Realville Posted April 28, 2021 Report Share Posted April 28, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realville Posted April 29, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2021 Dang.....no input as to why the USCP will not release their use of force guidelines? Let me guess....it’s because of their jurisdiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realville Posted April 29, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2021 The only police officer the left isn’t demanding be brought to justice is the one who shot Ashli Babbitt. The left isn’t interested in fact finding, due process, equal protection, or real justice. They’re only interested in pushing their narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realville Posted April 30, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2021 Death toll from January 6 Capitol riot: -- Pro-Trump protesters killed: 4 (two by heart attacks, one by stress-induced methamphetamine overdose, one fatally shot by an unnamed cop while unarmed). -- People killed by pro-Trump protesters: 0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realville Posted May 22, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2021 We now know these two federal prison guards names after they falsified records on the day Jeffery Epstein supposedly hung him self but still do not know the name of the officer that killed Ashley Babbitt on 6 January. Officers Guarding Epstein During Death Admit They Falsified Records, Cut Pending Deal With No Jail Time By This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up May 21, 2021 DailyWire.com Facebook Twitter Mail Getty Images: Kena Betancur / TIMOTHY A. CLARY The two prison guards — Tova Noel and Michael Thomas — assigned to guard Jeffrey Epstein on the night that he died have admitted that they falsified prison records and have cut a deal with federal prosecutors. “As part of the deal with prosecutors, they will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department and will serve no time behind bars,” The Associated Press This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up . “Noel and Thomas would instead be subjected to supervised release, would be required to complete 100 hours of community service and would be required to fully cooperate with an ongoing probe by the Justice Department’s inspector general.” The guards, who were supposed to be checking on Epstein every 30 minutes, are accused of checking sports news and shopping for furniture on the internet before taking a nap during Epstein’s death. The two are accused of falsifying prison records to make it look like they had been doing their job during the time of Epstein’s death. A letter from federal prosecutors that was filed in federal court says that the two have “admitted that they ‘willfully and knowingly completed materially false count and round slips regarding required counts and rounds.’” The guards, who were supposed to be checking on Epstein every 30 minutes, are accused of checking sports news and shopping for furniture on the internet before taking a nap during Epstein’s death. The two are accused of falsifying prison records to make it look like they had been doing their job during the time of Epstein’s death. A letter from federal prosecutors that was filed in federal court says that the two have “admitted that they ‘willfully and knowingly completed materially false count and round slips regarding required counts and ro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted May 22, 2021 Report Share Posted May 22, 2021 4 hours ago, Realville said: We now know these two federal prison guards names after they falsified records on the day Jeffery Epstein supposedly hung him self but still do not know the name of the officer that killed Ashley Babbitt on 6 January. Officers Guarding Epstein During Death Admit They Falsified Records, Cut Pending Deal With No Jail Time By This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up May 21, 2021 DailyWire.com Facebook Twitter Mail This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Getty Images: Kena Betancur / TIMOTHY A. CLARY The two prison guards — Tova Noel and Michael Thomas — assigned to guard Jeffrey Epstein on the night that he died have admitted that they falsified prison records and have cut a deal with federal prosecutors. “As part of the deal with prosecutors, they will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department and will serve no time behind bars,” The Associated Press This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up . “Noel and Thomas would instead be subjected to supervised release, would be required to complete 100 hours of community service and would be required to fully cooperate with an ongoing probe by the Justice Department’s inspector general.” The guards, who were supposed to be checking on Epstein every 30 minutes, are accused of checking sports news and shopping for furniture on the internet before taking a nap during Epstein’s death. The two are accused of falsifying prison records to make it look like they had been doing their job during the time of Epstein’s death. A letter from federal prosecutors that was filed in federal court says that the two have “admitted that they ‘willfully and knowingly completed materially false count and round slips regarding required counts and rounds.’” The guards, who were supposed to be checking on Epstein every 30 minutes, are accused of checking sports news and shopping for furniture on the internet before taking a nap during Epstein’s death. The two are accused of falsifying prison records to make it look like they had been doing their job during the time of Epstein’s death. A letter from federal prosecutors that was filed in federal court says that the two have “admitted that they ‘willfully and knowingly completed materially false count and round slips regarding required counts and ro 1. They have been charged in a crime and it is therefore public information. The officer in the shooting has not. 2. Epstein died a year and a half ago, not in January. Comparing apples to broccoli. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realville Posted May 23, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2021 8 hours ago, tvc184 said: 1. They have been charged in a crime and it is therefore public information. The officer in the shooting has not. 2. Epstein died a year and a half ago, not in January. Comparing apples to broccoli. I understand the officer has not been charged with a crime. He still has not been named after the shooting of Ashley Babbitt. Why want the US Capitol Police release their use of force guidelines? Why is that so top secret? Is that not allowed to be released to the public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted May 23, 2021 Report Share Posted May 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Realville said: I understand the officer has not been charged with a crime. He still has not been named after the shooting of Ashley Babbitt. Why want the US Capitol Police release their use of force guidelines? Why is that so top secret? Is that not allowed to be released to the public? I don’t know but I wish they would. You would think that merely written policy is under freedom of information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realville Posted May 23, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2021 7 hours ago, tvc184 said: I don’t know but I wish they would. You would think that merely written policy is under freedom of information. Lol... Tvc I believe that’s the 1st time I’ve seen you say you don’t have an answer about something pertaining to the law. Something just doesn’t seem right about the case. You would think the freedom of information act would allow that information to be ascertained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted May 23, 2021 Report Share Posted May 23, 2021 3 hours ago, Realville said: Lol... Tvc I believe that’s the 1st time I’ve seen you say you don’t have an answer about something pertaining to the law. Something just doesn’t seem right about the case. You would think the freedom of information act would allow that information to be ascertained. The problem is that there is no inherent right to information. It has to be written into the law. The federal government and each state has its own laws on freedom of information. They are definitely not the same. In Texas there are things that must be released upon request, things that may be released upon request but not mandatory and things that cannot be released. i’ll give you an example on Texas law. Under Texas civil service law The only thing that the state recognizes as punishment for police officers is a suspension. Punishment (suspension) is part of a public record. All of the corrective actions are sealed and private. Even when a police officer is terminated it is called an indefinite suspension. So if an officer gets a letter in his file of a reprimand, it is not public. If he has his duty assignment changed or the shift that he works changed because of a discipline issue, it is not public and is protected information. If it rises to the level of a suspension, then it becomes public. That is an example where the law says you cannot release information but under certain conditions you must release the information. Another example under Texas law is the making of a police call for service. If a person calls the police, if the police make a traffic stop or any other type of official police contact, it is public record. How far that public record goes is the issue however. The fact that a person called the police is public including the person’s name (if known) and the address the police went to and the general complaint. An example would be a person calling the police to report his home had been broken into over the weekend. What the police did there if they made a police report can be protected however. If the police made a report or investigation, the public part would be the location, the accused crime or incident and the victim’s name. The details of the report however can be protected. That is why the news media in many cases cannot give details of a crime being reported by them because the police do not have to release the information and in most cases will not. Releasing such information tends to hamper the investigation and by law can kill a confession or the information used at a criminal trial. So while it is not illegal to release the information to the public, it could make the investigation very difficult particularly in the area of confessions. Those are just examples of how the law differs according to where you were at. Apparently the federal law covering Washington DC has not yet required the police release that information. I am sure that media sources have filed legal issues in reference to this to see if the government is complying with the law. I know in my Police Department (and probably all) we get freedom of information requests all the time and turn it over to the legal department to see if The information can be released.or if we have the option of privacy. I don’t see how policy is protected but without knowing the law in Washington DC, I simply do not know. Realville 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realville Posted May 23, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2021 4 hours ago, tvc184 said: The problem is that there is no inherent right to information. It has to be written into the law. The federal government and each state has its own laws on freedom of information. They are definitely not the same. In Texas there are things that must be released upon request, things that may be released upon request but not mandatory and things that cannot be released. i’ll give you an example on Texas law. Under Texas civil service law The only thing that the state recognizes as punishment for police officers is a suspension. Punishment (suspension) is part of a public record. All of the corrective actions are sealed and private. Even when a police officer is terminated it is called an indefinite suspension. So if an officer gets a letter in his file of a reprimand, it is not public. If he has his duty assignment changed or the shift that he works changed because of a discipline issue, it is not public and is protected information. If it rises to the level of a suspension, then it becomes public. That is an example where the law says you cannot release information but under certain conditions you must release the information. Another example under Texas law is the making of a police call for service. If a person calls the police, if the police make a traffic stop or any other type of official police contact, it is public record. How far that public record goes is the issue however. The fact that a person called the police is public including the person’s name (if known) and the address the police went to and the general complaint. An example would be a person calling the police to report his home had been broken into over the weekend. What the police did there if they made a police report can be protected however. If the police made a report or investigation, the public part would be the location, the accused crime or incident and the victim’s name. The details of the report however can be protected. That is