I Guess it's Time to Discuss January 6th

[Warbler]

Han Solo, not Hans Solo.

[kazoolaw]

You can call me "Hans"

Han Solo, not Hans Solo.

I think W's the bigger fan.

[TSherbs]

Han Solo, not Hans Solo.

I think W's the bigger fan.

damn

my slurring is showing again

and I have not even arrived left yet for the dinner party tonite

[Warbler]

Han Solo, not Hans Solo.

I think W's the bigger fan.

I was part of a Star Wars forum for a long time. Also, growing up, I watched the original trilogy more times than I can count.

[kazoolaw]

Reported: Smith moves to dismiss case against Trump without prejudice.

[kazoolaw]

Apparently the documents case too.

[TSherbs]

yes, plug is being pulled

[Warbler]

disgraceful. Treating Trump like he is above the law. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

[kazoolaw]

disgraceful. Treating Trump like he is above the law. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

Interesting: the Dem DOJ is dismissing the charges.

[kazoolaw]

Note the double negative:

“ 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. ”
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/d...-ashli-babbitt

[TSherbs]

Note the double negative:

“ 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. ”
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/d...-ashli-babbitt

Is this the presumption of innocence at work here? In other words, there is no evidence that he made an unreasonable conclusion as to the threat he was facing? Isn't that actually the core of the matter?

I dunno.

[kazoolaw]

What evidence was considered?
The analysis referenced a federal civil rights statute: “ 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.”
What criminal statutes were similarly analyzed? Were any even cited?

[TSherbs]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=4] What evidence was considered?

I dunno. It was a press release/announcement. I know nothing else about this case. I can only speculate that they took statements from pertinent witnesses, a statement from the officer, and reviewed video footage of the events surrounding the shooting. What other evidence is typical to review?

[dneal]

disgraceful. Treating Trump like he is above the law. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

Is this the presumption of innocence at work here?

[TSherbs]

Is this brief summary of the gist of current case law not accurate, in your estimation?:

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.

My quick perusal via Google suggests that 18 242 is the right law for this situation (but I dunno). Is this summary of the legal standard that has to be met not accurate? (It does not say so in the statute itself).

[kazoolaw]

”(but I dunno)”
We agree.

[TSherbs]

”(but I dunno)”
We agree.

I'm not sure anyone here would know this better than you.

[kazoolaw]

I agree that you “dunno.”

[TSherbs]

I agree that you “dunno.”

I agree that we agree that I dunno.

Is there a retired lawyer in the house who might help us with this?