Naming the Capitol Cop Who Killed Unarmed Jan. 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt

[pknopp]

I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.

They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?

she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.

All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.

they were busting thru the door.

True, but did you hear that cop yell out "First person through gets shot!" No. He said nothing before firing. The filmer was standing close to where he was standing and had the audio on the whole time. I heard nothing from that cop...nada....what I did hear was another person from behind the doors say, "I see a gun!". That would have been enough for me to not attempt to continue to get through the doors. She chose to continue but I have no proof she heard what was audible on tape when the person (sounded like another in her group) saying I see a gun. My point? Even in the heat of the moment, hearts racing, adrenaline pumping, focusing on protecting the sealed area, that cop should have at least shouted out "I plan to shoot!" or similar heads up but he chose to stay mute. Maybe if this does go to court, as it sounds, he'll provide testimony about why he just chose to shoot without verbal warning when he had the time to do so.

We have no idea what kind of warning he gave. He was out of sight of the camera at first.

I watched it over and over at that part. As you've said, he's out of sight at first but then his right hand holding a gun can be seen at the bottom left of the screen for, what appeared to be, at least 30 seconds before shooting. Thirty seconds would have been more than enough time to give a verbal warning. Fifteen seconds would have been enough time to include a verbal warning. In fact, he could have been holding it in place a lot longer than the tape revealed, but as you said I can only attest to what the tape contained.

So, am I claiming to have all of the details that went on with that cop and the victim? No. I will be interested in finding out what the court testimony contains and concludes. Maybe the cop did give a warning, but I don't think so since everything was pretty clear on that tape and his nearby voice would have most likely registered.

I absolutely believe the family deserves answers and I hate the excuse "we can't release the info until after the investigation because we have seen it can be released and the investigation can still continue but.........

If this had been a black man in Chicago, many complaining would not be.

Not releasing information while there is an open investigation is pretty much standard throughout the country, whether it's in response to a Public Record request, FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act which is federal) or a subpoena duces tecum.

Not anymore it isn't.

What do you mean, not anymore, nothing has changed in that regard.

It absolutely is. The police are releasing video quickly now. Its that or have the place burn.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.

They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?

she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.

All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.

they were busting thru the door.

True, but did you hear that cop yell out "First person through gets shot!" No. He said nothing before firing. The filmer was standing close to where he was standing and had the audio on the whole time. I heard nothing from that cop...nada....what I did hear was another person from behind the doors say, "I see a gun!". That would have been enough for me to not attempt to continue to get through the doors. She chose to continue but I have no proof she heard what was audible on tape when the person (sounded like another in her group) saying I see a gun. My point? Even in the heat of the moment, hearts racing, adrenaline pumping, focusing on protecting the sealed area, that cop should have at least shouted out "I plan to shoot!" or similar heads up but he chose to stay mute. Maybe if this does go to court, as it sounds, he'll provide testimony about why he just chose to shoot without verbal warning when he had the time to do so.

We have no idea what kind of warning he gave. He was out of sight of the camera at first.

I watched it over and over at that part. As you've said, he's out of sight at first but then his right hand holding a gun can be seen at the bottom left of the screen for, what appeared to be, at least 30 seconds before shooting. Thirty seconds would have been more than enough time to give a verbal warning. Fifteen seconds would have been enough time to include a verbal warning. In fact, he could have been holding it in place a lot longer than the tape revealed, but as you said I can only attest to what the tape contained.

So, am I claiming to have all of the details that went on with that cop and the victim? No. I will be interested in finding out what the court testimony contains and concludes. Maybe the cop did give a warning, but I don't think so since everything was pretty clear on that tape and his nearby voice would have most likely registered.

I absolutely believe the family deserves answers and I hate the excuse "we can't release the info until after the investigation because we have seen it can be released and the investigation can still continue but.........

If this had been a black man in Chicago, many complaining would not be.

Not releasing information while there is an open investigation is pretty much standard throughout the country, whether it's in response to a Public Record request, FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act which is federal) or a subpoena duces tecum.

Not anymore it isn't.

What do you mean, not anymore, nothing has changed in that regard.

It absolutely is. The police are releasing video quickly now. Its that or have the place burn.

Oh, I thought you meant this case specifically.

