US Elections (& Politics) :)

Ssayer

BIT Beta Team
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
19,578
Reaction score
70,725
Location
SE Michigan USA
Translation -

Our education system has gotten so inept that we can't even successfully teach students that 1+1=2, so we'll dumb everything down to the level that we're un-educating at.
Translation #2

These people are so racist that they are generalizing that people of color are cognitively lacking and therefor unable to be taught some basic math skills.
 

bigredfish

Known around here
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
17,012
Reaction score
47,460
Location
Floriduh
Is The DOJ Lying About The Ashli Babbitt Case? | ZeroHedge

The DOJ concluded:
“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.”
This conclusion should be no surprise. Not because of the law or the facts, but because of the people in charge of the Department of Justice. The U.S. Capitol Police, like the Park Police, have always had a special relationship with the DOJ – one that includes preferential treatment. This case is no different.
For starters, the three basic elements to a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242 are that the defendant (1) acting under color of law; (2) willfully; (3) deprived the victim of a federally protected right.
Excessive force is easy to establish. The Supreme Court has held that the government must introduce evidence that the action of the officer in shooting to kill Babbitt was “excessive in relation” to a legitimate government objective. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473-2474 (2015). This is an objective standard – the force must be objectively unreasonable when viewed from the standpoint of a reasonable officer at the scene. Here, Babbitt was unarmed, was climbing through a window and not attacking anyone. In response, she is shot and killed. Easily excessive.
This brings us to “willfulness.”
We have serious doubts about the DOJ position that there was “no evidence” to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully violated Section 242. As an initial matter, the DOJ press release neglects to mention whether the officer used excessive force, instead going right to an analysis on willfulness. We believe this reveals their intent to soften the blow of the press release.
As to willfulness, 18 U.S.C. applies “when the defendant understands that he is unjustifiably invading a legally protected interest, or acts in reckless disregard of the law.” However, the defendant need not have been “thinking in constitutional terms,” as long as his “aim was not to enforce local law but to deprive a citizen of a right and that right was protected by the Constitution.” Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 106 (1945).
Here, the DOJ exaggerates - and at worst, lies - about its “willfulness burden.” We doubt the DOJ couldn’t prove willfulness in this case.
In fact, the DOJ has brought Section 242 prosecutions with less egregious facts.
As the DOJ has argued in other cases, the officer’s prior training on the use of force could be viewed “as evidence that his conduct was willful.” Are we to think that this officer didn’t have training on when force became excessive?
In another case, the DOJ argued to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that to establish “willfulness,” the jury was required to find that the defendant “intended to use more force than was reasonable under the circumstances – i.e., force that violated [the victim’s] well-established due rights as a pretrial detainee.”
What makes the Babbitt case different? The victim and the location.
This case should have gone to the jury. If this killing took place in Minnesota or Chicago the results would have been different.
 

David L

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
7,932
Reaction score
20,757
Location
USA

Ssayer

BIT Beta Team
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
19,578
Reaction score
70,725
Location
SE Michigan USA

bigredfish

Known around here
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
17,012
Reaction score
47,460
Location
Floriduh

bigredfish

Known around here
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
17,012
Reaction score
47,460
Location
Floriduh


A CNN Director who went on five Tinder dates with an undercover operative for Project Veritas was caught on hidden camera expressing frustration over a spate of black-on-Asian hate crimes, while the network was 'trying to help BLM.'

"I was trying to do some research on the Asian hate, like the people [who] are getting attacked and whatnot. A bunch of black men have been attacking Asians. I’m like ‘What are you doing? Like, we [CNN] are trying to help BLM," said Technical Director, Charlie Chester
 
Top