 
     |
| The narrative that the Capitol protest was a “deadly insurrection” is falling apart (Page 50/110) |
|
ArbinShire
|
AUG 08, 08:05 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
With the news just posted above, today seems like a good day to emphasize the 2nd to the last item on this list
|
|
Speaking as a former prosecutor, they're going after low hanging fruit. They most certainly don't have the resources to 1. Charge the exact act committed; 2. Charge everyone. The people who are being charged have little chance of getting a not-Guilty verdict should they go to trial. The truth is everyone who stepped foot beyond the barriers is guilty of a crime, but the State doesn't know exactly who everyone was, or has insufficient evidence to charge. I would wager that most of the people not charged is simply because they're not on video, picture, or don't have someone ratting on them. I get the point you're trying to make, but it's not a valid point illustrative of anything because you don't understand what goes on behind the scenes.
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
As of today only 1 needless homicide happened at the MOSTLY PEACEFUL January 6, 2021 rally in DC and it was committed by a Demorat with a documented history of mishandling his firearm.
|
|
This is demonstratively false in that this individual hasn't been identified. You may have the opinion that it wasn't a justified shooting, but you can't add other facts which aren't true. It cheapens your argument and lessens any credibility you may have.[This message has been edited by ArbinShire (edited 08-08-2021).]
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
AUG 08, 08:46 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ArbinShire:
This is demonstratively false in that this individual hasn't been identified. You may have the opinion that it wasn't a justified shooting, but you can't add other facts which aren't true. It cheapens your argument and lessens any credibility you may have.
|
|
He has been identified. Do you mean "officially" like by the White House or some government agency?
https://needtoknow.news/202...has-been-identified/
He is also being sued by the family. The shooting is on video.
|
|
|
|
ArbinShire
|
AUG 08, 09:17 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
He has been identified. |
|
So his name is? His political affiliation is known, how? We know he is the shooter, because he was there? He shouldn't have shot her because? I get you think you know things, but the standard of proof in a criminal matter is incredibly high. A civil matter is less, but still significant. The Court of public opinion, however, is entirely flux and often devoid of reason.
Second, Ms. Babbit tried entering a secured facility in a particularly tumultuous conditions after the glass was broken out. If I were the assigned prosecutor, I would no-charge it. If I were the civil attorney in the matter I couldn't make a case in a § 1983 action or a wrongful death matter.
Third, as one who has worked with many other officers, I don't know of any others who wouldn't have shot under those circumstances when you have people entering a secured facility with lawmakers inside.
| quote | | Originally posted by Hudini:He is also being sued by the family. The shooting is on video. |
|
Incorrect. They're suing to discover his identity. Your own article even states this. Reading comprehension is important. The family has currently only submitted a notice of an intent. I'm not familiar with DC law, but in Colorado if you're going to sue a governmental agency/individual, you have have to submit notice in advance (180 days here) otherwise you're barred from pursuing it later. I imagine they have something similar there.
Facts are important.[This message has been edited by ArbinShire (edited 08-08-2021).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
AUG 08, 11:20 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ArbinShire:
So his name is? His political affiliation is known, how? We know he is the shooter, because he was there? He shouldn't have shot her because? I get you think you know things, but the standard of proof in a criminal matter is incredibly high. A civil matter is less, but still significant.
Facts are important.
|
|
Nice to see you pop up again counselor. It's been awhile.
Yes, facts are indeed important.
So is sworn testimony.
Lieutenant Michael Byrd was specifically named by acting House Sergeant At Arms, Timothy Blodgett, as the shooter of Ashli Babbbitt at this recorded hearing.
The unedited video recording is here:
https://www.c-span.org/vide...-6-attack-us-capitol
The media has gone to great pains to attempt to keep officer Byrd's name out of the news but that hasn't precluded him from being officially identified.
| quote | Originally posted by ArbinShire:
This is demonstratively false in that this individual hasn't been identified. You may have the opinion that it wasn't a justified shooting, but you can't add other facts which aren't true. It cheapens your argument and lessens any credibility you may have.
|
|
Once officer Byrd's name was established it was easy to check public records of his voter registration and political party affiliation. It was equally easy to search his name in old news articles and discover that he had been disciplined for negligence with his firearm in the past. Accordingly, I have not added "facts which aren't true" as you accuse me of and my credibility is just fine, Thank You.
In response to your earlier message directed to me, I'll add that I have continuously said in my "daily news" that Ashli Babbitt's homicide was needless. That is to be distinguished from the criminal legal conclusion of either justified or unjustified.
I have already discussed in this thread that the DOJ has chosen not to pursue criminal action against officer Byrd and the rationale they employed to arrive at that decision. It is reminiscent of James Comey's "Hillary Clinton defense"
Additionally, I have simply been reporting the raw numbers and percentage comparisons of those arrested and charged as a result of the January 6 riot without characterizing any causation for those numbers.
