What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Jonathan Turley: Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
8,195
Reaction score
13,176
Points
2,430
Location
North Carolina

Jonathan Turley:

“Under Byrd’s interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6.”
29 Aug 2021 ~~ By Stacey Matthews
Numerous aspects of what unfolded during the Capitol riot have been hotly debated in the months since it happened, but few have been as contentious and emotional as the debate over the officer-involved shooting death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt.
The 35-year-old Air Force veteran was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6th after she tried to climb through a glass-paneled door after parts of it had been shattered by another rioter, identified as Zachary Jordan Alam.
Babbitt, who reportedly had been standing next to Alam, was shot.
n April, the Biden Department of Justice announced they had closed the investigation into the fatal shooting and would not be pursuing criminal charges against Byrd, citing “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”
Just last week, the Capitol Police confirmed a report from NBC News that they had exonerated Byrd, a 28-year veteran of the force. They stated in a press release that Byrd – who they did not name – “will not be facing internal discipline” because in their view Byrd’s conduct “was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”
On the heels of the USCP exonerating Byrd, he did an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, identifying himself publicly for the first time.
Instead of clearing things up, the interview only intensified the debate over his actions and whether they were justified. Here’s a key moment from their back and forth:
Video shot by a person in the crowd showed two officers posted in front of the door. Heavily outnumbered, they eventually stepped aside.​
Byrd said he had no knowledge that any officers were there. Because of the furniture stacked on his side of the door, he also couldn’t make out how many people were on the other side or whether they were carrying weapons.​
“It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side,” he said.​
But he did see the person now known to be Babbitt start coming through the broken glass.​
“I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”​
Byrd, who says he has been in hiding since that day and has faced death threats, told Holt it was the first time he’d ever fired his weapon.
Watch an edited version of the interview below:
The extended interview can be viewed here.
Georgetown University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who has long been a critic of official media narratives surrounding the shooting, said that instead of confirming that the respective decisions by the DOJ and the Capitol Police not to pursue action against Byrd were the right ones to make that Byrd “proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him” after he admitted he could not determine whether Babbitt was armed:
He expanded on his opinion in a piece published at The Hill:
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.
[…]
Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.
I’m not a legal analyst, but I think Turley makes some good points here.



Comment:
Not a single officer at the Capitol that day was threatened with deadly force. If they had been, other rioters would have been shot. “Context” shows that the officer’s lives were not in danger, and no other officer present thought that they were. This includes the officers who had their guns drawn right alongside Byrd; even they did not fire.
Someone crawling through a broken window? Haul them through, put them in zip ties, pass them to another officer to take away, or tell them to sit down and don’t move. Byrd was not a homeowner at night in the dark, defending his home while alone. He was a trained LEO, with armed fellow officers by his side, and still had a barrier between himself and other rioters, who were not known to have been armed (and were, in fact, not armed).
Please note the following:
Byrd violated the Rules of Engagement of both the Military and Law Enforcement. Had a soldier shot a unarmed civilian under the same circumstances he would have been court martialed.
In incidents involving police shootings, LEO's have been prosecuted for shooting supposed unarmed perpetrators, yet in this case there is no indictment or real investigation. The justification of the murder of Ashli Babbitt is purely political and Byrd has virtually gotten away with murder.
Succinctly said. If Byrd were White and Babbitt were Black, there would have been riots, arson and looting. Personally, I would like him to receive justice.
 

