Justice Department ordered to answer for Jan. 6 killing of Ashli Babbitt

[ThisIsMe]

"Minority" is a distraction in Ms. Babbitt's situation. Not even relevant.

The question was "Did Ashli Babbitt's attempt to lead a violent mob through the last law enforcement barrier with then immediate access to the House Chamber occupied by members of Congress, their Staff, and civilians present a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to law enforcement or those in the chamber by herself or members of the violent mob."

Any reasonable person looks at the context of the day and the video to evaluate the use of lethal force and arrives at a sane conclusion of - "Yes".

Context matters. And race is part of the rubic that day.

WW

Did the capitol police do their due diligence to protect those members of congress by allowing them to stay in the house chamber? No

Did Byrd exhaust every option to avoid killing someone that day? No

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's a public message board, there is no "jumping into", the whole purpose is to solicit commentary from others. There are avenues - even on this board - for private conversations.

WW

I agree with this: now I’m in shock!

 

[rightwinger]

That wasn’t my question..you think the life of a congressman is more important than the life of someone trapped in their car with an angry mob trying to break the windows?

is the life of a congressman more important than an officer who’s life is threatened by someone?

I don’t get your point

A person in a car trapped by an angry mob has a right to defend themselves

 

[ThisIsMe]

What is the protocol if someone tries to break into Congressional Chambers, can you post it for us?

Nope, because I don’t know. Only the capitol police and whatever security apparatus in place in those buildings know the security plan.

Again, had the capitol police taken all measures that day, and those failed, and had babbit gotten through the window and tried to reach for something in her backpack, then I would have totally been fine with what Byrd did.

I’ll say it again, why wasn’t tear gas attempted? Surely they are not clueless when it comes to riot control. I mean, this isn’t the first time the halls of congress have been invaded or attacked.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don’t get your point

A person in a car trapped by an angry mob has a right to defend themselves

Is that so? Then why do dems go crazy when said person stomps on the gas and runs people over? They all want to condemn the driver, and not the people in the crowd. They’re all “get his license plate!” And they want to sue the drivers.

What about when an officer is giving commands to a suspect and that person fails to listen and acts in a threatening manner toward the officer, is he allowed to shoot that person?

 

[pknopp]

Ok, so, do we go with emotion here? Or rise up and try to see past all the bs that gets posted on message boards, and try to pierce through the veil of mistruths and “feelings” and see things as they really are?

I'm just explaining. I saw no reason for a large number of shootings including this one.

I’m just referring to this instance here. I think there are those, who are doing as you suggest, just in the other side. Partisanship and the need to “get back” at those “dirty republicans” will make them take a stance that doesn’t make sense, all in the name of hate.

Chauvin was wrong
Grayson was wrong
Byrd was wrong

True but..........the argument for years was "just do as you are told and you don't get hurt". While not always true I most certainly thinks it's fair to point out the hypocrisy here.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Tell them to hold still while you run to the Amory and load up on:

• Taser's
• Tear Gas
• Riot Shotgun with bean bag rounds

After they have waited 15-30 minutes for you to kit up, then apply non-lethal methods to those presenting a clear and present danger.

WW

That’s just silly, if they were not preparing the moment they saw the mob arrive at the capitol building, then they need more training, and probably need to be replaced because their job is to protect those inside, if you’re suggesting that they didn’t have the means available at hand well before that mob arrived in that particular corridor, then they are grossly negligent of their job.

 

[Rawley]

The police were outnumbered by an angry mob
They had reached their last line of defense

Non lethal options were not working

what non-lethal option did he try?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm just explaining. I saw no reason for a large number of shootings including this one.




True but..........the argument for years was "just do as you are told and you don't get hurt". While not always true I most certainly thinks it's fair to point out the hypocrisy here.

I think babbit should have used better sense, that’s undebatable, I think police training, especially if you are tasked with protecting Congress, comes with a higher level of training, that wasn’t employed here.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think babbit should have used better sense, that’s undebatable, I think police training, especially if you are tasked with protecting Congress, comes with a higher level of training, that wasn’t employed here.

I agree, and I'm sure that Lt. Byrd having risen through the ranks to reach the grade of Lieutenant (a pretty high grade in a metorpolitin police force) received such training allowing him to evaluate the clear and present danger the violent mob presented.

It resulted in his controlled reaction of a single shot center mass which shocked the riotous mob into inaction until help arrived.

A brave action for a member of law enforcement holding the last blue line in context of the day.

WW

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Nope, because I don’t know. Only the capitol police and whatever security apparatus in place in those buildings know the security plan.

Again, had the capitol police taken all measures that day, and those failed, and had babbit gotten through the window and tried to reach for something in her backpack, then I would have totally been fine with what Byrd did.

I’ll say it again, why wasn’t tear gas attempted? Surely they are not clueless when it comes to riot control. I mean, this isn’t the first time the halls of congress have been invaded or attacked.

So if you don't know why are you posting what he should and shouldn't have done.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I agree, and I'm sure that Lt. Byrd having risen through the ranks to reach the grade of Lieutenant (a pretty high grade in a metorpolitin police force) received such training allowing him to evaluate the clear and present danger the violent mob presented.

It resulted in his controlled reaction of a single shot center mass which shocked the riotous mob into inaction until help arrived.

