Officer Byrd violated her civil rights

[Buster Keaton]

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

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.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

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

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.

Is due process a Constitutional right?
afaf

Does the law apply to the Trump admin too?

 

[Bodecea]

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

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 officerD applied a reasonable amount of force.

Darwin Award winner.

 

[Moon]

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

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.

Officer Byrd’s shooting of Ashli Babbit was completely justified.

 

[Jagged]

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

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.

Who says excessive force was used?

 

[Buster Keaton]

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.

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.

 

[Buster Keaton]

Officer Byrd’s shooting of Ashli Babbit was completely justified.

So, you do not accept that Ashli Babbitt has civil rights against excessive force.

 

[Moon]

So, you do not accept that Ashli Babbitt has civil rights against 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.

 

[Buster Keaton]

Who says excessive force was used?

The US Constitution 4th Amendment Section 1983

 

[Airyaman]

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

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.

 

[Buster Keaton]

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.

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.

 

[Bodecea]

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.

And what about the rest of the violent mob right behind her?

 

[Moon]

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.

 

[Bodecea]

I love how MAGAts are admitting that if a violent mob was breaking thru the windows or doors of their home or business, they'd welcome them with milk and cookies.

 

[Jagged]

The US Constitution 4th Amendment Section 1983

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What are you talking about?

 

[Hari Seldon]

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.

Hypocritical wingnuts like to selectively apply the law. News at 11. FAFO.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Well, a lot of the Radical Left still refuse to accept that everyone has civil rights.

A lot of the Radical Right are lucky to be alive following their behavior on 1/6.

Byrd chose to use excessive force over non-deadly actions.

Babbit chose to engage in violent unlawful behavior and ignored LE orders to stand down.

There are conflicting accounts of any verbal warning.

There are no conflicting accounts of her behavior. It is all on video. She played a stupid game and she won a stupid prize.

In the video of Bryd shooting the unarmed Babbitt at point blank range there was no 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.

 

[Buster Keaton]

A 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.

ok
you are against civil rights
got it

 

[Jagged]

ok
you are against civil rights
got it

Who says her civil rights were violated?

 

[Buster Keaton]

Who says her civil rights were violated?

Who says her civil rights were violated?

The Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Come to MY house. Break a window and try to climb in. I will **** up your civil rights all.day.long. FAFO.

 

[Buster Keaton]

Hypocritical wingnuts like to selectively apply the law. News at 11. FAFO.

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.

 

[Sidd Finch]

That poor innocent girl. Just the wrong place at the wrong time, I guess.

Please. It's actually amazing she's the only idiot that was shot.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Absurd thread, Ashli Babbitt made her choices all the way up to the point of trying to advance on them. Michael Byrd made the right decision.