Damaged Eagle

Angels have fallen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
18,066
Reaction score
25,450
Points
2,445
Location
Inside a window that leads to your conscience
1630617754621.png


I'm sure he feared for his life like Alexandria Cortez

*****SMILE*****


:)
 

B. Kidd

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
30,422
Reaction score
13,245
Points
1,590
Location
Western Lands

Jonathan Turley:

“Under Byrd’s interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6.”
29 Aug 2021 ~~ By Stacey Matthews
Numerous aspects of what unfolded during the Capitol riot have been hotly debated in the months since it happened, but few have been as contentious and emotional as the debate over the officer-involved shooting death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt.
The 35-year-old Air Force veteran was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6th after she tried to climb through a glass-paneled door after parts of it had been shattered by another rioter, identified as Zachary Jordan Alam.
Babbitt, who reportedly had been standing next to Alam, was shot.
n April, the Biden Department of Justice announced they had closed the investigation into the fatal shooting and would not be pursuing criminal charges against Byrd, citing “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”
Just last week, the Capitol Police confirmed a report from NBC News that they had exonerated Byrd, a 28-year veteran of the force. They stated in a press release that Byrd – who they did not name – “will not be facing internal discipline” because in their view Byrd’s conduct “was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”
On the heels of the USCP exonerating Byrd, he did an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, identifying himself publicly for the first time.
Instead of clearing things up, the interview only intensified the debate over his actions and whether they were justified. Here’s a key moment from their back and forth:
Video shot by a person in the crowd showed two officers posted in front of the door. Heavily outnumbered, they eventually stepped aside.​
Byrd said he had no knowledge that any officers were there. Because of the furniture stacked on his side of the door, he also couldn’t make out how many people were on the other side or whether they were carrying weapons.​
“It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side,” he said.​
But he did see the person now known to be Babbitt start coming through the broken glass.​
“I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”​
Byrd, who says he has been in hiding since that day and has faced death threats, told Holt it was the first time he’d ever fired his weapon.
Watch an edited version of the interview below:
The extended interview can be viewed here.
Georgetown University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who has long been a critic of official media narratives surrounding the shooting, said that instead of confirming that the respective decisions by the DOJ and the Capitol Police not to pursue action against Byrd were the right ones to make that Byrd “proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him” after he admitted he could not determine whether Babbitt was armed:
He expanded on his opinion in a piece published at The Hill:
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.
[…]
Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.
I’m not a legal analyst, but I think Turley makes some good points here.



Comment:
Not a single officer at the Capitol that day was threatened with deadly force. If they had been, other rioters would have been shot. “Context” shows that the officer’s lives were not in danger, and no other officer present thought that they were. This includes the officers who had their guns drawn right alongside Byrd; even they did not fire.
Someone crawling through a broken window? Haul them through, put them in zip ties, pass them to another officer to take away, or tell them to sit down and don’t move. Byrd was not a homeowner at night in the dark, defending his home while alone. He was a trained LEO, with armed fellow officers by his side, and still had a barrier between himself and other rioters, who were not known to have been armed (and were, in fact, not armed).
Please note the following:
Byrd violated the Rules of Engagement of both the Military and Law Enforcement. Had a soldier shot a unarmed civilian under the same circumstances he would have been court martialed.
In incidents involving police shootings, LEO's have been prosecuted for shooting supposed unarmed perpetrators, yet in this case there is no indictment or real investigation. The justification of the murder of Ashli Babbitt is purely political and Byrd has virtually gotten away with murder.
Succinctly said. If Byrd were White and Babbitt were Black, there would have been riots, arson and looting. Personally, I would like him to receive justice.

I saw the interview. Fed's may be supporting a 'bad shoot' by their own standards!
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
55,488
Reaction score
24,268
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
If a person of color had been shot dead under the same circumstances anywhere else in the country Democrats would be demanding the shooters head on a platter and everyone knows it. This woman and veteran was murdered by the police.
 

MarathonMike

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
26,870
Reaction score
26,519
Points
2,445
Location
The Southwestern Desert
Like I've been saying, this was murder. There was no imminent threat, no deadly force, Ashli was pinned in a doorway window and there were other police present. For some reason known only to Officer Byrd, he inexplicably jumped forward gun drawn and shot her point blank in the face.
 

