[Jonathan H. Adler] School Board Seeks to Prevent Web Posting of Materials It Released to Fulfill FOI Request

The Fairfax County School Board needs to Google “Streisand Effect”.

[The Fairfax County School Board took legal action to cover up its own mistake.] The Goldwater Institute’s Tim Sandefur reports on one of his organization’s new cases: When Debra Tisler and Callie Oettinger of Fairfax County, Virginia, suspected their local school district was wasting taxpayer money on excessive legal fees, they did what responsible and engaged citizens do in a democracy: They asked to see the receipts.

Source: [Jonathan H. Adler] School Board Seeks to Prevent Web Posting of Materials It Released to Fulfill FOI Request

RealClearInvestigations’ Jan. 6-BLM Side-by-Side Comparison.

REAL JOURNALISM: RealClearInvestigations’ Jan. 6-BLM Side-by-Side Comparison. “Many in the political and media establishment consider the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot to be one of America’s darkest episodes. Others say the nationwide protests last summer over George Floyd’s murder were worse. With polling indicating Americans see two sides to the story – and major media dwelling on only one – RealClearInvestigations has developed the database below allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.”

Source: RealClearInvestigations’ Jan. 6-BLM Side-by-Side Comparison.

Whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on

I’ve held off writing about the hostages stranded by Biden in Afghanistan while the facts are sorted out. I’ve gone from Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt yesterday “Secretary of State Blinken: This Is Not a Hostage Crisis” to Michael Goodwin’s New York Post column “Plane truth of Biden’s Afghanistan botch” to Peter Hasson’s FOX News story “State Department obstruction of private rescue flights from Afghanistan revealed in leaked email.” Joe Concha brings it all home nicely in the tweet below.

Source: Whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on

Law of Self Defense Analysis: Jan. 6 Shooting of Ashli Babbitt was Legally Justified

Andrew Branca offers his analysis of the Ashli Babbitt shooting:

Regardless of whether her shooting meets the legal conditions for a justified use of force, her death is a great loss. A proper legal analysis, however, must be limited to the actual relevant evidence and the actual law and must exclude every other factor.

….

To A Reasonable Degree of Legal Certainty: Justified

Recall that the fundamental questions in this case, as in any use-of-force case involving the justifications of self-defense or defense of others is:

Is it tenable, given the evidence, that that prosecution can disprove any one of the required elements of self-defense—either InnocenceImminenceProportionalityAvoidance or Reasonablenessbeyond a reasonable doubt?

I would suggest that the answer to this question is, no.

Source: Law of Self Defense Analysis: Jan. 6 Shooting of Ashli Babbitt was Legally Justified

Let it be noted that Mike McDaniel has a different take.

Honest, professional officers in the Capitol Police know this was, in police parlance, a “bad shoot.”  Honest, professional prosecutors in the Department of Justice, if any such thing exists there these days, know this was some degree of murder.  I’ve explained the law as it’s taught to police officers across the nation.  Based on all I know and can infer, Byrd is no hero.  He’s an unlawful killer, a premeditated murderer.

Jonathan Turley: Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’

Numerous aspects of what unfolded during the Capitol riot have been hotly debated in the months since it happened, but few have been as contentious and emotional as the debate over the officer-involved shooting death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt.

The 35-year-old Air Force veteran was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6th after she tried to climb through a glass-paneled door after parts of it had been shattered by another rioter, identified as Zachary Jordan Alam.

Babbitt, who reportedly had been standing next to Alam, was shot.

In April, the Biden Department of Justice announced they had closed the investigation into the fatal shooting and would not be pursuing criminal charges against Byrd, citing “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”

Just last week, the Capitol Police confirmed a report from NBC News that they had exonerated Byrd, a 28-year veteran of the force. They stated in a press release that Byrd – who they did not name – “will not be facing internal discipline” because in their view Byrd’s conduct “was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”

On the heels of the USCP exonerating Byrd, he did an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, identifying himself publicly for the first time.

Instead of clearing things up, the interview only intensified the debate over his actions and whether they were justified.

….

Georgetown University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who has long been a critic of official media narratives surrounding the shooting, said that instead of confirming that the respective decisions by the DOJ and the Capitol Police not to pursue action against Byrd were the right ones to make that Byrd “proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him” after he admitted he could not determine whether Babbitt was armed…

….

“Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.”

Source: Jonathan Turley: Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’

See also these comments from Mike McDaniel, a retired police officer.

 

What the January 6th surveillance tapes show

I think we already knew some of this, but here’s further video confirmation [emphasis mine]:

…[N]ewly-obtained video shows United States Capitol Police officers speaking with several January 6 protestors—including Jacob Chansley, the so-called “Q shaman”—inside the Capitol that afternoon.

