by Tom Arnold, ©2021

(May 8, 2021) — Tell me this wasn’t a crime – either the MANSLAUGHTER committed by the allowed-to-be-anonymous Capitol police officer and/or its COVER-UP by a racially-conscious and politically-motivated DOJ. 

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

  1. To: James Carter and readers. Reason: What prosecutors and the Supreme Court say is the meaning of “WILLFULLY.” I am wondering when, where, and under what circumstances the word “willfully” all of a sudden is defined as meaning ACTING WITH A BAD PURPOSE TO DISREGARD THE LAW? Assuming what Mr Carter is telling us in his comment is true (and I do assume so), according to our all-knowing life-long appointed Supreme Court “Justices,” ACTING OUT OF FEAR, MISTAKE, PANIC, MISPERCEPTION, NEGLIGENCE, OR EVEN POOR JUDGMENT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH “WILLFULLY” NOR ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF A CRIME (such as criminally negligent manslaughter??). You’ve got to be kidding me! What part about WOKE and the POLITICIZATION OF JUSTICE is it that I don’t understand! Compare this incident (killing of Ashli Babbitt, in person, by a Capitol police officer who crept as close to her as he could get and then fired a kill shot) to BARACK OBAMA’s criminally negligent manslaughter (my opinion) as Commander-in-Chief who was AWOL from his duty and allowed four Americans to be murdered in Benghazi, then attempted to change the narrative and cover it up! Oh well, contrary to the way the old saying goes, I guess there are SOME PEOPLE who are ABOVE THE LAW!

  2. “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 Minneapolis State’s Attorney Office never met the burden of proof required by 18 U.S.C. § 242, yet the DoJ has filed charges against Officer Chauvin pursuant to the exact same Federal statute. Apparently the DoJ believes it has better lawyers, has evidence and/or witnesses not available to the Minneapolis State’s Attorney Office or is simply playing politics.