B. Kidd

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
30,422
Reaction score
13,245
Points
1,590
Location
Western Lands
Like I've been saying, this was murder. There was no imminent threat, no deadly force, Ashli was pinned in a doorway window and there were other police present. For some reason known only to Officer Byrd, he inexplicably jumped forward gun drawn and shot her point blank in the face.

Like Bi-Dung's whole Presidency, it's a rip-off.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
2,370
Reaction score
1,921
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona

Jonathan Turley:

“Under Byrd’s interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6.”
29 Aug 2021 ~~ By Stacey Matthews
Numerous aspects of what unfolded during the Capitol riot have been hotly debated in the months since it happened, but few have been as contentious and emotional as the debate over the officer-involved shooting death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt.
The 35-year-old Air Force veteran was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6th after she tried to climb through a glass-paneled door after parts of it had been shattered by another rioter, identified as Zachary Jordan Alam.
Babbitt, who reportedly had been standing next to Alam, was shot.
n April, the Biden Department of Justice announced they had closed the investigation into the fatal shooting and would not be pursuing criminal charges against Byrd, citing “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”
Just last week, the Capitol Police confirmed a report from NBC News that they had exonerated Byrd, a 28-year veteran of the force. They stated in a press release that Byrd – who they did not name – “will not be facing internal discipline” because in their view Byrd’s conduct “was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”
On the heels of the USCP exonerating Byrd, he did an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, identifying himself publicly for the first time.
Instead of clearing things up, the interview only intensified the debate over his actions and whether they were justified. Here’s a key moment from their back and forth:
Video shot by a person in the crowd showed two officers posted in front of the door. Heavily outnumbered, they eventually stepped aside.​
Byrd said he had no knowledge that any officers were there. Because of the furniture stacked on his side of the door, he also couldn’t make out how many people were on the other side or whether they were carrying weapons.​
“It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side,” he said.​
But he did see the person now known to be Babbitt start coming through the broken glass.​
“I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”​
Byrd, who says he has been in hiding since that day and has faced death threats, told Holt it was the first time he’d ever fired his weapon.
Watch an edited version of the interview below:
The extended interview can be viewed here.
Georgetown University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who has long been a critic of official media narratives surrounding the shooting, said that instead of confirming that the respective decisions by the DOJ and the Capitol Police not to pursue action against Byrd were the right ones to make that Byrd “proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him” after he admitted he could not determine whether Babbitt was armed:
He expanded on his opinion in a piece published at The Hill:
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.
[…]
Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.
I’m not a legal analyst, but I think Turley makes some good points here.



Comment:
Not a single officer at the Capitol that day was threatened with deadly force. If they had been, other rioters would have been shot. “Context” shows that the officer’s lives were not in danger, and no other officer present thought that they were. This includes the officers who had their guns drawn right alongside Byrd; even they did not fire.
Someone crawling through a broken window? Haul them through, put them in zip ties, pass them to another officer to take away, or tell them to sit down and don’t move. Byrd was not a homeowner at night in the dark, defending his home while alone. He was a trained LEO, with armed fellow officers by his side, and still had a barrier between himself and other rioters, who were not known to have been armed (and were, in fact, not armed).
Please note the following:
Byrd violated the Rules of Engagement of both the Military and Law Enforcement. Had a soldier shot a unarmed civilian under the same circumstances he would have been court martialed.
In incidents involving police shootings, LEO's have been prosecuted for shooting supposed unarmed perpetrators, yet in this case there is no indictment or real investigation. The justification of the murder of Ashli Babbitt is purely political and Byrd has virtually gotten away with murder.
Succinctly said. If Byrd were White and Babbitt were Black, there would have been riots, arson and looting. Personally, I would like him to receive justice.
Did you notice the part of Byrd's statement that it was the first time he had ever fired his weapon? I hope that was a mis-speak because if it isn't, the standard of training for the Capital Police is below that of normal armed security guards. From what little I've seen, hos weapon handling skills are certainly sub-par.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
43,670
Reaction score
14,738
Points
2,250
This whole incident is yet another example of the poor state of American justice.
 