It could be that they conduct an initial investigation which allows them to release the video, however as I understand it the Capitol police operate under a different set of laws than most other jurisdictions. I didn't know that previously and can only surmise it's because they protect our congressional leaders and administration. There have always been additional laws pertaining to our federal government officials, just like there are pertaining to the president, vice president, etc.

I'm guessing they are sort of in between regular law enforcement and the secret service.

 

[pknopp]

I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.

They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?

she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.

All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.

they were busting thru the door.

True, but did you hear that cop yell out "First person through gets shot!" No. He said nothing before firing. The filmer was standing close to where he was standing and had the audio on the whole time. I heard nothing from that cop...nada....what I did hear was another person from behind the doors say, "I see a gun!". That would have been enough for me to not attempt to continue to get through the doors. She chose to continue but I have no proof she heard what was audible on tape when the person (sounded like another in her group) saying I see a gun. My point? Even in the heat of the moment, hearts racing, adrenaline pumping, focusing on protecting the sealed area, that cop should have at least shouted out "I plan to shoot!" or similar heads up but he chose to stay mute. Maybe if this does go to court, as it sounds, he'll provide testimony about why he just chose to shoot without verbal warning when he had the time to do so.

We have no idea what kind of warning he gave. He was out of sight of the camera at first.

I watched it over and over at that part. As you've said, he's out of sight at first but then his right hand holding a gun can be seen at the bottom left of the screen for, what appeared to be, at least 30 seconds before shooting. Thirty seconds would have been more than enough time to give a verbal warning. Fifteen seconds would have been enough time to include a verbal warning. In fact, he could have been holding it in place a lot longer than the tape revealed, but as you said I can only attest to what the tape contained.

So, am I claiming to have all of the details that went on with that cop and the victim? No. I will be interested in finding out what the court testimony contains and concludes. Maybe the cop did give a warning, but I don't think so since everything was pretty clear on that tape and his nearby voice would have most likely registered.

I absolutely believe the family deserves answers and I hate the excuse "we can't release the info until after the investigation because we have seen it can be released and the investigation can still continue but.........

If this had been a black man in Chicago, many complaining would not be.

Not releasing information while there is an open investigation is pretty much standard throughout the country, whether it's in response to a Public Record request, FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act which is federal) or a subpoena duces tecum.

Not anymore it isn't.

What do you mean, not anymore, nothing has changed in that regard.

It absolutely is. The police are releasing video quickly now. Its that or have the place burn.

Oh, I thought you meant this case specifically.

It could be that they conduct an initial investigation which allows them to release the video, however as I understand it the Capitol police operate under a different set of laws than most other jurisdictions. I didn't know that previously and can only surmise it's because they protect our congressional leaders and administration. There have always been additional laws pertaining to our federal government officials, just like there are pertaining to the president, vice president, etc.

I'm guessing they are sort of in between regular law enforcement and the secret service.

I do not support a "different set of laws", ever.

 

[XponentialChaos]

She fucked around and she found out.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The death of this woman must not be forgotten......justice for her killer must be demanded.

Naming the Capitol Cop Who Killed Unarmed Jan. 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt

At top, pistol drawn in the House chamber, a plainclothes black officer who fits the description of Michael L. Byrd. His name was apparently divulged at a hearing as the cop who shot Ashli Babbi

www.realclearinvestigations.com

Pelosi investigated the shooting of Ashli Babbitt and found that her Capital Police did nothing wrong....
The Dirty Democrats can literally get away with murder and the Press doesn't care.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I agree 100% NVM about thinking a cop might think that "if a person can see me addressing them and telling them to cease whatever behavior they're engaged in with my firearm in my hand, and for whatever reason they think they don't have to pay attention to what I'm saying to them, that behavior in and of itself is worrisome MINUS THIs NEXT PART: and can cause them to get shot". That last part seems subjective not absolute.

The last part is subjective and not absolute because no situation is identical, including the protection officer's training, prior experience, knowledge, etc. and what else is going on around him.

But what is absolute is that a person is ONLY supposed to use lethal force to counter a threat and the amount of force has to be commensurate with the threat and this applies to civilians as well as law enforcement officers.