A brave action for a member of law enforcement holding the last blue line in context of the day.

WW

His training, and the training of those around him, should have prepared them better, and had other means available.

General police code states that the officer must be in immediate danger. Byrd admitted he couldn’t see her hands, which means he didn’t know if she was carrying a weapon.

Justified shooting or fair game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt makes shocking admission

He proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him.

thehill.com

While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.

Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders

Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window.

 

[Chillicothe]

Ashli is dead because of Ashli.

She was a forefront member of a violent mob illegally in the People's House and violently breaching a purpose built barricade erected to specifically prevent mobsters like Babbitt from harming the sheltering Representatives and staff behind that barricade.

She was side by side with the mob violently busting that barricade and she cheerlead by screaming invective and epithets at the police behind that barrier.

And when a breach was opened Babbitt leapt into it, charging towards....not away from .... the sheltering Representatives. Her features and body obscured by a concealing shroud.

She died because of a whole series of bad...eventually fatal....decisions that SHE made. Not Officer Byrd.

Ashli is dead because of Ashli.

 

[WorldWatcher]

General police code states that the officer must be in immediate danger. Byrd admitted he couldn’t see her hands, which means he didn’t know if she was carrying a weapon.

Now go look up the application of lethal force in the federal code and DC regulations.

It does not say the law enforcement officer “must be in immediate danger”, it specifies clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to themself or others.

The exact type of situation that a violent mob presented in the context of the situation that Lt. Byrd found himself in that day as the riotous mob was attempting to gain access to the House Chamber.

You still insist on looking at Babbitt as if she was strolling through a park which is the wrong standard. His actions have to be evaluated in the context of the day. Not only was he hearing about the violence and other officers being injured over the radio, he witnessed the mob break through the barrier.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

Now go look up the application of lethal force in the federal code and DC regulations.

It does not say the law enforcement officer “must be in immediate danger”, it specifies clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to themself or others.

The exact type of situation that a violent mob presented in the context of the situation that Lt. Byrd found himself in that day as the riotous mob was attempting to gain access to the House Chamber.

You still insist on looking at Babbitt as if she was strolling through a park which is the wrong standard. His actions have to be evaluated in the context of the day. Not only was he hearing about the violence and other officers being injured over the radio, he witnessed the mob break through the barrier.

WW

1-16.000 - Department of Justice Policy On Use Of Force

www.justice.gov

Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.

ready to take place : happening soon

1. Officers will be trained in alternative methods and tactics for handling resisting subjects, which must be used when the use of deadly force is not authorized by this policy.

There was no imminent danger to the officers as no weapon was ever seen in the hands of Babbitt. Now, if Byrd had seen a weapon, and she tried to get through the window and he shot her, that would be a different story.

You still insist on looking at Babbitt as if she was strolling through a park which is the wrong standard.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. There is a time and a place for deadly force, that time is when there is an imminent danger of death or serious injury. At the time, babbit didn’t represent an imminent danger, as she wasn’t holding a weapon.

Other measures should have been employed long before it got to the point of needing to discharge a firearm.

Nobody else was shot that day, despite violence breaking out at multiple places and officers even skirmishing with protesters. They all used other measures to fight the riot.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, that’s not what I’m saying. There is a time and a place for deadly force, that time is when there is an imminent danger of death or serious injury. At the time, babbit didn’t represent an imminent danger, as she wasn’t holding a weapon.

This is where you are ignoring context.

Yes Babbitt as the lead actor broaching the last law enforcement barricade prior to a violent mob having access to the House Chamber, in the context of being at the lead of a riotous mob - * * DID * * represent a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to the law enforcement officer * * OR * * others.

That standard is * * NOT * * "holding a weapon" the standard is death or serious bodily injury which as the lead attacker of the mob, the mob did have such violent potential and the mob * * DID * * have weapons including improvised melee weapons (poles, helmets and shields they ripped from police, etc.).

You are just flat out incorrect, Babbitt could and did represent an imminent danger in the context of the day, i.e. leading a violent mob into the House Chamber.

WW

 

[LeftofLeft]

Here is a thought, how about she not try to break in.

She didn’t listen to police officer’s commands and threatened the police despite being unarmed. She got shot.

Here’s a thought: when people burn, loot, riot cities and beat up innocents because an unarmed suspect who happens to be Black did the same thing Ashley Babbit did, maybe the protesters ought to stop and think and not burn down the city.

 

[JoeB131]

The case is quite plausible. There is no law enforcement principle that would justify KILLING an unarmed woman for wrongful entry. Nobody was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm, which is the standard.

Anyone saying, "this case is going nowhere," is undoubtedly someone who believes Trump will go to jail for whatever-the-fuck he was convicted of in Manhattan...that is to say s/he is an idiot.

She was part of an angry mob threatening to murder congress. Shooting her was perfectly justified under the circumstances.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

She didn’t listen to police officer’s commands and threatened the police despite being unarmed. She got shot.

Here’s a thought: when people burn, loot, riot cities and beat up innocents because an unarmed suspect who happens to be Black did the same thing Ashley Babbit did, maybe the protesters ought to stop and think and not burn down the city.

I agree and maybe that is what Ashlii Babbit and the other J6 defendants should have thought about before they stormed the Capitol. You clowns love to say, "play stupid games, get stupid prizes". Well her prize was a 9mm bullet.