January 6th Bipartisan Commission

Rick wrote:

koobookie wrote:
There has been an investigation and the officer was cleared.

So how come this incident gets a secret "investigation" behind closed doors, but a street cop that kills a career criminal who resists arrest must be in every paper and on every news network daily until the trial is over?

Do you have a link to this investigation that has conclusive evidence that the secret officer did nothing wrong? If nobody even knows who this person is, how is that really a transparent investigation?

Most police organizations do internal investigations. If the investigation finds that the officer acted against the law, then there is a trial.

Here's the link to the DOJ investigation:
www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-ju...-death-ashli-babbitt

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice will not pursue criminal charges against the U.S. Capitol Police officer involved in the fatal shooting of 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, the Office announced today.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia’s Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and the Civil Rights Division, with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), conducted a thorough investigation of Ms. Babbitt’s shooting. Officials examined video footage posted on social media, statements from the officer involved and other officers and witnesses to the events, physical evidence from the scene of the shooting, and the results of an autopsy. Based on that investigation, officials determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution. Officials from IAD informed a representative of Ms. Babbitt’s family today of this determination.

crickets.....it will NOT convince those who believe otherwise,she was murdered. (and unarmed)

koobookie wrote:

Rick wrote:

koobookie wrote:
There has been an investigation and the officer was cleared.

So how come this incident gets a secret "investigation" behind closed doors, but a street cop that kills a career criminal who resists arrest must be in every paper and on every news network daily until the trial is over?

Do you have a link to this investigation that has conclusive evidence that the secret officer did nothing wrong? If nobody even knows who this person is, how is that really a transparent investigation?

Most police organizations do internal investigations. If the investigation finds that the officer acted against the law, then there is a trial.

Here's the link to the DOJ investigation:
www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-ju...-death-ashli-babbitt

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice will not pursue criminal charges against the U.S. Capitol Police officer involved in the fatal shooting of 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, the Office announced today.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia’s Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and the Civil Rights Division, with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), conducted a thorough investigation of Ms. Babbitt’s shooting. Officials examined video footage posted on social media, statements from the officer involved and other officers and witnesses to the events, physical evidence from the scene of the shooting, and the results of an autopsy. Based on that investigation, officials determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution. Officials from IAD informed a representative of Ms. Babbitt’s family today of this determination.

Yes, imagine if police departments and state AG's just told the media to pound sand when an officer killed a perp, especially a perp that wasn't white. "We've concluded that no wrongdoing was evident so officer X will not be facing any charges". Yeah, I'm sure that would be ok with everybody who doesn't trust the police. There are thousands of hours of capital video being kept from public view.. I think the question we need to ask is, WHY?

What else would you suggest be done? An investigation by the Department of Justice was conducted, which concluded with no charges. Who else would you trust to conduct an investigation? Is there anyone in the government that would you trust to conduct an investigation?

Tell me what the DOJ did wrong in their investigation. From their report:

The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. In order to establish a violation of this statute, prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer acted willfully to deprive Ms. Babbitt of a right protected by the Constitution or other law, here the Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure. Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.

The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter.

If you think she was murdered, prove it. If you think she was "executed", then prove it. I don't know what else to show you to try to convince you. When I give you information and actual facts, you move the goalposts.

I hope you realize that the whole "conservatives being outraged over Babbitt's death" is just a smokescreen to take everyone's mind off the insurrection. It's just a diversion, so that conservatives don't have to admit this was an attempt to overturn a fair election.

Here's a first step. release the identification of the murderer.

First, not a murderer.
Read the investigation news release I posted above. (this is what I mean when I talk about "willful ignorance.")

Second, what would that accomplish other than to set loose a bunch of conservatives hellbent on revenge?

I have read the DOJ report. As I posted before "Nothing to see here, folks, just move along." This is the same DOJ that we all now and love and trust implicitly.

What do you call shooting an unarmed woman in cold blood? Murder

All civil court proceedings take a long time, so make yourself comfortable.

Recall, the not guilty verdict in criminal court but guilty in civil court of O.J. Simpson.

Amazing that you're falling for the classic "diversion." You're so focused on calling Babbitt's death a murder (it wasn't) that you've apparently lost focus on the insurrection and attempted overthrow of a fair election.

Video has finally become available to describe the violent scenes:
www.cnn.com/2021/06/20/politics/cnn-capi...ot-videos/index.html

Take, for instance, an assault that has so far prompted DOJ to charge five rioters. The rioters allegedly took down three officers, stripping them of their gear, dragging them and beating them with crutches, flagpoles, batons and bare hands. Prosecutors have used the officers' body camera footage in court.
"Every time I look at these videos, it just chokes me up," Judge Emmet Sullivan said during a hearing in the case, commenting on video the public and press corps has not seen. "Let me stop for one second. It's shocking what these videos depict. It's shocking. That this is a battle scene at the United States Capitol, the heart of democracy in Washington, DC. I had to look at these a couple of times before it really sunk in what I was watching and it's hard to describe. It's hard to believe."

In my opinion the taking of a human life in cold blood is much graver than the argument over the legality of an election.

Using your logic, the murder of unarmed protestors by Czar Nicholas in St Petersburg, 1905, was justified.

ramage wrote: In my opinion the taking of a human life in cold blood is much graver than the argument over the legality of an election.

Using your logic, the murder of unarmed protestors by Czar Nicholas in St Petersburg, 1905, was justified.

Apples and oranges comparing the czar to Babbitt. One was a world leader. The other was rioting and breaking into a federal building.

As much as I hate to get down into the gutter and argue your "opinion" of the situation, it was not in cold blood. She was unlawfully breaking into a federal building and, in the process, threatening the lives of the capitol police, along with the lawmakers in the building. She knew she was breaking the law. To call it cold blooded and argue that "she was unarmed" is to show just how willfully ignorant you are of the situation.

Put yourself in the place of the officer - what would you do if you saw rioters breaking windows and crawling through, with flagpoles, bats, and bear spray for weapons? How would you know she was unarmed? Would you just stand aside and say "oh, well." Or would you do your sworn duty to protect the building and the people within? Come on, think hard about this.