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
114,525
Reaction score
18,433
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
:auiqs.jpg:

More bullshit. The bibbit is dead. He was cleared. Nothing you can say or wish is going to change that.
 

Chillicothe

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
1,297
Points
918
Other views:

The barricade was being violently attacked and shattered, with Ms Babbitt vocally encouraging the destruction while loudly denigrating the uniformed police on the opposite side.

The crowd was warned to back away. Repeatedly.
A gun was brandished and pointed.
It was loudly acknowledged by Ms Babbit's cohorts beside her.
She knew it was there.
And pointed at the location of the violent breach.

Still, she persisted.
When the violent breach was finally effected she charged at the officers through that shattered breach....despite the warnings.

Babbitt, the duped political naif....paid for her foolishness with her life.


Important Takeaway:
Do not participate in a violent mob destroying police barricades in an important U.S. government building .......and then charge at the police after being warned not to......and when you know a gun is pointed at you.*




* Source: "Staying Un-shot for Dummies" by Captain Obvious.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
56,653
Reaction score
11,238
Points
2,070

Jonathan Turley:

“Under Byrd’s interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6.”
29 Aug 2021 ~~ By Stacey Matthews
Numerous aspects of what unfolded during the Capitol riot have been hotly debated in the months since it happened, but few have been as contentious and emotional as the debate over the officer-involved shooting death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt.
The 35-year-old Air Force veteran was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6th after she tried to climb through a glass-paneled door after parts of it had been shattered by another rioter, identified as Zachary Jordan Alam.
Babbitt, who reportedly had been standing next to Alam, was shot.
n April, the Biden Department of Justice announced they had closed the investigation into the fatal shooting and would not be pursuing criminal charges against Byrd, citing “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”
Just last week, the Capitol Police confirmed a report from NBC News that they had exonerated Byrd, a 28-year veteran of the force. They stated in a press release that Byrd – who they did not name – “will not be facing internal discipline” because in their view Byrd’s conduct “was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”
On the heels of the USCP exonerating Byrd, he did an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, identifying himself publicly for the first time.
Instead of clearing things up, the interview only intensified the debate over his actions and whether they were justified. Here’s a key moment from their back and forth:
Video shot by a person in the crowd showed two officers posted in front of the door. Heavily outnumbered, they eventually stepped aside.​
Byrd said he had no knowledge that any officers were there. Because of the furniture stacked on his side of the door, he also couldn’t make out how many people were on the other side or whether they were carrying weapons.​
“It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side,” he said.​
But he did see the person now known to be Babbitt start coming through the broken glass.​
“I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”​
Byrd, who says he has been in hiding since that day and has faced death threats, told Holt it was the first time he’d ever fired his weapon.
Watch an edited version of the interview below:
The extended interview can be viewed here.
Georgetown University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who has long been a critic of official media narratives surrounding the shooting, said that instead of confirming that the respective decisions by the DOJ and the Capitol Police not to pursue action against Byrd were the right ones to make that Byrd “proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him” after he admitted he could not determine whether Babbitt was armed:
He expanded on his opinion in a piece published at The Hill:
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.
[…]
Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.
I’m not a legal analyst, but I think Turley makes some good points here.