Many individuals have been complaining that Ashli herself was not a threat and that she was unarmed. She was the head of a mob attempting to breach the last barrier between the mob and our representatives. Had they breached that last barrier then the only thing between the mob and our representatives would have been the armed protections officers (I don't know if they were LEOS, secret service, etc.) who were vastly outnumbered. Therefore the best strategy was to prevent/discourage them from coming through that window where they had just broken out the glass which demonstrated their intentions to use it to gain entry to the chambers by climbing through it). They this to be their plan when they hoisted Ashli up so that she could climb through.

There was more than one officer on the other side of that window and in that area with their weapons all trained on that window, all presumably prepared to shoot if the mob began coming through. And I'm saying all of this to simply make the point that I don't know anyone who would ignore law enforcement officers, with guns, pointing specifically at them and then expect not to be shot if they ignored their commands.

The mob was the threat primarily because they would have quickly overcome the officers and the best chance that they had to prevent that scenario from playing out was preventing anyone from making it through the window. That's what happened, Ashli tried and was shot and after that no one else tried, so they effectively neutralized the threat.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.

They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?

she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.

All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.

they were busting thru the door.

True, but did you hear that cop yell out "First person through gets shot!" No. He said nothing before firing. The filmer was standing close to where he was standing and had the audio on the whole time. I heard nothing from that cop...nada....what I did hear was another person from behind the doors say, "I see a gun!". That would have been enough for me to not attempt to continue to get through the doors. She chose to continue but I have no proof she heard what was audible on tape when the person (sounded like another in her group) saying I see a gun. My point? Even in the heat of the moment, hearts racing, adrenaline pumping, focusing on protecting the sealed area, that cop should have at least shouted out "I plan to shoot!" or similar heads up but he chose to stay mute. Maybe if this does go to court, as it sounds, he'll provide testimony about why he just chose to shoot without verbal warning when he had the time to do so.

We have no idea what kind of warning he gave. He was out of sight of the camera at first.

I watched it over and over at that part. As you've said, he's out of sight at first but then his right hand holding a gun can be seen at the bottom left of the screen for, what appeared to be, at least 30 seconds before shooting. Thirty seconds would have been more than enough time to give a verbal warning. Fifteen seconds would have been enough time to include a verbal warning. In fact, he could have been holding it in place a lot longer than the tape revealed, but as you said I can only attest to what the tape contained.

So, am I claiming to have all of the details that went on with that cop and the victim? No. I will be interested in finding out what the court testimony contains and concludes. Maybe the cop did give a warning, but I don't think so since everything was pretty clear on that tape and his nearby voice would have most likely registered.

I absolutely believe the family deserves answers and I hate the excuse "we can't release the info until after the investigation because we have seen it can be released and the investigation can still continue but.........

If this had been a black man in Chicago, many complaining would not be.

Not releasing information while there is an open investigation is pretty much standard throughout the country, whether it's in response to a Public Record request, FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act which is federal) or a subpoena duces tecum.

Not anymore it isn't.

What do you mean, not anymore, nothing has changed in that regard.

It absolutely is. The police are releasing video quickly now. Its that or have the place burn.

Oh, I thought you meant this case specifically.

It could be that they conduct an initial investigation which allows them to release the video, however as I understand it the Capitol police operate under a different set of laws than most other jurisdictions. I didn't know that previously and can only surmise it's because they protect our congressional leaders and administration. There have always been additional laws pertaining to our federal government officials, just like there are pertaining to the president, vice president, etc.

I'm guessing they are sort of in between regular law enforcement and the secret service.

I do not support a "different set of laws", ever.

We've always had different sets of laws. You don't think it should be more of a crime to assassinate the president of the United States than to murder the clerk of a 7-11 cause someone needs a fix?

 

[San Souci]

The death of this woman must not be forgotten......justice for her killer must be demanded.

Naming the Capitol Cop Who Killed Unarmed Jan. 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt

At top, pistol drawn in the House chamber, a plainclothes black officer who fits the description of Michael L. Byrd. His name was apparently divulged at a hearing as the cop who shot Ashli Babbi

www.realclearinvestigations.com

Pelosi investigated the shooting of Ashli Babbitt and found that her Capital Police did nothing wrong....
The Dirty Democrats can literally get away with murder and the Press doesn't care.

But they care about a dead junkie who OD'd and croaked. Chauvin should get a medal/

 

[pknopp]

I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.

They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?

she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.

All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.

they were busting thru the door.