One officer, identified in the video and confirmed by charging documents as Officer Keith Robishaw, appears to tell Chansely’s group they won’t stop them from entering the building. “We’re not against . . . you need to show us . . . no attacking, no assault, remain calm,” Robishaw warns. Chansley and another protestor instruct the crowd to act peacefully. “This has to be peaceful,” Chansley yelled. “We have the right to peacefully assemble.”…

The video directly contradicts what government prosecutors allege in a complaint filed January 8 against Chansley: “Robishaw and other officers calmed the protestors somewhat and directed them to leave the area from the same way they had entered. Chansley approached Officer Robishaw and screamed, among other things, that this was their house, and that they were there to take the Capitol, and to get Congressional leaders.”

Chansley later is seen entering the Senate chambers with a police officer behind him; he led several protesters in prayer and sat in Vice President Mike Pence’s chair…

Chansley is not charged with assaulting an officer; he faces several counts for trespassing and disorderly conduct. He has been incarcerated since January, denied bail awaiting trial. He has no criminal record.

Ace writes:

This is why the DOJ absolutely refuses to release thousands of hours of surveillance video — they claim because it’s “too sensitive” and would compromise “national security.”

The actual truth is because the video shows Capitol Police allowing protesters to enter the Capitol, and you can’t make a trespassing charge stick when the agents of the state are giving permission to enter.

Now, that doesn’t excuse the relatively few — like 15-20 people — who were attacking cops. No cop gave permission to be attacked, and anyway, you can’t assent to assault.

But this does mean the 400 people being held without trial, in solitary confinement, for political “crimes,” including mere trespassing, cannot be convicted of that crime and should be released at once.

But they won’t be. The government has been taken over by Marxists at war with America and the American people.

But Chansley has served his purpose. Most people think he was some dangerous person trying to overthrow the government violently, along with many thousands of others that day, and that he stands in for the many millions of Trump supporters. Incarcerating a lot of them would be good for the nation, right? The narrative is set.

Years ago – many years ago – I would have thought that releasing information like this video would make a difference in that narrative. Years ago, that notion might even have been correct. Now I no longer think it will make any difference at all except to further anger those of us on the right who care.

I hope I’m wrong. I really really hope I’m wrong.

Source: What the January 6th surveillance tapes show

Why did police wrongly claim that Sicknick died of injuries in Capitol riot?

Washington Examiner: A top GOP senator is demanding to know why the U.S. Capitol Police claimed Officer Brian Sicknick suffered mortal injuries while on duty and after clashing with protesters during the Capitol riot in light of the District of Columbia’s chief medical examiner’s ruling that Sicknick died of natural causes.

….

Someone allegedly with the police gave the NY Times the false narrative about his death.  When the fire extinguisher story was extinguished someone with the police said he was attacked with “bear spray” That story was not true either.  I get the impression that there was political pressure on the police to concoct a story that would play into their narrative about the rioters being violent in attacks on police.  Johnson is right to try to discover who was behind these bogus reports.

Source: Why did police wrongly claim that Sicknick died of injuries in Capitol riot?

Official cause of Officer Sicknick’s death finally announced – and it’s about as you suspected

No, Officer Sicknick didn’t die from a fire extinguisher to the head, thrown by Trump supporters on January 6th. Nor did he die from an allergic reaction to bear spray wielded by those same protestors. Here’s the actual story as announced by the medical examiner – which conforms to what for quite some time has seemed the most likely cause of his death to anyone paying attention to the facts:

Francisco Diaz, the chief medical examiner for Washington, D.C., told the Washington Post that Sicknick died on Jan. 7 after suffering two strokes and that he did not suffer an allergic reaction to any chemical irritants.

The medical examiner’s office told the Washington Examiner that Sicknick’s “cause of death” was “acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis” — a stroke — and the “manner of death” was “natural.” The office said Sicknick was sprayed with a chemical substance around 2:20 p.m. on Jan. 6, collapsed at the Capitol around 10 p.m. that evening, and was transported by emergency services to a local hospital. He died around 9:30 p.m. on Jan. 7, the office added.

But the political damage was done by the Times reporting the lies about Sicknick’s death, and those lies almost immediately getting halfway around the world. I bet a lot of people will never read Officer Sicknick’s actual cause of death, and will instead continue to believe the lies.

And that’s the purpose of the lies in the first place.

….

The WaPo story from yesterday that announced Diaz’s findings also says this:

The ruling, released Monday, likely will make it difficult for prosecutors to pursue homicide charges in the officer’s death.

Yes indeed, it’s often “difficult to pursue homicide charges” when no homicide has occurred. But where there’s a will, there’s a way – as we’ve seen in the Chauvin trial, for example.

….

[NOTE: Glenn Greenwald, who has written a lot about the Sicknick case, has an excellent article about yesterday’s announcement, in which he states this:

It was crucial for liberal sectors of the media to invent and disseminate a harrowing lie about how Officer Brian Sicknick died. That is because he is the only one they could claim was killed by pro-Trump protesters at the January 6 riot at the Capitol…

…[C]able outlets and other media platforms repeated this lie over and over in the most emotionally manipulative way possible…

As I detailed over and over when examining this story, there were so many reasons to doubt this storyline from the start. Nobody on the record claimed it happened. The autopsy found no blunt trauma to the head. Sicknick’s own family kept urging the press to stop spreading this story because he called them the night of January 6 and told them he was fine — obviously inconsistent with the media’s claim that he died by having his skull bashed in — and his own mother kept saying that she believed he died of a stroke.

But the gruesome story of Sicknick’s “murder” was too valuable to allow any questioning. It was weaponized over and over to depict the pro-Trump mob not as just violent but barbaric and murderous, because if Sicknick weren’t murdered by them, then nobody was.

Much more at the link, including the fact that Greenwald had been derisively labeled by MSM reporters as a “Sicknick truther.” They will not be saying any mea culpas about that, either, nor about the other lies they promulgated. They will just move on to the next one.]

Source: Official cause of Officer Sicknick’s death finally announced – and it’s about as you suspected

Face It: Big Media and Social Media Have Combined to Stoke a Moral Panic About Police Shootings and Race

Yesterday, a Columbus police officer shot and killed a teenage girl who was in the process of attacking another girl with a knife. The police department rushed out the bodycam footage and presented it at a press conference.

Typical of the media coverage of the incident was this Washington Post story: Ohio police fatally shoot Black teenage girl just before Chauvin verdict:

Police said at a late news conference on Tuesday that the girl had threatened two others with a knife before the shooting, playing segments of body camera video that showed the victim lunging toward someone in a driveway before an officer fired four shots. A knife is visible in the driveway next to the girl as police perform CPR on her.

You would never know from reading the story that the girl had the knife in her hand and was in the process of attacking the girl in pink when she was shot. But that is clearly what happened if you watch the video.

That story is not an isolated example.

Why would a newspaper not report the clear evidence that the girl was attacking another girl with a knife that was visible in her hand for all the world to see? Why would newspaper headlines make this about race?

Donald Trump poisoned media criticism; even when the media misbehaved, calling it out always fed into a narrative that protected an administration fueled by lies.

But it’s time to call this what it is: media malpractice. This intense hyperfocus on race is spurring a moral panic, causing presumably otherwise rational people to jump to conclusions and trumpet them far and wide.

So far online the reactions I am seeing include:

  • The police should never kill anyone under any circumstances.
  • Why not shoot her in the leg, ar only shoot once? Or shoot the knife out of her hand?
  • Knife fights with girls happen; what’s the big deal?

The widespread insanity inherent in these reactions, to me, is the kind of thing you see in a moral panic. And the media is stoking it by constantly playing up the racial angle, and failing to give statistics that might provide context to what we are seeing (such as noting the disproportionate number of police killed by black shooters, a fact that would contextualize the disproportionate number of blacks killed by police; or noting the currently uncovered examples of police shootings of white people). It’s malpractice and it’s creating a frenzy.

Something has to give.

Source: Face It: Big Media and Social Media Have Combined to Stoke a Moral Panic About Police Shootings and Race

GLENN GREENWALD ON WHAT THE TRUTH ABOUT OFFICER SICKNICK’S DEATH SAYS ABOUT THE MEDIA

They never cared in the slightest about Officer Brian Sicknick. They had just spent months glorifying a protest movement whose core view is that police officers are inherently racist and abusive. He had just become their toy, to be played with and exploited in order to depict the January 6 protest as a murderous orgy carried out by savages so primitive and inhuman that they were willing to fatally bash in the skull of a helpless person or spray them with deadly gases until they choked to death on their own lung fluids.

He’s right of course. If you support BLM then you necessarily support the routine verbal abuse of police officers as racists akin to the Klan. So it was very curious that a police officer would suddenly become the hero of this same group of progressives apart from the politics of doing so. In fact, you may recall people were simultaneously claiming Sicknick was a victim of the mob and that the same Capitol Hill police had treated BLM protesters unfairly. He was both a victim (where needed) and a perpetrator.

Source: GLENN GREENWALD ON WHAT THE TRUTH ABOUT OFFICER SICKNICK’S DEATH SAYS ABOUT THE MEDIA