“TRUMP ASKED US TO GO HOME”; Video Re-Surfaces Of Jacob Chansley Urging Peace

It was one shot, period. This is from Lawfare, a website dedicated to law enforcement and the judicial system about the Ashley Babbitt shooting. It performs an excellent analysis of the law in which police can use deadly force, It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction slightly, but overall, it has to meet several legal standards. The First is the violation of the Fourth Amendment. For that standard to apply, it has to be willful. And willful intent was done here since Ashely Babbitt refused to obery police orders, among other things. The article says, "One additional point bears mentioning. Most police uses of force, including the discharge of a firearm, are individualized; they are justified only if a specific target presents the appropriate level of threat. Officers absolutely cannot shoot indiscriminately into a mob, for example, even if some members of a mob absolutely present an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm." Your author fails on this point. There are other parts of the article that point this out. In short, the investigation was done. It is a shooting investigation in which anytime a police officer discharges their weapon, a shooting investigation occurs and hard questions are asked. Whitewashed? Hardly, that is just dung being thrown at the wall to see what sticks.

 

NO, they are obligated to provide only exculpatory evidence. Not all the videos will be used by any single defendant in the capital riot. Only those videos in which the defendant is on and is found guilty of the crime. having a video of the defendant watching grass grow hours before the riot is not exculpatory.

 

text messages from Rhodes Stewart says otherwise. There was messages that indicated it was a planned effort to storm the capitol if they didn't get his way. Rhodes even asked his fellow members to "delete" the messages. That was proven in court.

 

You are literally trying to put a very large square peg into a very small round hole here. Again, not all the video is relavant or even material to a case. If I have video of person X at the scene of the crime, and I am prosecuting person X, then any and all video of him committing that crime is excuplatory. That is what the word quite literally means, not to mention the Brady Rule that you guys harped on. But if I have person X in another place on video and not committing a crime, that may not be exculpatory unless certain facts come into play, such as was he wearing the same clothes as the time he committed the crime, or did it use that video to identify him as the culprit, or something else. But if I have a person Y in a video with no person X, in a different location committing a crime, then that is not relevant to the trial of Person X, is it?

 

It is not. Words have meanings. I have no problem with your problem that my semantics argument is not going to go far with you.

Yes, in my infinite wisdom the ones who think that his rights were violated are not the harpers. I don’t have testicles. I’m a real women with ovaries.
Will you accept an ovaries say so? That being said, who is really harping here? imho The person who told me to quit my harping is the one who is really harping here at me. Why have you chosen me to complain about the RW posters who claim from their sources that his rights were violated. Please continue to take that up with them. I’m not afraid of losing “new forum friends” I simply agree more with them. I simple disagree more with the other side. The side you agree with and promote.

Let’s and agree to disagree.

 

English language is extremely imprecise, which is why we have multiple words that practically mean the same thing or one word with multiple meanings. But anyway, your entire post proves my argument to the T. think about that for a moment.

 

Don’t need to think about it for a single moment. You patting yourself on your own back that my entire post proves your argument to the T is based on your not so humble opinion. imho I would like to disagree with that self-assertion.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/self-assertion

“An assertion is an opinion like "The Yankees are the best." A self-assertion is a similar claim made about yourself. A low-level politician saying, "I will be President" is making a self-assertion. An athlete saying, "I will win the championship" is making a self-assertion. Self-assertions tend to be a little inconsiderate and arrogant, because self-assertions are usually a form of bragging. Someone who really feels confident probably wouldn't need to make a lot of self-assertions.”

Self-assertions ~ 1. noun “the act of putting forth your own opinions in a boastful or inconsiderate manner that implies you feel superior to others”

 

If the Yankees won the world series, then yes, they are the best for that year in which they won the world series. However, you are being overtly general, making generalizations, and using politics to differentiate who was and who wasn't "harping" even though there have been over a dozen threads on this topic in two sub-forums which meets the very definition of "harping" that you defined, mostly started by conservative posters claiming that Jacob Chansley's rights were violated. As I have said, I have made my point abundantly clear, and yet, people still make the same, old tired arguments despite the fact they have no proof, no concept of what "exculpatory" actually means. Anyone can google or internet search words and copy and paste the definition, but it takes something more to have an understanding of when and when it does not apply, and so far, neither you nor any of the conservatives have made that point. Ya'll keep dancing around the same circles over and over and over and over again. I even commented on the option that Jacob Chansley has and the risks involved. Each option has some risks. The highest is to attempt to vacate the plea deal, which means all charges are back on the table and a trial is set forth, in which all evidence will be presented to a jury, and the jury will more than likely convict him. And when they do, he may get a longer sentence and that does not solve his problem at all. The least amount of risk is just to do nothing and get out in July 2023 hoping DJT will pardon him. But that too is no guarantee, is it.

