- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,651
- Reaction score
- 55,264
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. In order to establish a violation of this statute, prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer acted willfully to deprive Ms. Babbitt of a right protected by the Constitution or other law, here the Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure. Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
So it was a civil rights investigation, not a murder investigation and not a use of force investigation.
Hmmm....
If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force.How close do you believe the officers should have allowed the mob, which was calling for the death of our elected leaders, to get to them before opening fire?
If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
So it was a civil rights investigation, not a murder investigation and not a use of force investigation.
Hmmm....
If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force.
If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force.
What would you do to a criminal member of a violent mob breaking through a window in your house and climbing inside where people you are sworn to protect are hiding?
Why was a use of force investigation not conducted? Why was a murder investigation not conducted? We expect such an investigation every time a cop kills a black man but in this case it was a white chick that supported Trump and the DoJ just DGAF.
Treason has consequences. The Trump cult is lucky more of them weren’t killed.
Why was a use of force investigation not conducted? Why was a murder investigation not conducted? We expect such an investigation every time a cop kills a black man but in this case it was a white chick that supported Trump and the DoJ just DGAF.
They don't need to be engaged by people using deadly force, they need only be able to reasonably assume it.If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force.
That's horseshit. When you're confronted with a breach of an invading force of hundreds of people, that IS deadly force!If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
. Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.
So it was a civil rights investigation, not a murder investigation and not a use of force investigation.
Hmmm....
A charge of sedition - meaning incitement of a rebellion - has not been brought against any of the more than 400 people arrested to date.
That's horseshit. When you're confronted with a breach of an invading force of hundreds of people, that IS deadly force!
They were already beating a policeman to death on the front steps. Not deadly enough?If the police were not engaged by people using deadly force then they should not have responded with deadly force.
They were already beating a policeman to death on the front steps. Not deadly enough?
Why was a use of force investigation not conducted? Why was a murder investigation not conducted? We expect such an investigation every time a cop kills a black man but in this case it was a white chick that supported Trump and the DoJ just DGAF.
A charge of sedition - meaning incitement of a rebellion - has not been brought against any of the more than 400 people arrested to date. The most serious charges have been assault, conspiracy and obstruction of Congress or law enforcement. So no indication of treason, nor any treason charges, if all the federal prosecutor can make a case for assault, conspiracy and obstruction of Congress or law enforcement.
Amid setbacks, prosecutors abandon some claims in U.S. Capitol riot cases
By Sarah N. Lynch
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...laims-in-u-s-capitol-riot-cases-idUSKBN2BG30C
But the Justice Department has since acknowledged in court hearings that some of its evidence concerning the riot - carried out by a mob of supporters of former President Donald Trump to try to overturn his election loss - is less damning than it initially indicated.
The department suffered another blow this week when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta threatened to impose a gag order on prosecutors after Michael Sherwin, its former head prosecutor on the Capitol cases, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” program that evidence pointed toward sedition charges against some defendants.
A charge of sedition - meaning incitement of a rebellion - has not been brought against any of the more than 400 people arrested to date. The most serious charges have been assault, conspiracy and obstruction of Congress or law enforcement.
Prosecutors are in the early stages of building criminal cases ahead of the trials stemming from an attack that left five people dead including a police officer, forced lawmakers to hide for their own safety and interrupted the formal congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.
But missteps by the government could harm its credibility as accused ringleaders begin asking courts to drop some of the most serious charges.
“They are trying to build the most horrendous cases they can because the public wants it - and this is politicizing criminal justice,” said Gerald B. Lefcourt, who for decades has represented high-profile defendants in political demonstrations, including Black Panther leaders and “Chicago Seven” trial figure Abbie Hoffman.
So, dead & gone.https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
So it was a civil rights investigation, not a murder investigation and not a use of force investigation.
Hmmm....
No argument about treason being difficult to prove in court.Yawn. Treason is difficult to prove, legally speaking, in the court system. Hence the reason prosecutors are often more interested in going for “lesser” charges that are easier to confirm and therefore ensuring that the treasonous Trump cultists don’t avoid rotting in jail where they belong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?