True, but did you hear that cop yell out "First person through gets shot!" No. He said nothing before firing. The filmer was standing close to where he was standing and had the audio on the whole time. I heard nothing from that cop...nada....what I did hear was another person from behind the doors say, "I see a gun!". That would have been enough for me to not attempt to continue to get through the doors. She chose to continue but I have no proof she heard what was audible on tape when the person (sounded like another in her group) saying I see a gun. My point? Even in the heat of the moment, hearts racing, adrenaline pumping, focusing on protecting the sealed area, that cop should have at least shouted out "I plan to shoot!" or similar heads up but he chose to stay mute. Maybe if this does go to court, as it sounds, he'll provide testimony about why he just chose to shoot without verbal warning when he had the time to do so.

We have no idea what kind of warning he gave. He was out of sight of the camera at first.

I watched it over and over at that part. As you've said, he's out of sight at first but then his right hand holding a gun can be seen at the bottom left of the screen for, what appeared to be, at least 30 seconds before shooting. Thirty seconds would have been more than enough time to give a verbal warning. Fifteen seconds would have been enough time to include a verbal warning. In fact, he could have been holding it in place a lot longer than the tape revealed, but as you said I can only attest to what the tape contained.

So, am I claiming to have all of the details that went on with that cop and the victim? No. I will be interested in finding out what the court testimony contains and concludes. Maybe the cop did give a warning, but I don't think so since everything was pretty clear on that tape and his nearby voice would have most likely registered.

I absolutely believe the family deserves answers and I hate the excuse "we can't release the info until after the investigation because we have seen it can be released and the investigation can still continue but.........

If this had been a black man in Chicago, many complaining would not be.

Not releasing information while there is an open investigation is pretty much standard throughout the country, whether it's in response to a Public Record request, FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act which is federal) or a subpoena duces tecum.

Not anymore it isn't.

What do you mean, not anymore, nothing has changed in that regard.

It absolutely is. The police are releasing video quickly now. Its that or have the place burn.

Oh, I thought you meant this case specifically.

It could be that they conduct an initial investigation which allows them to release the video, however as I understand it the Capitol police operate under a different set of laws than most other jurisdictions. I didn't know that previously and can only surmise it's because they protect our congressional leaders and administration. There have always been additional laws pertaining to our federal government officials, just like there are pertaining to the president, vice president, etc.

I'm guessing they are sort of in between regular law enforcement and the secret service.

I do not support a "different set of laws", ever.

We've always had different sets of laws. You don't think it should be more of a crime to assassinate the president of the United States than to murder the clerk of a 7-11 cause someone needs a fix?

Nope.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The death of this woman must not be forgotten......justice for her killer must be demanded.

Naming the Capitol Cop Who Killed Unarmed Jan. 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt

At top, pistol drawn in the House chamber, a plainclothes black officer who fits the description of Michael L. Byrd. His name was apparently divulged at a hearing as the cop who shot Ashli Babbi

www.realclearinvestigations.com

Babbitt was lawfully killed while committing an act of terrorism against America’s democracy.

The officer who lawfully killed Babbitt is a hero defending America from Babbitt’s treason.

However tragic, her death was nonetheless warranted in defending America from a terrorist attack.

Babbitt has only herself to blame.

 

[NoNukes]

I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.

They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?

She did the opposite of what the police told her to do and got shot. Period.

 

[alang1216]

The death of this woman must not be forgotten......justice for her killer must be demanded.

She got justice, she put herself where she knew she didn't belong as was killed trying to break down a door with a cop on the other side. Did that cop know she was unarmed or what her intentions were? Tragic but just.

She wasn't breaking down anything fool. FBI/antifa/blm had already broken the window out. She didn't know the Racist Killer Kapital Kop was there. He hid to shoot her, and didn't issue any warnings before doing so.

According to your logic, I should get a machine gun and mow down every f'ing BLM and anti fa that see out "protesting" which actually rioting and looting...no exceptions because I wouldn't know which ones were armed.

The video I saw showed her attempting to break through an interior corridor door. The cop was easy to see through the door glass other rioters had already yelled he was there. She was leading a mob, If I was that cop I'd have been terrified.

If you really believe the FBI/antifa/blm had any part that day, you are way off the deep end.

