Posted on 08/28/2021 1:53:07 PM PDT by Robwin
At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.
The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
>>> “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully<<<
Can we expect Kyle Rittenhouse will receive this wide latitude as well?
Does that show intent or a general lack of training or both? (rhetorically asked)
I personally have a feeling (no evidence) that in reverse of the many cop versus violent black criminal confrontations and arrests, this time the overly nervous and panicky black officer fired through impulsive emotional response against a white. I think he was scared and angry and acted on his raw emotions like an urban playground battler who later regrets hitting and kicking his opponent——while recalling it in police custody.
That is what many white officers are in prison for (except races were reversed this one time).
I think, not know, that this was an emotional situation for that officer and he acted recklessly and killed an UNARMED woman who posed no threat to anyone, in my opinion.
To be fair, here is the Leftist and racist Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s side in an AP article that emotionalism after a foot chase can increase violence from police:
https://apnews.com/article/shootings-police-chicago-lori-lightfoot-us-news-723c15b399e8e7754801c24604c4234e
The officer’s comments that I heard sounded unhinged. Something about people are racist against him when he’s the only one who shot someone of a different race.
And that he saved countless lives when the protestors gained access to everywhere and didn’t harm anyone.
Also that they were going to cut off his head?
A lot of exaggeration and craziness but no justification for killing a young woman.
Warning shot? Really?
That is strictly prohibited by EVERY OTHER AGENCY in the law enforcement world. In real police work, you only draw your weapon when there’s a threat. If you think a warning shot is ok, then there’s no threat. Warning shots don’t meet that standard.
While I’m not defending that POS in anyway, there was no where for him to fire one even if that were SOP and he wanted to. Concrete everywhere. No telling where that ricochet would go.
She was crawling through a window. Clearly he hands would be visavle. The p word panicked.
I did not say warning shot i said warning, like stop or I’ll shoot...
“capitol police policy is if at all possible give a warning before using deadly force..he had plenty of time”
And not only that, all lower levels of force must be precluded. Why no hands on arrest? Why no pepper spray? Why no baton or taser? This shooting was 100% illegal.
its on video. bad shoot.
Like to see an average citizen get that level of deference.
This man is in serious denial. Or he really believes his own bullsh*t, which is even worse.
I know it's rhetorical but I vote BOTH.
In his interview with Lester Holt, they edited the video when he answered whether she posed a threat.
I doubt anyone has the unedited version for the full answer he gave to Lester.
So you’re defending Byrd then.
Based on what he said in the NBC interview, there is enough to criminally charge him.
He broke cover to fire at an unarmed woman. That right there is a firing offense at a minimum. Had he fired when Babitt approached his principal, he might have a leg to stand on.
You can read, what did I say?
Sorry bud but I'm not going to be baited into a pissing contest with you.......Sheesh!
It’s apparent to me that there is, indeed, a two tiered legal system in our country. And, in this instance, the DOJ came down squarely on the side of the ruling elite. The lower class can burn cities and loot stores with impunity but you better not threaten the ruling class.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.