• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officer Byrd violated her civil rights

Buster Keaton said:
Michael Byrd should be charged with violating the civil rights of Ashli Babbitt.

4th Amendment 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 www.federalcriminallawyer.us
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.
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.
Click to expand...
No he shouldn’t.
 
Buster Keaton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Attempting a coup has a very high price. She paid a penlty for her treasonous actions.
 
DCCougar said:
I used to work in a law firm that sued cops for excessive force. There is a reason why no criminal charges were lodged against Byrd -- he acted in defense of members of Congress. The case is not even close.

How about a civil suit? Yes, Babbitt's family filed a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit against the federal government. The ongoing suit should fail on the merits. This is a case where Byrd's qualified immunity is totally applicable and justified. Unfortunately, it's the DOJ that defends against this lawsuit. Normally, they would put up a vigorous defense. But with Trump delusionally thinking Babbitt was a "patriot," DOJ will probably settle... using taxpayer dollars, of course.
Click to expand...
Yep. Any other administration would tell Babbitt’s family to pound sand.
 
WilHaftaWaite said:
the majority of my posts are responses to posters that seem to cheer the murder of a young woman …
Click to expand...
No young woman was “murdered”, and nobody here is cheering Babbitt’s death.
 
Buster Keaton said:
Michael Byrd should be charged with violating the civil rights of Ashli Babbitt.

4th Amendment 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 www.federalcriminallawyer.us
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.
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.
Click to expand...

What would you recommend be done with someone, in a federal building, vandalizing their property, and being told to stand down, suddenly lunging at an officer pointing a gun at them?

 
WilHaftaWaite said:
no, he jumped straight to lethal force. That's the last resort. not the first.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the “last resort” action is the necessary first action.

Byrd’s shooting of Babbitt was one of those occasions.

“The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.
www.justice.gov

Department of Justice Closes Investigation into the Death of Ashli Babbitt

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
 
WilHaftaWaite said:
no, he jumped straight to lethal force. That's the last resort. not the first.
Click to expand...
Well that's not true. He didn't "jump" at all. He waited patiently as that angry mob violently broke through the windows and didn't fire a shot until they started coming through.
 
Jagged said:
Well that's not true. He didn't "jump" at all. He waited patiently as that angry mob violently broke through the windows and didn't fire a shot until they started coming through.
Click to expand...
and firing a shot was his first response. it shouldn't have been.
 
WilHaftaWaite said:
and firing a shot was his first response. it shouldn't have been.
Click to expand...
Nope. Waiting to see if that mob would back down and not attempt to breach their barricade was hus first response.

His second response was to warn them to get back.

His third response was to ensure no one breached their barricade.
 
Buster Keaton said:
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.
Click to expand...
He did warn her. She was given several verbal warnings, and even some of those on her side yelled to warn her.

He could not have reasonably pushed her back, as there was more than just her as a threat, as the mob she was with was breaking through the glass door at that time. He would have put himself in a much more vulnerable position to be overrun had they made it through there.

He didn't have a taser, or any other less than lethal options available at that moment.
 
Moon said:
Officer Byrd’s shooting of Ashli Babbit was completely justified.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was. But some on this board seem to think Byrd should have waited until his face was being pummeled like that of other officers that day. Personally, I wish the Capitol Police had been more forceful collectively that day, but they were faced with an unprecedented situation and were clearly unprepared. I suspect they won't be unprepared in the event the Capitol comes under siege again.
 
Buster Keaton said:
u r the one who is refusing to accept that everyone has the same civil rights
Click to expand...
He illegally entered the capitol with an angry mob of MAGA terrorists.

She was told not to advance and she came in anyway.
 
Buster Keaton said:
So, you do not accept that Ashli Babbitt has civil rights against excessive force.
Click to expand...
Let me guess, if those officers had been protecting trump from an unruly bunch of liberals the shooting would have been justified, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom