- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 24,405
- Reaction score
- 21,631
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Your side calling anybody else corrupt is LAUGHABLE.the corrupt Democrats should not be allowed to investigate themselves
that's not a legitimate investigation
of course they are going clear themselves of any wrongdoing
That poster seems to have forgotten that her rapey felonious god was the head of the Executive Branch when this riot happened.Show your proof that Democrats were in charge of the Department of Justice and the Capitol Police Board?
The statute of limitations has run on this.Here is an example of an excessive force civil rights violation that some of you might remember.
There have been many cases of 4th Amendment civil rights violations.
Federal prosecutors unsealed a two-count indictment against four Los Angeles police officers Wednesday, reigniting the explosive legal battle over the 1991 beating of Rodney G. King with new charges that the officers violated King’s civil rights.U.S. Files Civil Rights Charges Against 4 Officers in King Case : Indictments: Federal prosecutor says beating 'was an unreasonable use of force.' If convicted, each man faces up to 10 years in prison and fines.
Federal prosecutors unsealed a two-count indictment against four Los Angeles police officers Wednesday, reigniting the explosive legal battle over the 1991 beating of Rodney G.www.latimes.com
The indictment was handed up by a federal grand jury late Tuesday but was sealed until Wednesday morning so that prosecutors could notify local authorities, said Lourdes G. Baird, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California. Charged in the indictment are the same four officers--Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and officers Timothy W. Wind, Laurence M. Powell and Theodore J. Briseno--who were tried in state court earlier this year and acquitted on all but one count.
“The defendants are charged with stomping, kicking and beating Mr. King,” Baird said during a morning news conference called to announce the indictments. “It was an unreasonable use of force.”
This bullshit again?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.
Wait, what? What covering up did he do? This is getting really really ridiculous....He should be charged with murder because that was what it was. He should also be charged for attempting to cover it up because that's what he did.
What a load of dingos' kidneys....This issue is showing that the crazy left wingers do not have any real principles, all that have is anger, ignorance and hate.
They are actually opposing her 4endment civil rights.
I'm not crying about it. It's a matter of record that he used lethal force against without warning and he then created a false cover story over the radio to justify his murder. He should be charged for that. Whether or not he will be is another story.
good parrotShe was a terrorist in the middle of terrorist activity.
there's a statute of limitations on murder?The statute of limitations has run on this.
Rodney King was not murdered.there's a statute of limitations on murder?
Babbitt was.Rodney King was not murdered.
Nope, Babbitt was part of a violent, armed mob attacking Congress and breaking into a secured area where our nation's leaders were being evacuated during a violent sedition.Babbitt was.
and it was determined Byrd action was proper for the situation he and others faced.Babbitt was.
and Byrd used unnecessary force to stop her, resulting in her death.Nope, Babbitt was part of a violent, armed mob attacking Congress and breaking into a secured area where our nation's leaders were being evacuated during a violent sedition.
That's not murder, murder is an unjustified killing. Sedition can have consequences.
Nope. Don't be part of an armed, violent mob breaking into secured areas.and Byrd used unnecessary force to stop her, resulting in her death.
by the people he worked for.and it was determined Byrd action was proper for the situation he and others faced.
sad take on it.Nope. Don't be part of an armed, violent mob breaking into secured areas.
She wasn't there just "protesting". The MAGA Seditionists should be grateful that Capitol Police were so reserved during their violent, armed sedition.
Tis reality, sorry you don't like it.sad take on it.
The statute of limitations comment was about King, not Babbitt.Babbitt was.
thanks for proving this forum isn't worth commenting in.Though Trump did pardon all his good commie followers.
Nah, his job was to keep that angry, violent mob, which was threatening law enforcement, out of the Speaker's lobby. They attempted to break in anyway, posing a threat to the police officers, members of Congress and staff.and Byrd used unnecessary force to stop her, resulting in her death.
He didn't work for the Department of Justice.by the people he worked for.
a jury trial may have had a different result, with a prosecutor explaining the levels of Use of Force.
which did NOT require lethal force.Nah, his job was to keep that angry, violent mob, which was threatening law enforcement, out of the Speaker's lobby. They attempted to break in anyway, posing a threat to the police officers, members of Congress and staff.
He felt it did. Under the attack of an angry, violent mob, verbally threatening officers, breaking through locked doors, and about to breach a makeshift barricade of furniture with the explicit intent of keeping members of Congress and staff safe, 2 independent investigations, one by Trump's own Department of Justice, found it reasonable.which did NOT require lethal force.
He felt it did. Under the attack of an angry, violent mob, verbally threatening officers, breaking through locked doors, and about to breach a makeshift barricade of furniture with the explicit intent of keeping members of Congress and staff safe, 2 independent investigations, one by Trump's own Department of Justice, found it reasonable.
then he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and should have received appropriate punishment, not a gold medal.He felt it did.
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?