Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
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.
US Elections (& Politics) :)
- Thread starter sdkid
- Start date
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.
Jessie.slimer
BIT Beta Team
Exactly. And I will add that it is racist to assume a minority is unable to figure out how to get an ID, or locate a DMV.
bigredfish
Known around here
The enemy within is our own government.
Read this and tell me our government is any better than any other 3rd world shithole..
Officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt during Capitol riot will not be charged
Read this and tell me our government is any better than any other 3rd world shithole..
Officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt during Capitol riot will not be charged
bigredfish
Known around here
Is The DOJ Lying About The Ashli Babbitt Case? | ZeroHedge
The DOJ concluded:
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.
The DOJ concluded:
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.
What goes around comes around! Ha, Ha!!!
Again I point out, if Ashli was of a different color it would of been a whole different trial...It is ok to kill us White Folk since we are the scum of the earth...
Anyone can become President of the USA, even Dementia Democracks...
THIS is what a weak leader does....where the hell did this come from? And China isn't a threat? Oh, yeah, that's right. He is in their pockets....I forgot. Shame on me...
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
BREAKING: CNN Director Caught on Hidden Camera Saying The Network is 'Trying to Help' BLM By Only Pushing Stories That Implicate White People | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald
Project Veritas has released a third bombshell undercover video of CNN Director Charlie Chester admitting that the network is “trying to help” Black Lives Matter by protecting their narrative on race.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
How much longer do you think American's are going to put up with this shit? I am betting not too much longer....
bigredfish
Known around here
I hope you're right, but we're running out of time...
sebastiantombs
Known around here
It sure is funny how if there's a Marxist leaning majority all is well, but if there's a Constitutional leaning majority the Supreme Court is politicized, broken and a threat. Hypocrisy and Marxism go hand in hand.
bigredfish
Known around here
BLM Threatens Legal Action Against One Of Their Own Activists After Call For Probe Into Finances | ZeroHedge
The National Black Lives Matter organisation is threatening legal action against one of its own activists after he called for an independent investigation into how finances are being spent, following revelations concerning co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors’ property spending binge, and further money raking activities.
The National Black Lives Matter organisation is threatening legal action against one of its own activists after he called for an independent investigation into how finances are being spent, following revelations concerning co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors’ property spending binge, and further money raking activities.
bigredfish
Known around here
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
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
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,114
- 25,521
I think it's time to identify as a black slave .... and not as an Irish indentured servant