Posted on 04/21/2021 4:50:43 AM PDT by Old Yeller
During Tucker Carlson's opening monologue last night, he said the promise of our justice system means, "that the cop who killed Ashli Babbitt will be held to the very same scrutiny as the cop who was just convicted of killing George Floyd." Let's expand on that premise.
Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd yesterday. Meanwhile, the police officer who killed Ashli Babbitt hasn’t been arrested. It was announced last week that he won’t be charged. In fact, we aren’t even allowed to know his name. This seems to indicate an unambiguous disconnect in the way justice is delivered in the United States today.
In his opening monologue last night, Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked an important question about the Chauvin jury’s verdict. He asked, “Can we trust the way this decision was made? That’s the promise of our justice system, that it’s impartial, that it’s as fair as human beings can make it, that the cop who killed Ashli Babbitt will be held to the very same scrutiny as the cop who was just convicted of killing George Floyd, that political or ethnic considerations will play absolutely no role in jury deliberations, that justice will be blind. Can we say all of that in this case, and if we can’t, why can’t we?”
It’s crystal clear that the answer to every part of his question is a series of resounding negatives. One does not need to be listening to the jury deliberate to know that they did not treat the case as fair as possible because political and ethnic considerations played a roll. In this case, justice was not blind. Not one bit. They convicted him of second degree murder, which means they believe Chauvin targeted Floyd for harm in a way that unintentionally led to his death. That is wrong prima facie, as several minutes of video leading up to him dying on the ground clearly indicates. Chauvin was trying to arrest him. He tried multiple times from multiple angles to get Floyd into the police SUV. It was Floyd who then fell to the ground.
Was it proper policing to put his knee in the back of Floyd? No. He was prone with his hands cuffed behind his back. Did he need to kneel there for nine minutes? No. But again, the bar for second degree or even third degree murder is much higher than poor policing. I would have been okay with a second degree manslaughter conviction, though one can argue that the burden of proof for the lower charge was not met based on the Fentanyl in Floyd’s system.
But we’re not here to debate that case. It will be appealed and we’ll get to relive all of this all over again. What won’t see a day in court or another headline on mainstream media is the case of the Capitol police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt. Let’s look at the similarities first.
Derek Chauvin is a White police officer convicted for killing George Floyd, a Black man. The unnamed Capitol police officer is a Black man who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt, a White woman. Both deaths were widely considered to be unwarranted use of force against victims who were not legitimate threats to the officers or anyone else at the time of their deaths. Both were suspected of committing crimes before their killings. Both victims were killed on camera.
Based on the similarities, we should expect in a fair justice system that if one was convicted, the other should at least be charged. But it’s in the differences that we see the real obliteration of truth in America. One notable difference is that Capitol police participated in allowing and even encouraging entry into the Capitol Building in the first place. Many conspiracy theorists have given credible evidence that it was not only planned but potentially staged to yield exactly the results that have happened to those involved on January 6th.
The real difference, of course, is the manifestation of outrage. Those who want Ashli Babbitt’s killer to be identified, charged, and tried are just as adamant about it as the Black Lives Matter “activists” who have been looting businesses, burning down buildings, tearing down statues, intimidating random people, and committing assaults and even murders for over a year. But instead of lashing out with violence against innocent people, those who want justice for Ashli Babbitt have been peaceful.
What message is this sending? That’s obvious. If you are peaceful in your demands, you get nothing from government or law enforcement. If you torch buildings and harm countless innocent people, you get the guy you want to be identified, charged, arrested, tried, and convicted to a degree far greater than what the law prescribes.
It’s a tale of two extremes. Justice for Floyd resulted in prosecutorial overkill while justice for Babbitt is nonexistent. So, to answer Carlson’s question, the cop who killed Ashli Babbitt will not be held to the very same scrutiny as the cop who was just convicted of killing George Floyd. Not even close.
As I noted yesterday, the Chauvin jury handed down a verdict-by-mob. In no sane society does Chauvin get convicted on all charges while Babbitt’s killer doesn’t even get identified. Are those of us who want justice for Babbitt supposed to take to the streets and start burning down buildings or looting Nike stores? Based on the lessons being taught by Black Lives Matter, the answer is unequivocally affirmative.
That puts us in a horrible situation. Those who profess a conservative worldview, which makes up the vast majority of those calling for justice for Babbitt, have as part of our very nature an appreciation of law and order. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter wants to defund the police to promote their anarcho-communist philosophy that will enable the rapid rise of Neo-Marxism in America. How do we fight back if the only viable way of doing so is to embrace the lawlessness that seems to have achieved BLM’s goals?
This is where I get to the same complaint I’ve had about the conservative movement for years. We need to march. We need to take part of BLM’s playbook and be disruptive without breaking the law. With enough people, we can be in front of the Capitol Police Department, Capitol Hill, and anywhere else we need to be in Washington DC to let those who are covering up Babbitt’s killer know we are not letting this go. That’s the real strength in BLM’s tactics. The looting and rioting are just manifestations of their nature as radical progressives. The real strength is in the legal disruptions they cause with their protests. Our protests must be constant and they must be sustained until we get what we want.