While I appreciate your speculation about charging decisions against those arrested and your speculations about why more people have not been arrested or charged, the fact is that neither you nor I are privy to the internal decision process being presently conducted by the DOJ in this matter.
| quote | Originally posted by ArbinShire:
If I were the civil attorney in the matter I couldn't make a case in a § 1983 action or a wrongful death matter.
|
|
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-09-2021).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
AUG 09, 12:37 AM
|
|
As of today, NOBODY has been charged with Insurrection or sedition or even homicide as a result of the MOSTLY PEACEFUL events of January 6, 2021
As of today, NOBODY has been charged with Advocating overthrow of Government (18 U.S. Code § 2385) as a result of the MOSTLY PEACEFUL events of January 6, 2021
As of today, NOBODY has been charged with Threatening government officials of the United States (under 18 U.S.C. § 871 or 18 U.S. Code § 351 or 18 U.S. Code § 115 or any local statute) as a result of the MOSTLY PEACEFUL events of January 6, 2021
As of today only 570 individuals], (<1.9 %) out of the >30,000 people attending the MOSTLY PEACEFUL January 6, 2021 rally in DC have been charged with a crime.
As of today only 35 individuals, (<0.10 %) out of the >30,000 people attending the MOSTLY PEACEFUL January 6, 2021 rally in DC have been charged with "conspiracy".
As of today only 35 individuals, (6.1 %) out of the 570 people arrested as a result of the MOSTLY PEACEFUL events of January 6, 2021 have been charged with "conspiracy".
As of today only 3 individuals, (0.5 %) out of the 570 people arrested as a result of the MOSTLY PEACEFUL events of January 6, 2021 have pled guilty to "conspiracy".
As of today only 22 individuals, (3.8 %) out of the 570 people arrested as a result of the MOSTLY PEACEFUL events of January 6, 2021 have pled guilty to any charges
As of today only 22 individuals, (<0.07 %) out of the >30,000 people attending the MOSTLY PEACEFUL January 6, 2021 rally in DC have pled guilty to any charges
As of today only 17 individuals, (<0.05 %) out of the >30,000 people attending the MOSTLY PEACEFUL January 6, 2021 rally in DC alleged to be members of the "Oath Keepers" group have been charged with a crime.
As of today only 12 individuals, (<0.04 %) out of the >30,000 people attending the MOSTLY PEACEFUL January 6, 2021 rally in DC alleged to be members of the "Proud Boys" group have been charged with a crime.
As of today only 1 needless homicide happened at the MOSTLY PEACEFUL January 6, 2021 rally in DC and it was committed by a Demorat with a documented history of mishandling his firearm.
As of today 1 unopened LEGO toy has been seized by the Biden administration as "evidence of a conspiracy" related to the MOSTLY PEACEFUL January 6, 2021 rally in DC[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-09-2021).]
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
AUG 09, 03:08 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ArbinShire:
Incorrect. They're suing to discover his identity. Your own article even states this. Reading comprehension is important. The family has currently only submitted a notice of an intent. I'm not familiar with DC law, but in Colorado if you're going to sue a governmental agency/individual, you have have to submit notice in advance (180 days here) otherwise you're barred from pursuing it later. I imagine they have something similar there.
Facts are important.
|
|
You can keep your insults and shove it. I was trying to be civil.
|
|
|
|
ArbinShire
|
AUG 09, 03:46 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
You can keep your insults and shove it. I was trying to be civil. |
|
So am I. If you're going to link something, you probably should at least read it? Same goes for you Randy. If he's been identified, why did trump ask who the shooter is? Why is the family of Babbitt suing for the release of his information?
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
AUG 09, 02:45 PM
|
|
Friday last week US DOJ posted a new Capitol breach-related press release on their website for the first time since July 23.
"Washington State and New Jersey Men are First to Plead Guilty to Assaulting Law Enforcement in Jan. 6 Capitol Breach"
| quote | | Defendants Repeatedly Assaulted Police and Stole Riot Shields and Batons to Aid in Attack |
|
https://www.justice.gov/usa...-law-enforcement-jan
At the very end, a "refresher" for the numbers-minded:
| quote | In the seven months since Jan. 6, more than 570 individuals have been arrested in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including over 170 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. The investigation remains ongoing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rickady88GT
|
AUG 09, 06:37 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ArbinShire:
If he's been identified, why did trump ask who the shooter is?
(/QUOTE]
I think the only person that can answer that is Trump himself or at least a spokesperson?
My opinion is that it could be a rhetorical question for the purpose of getting his identity officially publicly available?
[QUOTE]
Why is the family of Babbitt suing for the release of his information? |
|
Many high profile Police shootings have released this information, why is this one different?
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
AUG 09, 06:46 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ArbinShire:
So am I. If you're going to link something, you probably should at least read it? Same goes for you Randy. If he's been identified, why did trump ask who the shooter is? Why is the family of Babbitt suing for the release of his information? |
|
I did read it, did you? He has been identified as Capital Police Lt. Michael L. Byrd by the general public. What did you not understand about my question of "officially identified?" His identity not being given to the family's lawyers would constitute "official" notification by the government.
As to my statement of being sued by the family, this was AFTER my link about identification and NOT included in the link. You would have known this if you had the reading comprehension you accuse me of lacking.
My mistake was assuming they had filed the lawsuit already.
|
|
|
|