 

[ClaireH]

I agree 100% NVM about thinking a cop might think that "if a person can see me addressing them and telling them to cease whatever behavior they're engaged in with my firearm in my hand, and for whatever reason they think they don't have to pay attention to what I'm saying to them, that behavior in and of itself is worrisome MINUS THIs NEXT PART: and can cause them to get shot". That last part seems subjective not absolute.

The last part is subjective and not absolute because no situation is identical, including the protection officer's training, prior experience, knowledge, etc. and what else is going on around him.

But what is absolute is that a person is ONLY supposed to use lethal force to counter a threat and the amount of force has to be commensurate with the threat and this applies to civilians as well as law enforcement officers.

Many individuals have been complaining that Ashli herself was not a threat and that she was unarmed. She was the head of a mob attempting to breach the last barrier between the mob and our representatives. Had they breached that last barrier then the only thing between the mob and our representatives would have been the armed protections officers (I don't know if they were LEOS, secret service, etc.) who were vastly outnumbered. Therefore the best strategy was to prevent/discourage them from coming through that window where they had just broken out the glass which demonstrated their intentions to use it to gain entry to the chambers by climbing through it). They this to be their plan when they hoisted Ashli up so that she could climb through.

There was more than one officer on the other side of that window and in that area with their weapons all trained on that window, all presumably prepared to shoot if the mob began coming through. And I'm saying all of this to simply make the point that I don't know anyone who would ignore law enforcement officers, with guns, pointing specifically at them and then expect not to be shot if they ignored their commands.

The mob was the threat primarily because they would have quickly overcome the officers and the best chance that they had to prevent that scenario from playing out was preventing anyone from making it through the window. That's what happened, Ashli tried and was shot and after that no one else tried, so they effectively neutralized the threat.

Questions that would come to the mind of a juror and relevant to your remarks:
1. Was there evidence that Ashli Babbitt was considered to be the “leader “ of this particular group of protesters? I haven’t read up enough to know if there is evidence or otherwise.

2. Did the amount of force used commensurate with Babbitt’s attempt to climb through the broken glass on one of the doors?

3. Why did the other capitol police decide to not shoot when they saw Babbitt attempting to climb through the window?

4. Did A. Babbitt hear any officer, particularly of importance would have been the officer who pulled the trigger, give a verbal warning? As I stated earlier, this should weigh in heavily about the legal outcome particularly if none was given.
I agree with your opinion about the cop who shot Ashley likely figured that if he took one out (perhaps he planned to only injure her, but that would be evidence he was a very poor shot and had no business firing in the first place as well as being the first to do so) would send a message to all others and stop their attempts from breaking through the doors.

Had Babbitt not died but only grazed, the USCP wouldn’t have to carry on its traditional role of being separate and secretive and come out publicly with its AG report about January 6th. (I had no clue USCP played by a different set of rules- no reports required about personnels’ public complaints kept secret, and no reports by USCP’s AG required for public disclosure…. ever!? If the reason for their nondisclosure of incidents is the officers’ safety, I’m not buying it. If the reason for their non-disclosure is that it would somehow reveal the US Capitol’s layout better for potential infiltration there are maps available online to view the whole layout -tunnels and all.

So my area of a focus boils down to two things: first, did this cop give a verbal warning-at this point I don’t think he did nor did any of the other cops near him yell out, “First one through the door gets shot!!” That matters greatly. Second, why are capital police allowed to be above the law and have their own separate laws without any legal requirement for disclosure, partial disclosure, or even a glossed-over public version? I can only imagine there must’ve been various coverups to save face in CP’s history…. sorry, I’m just a normal human who suspects when things are intentionally kept below the surface, there’s usually a purpose for it and I’d like to know the purpose.

 

[pknopp]

I agree 100% NVM about thinking a cop might think that "if a person can see me addressing them and telling them to cease whatever behavior they're engaged in with my firearm in my hand, and for whatever reason they think they don't have to pay attention to what I'm saying to them, that behavior in and of itself is worrisome MINUS THIs NEXT PART: and can cause them to get shot". That last part seems subjective not absolute.

The last part is subjective and not absolute because no situation is identical, including the protection officer's training, prior experience, knowledge, etc. and what else is going on around him.

But what is absolute is that a person is ONLY supposed to use lethal force to counter a threat and the amount of force has to be commensurate with the threat and this applies to civilians as well as law enforcement officers.

