Your Trump Derangement Syndrome will never permit you to recognize that Trump had a number of achievements. The Warp Speed Program was one.
Next you will try to convince me Joe Biden is a much better President than Trump.
nypost.com
bidencorruptionproject.com
Does it matter? Why would anyone vote for either?
Well, as usual,I can just step aside and let you and your desperate cult fantasies wrangle with all of reality.Dead wrong. However Judicial Watch is working on the case and they are a pack of bull dogs.
Babbitt shooting internal police docs reveal 'no good reason for shooting,' according to Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch received 532 pages of documents from the DC Metropolitan Police concerning the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol on Jan. 6.www.foxnews.com
nypost.com
Not what I asked. I asked why anyone would vote for candidates as bad as Biden and Trump. Have we really sunk that low?
That's complete horseshit. Everyone has a right to complain about bad government.
Did you vote?
And then George wonders why nobody in politics gives a shit what he thinks.
". . . People like to twist that around. I know, they say, they say: “well if you don’t vote you have no right to complain”. But where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done, YOU caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with. . . "
~ George Carlin.
I’ll back up my “desperate cult fantasies“ with this article from Law Enforcement Today and an oinion article by Jonathan Turley.
www.lawenforcementtoday.com
jonathanturley.org
Naturally, that does not support your fantasies or lies one bit.I’ll back up my “desperate cult fantasies“ with this article from Law Enforcement Today and an oinion article by Jonathan Turley.
One cop convicted of accidentally shooting criminal, other never charged for intentionally killing veteran
Former Minnesota police officer Kim Potter convicted on 2 counts of manslaughter for accidental shooting, Capitol police Lt. Michael Byrd never charged or received administrative sanctions for deliberate killing of unarmed woman. Disparate treatment? You decide.
***snip***
In the case of Byrd, Department of Justice guidelines on the use of force specifically address steps law enforcement officers to use in applying it. Taken directly from an article from the National Institute of Justice, a publication of the Department of Justice:
“Law enforcement officers should use only the amount of force necessary to mitigate an incident, make an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force and lethal force.
[…]
Use of force is an officer’s last option—a necessary course of action to restore safety in a community when other practices are ineffective.
According to WJLA, the US Capitol Police use of force policy states, in part that “an officer may use deadly physical force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.” [emphasis added]
Based on DOJ guidelines and the US Capitol Police’s own policy on deadly force, it is clear that Byrd violated both. A statement provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in announcing the decision to clear Byrd is an insult:
Justified Shooting or Fair Game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt Makes Shocking Admission
Here is my column in The Hill on the recent interview of Lt. Michael Byrd who was the hitherto unnamed Capitol Hill officer who shot Ashli Babbitt on January 6th. The interview was notable in an a…
***snip***
I have long expressed doubt over the Babbitt shooting, which directly contradicted standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement. But what was breathtaking about Byrd’s interview was that he confirmed the worst suspicions about the shooting and raised serious questions over the incident reviews by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and, most recently, the Capitol Police.
***snip***
While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.
Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby recently was convicted for killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his own head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.
***snip***
[1]Like many, I condemned the Jan. 6 riot (along with those who fueled the unhinged anger that led to the violence) as the desecration of our Capitol and our constitutional process. But that doesn’t mean rioting should be treated as a license for the use of lethal force, particularly against unarmed suspects. The “job” of officers, to which Byrd referred, often demands a courage and restraint that few of us could muster. As shown by every other officer that day, it is a job that is often defined by abstinence from rather than application of lethal force. It was the rest of the force who refrained from using lethal force, despite being attacked, that were the extraordinary embodiments of the principles governing their profession.
I justify my voting by saying I like to complain and would have to keep my mouth shut if I didn’t vote.
". . . People like to twist that around. I know, they say, they say: “well if you don’t vote you have no right to complain”. But where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done, YOU caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with. . . "
~ George Carlin.
I link to articles from informed sources. The articles I posted above were from law enforcement sources and a well known attorney who is considered a legal scholar and is also a professor.
Sometimes? You seem smart.
constitutioncenter.org
