Unethical And Intolerable: Waters, Babbitt, Sicknick, Part 1.

intolerable

The United States is now being consumed by a wave of audacious double standards and hypocrisy, rooted in racial bias and oppressive partisanship. Exposing it, condemning it and opposing it is to invite “cancellation” and being tarred as an ally of white supremacy. In the words of George H.W. Bush to Saddam Hussein, “This will not stand.”

I. Rep. Maxine Waters.

By any fair and reasonable standard, Waters’deliberate attempt to incite violence and law-breaking among already agitated and agitated protesters in Brooklyn Center, the Minneapolis suburb where Daunte Wright was killed, should earn her serious sanctions from Congress, her own party, and by the standards previously asserted by her party, the justice system. She exhorted the potential “mostly peaceful” mob to “get more confrontational” when the city had already seen burning, looting, and attacks on police. She directly threatened the jury in the Chauvin trial just a few miles away. In response, the judge in that trial, Peter Cahill, castigated Waters by name as the trial went to the jury, saying that her words were “disrespectful to the rule of law,” and adding,

“I’m aware that Congresswoman Waters was talking specifically about this trial, and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction, and talk about being ‘confrontational.’ [I wish] elected officials would stop talking about this case…I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government.Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”

Then, whistling in the dark, he tried to deny the obvious, saying that her comments wouldn’t affect the jury because he had instructed them not to pay attention to them. Right. Everyone knows that the old “pretend you didn’t hear what you heard’ command is a perfect remedy. (See: “The Verdict.”) Pathetically, Cahill said that one congresswoman’s opinion “really doesn’t matter a whole lot anyway.” Then why did the judge take the extraordinary course of mentioning it during the trial?

Cahill’s refusal to sequester the jury after Wright’s death was a terrible error, and it is coming back to haunt him quicker than anyone could have predicted, thanks to Waters. Later, the truth battled its way out of his mouth and he blurted out that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”

And yet Nancy Pelosi, who led a contrived impeachment of Donald Trump for urging demonstrators to peacefully protest because she claimed it sparked an “insurrection,” claimed nothing was amiss with Waters’ speech. “Maxine talked about confrontation in the manner of the Civil Rights movement. I myself think we should take our lead from the George Floyd family. They’ve handled this with great dignity and no ambiguity or lack of misinterpretation by the other side…No, I don’t think she should apologize.”

The rule, then, appears to be that a Democratic Congresswoman can cross state lines to urge an already inflamed crowd to get “more confrontational” while threatening a demonstration showing that it “means business’ if a jury does not provide the verdict she demands, while a Republican President should be impeached and charged with a crime for urging demonstrators to peacefully protest what they and he believe to be an undemocratic election.

Is it material that the Congresswoman inciting a riot is black, and the President who called for a peaceful protest is white? Are we allowed to wonder? Is it permissible to consider reality?

2. Ashli Babbitt

How is this possible?

From the Times: “Prosecutors will not pursue criminal charges against the Capitol Police lieutenant who shot to death a woman who stormed the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, the Justice Department announced on Wednesday after a three-month investigation.”

The woman was Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran. She was unarmed. She was climbing through some broken glass doors, and a police lieutenant on the other side fired a single shot that killed her. How can this shooting not be prosecuted? The officer used deadly force when there was no deadly threat. A police officers who killed a man trying to flee an arrest has been charged with manslaughter for shooting him accidentally. The sneering Times story says that “In death, [Babbitt] became a martyr-like figure for the far-right extremists who have supported former President Donald J. Trump.” Oh, a martyr-like figure like, to just pull an example out of the air, George Floyd? Except that the cop involved in his death, which was not intentional, and did not involve a shooting, is now on trial for murder, while an officer who shot an unarmed woman is not.

Note that the shooter’s name has never been released. Neither has his race. Have any of the officers involved in the deaths of black citizens been given this courtesy? No, of course not. The Mystery killer cop’s lawyer said, incredibly, that the decision to not bring charges was “the only correct conclusion” and that his client had “saved the lives of countless members of Congress and the rioters.” I know that the media narrative about the January 6 riot at the Capitol has been absurdly embroidered, but does anyone believe that shooting an unarmed woman “saved the lives of countless members of Congress”?

I’m also mystified about how I missed the “no justice no peace” demonstrations on Ashli’s behalf by Black Lives Matters supporters. After all, we were told in Oregon, “Protesting killer cops is going to happen regardless of the race of the victim.” Of course it is.