Many individuals have been complaining that Ashli herself was not a threat and that she was unarmed. She was the head of a mob attempting to breach the last barrier between the mob and our representatives. Had they breached that last barrier then the only thing between the mob and our representatives would have been the armed protections officers (I don't know if they were LEOS, secret service, etc.) who were vastly outnumbered. Therefore the best strategy was to prevent/discourage them from coming through that window where they had just broken out the glass which demonstrated their intentions to use it to gain entry to the chambers by climbing through it). They this to be their plan when they hoisted Ashli up so that she could climb through.

There was more than one officer on the other side of that window and in that area with their weapons all trained on that window, all presumably prepared to shoot if the mob began coming through. And I'm saying all of this to simply make the point that I don't know anyone who would ignore law enforcement officers, with guns, pointing specifically at them and then expect not to be shot if they ignored their commands.

The mob was the threat primarily because they would have quickly overcome the officers and the best chance that they had to prevent that scenario from playing out was preventing anyone from making it through the window. That's what happened, Ashli tried and was shot and after that no one else tried, so they effectively neutralized the threat.

Questions that would come to the mind of a juror and relevant to your remarks:
1. Was there evidence that Ashli Babbitt was considered to be the “leader “ of this particular group of protesters? I haven’t read up enough to know if there is evidence or otherwise.

2. Did the amount of force used commensurate with Babbitt’s attempt to climb through the broken glass on one of the doors?

3. Why did the other capitol police decide to not shoot when they saw Babbitt attempting to climb through the window?

4. Did A. Babbitt hear any officer, particularly of importance would have been the officer who pulled the trigger, give a verbal warning? As I stated earlier, this should weigh in heavily about the legal outcome particularly if none was given.
I agree with your opinion about the cop who shot Ashley likely figured that if he took one out (perhaps he planned to only injure her, but that would be evidence he was a very poor shot and had no business firing in the first place as well as being the first to do so) would send a message to all others and stop their attempts from breaking through the doors.

Had Babbitt not died but only grazed, the USCP wouldn’t have to carry on its traditional role of being separate and secretive and come out publicly with its AG report about January 6th. (I had no clue USCP played by a different set of rules- no reports required about personnels’ public complaints kept secret, and no reports by USCP’s AG required for public disclosure…. ever!? If the reason for their nondisclosure of incidents is the officers’ safety, I’m not buying it. If the reason for their non-disclosure is that it would somehow reveal the US Capitol’s layout better for potential infiltration there are maps available online to view the whole layout -tunnels and all.

So my area of a focus boils down to two things: first, did this cop give a verbal warning-at this point I don’t think he did nor did any of the other cops near him yell out, “First one through the door gets shot!!” That matters greatly. Second, why are capital police allowed to be above the law and have their own separate laws without any legal requirement for disclosure, partial disclosure, or even a glossed-over public version? I can only imagine there must’ve been various coverups to save face in CP’s history…. sorry, I’m just a normal human who suspects when things are intentionally kept below the surface, there’s usually a purpose for it and I’d like to know the purpose.

Philandro Castile gets blown away for trying to do what he was being told. Not a peep.

Here we have someone that was shot breaking into the Capital and there seems to be a lot of questions.

 

[ClaireH]

I agree 100% NVM about thinking a cop might think that "if a person can see me addressing them and telling them to cease whatever behavior they're engaged in with my firearm in my hand, and for whatever reason they think they don't have to pay attention to what I'm saying to them, that behavior in and of itself is worrisome MINUS THIs NEXT PART: and can cause them to get shot". That last part seems subjective not absolute.

The last part is subjective and not absolute because no situation is identical, including the protection officer's training, prior experience, knowledge, etc. and what else is going on around him.

But what is absolute is that a person is ONLY supposed to use lethal force to counter a threat and the amount of force has to be commensurate with the threat and this applies to civilians as well as law enforcement officers.

Many individuals have been complaining that Ashli herself was not a threat and that she was unarmed. She was the head of a mob attempting to breach the last barrier between the mob and our representatives. Had they breached that last barrier then the only thing between the mob and our representatives would have been the armed protections officers (I don't know if they were LEOS, secret service, etc.) who were vastly outnumbered. Therefore the best strategy was to prevent/discourage them from coming through that window where they had just broken out the glass which demonstrated their intentions to use it to gain entry to the chambers by climbing through it). They this to be their plan when they hoisted Ashli up so that she could climb through.

