Now We Need To Revisit Lt. Michael Byrd

IBDaMann

IBDaMann

Well-known member
Lt. Michael Byrd assassinated an unarmed, peaceful Ashli Babbit in the Capitol for jumping vertically. Democrats were united in high-fiving Byrd for wasting a Trump supporter and quickly absolved him of all wrongdoing ... because, after all, Ashli Babbit was a Trump supporter. Democrats argued that Byrd was rightfully "frightened for his life" given all the after-the-fact hysteria that Democrats generated in order to bury Trump.

Enter SCOTUS. In a unanimous 9-0 landmark decision Barnes v. Felix less than two weeks ago (15 May 2025), the Supreme Court declared that it is not sufficient for a police officer to claim that he was in "fear for his life or the lives of others" when using deadly force. An objectively clear threat must exist such that it is determined that any rational, reasonable police officer in that situation would have also used deadly force. Given that the unarmed and peaceful Ashli Babbit's small vertical leap in a public building did not objectively obligate the use of deadly force, the cowardly Lt. Byrd needs to be arraigned for the blatant murder that he committed.

10980264_082721-cc-ap-Michael-Byrd-img.jpeg
 
IBDaMann said:
Lt. Michael Byrd assassinated an unarmed, peaceful Ashli Babbit in the Capitol for jumping vertically. Democrats were united in high-fiving Byrd for wasting a Trump supporter and quickly absolved him of all wrongdoing ... because, after all, Ashli Babbit was a Trump supporter. Democrats argued that Byrd was rightfully "frightened for his life" given all the after-the-fact hysteria that Democrats generated in order to bury Trump.

Enter SCOTUS. In a unanimous 9-0 landmark decision Barnes v. Felix less than two weeks ago (15 May 2025), the Supreme Court declared that it is not sufficient for a police officer to claim that he was in "fear for his life or the lives of others" when using deadly force. An objectively clear threat must exist such that it is determined that any rational, reasonable police officer in that situation would have also used deadly force. Given that the unarmed and peaceful Ashli Babbit's small vertical leap in a public building did not objectively obligate the use of deadly force, the cowardly Lt. Byrd needs to be arraigned for the blatant murder that he committed.

10980264_082721-cc-ap-Michael-Byrd-img.jpeg
Click to expand...
We need to put Crazy Trump's gestapo on the case.
 
IBDaMann said:
Lt. Michael Byrd assassinated an unarmed, peaceful Ashli Babbit in the Capitol for jumping vertically. Democrats were united in high-fiving Byrd for wasting a Trump supporter and quickly absolved him of all wrongdoing ... because, after all, Ashli Babbit was a Trump supporter. Democrats argued that Byrd was rightfully "frightened for his life" given all the after-the-fact hysteria that Democrats generated in order to bury Trump.

Enter SCOTUS. In a unanimous 9-0 landmark decision Barnes v. Felix less than two weeks ago (15 May 2025), the Supreme Court declared that it is not sufficient for a police officer to claim that he was in "fear for his life or the lives of others" when using deadly force. An objectively clear threat must exist such that it is determined that any rational, reasonable police officer in that situation would have also used deadly force. Given that the unarmed and peaceful Ashli Babbit's small vertical leap in a public building did not objectively obligate the use of deadly force, the cowardly Lt. Byrd needs to be arraigned for the blatant murder that he committed.

10980264_082721-cc-ap-Michael-Byrd-img.jpeg
Click to expand...
"Peaceful". Stopped reading there.
 
AProudLefty said:
Nope. I realized you've lost add credibility when you said Ashli was peaceful.
Click to expand...
You are being dishonest, as usual. You claimed to have seen the video. You know that she was unarmed. You know that all she did was jump vertically. You know that there was a good distance between her and anyone else. You know that she was unarmed. You know that no policeman is authorized to execute anyone, even protesters.

You just don't want to admit that you become gleeful whenever those who you perceive as political opponents are murdered. That's pretty shitty of you.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are being dishonest, as usual. You claimed to have seen the video. You know that she was unarmed. You know that all she did was jump vertically. You know that there was a good distance between her and anyone else. You know that she was unarmed. You know that no policeman is authorized to execute anyone, even protesters.

You just don't want to admit that you become gleeful whenever those who you perceive as political opponents are murdered. That's pretty shitty of you.
Click to expand...
Yes I am pretty gleeful about that. (y)
 
AProudLefty said:
Nice obfuscation of the fact.
Click to expand...
What fact? Oh wait, you don't know what a fact is. You don't know really what anything is, just that you HATE views that differ from what you have been ordered to believe, and that you need a strawberry safe space as a refuge from the free-thinkers of the world.
 
IBDaMann said:
What fact? Oh wait, you don't know what a fact is. You don't know really what anything is, just that you HATE views that differ from what you have been ordered to believe, and that you need a strawberry safe space as a refuge from the free-thinkers of the world.
Click to expand...
Yes I do hate facts. And I revel in the murders of the political opposition. I love it.
 
IBDaMann said:
What fact? Oh wait, you don't know what a fact is. You don't know really what anything is, just that you HATE views that differ from what you have been ordered to believe, and that you need a strawberry safe space as a refuge from the free-thinkers of the world.
Click to expand...
Random words. No apparent coherency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top