- Joined
- Jul 20, 2014
- Messages
- 20,375
- Reaction score
- 26,313
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That's total bullshit. But keep digging.
That's total bullshit. But keep digging.I have always been a supporter of civil rights.
And the point that I am making is that the Radical Left has a credibility gap on civil rights
For them it depends upon the race of the victim.
Babbit's behavior got her killed. Her race was not a factor. You know that. Everyone knows that.I have always been a supporter of civil rights.
And the point that I am making is that the Radical Left has a credibility gap on civil rights
For them it depends upon the race of the victim.
Who says Byrd violated that?The Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
OKThat's total bullshit. But keep digging.
How about the civil rights of the people she was going after?OK
if you don't accept that everyone has civil rights, then you don't actually believe in civil rights
noBabbit's behavior got her killed. Her race was not a factor. You know that. Everyone knows that.
You're arguing that Babitt had a civil right to vandalize, break and enter, and ignore LE orders.
As others have pointed out, it is amazing that more rioters on 1/6 didn't end up just like Babbit.
who are those people?How about the civil rights of the people she was going after?
that is why this should be brought to a trialWho says Byrd violated that?
And I am saying Byrd's force was not excessive. Babbit, by her violent behavior, posed a threat. Byrd neutralized the threat.no
I am saying that Officer Byrd violated her 4th Amendment right against excessive force
We both know that if Byrd was a White LEO and that if Babbitt was a Black woman, that this would be a huge racial issue, a civil rights issue and a political issue.
The point is that the Radical Left doesn't accept that everyone has the same civil rights.
One can reasonably assume I'm referring the people Boyd was there to protect.who are those people?
That is a dopey statement. If a jury finds that her civil rights were violated then so be it. Do stupid, illegal things win stupid prizes. Seems YOU are the one that wants selective civil rights.OK
if you don't accept that everyone has civil rights, then you don't actually believe in civil rights
Why? Going to trial requires evidence that Byrd violated her civil rights. You haven't presented any.that is why this should be brought to a trial
nopeOfficer Byrd’s shooting of Ashli Babbit was completely justified.
The police in the Speaker's Lobby, the members of Congress and staff members in the adjacent chamber.who are those people?
anyone with a knowledge of Use of Force rule.Who says excessive force was used?
Great retort!nope
An angry mob of people were trying to break into the area where Byrd was in. He says he felt his life was in danger. Prove that wasn't a reasonable fear.nope
You have not been a supporter of civil rights. We know it, you know it, so why this charade?I have always been a supporter of civil rights.
If someone has a reasonable fear of being killed or being a victim great bodily harm, the use of lethal force is legally permitted to prevent that.anyone with a knowledge of Use of Force rule.
He chose correctly. If you’re part of a mob breaking into my house, the first one in is getting shot.
An angry mob of people were trying to break into the area where Byrd was in. He says he felt his life was in danger. Prove that wasn't a reasonable fear.
she was less than halfway thru the door/window, there were tables and chairs on his side of the door blocking further entrance. he could have used several methods to disable her crossing that barrier short of shooting her.He says he felt his life was in danger.
as a LAST resort.If someone has a reasonable fear of being killed or being a victim great bodily harm, the use of lethal force is legally permitted to prevent that.
That's your opinion. That's not evidence his fear was unreasonable. He wasn't just in fear from her, but from an angry mob, breaking through the doors, windows & barricade. It's reasonable to fear for one's life if they were to break through. It's reasonable to resort to lethal force to keep them out.she was less than halfway thru the door/window, there were tables and chairs on his side of the door blocking further entrance. he could have used several methods to disable her crossing that barrier short of shooting her.
He took the easy, and deadly, way to stop her.
unnecessarily.
Of course it did. What was he supposed to do? Wait until the mob poured into the Speaker's Lobby to start shooting?as a LAST resort.
The situation hadn't reached that point.
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?