There was more than one officer on the other side of that window and in that area with their weapons all trained on that window, all presumably prepared to shoot if the mob began coming through. And I'm saying all of this to simply make the point that I don't know anyone who would ignore law enforcement officers, with guns, pointing specifically at them and then expect not to be shot if they ignored their commands.

The mob was the threat primarily because they would have quickly overcome the officers and the best chance that they had to prevent that scenario from playing out was preventing anyone from making it through the window. That's what happened, Ashli tried and was shot and after that no one else tried, so they effectively neutralized the threat.

Questions that would come to the mind of a juror and relevant to your remarks:
1. Was there evidence that Ashli Babbitt was considered to be the “leader “ of this particular group of protesters? I haven’t read up enough to know if there is evidence or otherwise.

2. Did the amount of force used commensurate with Babbitt’s attempt to climb through the broken glass on one of the doors?

3. Why did the other capitol police decide to not shoot when they saw Babbitt attempting to climb through the window?

4. Did A. Babbitt hear any officer, particularly of importance would have been the officer who pulled the trigger, give a verbal warning? As I stated earlier, this should weigh in heavily about the legal outcome particularly if none was given.
I agree with your opinion about the cop who shot Ashley likely figured that if he took one out (perhaps he planned to only injure her, but that would be evidence he was a very poor shot and had no business firing in the first place as well as being the first to do so) would send a message to all others and stop their attempts from breaking through the doors.

Had Babbitt not died but only grazed, the USCP wouldn’t have to carry on its traditional role of being separate and secretive and come out publicly with its AG report about January 6th. (I had no clue USCP played by a different set of rules- no reports required about personnels’ public complaints kept secret, and no reports by USCP’s AG required for public disclosure…. ever!? If the reason for their nondisclosure of incidents is the officers’ safety, I’m not buying it. If the reason for their non-disclosure is that it would somehow reveal the US Capitol’s layout better for potential infiltration there are maps available online to view the whole layout -tunnels and all.

So my area of a focus boils down to two things: first, did this cop give a verbal warning-at this point I don’t think he did nor did any of the other cops near him yell out, “First one through the door gets shot!!” That matters greatly. Second, why are capital police allowed to be above the law and have their own separate laws without any legal requirement for disclosure, partial disclosure, or even a glossed-over public version? I can only imagine there must’ve been various coverups to save face in CP’s history…. sorry, I’m just a normal human who suspects when things are intentionally kept below the surface, there’s usually a purpose for it and I’d like to know the purpose.

Philandro Castile gets blown away for trying to do what he was being told. Not a peep.

Here we have someone that was shot breaking into the Capital and there seems to be a lot of questions.

There will continue to be more questions from all groups giving our collective culture a chance to actively promote (in my mind that does not include screaming angrily at unaffiliated, pedestrians) a better society. You make a valid point though that some of these horrible and absolutely unnecessary events take place without much public notice. I was not familiar with the Philandro Castille case until I just searched for the name. Maybe it’s because I don’t listen or watch any US main stream media, and in that respect they do provide a good service about relaying tragic, current events by providing a name to search and do your own research never blindly accepting their interpretations - they need an immediate gag order ha-but that’s all I’ll give them - that they are good tools to use on occasion.

 

[playtime]

I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.

They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?

she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.

All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.

they were busting thru the door.

True, but did you hear that cop yell out "First person through gets shot!" No. He said nothing before firing. The filmer was standing close to where he was standing and had the audio on the whole time. I heard nothing from that cop...nada....what I did hear was another person from behind the doors say, "I see a gun!". That would have been enough for me to not attempt to continue to get through the doors. She chose to continue but I have no proof she heard what was audible on tape when the person (sounded like another in her group) saying I see a gun. My point? Even in the heat of the moment, hearts racing, adrenaline pumping, focusing on protecting the sealed area, that cop should have at least shouted out "I plan to shoot!" or similar heads up but he chose to stay mute. Maybe if this does go to court, as it sounds, he'll provide testimony about why he just chose to shoot without verbal warning when he had the time to do so.

anybody doing what they were doing knew the chances they were taking. ignorance is not a defense & the threat of IMMINENT danger takes top priority, including deadly force.

