- Joined
- Apr 16, 2025
- Messages
- 1,007
- Reaction score
- 349
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Michael Byrd should be charged with violating the civil rights of Ashli Babbitt.
4th Amendment Rights
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and commonly known as “Section 1983,” prohibits any person from violating constitutional rights while acting “under the color of law.” In other words, it is unlawful for someone acting in an official governmental capacity to deprive another person of their constitutional rights.Civil Rights Act Section 1983 & Excessive Force by Police
NOTE: This blog article was amended to reflect recent changes to U.S. federal law with passage of the First Step Act (P.L. 115- 391). Since December 21, 2018, the First Step Act required numerous changes to the federal criminal justice […]www.federalcriminallawyer.us
Excessive force is a type of police misconduct where the officer’s actions go beyond the bounds of force that a reasonable officer would use under the same circumstances. These cases focus on the objective reasonableness of the force used – not whether the arrestee was injured. Whether the officer’s use of force was excessive depends largely on the circumstances and facts of each specific case. A judge or jury will weigh the available evidence and applicable laws to determine whether or not the police officer applied a reasonable amount of force.
Darwin Award winner.Michael Byrd should be charged with violating the civil rights of Ashli Babbitt.
4th Amendment Rights
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and commonly known as “Section 1983,” prohibits any person from violating constitutional rights while acting “under the color of law.” In other words, it is unlawful for someone acting in an official governmental capacity to deprive another person of their constitutional rights.Civil Rights Act Section 1983 & Excessive Force by Police
NOTE: This blog article was amended to reflect recent changes to U.S. federal law with passage of the First Step Act (P.L. 115- 391). Since December 21, 2018, the First Step Act required numerous changes to the federal criminal justice […]www.federalcriminallawyer.us
Excessive force is a type of police misconduct where the officer’s actions go beyond the bounds of force that a reasonable officer would use under the same circumstances. These cases focus on the objective reasonableness of the force used – not whether the arrestee was injured. Whether the officer’s use of force was excessive depends largely on the circumstances and facts of each specific case. A judge or jury will weigh the available evidence and applicable laws to determine whether or not the police officerD applied a reasonable amount of force.
Officer Byrd’s shooting of Ashli Babbit was completely justified.Michael Byrd should be charged with violating the civil rights of Ashli Babbitt.
4th Amendment Rights
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and commonly known as “Section 1983,” prohibits any person from violating constitutional rights while acting “under the color of law.” In other words, it is unlawful for someone acting in an official governmental capacity to deprive another person of their constitutional rights.Civil Rights Act Section 1983 & Excessive Force by Police
NOTE: This blog article was amended to reflect recent changes to U.S. federal law with passage of the First Step Act (P.L. 115- 391). Since December 21, 2018, the First Step Act required numerous changes to the federal criminal justice […]www.federalcriminallawyer.us
Excessive force is a type of police misconduct where the officer’s actions go beyond the bounds of force that a reasonable officer would use under the same circumstances. These cases focus on the objective reasonableness of the force used – not whether the arrestee was injured. Whether the officer’s use of force was excessive depends largely on the circumstances and facts of each specific case. A judge or jury will weigh the available evidence and applicable laws to determine whether or not the police officer applied a reasonable amount of force.
Who says excessive force was used?Michael Byrd should be charged with violating the civil rights of Ashli Babbitt.
4th Amendment Rights
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and commonly known as “Section 1983,” prohibits any person from violating constitutional rights while acting “under the color of law.” In other words, it is unlawful for someone acting in an official governmental capacity to deprive another person of their constitutional rights.Civil Rights Act Section 1983 & Excessive Force by Police
NOTE: This blog article was amended to reflect recent changes to U.S. federal law with passage of the First Step Act (P.L. 115- 391). Since December 21, 2018, the First Step Act required numerous changes to the federal criminal justice […]www.federalcriminallawyer.us
Excessive force is a type of police misconduct where the officer’s actions go beyond the bounds of force that a reasonable officer would use under the same circumstances. These cases focus on the objective reasonableness of the force used – not whether the arrestee was injured. Whether the officer’s use of force was excessive depends largely on the circumstances and facts of each specific case. A judge or jury will weigh the available evidence and applicable laws to determine whether or not the police officer applied a reasonable amount of force.