<Mod Edit>

 

Officer Byrd should have been prosecuted for manslaughter.

 

It’s exculpatory.

 

That’s ridiculous. There were relatively brief periods of violence but for the most part people were walking around in the Capital Building talking to police officers. And then everyone left after ~ 3 hours.

 

Yes after winning the World Series they are the best for that year. Since, the scoreboard Proved they won the World Series. Prior to the Proof on that scoreboard they were not yet Winners with actual bragging rights.

This is a political debate forum and using politics to differentiate ideas is par for the course. Each individual has the ability to determine for themselves which old tired political arguments they agree with or disagree with based on their ability to think for themselves.

<Mod Edit>

 

It is for the defendant and his or her legal team to sift through all the video where they decide what might be exculpatory in their legal defense. The prosecution has no say in what the defense counsel can see or use..

 

I can assure you, no defense team wants to sift through 44000 hours of tape in which most of it does not have their client on it. That would cost the defendant or government, if the defendant has a court-appointed attorney, to pay for those hours and hours of watching the tapes. That is why the evidence is only limited to exculpatory evidence only by the Prosecution to provide to the defense. Nothing more, nothing else. and vice versa.

 

Again, how? What proof do you have that all of the 44000 hours of tape is excuplatory with most of it not even having the client's face or body in them? I and others have asked this question multiple times, and yet no one on this board seems or wants to answer that question directly.

 

The shooting inquiry disagreed and saw no wrongdoing. The website I provided from Lawfare also states otherwise. So again, that is your opinion, not fact no matter how many times you state it or it comes up in an internet search.

 

It shows the totality of what happened in the Capital Building. And you have answered your own question. "most"

 

I agree that most of the protesters that day were not violent, but most were also not at the capitol when the breach occurred. Most were on their way to the Mall in front of Congress, but that is to the extent of it. Those that were there, the 1000 or so, did breach and they were violent.

The same can be said with any of the social justice protests where a majority of them were peaceful and a few were violent. We know some 18000 were arrested, about half or so were for not obeying police commands when ordered to disperse, and so forth. We also know that the ones who actually destroyed private property or attacked police officers are still going through the legal system of jurisprudence. What is not happening is the reporting of those people, not even Fox or Newsmaxx or anyone else, because we all know that would not conjure to the political argument they are making in blaming the whole lot.

Again, the different strokes for different folks' arguments here.

 

The shooting inquiry was a whitewash. I have shown that by posting the standard procedures for escalation of response by a law enforcement officer. Byrd saw an unarmed small female crawling through an opening surrounded by other law enforcement officers and fired his weapon killing her. He should have been charged and tried.

 

And those BLM and or Antifa people were immediately released.

 

Not really, because you literally had two separate groups. You had the largest group at the steps of the Supreme Court listening to President Trump and others. You also had another, but smaller group at the Capitol who were already there. The rioters actually were attempting to overrun the police perimeter 19 minutes BEFORE Trump ended his speech on the steps of the Supreme Court. So, you have to keep the two groups separate for that day and why it is not what you think it is.

 

At best, those are citations and fines, not jail time per the law, which is why they were released. But police do have the prerogative to arrest you if they can including traffic citations. Most were relased and agreed to apy a fine, some were released on ROR, and some had charges dropped. But for the defendants who had the most serious of crimes, the charges were not dropped, were able to make bail, and are going through the process in the legal system.

this is not a carte blanche here.

 

all you have shown is an opinion and I have shown plenty of young black men who were also unarmed who were shot by police. But most of them were in the act of committing a crime, such as a robbery. Same with Asli Babbit who was in the act of committing a crime and refused to obey police orders. That was confirmed by more than one person at that time when the incident happened. Then you had police accounts, who did not have body cam at the time, stating they thought they had a gun or appeared to have a gun. One person was actually reaching into the glove compartment when he was shot during a traffic stop and I can see why the police officer shot him. I was taught not to do that when I first learned and was explained from a police officer's perspective who ran the driver's school.

Ashli Babbit made some bad choices. The first bad choice was to participate in the riot itself. The second bad choice was she was literally climbing through the broken window in the capitol. The third bad choice was she refused to obey the police officer's commands to stop when there were political dignitaries the capitol police were protecting. In his mind, and the facts of that day, he definitely believed that his life and the lives of the congresspeople were in imminent danger. And that is the reason for the justification of the use of force. It is easy to be an armchair quarterback that day, but your author is leaving out a lot of facts in his opinionated book. It is not the gospel of what happened that day. It may have his recollections and others, but the true intent was political opinion. That is it.

 

We are talking about individuals who entered the Capital Building illegally and what happened with regard to those individuals in the Capital Building.

 

Buildings burned down, occupying police stations, and taking over multiple city blocks in a major US city are citations and fines??