(to be continued)

22 thoughts on “Unethical And Intolerable: Waters, Babbitt, Sicknick, Part 1.

  1. Jack wrote, “I’m also mystified about how I missed the “no justice no peace” demonstrations on Ashli’s behalf by Black Lives Matters supporters. After all, we were told in Oregon, “Protesting killer cops is going to happen regardless of the race of the victim.” Of course it is.”

    Along those lines was the story below that exemplifies the purely racist motives of BLM.

    BLM protesters rally for ‘victim,’ leave after learning he was white

  2. https://www.yahoo.com/news/security-tightens-minneapolis-nationwide-ahead-182822409.html

    I think they’re gaslighting us.

    This statement stands out:

    Facebook, acknowledging the role its platform could play in spreading calls for violence, said it would remove posts it says “praises, celebrates or mocks George Floyd’s death.”

    The company added: “Our teams are working around the clock to look for potential threats both on and off of Facebook and Instagram so we can protect peaceful protests and limit content that could lead to civil unrest or violence. This includes identifying and removing calls to bring arms to areas in Minneapolis, which we have temporarily deemed to be a high-risk location.”

    Did I read that correctly? In an effort to curb violence, Facebook is going to remove posts celebrating or mocking Floyd’s death? Do they really think that’s where the violence is coming from? And are we really supposed to believe that Facebook is full of posts calling for guns to be brought by protesters?

  3. There is still the possibility that Chauvin may be acquitted. The prosecutor’s case is shockingly poor, and the defense arguments have been decisively strong. This is still America, and the jury might still be willing to give Maxine Waters and the crowds the finger.

    Failing to sequester the jury was a terrible mistake. However, a mistrial also deprives Chauvin of his best chance of outright acquittal. I doubt the prosecutors will allow themselves to be caught with their pants so far down in the a second trial. Running this trial fairly is a zugzwang. The prosecution barely has a case, and the pressure to convict is entirely external. Previous mistakes obviously taint any conviction; a retrial is certain following conviction and successful appeal or mistrial. “Mostly peaceful protests” will occur no matter what, tainting the future jury pool.

    Speaking as an armchair strategist, letting the flawed trial pan out seems like Chauvin’s best option. It’s not a just option, as a mistrial is almost demanded as a matter of law, but Chauvin’s faces: conviction – appeal – overturn – new trial; mistrial – new trial; or acquittal. In two out of three outcomes, he faces prosecutors wiping egg off their face, and a jury that watched their city fall apart. In one, he walks out of the courthouse (and presumably onto a plane to Texas). Letting the current trial conclude is the quickest path to potentially getting this behind him.

    • There are so many issues Chauvin can use for a retrial if he is convicted.

      (1) Jurors driving through riots to and from the trial because they weren’t sequestered
      (2) The prosecution entered ‘surprise’ evidence after the judge disallowed it and warned them that even mentioning that it existed would end in a mistrial. The cowardly judge backed down.
      (3) A congresswoman from a different state comes to tell a violent mob to get more forceful and only allow a guilty verdict.

      The judge has an appearance of bias against the defendant. Either that or he is a complete coward.

      • Michael R. wrote, “(2) The prosecution entered ‘surprise’ evidence after the judge disallowed it and warned them that even mentioning that it existed would end in a mistrial. The cowardly judge backed down.”

        Can you elaborate on this in some detail please. Include quotes where applicable.

  4. Holy Cow! Say it ain’t so, Joe! You really went to law school? You were really in Congress?

    President Joe Biden on Tuesday said he is praying for the ‘right verdict’ in George Floyd trial and called the evidence ‘overwhelming.’

    ‘I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict. Which is – I think it’s overwhelming in my view,’ Biden told reporters in the Oval office. ‘I wouldn’t say that unless the jury was sequestered now.’

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9491069/Biden-called-George-Floyds-brother-Philonise-Derek-Chauvin-jury-sent-Minneapolis.html

  5. President Biden weighed in:

    Thanks, Mr. President.

    Oh, and the Minneapolis mayor did, too:

    So much for due process.

    jvb

    • “George Floyd was killed at the hands of police” What did the autopsy report say again? I mean, a valid autopsy done without bias.

      These are the kind of reporting inaccuracies that are stirring up more trouble. George Floyd was NOT killed at the hands of police. He DIED while being restrained by police.

      Yes, “So much for due process.”

      Regardless of the trial verdict, I think there will be riots. If a guilty verdict is returned the rioters will feel emboldened with new power and continue to riot. If a not guilty verdict or mistrial results then riots will erupt in numerous cities.