Well, a lot of the Radical Left still refuse to accept that everyone has civil rights.Ashley Babbit was breaking and entering. Ashley Babbit failed to comply with the LEO's verbal orders. Ashley Babbit was part of a massive unruly mob that posed a threat. Her behavior got her shot.
I hope the jury is wise enough to see through the BS and find for the defendant.
So, you do not accept that Ashli Babbitt has civil rights against excessive force.Officer Byrd’s shooting of Ashli Babbit was completely justified.
Never said that. I disagree officer Byrd used excessive force. He was responding to a threat and responded in an acceptable way. Office Byrd was under no obligation to allow a rioter to cause him or others bodily harm.So, you do not accept that Ashli Babbitt has civil rights against excessive force.
The US Constitution 4th Amendment Section 1983Who says excessive force was used?
Michael Byrd should be charged with violating the civil rights of Ashli Babbitt.
4th Amendment Rights
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and commonly known as “Section 1983,” prohibits any person from violating constitutional rights while acting “under the color of law.” In other words, it is unlawful for someone acting in an official governmental capacity to deprive another person of their constitutional rights.Civil Rights Act Section 1983 & Excessive Force by Police
NOTE: This blog article was amended to reflect recent changes to U.S. federal law with passage of the First Step Act (P.L. 115- 391). Since December 21, 2018, the First Step Act required numerous changes to the federal criminal justice […]www.federalcriminallawyer.us
Excessive force is a type of police misconduct where the officer’s actions go beyond the bounds of force that a reasonable officer would use under the same circumstances. These cases focus on the objective reasonableness of the force used – not whether the arrestee was injured. Whether the officer’s use of force was excessive depends largely on the circumstances and facts of each specific case. A judge or jury will weigh the available evidence and applicable laws to determine whether or not the police officer applied a reasonable amount of force.
Byrd used excessive force.Never said that. I disagree officer Byrd used excessive force. He was responding to a threat and responded in an acceptable way. Office Byrd was under no obligation to allow a rioter to cause him or others bodily harm.
And what about the rest of the violent mob right behind her?Byrd used excessive force.
He could have warned her.
He could have pushed her back.
He could have tasered her.
But he chose to shoot her.
He chose correctly. If you’re part of a mob breaking into my house, the first one in is getting shot.Byrd used excessive force.
He could have warned her.
He could have pushed her back.
He could have tasered her.
But he chose to shoot her.
The US Constitution 4th Amendment Section 1983
Hypocritical wingnuts like to selectively apply the law. News at 11. FAFO.Well, a lot of the Radical Left still refuse to accept that everyone has civil rights.
Byrd chose to use excessive force over non-deadly actions.
There are conflicting accounts of any verbal warning.
In the video of Bryd shooting the unarmed Babbitt at point blank range there was no verbal warning.
A lot of the Radical Right are lucky to be alive following their behavior on 1/6.Well, a lot of the Radical Left still refuse to accept that everyone has civil rights.
Babbit chose to engage in violent unlawful behavior and ignored LE orders to stand down.Byrd chose to use excessive force over non-deadly actions.
There are no conflicting accounts of her behavior. It is all on video. She played a stupid game and she won a stupid prize.There are conflicting accounts of any verbal warning.
While tragic, Babbit's death probaby saved lives that day. You may have noticed that when she was shot, the other rioters around her took notice and immediately changed their behavior. Elsewhere in the building, officers who did not fire their weapons were getting their faces beat in by other rioters.In the video of Bryd shooting the unarmed Babbitt at point blank range there was no verbal warning.
okA lot of the Radical Right are lucky to be alive following their behavior on 1/6.
Babbit chose to engage in violent unlawful behavior and ignored LE orders to stand down.
There are no conflicting accounts of her behavior. It is all on video. She played a stupid game and she won a stupid prize.
While tragic, Babbit's death probaby saved lives that day. You may have noticed that when she was shot, the other rioters around her took notice and immediately changed their behavior. Elsewhere in the building, officers who did not fire their weapons were getting their faces beat in by other rioters.
Who says her civil rights were violated?ok
you are against civil rights
got it
Who says her civil rights were violated?
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983Who says her civil rights were violated?
I have always been a supporter of civil rights.Hypocritical wingnuts like to selectively apply the law. News at 11. FAFO.
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?