why the news media in many cases cannot give details of a crime being reported by them because the police do not have to release the information and in most cases will not. Releasing such information tends to hamper the investigation and by law can kill a confession or the information used at a criminal trial. So while it is not illegal to release the information to the public, it could make the investigation very difficult particularly in the area of confessions. Those are just examples of how the law differs according to where you were at. Apparently the federal law covering Washington DC has not yet required the police release that information. I am sure that media sources have filed legal issues in reference to this to see if the government is complying with the law. I know in my Police Department (and probably all) we get freedom of information requests all the time and turn it over to the legal department to see if The information can be released.or if we have the option of privacy. I don’t see how policy is protected but without knowing the law in Washington DC, I simply do not know. If they want even release their own use of force guidelines then basically they’re not accountable for anything and just doesn’t make sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted May 23, 2021 Report Share Posted May 23, 2021 23 minutes ago, Realville said: If they want even release their own use of force guidelines then basically they’re not accountable for anything and just doesn’t make sense to me. Not to me either. It sure looks like they are hiding something. Realville 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 Here’s an alleged picture of him, but no name. This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalBacker Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 Personally, I think that officer should be recognized for heroism. I, for one, have no problem with the police shooting anybody that is storming the House Chamber as part of an armed insurrection trying to overthrow our government. Big girl 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmashMouth Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 53 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said: Personally, I think that officer should be recognized for heroism. I, for one, have no problem with the police shooting anybody that is storming the House Chamber as part of an armed insurrection trying to overthrow our government. But she wasn’t armed...nor was she (and I dare say anyone else) trying to overthrow the government. Merely being arrested would have been enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 10 minutes ago, SmashMouth said: But she wasn’t armed...nor was she (and I dare say anyone else) trying to overthrow the government. Merely being arrested would have been enough. He's just stirring the pot...anyone with any sense at all knows that wasn't an attempt to overthrow the government. Then again, TDS can be very powerful. Realville and Hagar 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmashMouth Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 30 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said: He's just stirring the pot...anyone with any sense at all knows that wasn't an attempt to overthrow the government. I know. But my common sense mechanism has a hair trigger. I was just waiting for the wooden spoon to come back around... Lol. LumRaiderFan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullets13 Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 It's just been a weird dynamic on this one for me... many of the same people that are pissed about this officer making a split-second decision to shoot an insurrectionist breaching the house chambers don't have any of the same animosity towards an officer who spent nearly a quarter of an hour kneeling on a handcuffed subject's neck. CardinalBacker and Big girl 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realville Posted May 24, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 1 hour ago, bullets13 said: It's just been a weird dynamic on this one for me... many of the same people that are pissed about this officer making a split-second decision to shoot an insurrectionist breaching the house chambers don't have any of the same animosity towards an officer who spent nearly a quarter of an hour kneeling on a handcuffed subject's neck. Now that’s what I call a game of Twister! Insurrectionist!😂🤣😂🤣🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalBacker Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 1 hour ago, bullets13 said: It's just been a weird dynamic on this one for me... many of the same people that are pissed about this officer making a split-second decision to shoot an insurrectionist breaching the house chambers don't have any of the same animosity towards an officer who spent nearly a quarter of an hour kneeling on a handcuffed subject's neck. Or the pro-lifers that support the death penalty. bullets13 and TxHoops 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realville Posted May 24, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 6 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said: Or the pro-lifers that support the death penalty. Great comparison. Unborn children are as evil as convicted murders. Got it! Hagar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 16 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said: Or the pro-lifers that support the death penalty. Apples and oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 1 hour ago, bullets13 said: It's just been a weird dynamic on this one for me... many of the same people that are pissed about this officer making a split-second decision to shoot an insurrectionist breaching the house chambers don't have any of the same animosity towards an officer who spent nearly a quarter of an hour kneeling on a handcuffed subject's neck. I had a big problem with both. To be clear, many folks had a problem with the secrecy that was applied in the Capitol shooting when most other shootings have the cop identified in a matter of hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullets13 Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 28 minutes ago, Realville said: Now that’s what I call a game of Twister! Insurrectionist!😂🤣😂🤣🤣 I'm sure you consider her a patriot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullets13 Posted May 24, 2021 Report Share Posted May 24, 2021 27 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said: Or the pro-lifers that support the death penalty. I'm firmly pro-choice and pro-death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.