WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

341

The DOJ concluded:

“The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. 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.”

Meaning that since she meant to tase him instead of shooting, it can be concluded she didn’t willingly commit a violation.

The DOJ concluded: “The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. 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.” Meaning that since she meant to tase him instead of shooting, it can be concluded she didn’t willingly commit a violation.

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

The cases aren't quite equivalent for one. Kimberley Porter cannot be charged with murder 1 as there is video footage of her believing she was tazing. This puts it into criminal negligence or manslaughter territory.

Capitol building: holy shit that DoJ conclusion is mealy mouthed and full of negatives but essentially the guard was given a gun with the expectation he made need to use it in defense of yada yada. He wasn't necessarily criminally negligent as he shot with full intent in the line of his duty.

Personally I think he is a fag for putting a round in Ms Babbit but not necessarily a criminal.

[–] 0 pt

He's a criminal automatically because he's a nigger.