Our strategy doesn’t adopt everything from their playbook. We must not get violent. We must not loot or burn down buildings. We must present a show of force in exercising our constitutional right to assemble. And in doing so, we must be large and loud. We need tens of thousands of patriotic Americans protesting every day until justice takes its proper course.
Some would say that without violence, we will not be heard. That’s not true. The reason violence was so effective for BLM in this case is because their goals were much broader than ours. We want justice, which means a fair trial of the officer who killed Babbitt. BLM wanted to coerce the verdict, which they did. They also have other, more nefarious reasons for flexing their intimidation muscles all over the place which we can discuss at another time. For now, suffice to say that our goals are righteous, legal, and fair. We must not stoop to their level by making victims of innocent Americans who simply built their business on the wrong street corner.
We can be powerful while still being respectful of our Constitution. The problem with the conservative movement is we’re generally lazy when it comes to things like this. I often hear the excuse of “we have jobs and they don’t,” and frankly, that may be partially true. But if we had the will to fight back, we absolutely could. It’s not just for Ashli Babbitt. We need to start fighting back against the expanding forces of evil that have infiltrated this nation and crept into every facet of our lives.
As my good friend “Col. Mike” often says, if we don’t march and protest we will never get anything done. The criminal justice and judiciary systems are our last line of defense against, well, every domestic foe. If we lose this battle, one whose importance should be so blatantly obvious to all patriotic Americans, then how can we expect to keep the republic?
We will not have a country if we do not fight for justice with equal or greater force as BLM does, but with the Constitution as our guide. We cannot have justice if we do not deliver it to the man who killed Ashli Babbitt
Who’s the steroid taking, aloof loner
That is actually very good
Good? What the hell is GOOD about that?
“we’ll get to relive all of this all over again.”
Shame on the writer. That’s a redundancy.
The beast doesn’t starve. Usually you starve before the beast. Considering how on-the-teat is most of America, the chances of making even a 3% dent in “the beast’s” revenue are very slim.
They can’t force you to work, yet.
Not once did the article state the name of the person who slaughtered Ashli Babbitt. A pure lack of journalistic integrity.
Under $12k a year your income isn’t enough to require filing a return. Nobody starves on $12k a year. In fact you get lots of perks that way. Free phone, free heat, free food...for now.
And you never know what you can accomplish if you don’t ever start.
Beats a shooting war that would never happen anyway, but if it did, it’d be over in 24hrs.
“The OJ jury is now in charge of the courts, the rule of law is out the window.”
It is so egregious that I have come to believe that in order to save community property and lives during one of these Lynch mob trials that the police officer charged should always be judged guilty to somewhat calm the flames and then, once the media and political assassins like Maxine Waters and Sharpton have moved on, give that officer witness protection and hide him and his family away forever. He won’t have a life anyway even if exonerated.
It makes a martyr of the police officer accepting the guilty verdict for the lives saved from street riots. I already believe juries in fear of their lives and fear of reprisals against their fellow citizens are handing out OJ verdicts for that reason alone.
Of course, there are always exceptions, and the Chauvin case may be one of them, but I am tired of these show trials of police officers. Already some communities are taking away liability protection from police officers.
Amen!
And even then......
My bad. It has been alleged in some reports that Chauvin may not have been “clean” but not in the Mail article.
The Mail describes him as a 4pm-2am beat cop with 2 medals for valor but also a string of complaints against him; who was ‘nice’ but didn’t socialize; and who allegedly overreacted from time to time when dealing with Blacks and Latinos whole working at the Rodeo nightclub (where Floyd had also worked). The incident with the lactating mother resulted in a formal disciplinary.
Much of it is anecdotal. But it shows he had a good side and a not so good side.
If we had the same level of information about the Babbit shooter, we wouldn’t dismiss such a report as a baseless hatchet job, we’d probably say it vindicates our suspicions.
The problem with refusing to acknowledge evidence we don’t want to hear is, it creates people like Jimmy Savile.
Jimmy Savile was a famous charity fundraiser, DJ, marathon runner, child safety campaigner and national treasure in the UK... As well as being a psychotic thug, a necrophiliac and a serial child molester. Who’d creep into children’s wards in hospitals and abuse the kids.
He was once caught out on live BBC TV prime time groping a young girl while presenting Top of the Pops. Practically everybody in authority who saw him doing it buried the story. Only an old punk singer had the guts to tell it like it really was.
There’s a book called “stranger danger” which is all about how to protect your kids from middle aged sex predators, and guess which necrophiliac pederast and celebrated child safety campaigner wrote it.
Savile knew he was untouchable and do did his creepy sex pesting right out in the open knowing there’d be always an army of people who had him on a pedestal, who’d simply look for alternative facts so they could keep in pretending he was always innocent.
If you ever want to know what “being on the wrong side of history” looks like, ask anyone who spent 20 years shouting “fake news!” every time somebody hinted at the possibility that Savile might be a bit of a deviant.
Political and ethnic considerations played a roll.
That isn’t justice it’s a lynching Judge Roy Bean approved.
“The beast has armed law enforcers on their side.”
Right! But I’d edit it to state, “The beast has armed enforcers on their side.” No law is involved.
Pelosi is protecting the murderer which makes her an accessory to murder.
Good post; insightful - thanks
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.