually climbing through the open hole of the broken out window, when the officer lifted his firearm and was aiming at her, and when she reached a point of almost no return he fired. She fell back from the frame of the window where she was shown >perched in a bullfrog position<, ready to spring inside that door. Now from the angle of that once public video taken down, I could not tell if she actually seen the officer as he was standing off to the side of the double doors. This is the first I've viewed the video in at least 3, almost four years and it was taken down soon after being publicly posted back then. [/i][/size]For a short time thereafter it could be viewed on Infowars in its entirety, and for all I know it still can?
And another thing no one with good sense should think they can just waltz into the Our Capital Building, uninvited, and without going through the proper procedures as laid out by Capital rules, and expect to not have repercussions afterward. I said this from the start.
Even so, I realize some were coaxed into entering our Capital, while other videos showed the police holding the doors open for the entry of others, just like grandma or grandpaw might do when welcoming family into their home!
Other videos was shown with the police taking some for a tour! (The guy with horns come to mind for example).
It is my opinion that nothing done that day, innocent or guilty, excuses the fact that many >Citizens< have been denied their due process of law.
The video of her being shot, in it's entirety shows another suspicious looking guy who declares that she's shot and that she's dead and then he pulls some clothes out of his backpack and changes clothes and then runs. Very suspicious.
There's another video out there of Babbet demanding that the police stop some people who are being disruptive while she walks through the capitol. I have not figured out how that sequence of events goes. I guess she is obviously alive, so she was in the capitol earlier. Then she's climbing through a window and gets shot. It doesn't make sense.
Mr Bush, From the >long version video< made by John Sullivan, which seems to no longer be available. It showed him walking to the capital, in the capital, through the capital and to the point we are talking about now. (The place where she was shot). The double doors are within the hallway somewhere apparently. From what animal is saying, once that area is breached, the firepower was started. I suppose they had to draw the line of intrusion somewhere? 🤷🏻♂️. But I really don?t know. Maybe animal knows more?
no, not much.
The "line of intrusion" as you called it could have (should have?) been drawn much earlier than the point at which the shooting occurred. It's my understanding that the hallway they were breaking through to actually had some elected officials and staff in it at the time.
The officer drew and held fire for a decent amount of time before firing and I'm pretty sure he announced ... the goblins in the room were aware that a gun was out, at any rate. The doors being locked makes it obvious that any reasonable person should understand that they should not go through them.
Play stupid games ....
I wasn't really interested in this story after seeing enough of the actual incident to judge the guy's actions so I'm not really up on the details .. and truth be told, I don't really want to be on his side, and don't think he was qualified for the job from other things I've heard .. but that wasn't relevant to whether the shooting was justified at the moment it occurred.
Quote from: Kathyp on January 06, 2025, 07:22:40 PM
QuoteThe "problems" that red flag laws are supposedly written to address were largely created by bad court decisions becoming law and by idiotic laws passed as a knee-jerk reaction to "protect" the mentally ill and imagined rights of habitual criminals. Trying to correct bad laws with other bad laws is just foolishness.
I don't disagree but we have had a number of women killed by abusive SOs that had restraining orders against them. IDK if disarming them would have made a difference. Is a restraining order enough court action to disarm someone?
Perfect vs permissive is a theological theory that God has a perfect plan for us, and when we mess that up, a permissive plan. :grin:
oops, missed that post
perfect/permissive - theology hadn't entered my mind in what I saw as a Constitutional question
Given that you "don't disagree" with the statement you highlighted then stated "but" .. going on to describe a societal problem that needed a solution; it makes me think that you see your theologically based view of morality as a higher authority than the Constitution with respect to the law. Proper laws in the United States should exist and be justified only within the Constitutional framework and logical extensions thereof. Appeals to morality (or any other motivation) in order to override the Constitution, amounts to an argument from authority where no such authority exists within the framework; and is therefore, fallacious. :smile:
It's fine to have a higher authority than the Constitution in your personal life. I would even say it's necessary if you want to be a good person, but boundaries to society exist for good reasons.
Iddee .. for many years, my job put me in a position where confrontations were almost daily and physical ones were common. Mostly it was with low level street rats and most of them were older teens. Many times it was up close and personal stuff and I didn't want to risk losing a weapon in a scuffle. Putting them on the ground pretty much solved things in almost all cases and usually was able to not hurt them seriously. .. First order of business if you have a firearm for defense is to keep opponents at a distance. I wasn't afraid of them even when they were armed. I was afraid of the shame if I were to lose my weapon, partly since I was also a pistol/personal protection instructor.