  6. 2) Huh?

    We can disregard miscarriages of justice elsewhere.

    If an officer can reasonably treat a large assailant as a threat to life when they shoot to stop an assailant…such with Michael Brown…they can reasonably treat a large mob *that has already violently entered a controlled space* as a threat to life.

        • To quote you, “Huh”? An officer can shoot into the air. but he can’t legally shoot a member of a mob who individually poses no deadly threat so the mob will be deterred. She wasn’t armed, so she posed no deadly threat. We don’t know because the cop hasn’t been identified, but let’s assume that he was large enough that he could have defended himself against a woman without shooting her. The mob itself posed no deadly threat. Mike Brown did pose a deadly threat, since he had already shown that he wanted to take an officer’s weapon. and was big enough to do it.

          It’s a bad analogy, MW. These weren’t zombies. Would you argue that a cop could mow down the whole mob with a Uzi? You really think a cop picking out a random individual to shoot and kill isn’t a criminal act?

          • A mob breaching the Capitol with unknown intentions during that heightened animosity is prima fasciae a threat to life – and it’s not just the officer’s life in question, he’s been tasked with much more to protect. I don’t see how that even needs to be asserted here.

            Watch the videos of the guys breaching the next set of doors the officer was behind. She was first to try through the door but she wasn’t alone. She was part of an organized attempt to breach *further*.

            “The mob itself posed no deadly threat.”

            According to whom? Were you in the officer’s shoes trying to fulfill the officer’s mission?

            “let’s assume that he was large enough that he could have defended himself against a woman”

            The woman wasn’t alone, the officer at that point was. He’s supposed to miraculously subdue her on the assumption the rest of the mob is going to sit back and let him?

            That’s ridiculous.

            He didn’t shoot *her*. He shot the first member of the mob seeking to exploit the breach being made by the rest of the mob. The first member of the mob happened to be her.

            • He shot HER. Are you arguing that he could have shot any member of the mob and it wouldn’t make any difference? “Hmmm…that guy’s ugly, let’s shoot him…no, that bitch reminds me of Aunt Helga, I’ll shoot her…” Whether the shooting was self defense or excessive force is a question for the jury. By the standards being used to charge cops around the country, there were grounds to charge.

              • No, I already indicated that the distinguishing factor here is she was the first trying to push through the breach. I would assume if Arnold Schwarzenegger was first to try through with the mob behind him he’d have been shot instead.

                “By the standards being used to charge cops around the country, there were grounds to charge.”

                Rationalization. Because justice is miscarried elsewhere doesn’t mean it’s ok to do so here.

                • No, the point is that charging standards are charging standards. If a cop shoots and kills an unarmed citizen intentionally, the cop is almost always charged. The other point is that this cop is being shielded because 1) these were baaad Trump supporting rioters and 2) the victim wasn’t black.

                  Under your theory, the cop could have justifiably shot one mob member after another as he or she came through the door, right?

                  • “No, the point is that charging standards are charging standards.”

                    In a federal system, it depends entirely on the jurisdiction. Now if all these travesties of justice were carried out in the same state, we could have an argument about the corruption of the State and still not come anywhere near justifying continued miscarriage of justice.

                    “If a cop shoots and kills an unarmed citizen intentionally, the cop is almost always charged.”

                    Now there’s a broadly worded statement that sounds like the lead into a Motte and Bailey argument.

                    “The other point is that this cop is being shielded because 1) these were baaad Trump supporting rioters and 2) the victim wasn’t black.”

                    Certainly may be factors in why no one is making as big a deal about this shooting than the others, but there are also plenty of valid reasons, that I’ve mentioned, not to make a big deal about this shooting. The problem here is that many of the other shootings shouldn’t have had a big deal made of them.

                    “Under your theory, the cop could have justifiably shot one mob member after another as he or she came through the door, right?”

                    If a violent mob continues to pursue a violent breach after one member is shot, I’d definitely think the officer would be even more accurate in his interpretation that the violent mob intends further potentially deadly violence.

                    But that’s the nature of something that is a type of combat. Violent mobs by definition, whether they are willfully obtuse of the consequences or not, sign on to a wide range of possible outcomes when they roll that particular violently anti-civic dice.

  7. Maxine Waters was not in Washington D.C., where her office is; Maxine Waters was not in her State of California but instead went into another State to purposely give birth to intense violence.
    Isn’t it a Federal Crime for Maxine Waters to purposely cause violence in Minnesota using her position in Government?

Leave a Reply to Rich in CT Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.