by Tom Arnold, ©2021
(Jul. 9, 2021) — By now, six months after the January 6, 2021, protest/insurrection at our country’s Capitol building, almost everyone has heard about, and seen video of, the tragic event. Sadly, a military veteran and Donald Trump supporter was shot and killed in the melee. Ashli Babbitt happened to be Caucasian (emphasis on “happened to be”). The shooter was a male Capitol Police officer whose race happened to be Black (emphasis on “happened to be,” and note that his identity is just now becoming known, although not yet “officially!”). So, see if you can choose which one of the two federal crimes paraphrased below would be the most appropriate one for the Department of Justice to have filed (that is, if they had filed any criminal charges at all, and we know that they did not!).
First Example: Whoever, under color of authority, willfully subjects any person to punishment, pain, or penalty, by reason of his/her race or color, is criminally accountable except in instances when bodily injury or death is deemed justified.
Second Example: Killing another human being without malice upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. Or, killing another human being without malice in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony or in an unlawful manner without due caution and circumspection of a lawful act which might produce death.
Which of these two legalistic scenarios seems to be most applicable to the Ashli Babbitt killing? In fact, the first example is what the Department of Justice focused on and was considering as the most appropriate charge (18 U.S. Code Section 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law). It is a federal criminal CIVIL RIGHTS statute.
The second example also is a federal crime but without mention of any civil rights issues (18 U.S. Code Section 1112- Manslaughter).
Now, please read the Department of Justice news release dated April 14, 2021. It is entitled “Department of Justice Closes Investigation into the Death of Ashli Babbitt.” According to the DOJ, prosecutors could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Capitol Police officer acted willfully, as narrowly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., that the officer acted with a “bad purpose!”). The DOJ concluded that the officer believed that it was necessary to fire the shot in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Thus, charges of violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 242 (a civil rights statute) were not filed. Suppose the DOJ ever heard of or thought about 18 U.S. Code Section 1112?
In conclusion, I wanted you to watch and listen to a self-described “Old Sergeant” who said everything in a YouTube video better than I ever could! As it turned out, I happened to be among the first to successfully access the website, and I was able (and privileged) to view it. The “Old Sergeant” was succinct, to the point, and pro-America in content. It caused me to wonder what the Department of Justice was thinking (actually, I think I know)! Also, what about former police officer Derek Chauvin and the Floyd family? By the way, I believe that Chauvin got exactly what he deserved. Anyway, when I later returned to the website of the “Old Sergeant” and his comments, well, you’ll see: nothing less than blatant, unjustified “woke” censorship of one’s First Amendment rights. Read about it in YouTube’s lame and unconstitutional gibberish below. I suppose the DOJ would be proud that YouTube “has their backs!”