• 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

WilHaftaWaite said:
typical response from a bloodthirsty partisan hack.
Click to expand...
We’ve read this same response over and over from you. In less than 3 days time, you’ve posted 99 times, with 87 of those posts in this very thread. What do you hope to prove with your posts repeating the same crap throughout the thread? Your posts aren’t proving jack squat to anybody.

You made your points. We saw them the first time around. There’s no need to nauseatingly keep repeating them, because you’re not changing anybody else’s minds here.
 
Grogu said:
We’ve read this same response over and over from you. In less than 3 days time, you’ve posted 99 times, with 87 of those posts in this very thread. What do you hope to prove with your posts repeating the same crap throughout the thread? Your posts aren’t proving jack squat to anybody.

You made your points. We saw them the first time around. There’s no need to nauseatingly keep repeating them, because you’re not changing anybody else’s minds here.
Click to expand...
the majority of my posts are responses to posters that seem to cheer the murder of a young woman involved in a protest. The majority of those posters obviously have no clue about the Rules of Engagement, or of Use of Force criteria.

Pardon me for trying to educate the ill-informed.

"You made your points. We saw them the first time around. There’s no need to nauseatingly keep repeating them, because you’re not changing anybody else’s minds here."

Should I try using a sledgehammer, to break thru the concrete?
 
WilHaftaWaite said:
the majority of my posts are responses to posters that seem to cheer the murder of a young woman involved in a protest. The majority of those posters obviously have no clue about the Rules of Engagement, or of Use of Force criteria.

Pardon me for trying to educate the ill-informed.

"You made your points. We saw them the first time around. There’s no need to nauseatingly keep repeating them, because you’re not changing anybody else’s minds here."

Should I try using a sledgehammer, to break thru the concrete?
Click to expand...
And now threats against fellow posters? 🤨
 
WilHaftaWaite said:
:LOL:

you do have comprehension problems, don't you?
Click to expand...

Projection.

WilHaftaWaite said:
and she was the closest to being an 'imminent' threat. But easily contained by less than lethal force.

no need to like. The only reaction emoji available to me is the 'like'.
Click to expand...

The imminent threat was Babbitt and the insurrectionists.

As to "easily contained by less than lethal force"?

Your OPINION is noted.

An OPINION of someone who can grasp why there were no charges.
 
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...
Ashli Babbit was a traitor and a terrorist and got exactly what she deserved.
 
WilHaftaWaite said:
(n)
Click to expand...
Stunning rebuttal.

She was so rabidly vicious that she ignored numerous orders to stay back, she ignored multiple guns being pointed at her, she repeatedly refused to obey lawful commands during her violent rampage. And what had her focus?

Innocent capitol staffers. These weren't elected officials, they were just people who worked around the congressional building, being evacuated for their safety. And Ashli Babbit was trying to murder them.
 
Fledermaus said:
Question asked.

Question answered.



That obviously failed to train you that trials don't happen without charges.

Or what imminent threat means.
Click to expand...
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

I question WHY there was no trial, I question WHY the powers that be decided against bringing charges.

I question your knowledge of imminent threat.
 
WilHaftaWaite said:
the majority of my posts are responses to posters that seem to cheer the murder of a young woman involved in a protest. The majority of those posters obviously have no clue about the Rules of Engagement, or of Use of Force criteria.

Pardon me for trying to educate the ill-informed.
Click to expand...
Your posts have educated exactly no one here because there’s nothing educational in any of your posts. Many of which are just opinions made up of partial sentences and emojis. You keep blathering on about “Rules of Engagement” and “Use of Force,” yet you can’t be bothered enough to actually show where your opinions are supported by any of this.

You know, the fact that Byrd was never charged or prosecuted should tell you that your opinions of what actually happened on that day may make for discussion, but discussion is not what you’re doing, either. The fashion in which you keep responding to people has become quite boring.
 
Grogu said:
Your posts have educated exactly no one here because there’s nothing educational in any of your posts. Many of which are just opinions made up of partial sentences and emojis. You keep blathering on about “Rules of Engagement” and “Use of Force,” yet you can’t be bothered enough to actually show where your opinions are supported by any of this.

You know, the fact that Byrd was never charged or prosecuted should tell you that your opinions of what actually happened on that day may make for discussion, but discussion is not what you’re doing, either.
Click to expand...
www.justice.gov

1-16.000 - Department of Justice Policy On Use Of Force

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

It is the policy of the Department of Justice to value and preserve human life. Officers may use only the force that is objectively reasonable to effectively gain control of an incident, while protecting the safety of the officer and others, in keeping with the standards set forth in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Officers may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and may use only the level of force that a reasonable officer on the scene would use under the same or similar circumstances.

feel better now?
 
Buster Keaton said:
Michael Byrd should be charged with violating the civil rights of Ashli Babbitt.
Click to expand...
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.
 
WilHaftaWaite said:
www.justice.gov

1-16.000 - Department of Justice Policy On Use Of Force

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

It is the policy of the Department of Justice to value and preserve human life. Officers may use only the force that is objectively reasonable to effectively gain control of an incident, while protecting the safety of the officer and others, in keeping with the standards set forth in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Officers may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and may use only the level of force that a reasonable officer on the scene would use under the same or similar circumstances.

feel better now?
Click to expand...
Wow. After 95 posts doing little but chastising others.

Your link above doesn’t support any of your contentions. In fact, it bolsters everybody else’s.

The Graham v. Connor case involved a traffic stop after an observation by a police officer at a convenience store. Not a violent mob of people in the Capitol trying to get to any members of the House and Senate they could get their hands on.

I’d say the actions of the mob trying to break down the doors and glass and break through a barricade, which they eventually were successful in doing when Babbitt went through the broken pane, was an incident that was out of control. One man wasn’t going to be successful in pushing anyone back. But guess what? He sure gained control of the incident by firing one shot at an individual with who apparently didn’t care about her own safety and certainly didn’t have any sense of personal responsibility.

Plus, is it out of the realm to recognize that any other officer, when placed in Byrd’s position, would not have done the same thing? Firing a shot when the barricade was breached? I think not.
 
Grogu said:
Wow. After 95 posts doing little but chastising others.

Your link above doesn’t support any of your contentions. In fact, it bolsters everybody else’s.

The Graham v. Connor case involved a traffic stop after an observation by a police officer at a convenience store. Not a violent mob of people in the Capitol trying to get to any members of the House and Senate they could get their hands on.

I’d say the actions of the mob trying to break down the doors and glass and break through a barricade, which they eventually were successful in doing when Babbitt went through the broken pane, was an incident that was out of control. One man wasn’t going to be successful in pushing anyone back. But guess what? He sure gained control of the incident by firing one shot at an individual with who apparently didn’t care about her own safety and certainly didn’t have any sense of personal responsibility.

Plus, is it out of the realm to recognize that any other officer, when placed in Byrd’s position, would not have done the same thing? Firing a shot when the barricade was breached? I think not.
Click to expand...
Grogu said:
Your link above doesn’t support any of your contentions. I
Click to expand...
to the contrary: "Law enforcement and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.

she was still in the window and was not even on the barricade when he shot. NOT imminent.

"Plus, is it out of the realm to recognize that any other officer, when placed in Byrd’s position, would not have done the same thing? "

Not if they held to their training, there would have been no shot til she was thru the window, and on the barricade.
 
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...
the victim was unarmed and posed no threat
shooting her at point blank was excessive force
people are letting their political hatred deny the facts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom