Officer wounded in deadly ambush sues Black Lives Matter

USFREEDOM911

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Officer wounded in deadly ambush sues Black Lives Matter

A federal lawsuit accuses Black Lives Matter and several movement leaders of inciting violence that led to a gunman's deadly ambush of law enforcement officers in Baton Rouge last summer.

DeRay Mckesson and four other Black Lives Matter leaders are named as defendants in the suit filed Friday on behalf of one of the officers wounded in the July 17 attack by a black military veteran, who killed three other officers before he was shot dead.

The suit doesn't name the officer, but its description of the plaintiff matches East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Deputy Nicholas Tullier, who was has been at a Houston rehabilitation hospital since November.

The same attorneys who filed Friday's suit previously sued Black Lives Matter and Mckesson on behalf of a Baton Rouge police officer who was injured at a protest over a deadly police shooting last July.

"This is quite a world," Mckesson said Friday when a reporter informed him of the latest lawsuit.

Gavin Long, a 29-year-old former Marine from Kansas City, Missouri, was armed with a semi-automatic rifle when he killed three officers and wounded three others outside a convenience store and car wash near Baton Rouge police headquarters.

Long had posted rambling internet videos calling for violence in response to police treatment of African-Americans, which he said constituted "oppression." He apparently posted a YouTube video from Dallas on July 10, three days after a sniper killed five officers and wounded nine others there.

Long also left behind a note saying he believed he had to inflict harm "upon bad cops as well as good cops in hopes that the good cops (which are the majority) will be able to stand together and enact justice and punishment against bad cops."

The attack came less than two weeks after a white Baton Rouge police officer shot and killed Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old black man. Mckesson was one of nearly 200 people arrested in Louisiana's capital at nightly protests after Sterling's July 5 death.

Friday's lawsuit claims Mckesson was "in charge of" a July 9 protest that "turned into a riot." Mckesson "did nothing to calm the crowd and, instead, he incited the violence" on behalf of Black Lives Matter, the suit alleges.

The suit describes Long as an "activist whose actions followed and mimicked those of" the sniper who killed officers in Dallas days earlier. The suit also claims Black Lives Matter leaders incited others to harm police "in retaliation for the death of black men killed by police" and "all but too late" began to denounce the shootings of police after the Baton Rouge attack.

"Obviously, at this point talk show hosts were holding them responsible, and they were having to defend the blame and responsibility for what they had caused whether in whole or in part," the suit says.

Mckesson said he hadn't spoken to his attorney, Billy Gibbens, about the lawsuit and couldn't immediately comment on its allegations. Gibbens declined to comment.

During a court hearing last month, Gibbens argued Black Lives Matter is a movement, not an organization that can be sued. The federal judge assigned to the first suit against Mckesson hasn't ruled on that yet.

Long shot Tullier in the head, stomach and shoulder, leaving him with brain damage. By December, the 42-year-old father of two had emerged from a vegetative state, regained some movement of his body and was able to communicate nonverbally.

-------------------------------------------

They should settle out of Court, for a couple of million
 
this is absolute crap. the constitution does not authorize the government to civilly sue people or groups for criminal activity. this case should be thrown out and the cop and the union fined heavily for wasting the courts time.
 
this is absolute crap. the constitution does not authorize the government to civilly sue people or groups for criminal activity. this case should be thrown out and the cop and the union fined heavily for wasting the courts time.

Where does the Constitution authorize thugs to kill cops? Seems you have no problem with that.
 
Where does the Constitution authorize thugs to kill cops? Seems you have no problem with that.

the Declaration spells it out very clearly and the Constitution only authorizes the government to do certain things. It is not an instrument to restrict the people. I have absolutely zero problem with anyone killing oppressive government agents.
 
the Declaration spells it out very clearly and the Constitution only authorizes the government to do certain things. It is not an instrument to restrict the people. I have absolutely zero problem with anyone killing oppressive government agents.

Do you think the specific cop in question is an oppressive government agent? Of course, with his wounds, he's likely a private citizen now...
 
this is absolute crap. the constitution does not authorize the government to civilly sue people or groups for criminal activity. this case should be thrown out and the cop and the union fined heavily for wasting the courts time.

the Declaration spells it out very clearly and the Constitution only authorizes the government to do certain things. It is not an instrument to restrict the people. I have absolutely zero problem with anyone killing oppressive government agents.

Hey Einstoner, the gub'mint is not the one suing BLM.

The plantiff(s) is/are (a) private citizen(s). (I think that I, grammatically speaking, covered all the singular/plural possibilities there).

IOW, the Federal Govt is not the plaintiff. The plaintiff(s) is/are suing in Federal Court, which is what makes it a "Federal lawsuit".

Dunce.
 
Do you think the specific cop in question is an oppressive government agent?
Did this specific cop wear a badge with legal authority to kill a private citizen if she feared for her life? the legal authority to direct said citizen in almost any manner and have a 'law' express the citizen to obey? then yes, she was an oppressive government agent.
 
Hey Einstoner, the gub'mint is not the one suing BLM.

The plantiff(s) is/are (a) private citizen(s). (I think that I, grammatically speaking, covered all the singular/plural possibilities there).

IOW, the Federal Govt is not the plaintiff. The plaintiff(s) is/are suing in Federal Court, which is what makes it a "Federal lawsuit".

Dunce.

I didn't say 'federal' you gigantic dumbass, I simply said government. and the 'plaintiff' is suing NOT as a private citizen, but as a government agent because said actions the fucktard is suing about came about during his official duties.

stop being a government cock sucker and wake the fuck up. retard.
 
the Declaration spells it out very clearly and the Constitution only authorizes the government to do certain things. It is not an instrument to restrict the people. I have absolutely zero problem with anyone killing oppressive government agents.

You don't have a problem with drunk drivers killing innocent people.

It's not oppressive because someone tells you no. Didn't your whore mother teach you that? Maybe she didn't since she never said no.
 
Did this specific cop wear a badge with legal authority to kill a private citizen if she feared for her life? the legal authority to direct said citizen in almost any manner and have a 'law' express the citizen to obey? then yes, she was an oppressive government agent.

Do you think that the founders would label this specific cop with the same language, or is it just you?
 
I didn't say 'federal' you gigantic dumbass, I simply said government. and the 'plaintiff' is suing NOT as a private citizen, but as a government agent because said actions the fucktard is suing about came about during his official duties.

stop being a government cock sucker and wake the fuck up. retard.

What a lying, weaselling piece of dogshit you are. :palm:

You said government and we know that the first sentence of the OP references a FEDERAL LAWSUIT, so which other government would you have been referring to???

Now that I've thoroughly debunked your first bullshit lie, I'll move on to the second one.

After thoroughly re-reading the article for good measure, I would like you to show me exactly where it says that the plaintiff is not suing as a private citizen, but rather as a govt agent.

Because from what I read, it says... "...the suit filed Friday on behalf of one of the officers wounded in the July 17 attack...". Nowhere in that statement is any government, Federal or otherwise, named as a plaintiff, or a party to the lawsuit in any way, shape or form.

Hence, you are a pathetic, lying, slimy, weasely, underhanded loser who talks shit but can't back it up with a single fact.

Stop being a right-wing Trumptard cock sucker and wake the fuck up. Retard.
 
Last edited:
I can't give you a definitive answer because I'm an empty headed cocksucker troll who spews the same shit out of my mouth that I spew out of my ass, always without any basis in fact.

Tell us something we don't already know, cocksucker.
 
What a lying, weaselling piece of dogshit you are. :palm:

You said government and we know that the first sentence of the OP references a FEDERAL LAWSUIT, so which other government would you have been referring to???
are you that damned stupid that you are unable to distinguish between the federal government and a local cop filing a lawsuit in the federal courts????????

Now that I've thoroughly debunked your first bullshit lie, I'll move on to the second one.
all you did was show your complete idiocy and ignorance. dismissed.
 
You don't have a problem with drunk drivers killing innocent people.

It's not oppressive because someone tells you no. Didn't your whore mother teach you that? Maybe she didn't since she never said no.

your whore wife told me the same thing about you, that you don't know the word no when she tells you. she's never told me no, though.
 
Hey Einstoner, the gub'mint is not the one suing BLM.

The plantiff(s) is/are (a) private citizen(s). (I think that I, grammatically speaking, covered all the singular/plural possibilities there).

IOW, the Federal Govt is not the plaintiff. The plaintiff(s) is/are suing in Federal Court, which is what makes it a "Federal lawsuit".

Dunce.

Canada to Award Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Millions in Compensation
Omar Khadr admitted to killing American soldier in Afghanistan

July 5, 2017

A former Guantanamo Bay detainee who admitted to killing an American solider is set to receive an official apology and about $8 million in compensation from the Canadian government for his time at the military prison, according to press reports.

The settlement is the result of Canadian citizen Omar Khadr's suit for $20 million Canadian dollars (about U.S. $15 million) on the grounds that the Canadian government violated international law and his human rights by not protecting him and conspiring with the U.S. while he was detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/canada-award-ex-gitmo-detainee-millions/
 
What a lying, weaselling piece of dogshit you are. :palm:

You said government and we know that the first sentence of the OP references a FEDERAL LAWSUIT, so which other government would you have been referring to???

Now that I've thoroughly debunked your first bullshit lie, I'll move on to the second one.

After thoroughly re-reading the article for good measure, I would like you to show me exactly where it says that the plaintiff is not suing as a private citizen, but rather as a govt agent.

Because from what I read, it says... "...the suit filed Friday on behalf of one of the officers wounded in the July 17 attack...". Nowhere in that statement is any government, Federal or otherwise, named as a plaintiff, or a party to the lawsuit in any way, shape or form.

Hence, you are a pathetic, lying, slimy, weasely, underhanded loser who talks shit but can't back it up with a single fact.

Stop being a right-wing Trumptard cock sucker and wake the fuck up. Retard.

Naw, STY may be way off base here, but, he has equal contempt for state, county, and municipal governments as he does the federal government. They're all out to trample on his liberty.

And he's not a Trumptard.
 
Back
Top