Doc Posted August 29, 2021 Posted August 29, 2021 Have any of the alphabet networks would reported that there was "scant evidence"? I think I know the answer, but... 1
B-Man Posted August 29, 2021 Posted August 29, 2021 JONATHAN TURLEY: Shooter of Ashli Babbit Makes Shocking Admission: “That’s my job.” Those three words summed up a controversial interview this week with the long-unnamed officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6. Shortly after being cleared by the Capitol Police in the shooting, Lt. Michael Byrd went public in an NBC interview, insisting that he “saved countless lives” by shooting the unarmed protester. I have long expressed doubt over the Babbitt shooting, which directly contradicted standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement. But what was breathtaking about Byrd’s interview was that he confirmed the worst suspicions about the shooting and raised serious questions over the incident reviews by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and, most recently, the Capitol Police. Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and ardent supporter of former President Trump. She came to Washington to protest the certification of the presidential Electoral College results and stormed into the Capitol when security lines collapsed. She had no criminal record but clearly engaged in criminal conduct that day by entering Capitol and disobeying police commands. The question, however, has been why this unarmed trespasser deserved to die. . . . At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd. The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it stressed 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 seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “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.” While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters. Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby recently was convicted for killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his own head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6. In the eyes of the establishment — including those silent “law professors and experts” — she deserved to die because she was a Trump supporter. It’s all about that. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/569827-justified-shooting-or-fair-game-shooter-of-ashlii-babbitt-makes-shocking Plus, the usual apparatchik entitlement: “Politico reported that Byrd previously was subjected to a disciplinary review when he left his Glock 22 service weapon in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex. He reportedly told other officers that his rank as a lieutenant and his role as commander of the House chambers section would protect him and that he expected to ‘be treated differently.'” Well, he wasn’t wrong.
Doc Posted August 30, 2021 Posted August 30, 2021 Just as corrupt as the last Dem administration. 1 1 1
BillStime Posted August 30, 2021 Posted August 30, 2021 On 8/27/2021 at 10:14 PM, Chef Jim said: She is dead ***** head. She is nothing now. 🤦🏻♂️ Blame Trump Everyone else is
B-Man Posted August 30, 2021 Posted August 30, 2021 JACK DUNPHY: Capitol Police Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Speaks (but Shouldn’t Have). “Understand that it is not only Byrd himself who will be accused in the wrongful death suit yet to be filed. His department will also be named when the suit is brought in the jurisdiction the plaintiffs choose, and in speaking with Holt, Byrd exposed some departmental deficiencies a jury may see as having contributed to Babbitt’s death.” https://pjmedia.com/columns/jack-dunphy/2021/08/29/lieutenant-byrd-speaks-but-shouldnt-have-n1474053
SoCal Deek Posted August 30, 2021 Posted August 30, 2021 1 hour ago, B-Man said: JACK DUNPHY: Capitol Police Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Speaks (but Shouldn’t Have). “Understand that it is not only Byrd himself who will be accused in the wrongful death suit yet to be filed. His department will also be named when the suit is brought in the jurisdiction the plaintiffs choose, and in speaking with Holt, Byrd exposed some departmental deficiencies a jury may see as having contributed to Babbitt’s death.” https://pjmedia.com/columns/jack-dunphy/2021/08/29/lieutenant-byrd-speaks-but-shouldnt-have-n1474053 What did she die of? “Departmental Deficiency” YIKES
Unforgiven Posted August 30, 2021 Posted August 30, 2021 23 hours ago, Doc said: Have any of the alphabet networks would reported that there was "scant evidence"? I think I know the answer, but... An idiot probably doesn't know what 'scant' means, which is precisely why the report used it.
BillStime Posted August 30, 2021 Posted August 30, 2021 11 minutes ago, B-Man said: Actual News. lmao - so threatened
Doc Posted August 30, 2021 Posted August 30, 2021 So, still no one charged with gun possession or treason and still no evidence of being coordinated? Keep tilting at windmills, Donkey hoteys.
Backintheday544 Posted August 30, 2021 Posted August 30, 2021 22 minutes ago, Doc said: So, still no one charged with gun possession or treason and still no evidence of being coordinated? Keep tilting at windmills, Donkey hoteys. There have been at least 4 fire arm violation charges so far: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-capitol-riot-firearm-guy-reffitt/
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 31, 2021 Posted August 31, 2021 22 hours ago, BillStime said: This post intrigues me. You took the time to seek it out, read it, and consider it important enough to share with the group. My assumption—and I could be wrong here—is that you think it bolsters a case against Jim Jordan for…something. So, I read it, looking for some sort of smoking gun. The article can be summed up as follows: 1. Politico asked Jim Jordan if he spoke with Donald Trump on 1/6. 2. Politico said Jordan said he spoke with Donald Trump on 1/6. 3. Newsweek, recognizing that there is no compelling interest to a story that suggest a journalist received a benign answer to a question, decided to spice things up. Instead of writing “Jordan answered the question…”, they changed it to “Jordan admitted…” adding a conspiratorial tone to the story. 4. A couple no-name losers have suggested Jordan saying he spoke with the President is indicative of….what? Speaking with the president? What are you seeing here Billsy? The criminal investigatory arm of the US government is going nowhere fast. Trump is not implicated. Jordan is not implicated. What’s got you bird dogging this one?
BillStime Posted August 31, 2021 Posted August 31, 2021 16 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: This post intrigues me. You took the time to seek it out, read it, and consider it important enough to share with the group. My assumption—and I could be wrong here—is that you think it bolsters a case against Jim Jordan for…something. So, I read it, looking for some sort of smoking gun. The article can be summed up as follows: 1. Politico asked Jim Jordan if he spoke with Donald Trump on 1/6. 2. Politico said Jordan said he spoke with Donald Trump on 1/6. 3. Newsweek, recognizing that there is no compelling interest to a story that suggest a journalist received a benign answer to a question, decided to spice things up. Instead of writing “Jordan answered the question…”, they changed it to “Jordan admitted…” adding a conspiratorial tone to the story. 4. A couple no-name losers have suggested Jordan saying he spoke with the President is indicative of….what? Speaking with the president? What are you seeing here Billsy? The criminal investigatory arm of the US government is going nowhere fast. Trump is not implicated. Jordan is not implicated. What’s got you bird dogging this one?
B-Man Posted August 31, 2021 Posted August 31, 2021 3 hours ago, BillStime said: lmao - so threatened 9 minutes ago, BillStime said: Same thing over and over and over. No reasoning. No intelligence NO answers to questions about his post (that is fear) No REAL defense of his posts.....................just lashing out and projection. 1
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 31, 2021 Posted August 31, 2021 Ummm op… alt left law says thou shalt not mention insurrection with out preceding with the word “DEADLY” ffs even the brainwashed can’t regurgitate their brainwashing correctly they are so low functioning…
BillStime Posted August 31, 2021 Posted August 31, 2021 44 minutes ago, B-Man said: Same thing over and over and over. No reasoning. No intelligence NO answers to questions about his post (that is fear) No REAL defense of his posts.....................just lashing out and projection. So threatened. LMAO
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 31, 2021 Posted August 31, 2021 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Same thing over and over and over. No reasoning. No intelligence NO answers to questions about his post (that is fear) No REAL defense of his posts.....................just lashing out and projection. It’s on me. I try every now and again and it’s waste of time. A while back he was blathering on about Jordan and I asked the same basic question—“What ya got?”. Here’s the answer—he’s got someone else’s Star Wars meme. 1
Recommended Posts