Comment:
Not a single officer at the Capitol that day was threatened with deadly force. If they had been, other rioters would have been shot. “Context” shows that the officer’s lives were not in danger, and no other officer present thought that they were. This includes the officers who had their guns drawn right alongside Byrd; even they did not fire.
Someone crawling through a broken window? Haul them through, put them in zip ties, pass them to another officer to take away, or tell them to sit down and don’t move. Byrd was not a homeowner at night in the dark, defending his home while alone. He was a trained LEO, with armed fellow officers by his side, and still had a barrier between himself and other rioters, who were not known to have been armed (and were, in fact, not armed).
Please note the following:
Byrd violated the Rules of Engagement of both the Military and Law Enforcement. Had a soldier shot a unarmed civilian under the same circumstances he would have been court martialed.
In incidents involving police shootings, LEO's have been prosecuted for shooting supposed unarmed perpetrators, yet in this case there is no indictment or real investigation. The justification of the murder of Ashli Babbitt is purely political and Byrd has virtually gotten away with murder.
Succinctly said. If Byrd were White and Babbitt were Black, there would have been riots, arson and looting. Personally, I would like him to receive justice.
Absolutely right. They could have hosed down the lobotomized hillbillies with their services weapons. I am glad they did not.
 

TroglocratsRdumb

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
21,937
Reaction score
15,745
Points
2,415
DOJ stats show that the Police shoot about twice as many white suspects per year than black suspects.
And it also shows that black people murder more than twice as many white people per year than white people murder black people.
When we consider the population ratio it is hugely disproportionate.
The major difference is the Yellow Press coverage of these interracial crimes.
The Yellow Press relentlessly fans the flames of racial hatred to help the corrupt Democrat Party and to reinforce deeply held Progressive bigot stereotypes of the oppressors and the oppressed.
The end result is more corrupt Democrats being elected, which is their goal.
The Babbitt case is a cover-up issue and a racial issue.
As has been said, if we reverse the race of the two people the Democrat/Press Cultist would be howling at the moon.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
56,653
Reaction score
11,238
Points
2,070
DOJ stats show that the Police shoot about twice as many white suspects per year than black suspects.
And it also shows that black people murder more than twice as many white people per year than white people murder black people.
When we consider the population ratio it is hugely disproportionate.
The major difference is the Yellow Press coverage of these interracial crimes.
The Yellow Press relentlessly fans the flames of racial hatred to help the corrupt Democrat Party and to reinforce deeply held Progressive bigot stereotypes of the oppressors and the oppressed.
The end result is more corrupt Democrats being elected, which is their goal.
The Babbitt case is a cover-up issue and a racial issue.
As has been said, if we reverse the race of the two people the Democrat/Press Cultist would be howling at the moon.
White victim fantasies
 

Clipper

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
1,263
Points
210
Like I've been saying, this was murder. There was no imminent threat, no deadly force, Ashli was pinned in a doorway window and there were other police present. For some reason known only to Officer Byrd, he inexplicably jumped forward gun drawn and shot her point blank in the face.
Nobody gives a shit what you MAGA turds think because DOJ exonerated Byrd. You Trump asslickers want to nail Byrd so you can justify Trump & his goons actions that day.

We know what you're up to & ya don't give a rat's ass about Babbitt, so take a hike, cultist.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,554
Reaction score
14,681
Points
2,190
:auiqs.jpg:

More bullshit. The bibbit is dead. He was cleared. Nothing you can say or wish is going to change that.

So say a cop is watching 5 black guys trespassing and trying to get further into the structure, it's OK for him to shoot one of them to discourage the others from continuing, even if cops are both in front and behind said black guys?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,554
Reaction score
14,681
Points
2,190
Absolutely right. They could have hosed down the lobotomized hillbillies with their services weapons. I am glad they did not.

I ask the same question I asked Assplicass.

A cop shoots one black guy out of a group of black guys trespassing and trying to get further into said property breaking things. police are both in front of the group, and behind it. The purpose of the shooting is to discourage the rest from continuing, good shoot or not?
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
56,653
Reaction score
11,238
Points
2,070
So say a cop is watching 5 black guys trespassing and trying to get further into the structure, it's OK for him to shoot one of them to discourage the others from continuing, even if cops are both in front and behind said black guys?

5? Ha, see the weaselly things you have to do try to draw a comparison? That should be your first clue.
Have they assaulted and injured 140 police officers and shouted death threats? Oops left that out. Second clue.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top