Prosecutors: No charges for officer in Capitol riot shooting

By ERIC TUCKER and MICHAEL BALSAMO April 14, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors will not charge a police officer who shot and killed a woman as she climbed through the broken part of a door during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

Authorities had considered for months whether criminal charges were appropriate for the Capitol Police officer who fatally shot Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran from San Diego. The department’s decision, though expected, officially closes out the investigation.

Prosecutors said they had reviewed video of the shooting, along with statements from the officer involved and other officers and witnesses, examined physical evidence from the scene and reviewed the autopsy results.

“Based on that investigation, officials determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution,” the department said in a statement.

Video clips posted online depict Babbitt, wearing a stars and stripes backpack, stepping up and beginning to go through the waist-high opening of an area of the Capitol known as the Speaker’s Lobby when a gunshot is heard. She falls backward. Another video shows other unidentified people attempting to lift Babbitt up. She can be seen slumping back to the ground.

Mark Schamel, a lawyer for the officer, a lieutenant whose name was not released by the Justice Department, said that the decision to not bring charges was “the only correct conclusion” and that his client had “saved the lives of countless members of Congress and the rioters.”

Prosecutors said Babbitt was part of the mob that was trying to get into the House as Capitol Police officers were evacuating members of Congress from the chamber. The officers used furniture to try to barricade the glass doors separating the hallway from the Speaker’s Lobby to try to stave off the rioters, who kept trying to break through those doors, smashing the glass with flagpoles, helmets and other objects.

At the same time, Babbitt tried climbing through one of the doors where the glass was broken out. A Capitol Police officer inside the Speaker’s Lobby then fired a single round from his service weapon, striking Babbitt in the shoulder, prosecutors said.

Schamel pointed out that the officer fired only one shot and did so only after “clearly identifying himself and ordering the mob not to come through the barricade.”

“He used tremendous restraint in only firing one shot, and his actions stopped the mob from breaking through and turning a horrific day in American history into something so much worse,” Schamel said.
Prosecutors: No charges for officer in Capitol riot shooting

 

[playtime]

she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers

She didn't even enter the rotunda before she was murdered, hypocritical ass.

that's a lie. she was entering an already busted door to the SPEAKER'S LOBBY.

 

[playtime]

I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.

They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?

she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.

All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.

they were busting thru the door.

True, but did you hear that cop yell out "First person through gets shot!" No. He said nothing before firing. The filmer was standing close to where he was standing and had the audio on the whole time. I heard nothing from that cop...nada....what I did hear was another person from behind the doors say, "I see a gun!". That would have been enough for me to not attempt to continue to get through the doors. She chose to continue but I have no proof she heard what was audible on tape when the person (sounded like another in her group) saying I see a gun. My point? Even in the heat of the moment, hearts racing, adrenaline pumping, focusing on protecting the sealed area, that cop should have at least shouted out "I plan to shoot!" or similar heads up but he chose to stay mute. Maybe if this does go to court, as it sounds, he'll provide testimony about why he just chose to shoot without verbal warning when he had the time to do so.

We have no idea what kind of warning he gave. He was out of sight of the camera at first.

he warned them not to enter. who do the insurrectionists think were on the other side of that busted door?

ignorance is not a defense.

 

[playtime]

playtime No she wasn't..she was no threat...hell she wasn't even issued a warning or shown a badge...

she knew she was a threat the second she entered the capital unauthorised.

she knew she was a threat the second she joined a VIOLENT mob trying to get thru a busted door into the speaker's lobby.

she was in the AF & was security for AF bases.

you don't know wtf you're talking about Qanon girl.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I saw no justification for her being shot and it makes no sense. This one woman was the lone threat? That said most complaining have argued for years to just do what law enforcement tells you to do and no one gets hurt.

They still do but all the same, why does it not apply here?

she was security detail while she was in the AF & knew the 2nd she trespassed she was committing a crime. she also knew that when she was front & center of a mob trying to force their way into the house chambers where the inside security were the only barrier between a bloodthirsty crowd & the members of congress they were defending & protecting. she rolled the dice & lost. it was her own fault.

All the same the officer that shot was not at risk. I do not support killing someone in that scenario.

I don't rejoice in her being shot either -- but I am consistent in that regard......

But I am also not stupid enough to fake shock and disgust about her being shot...

I just do a simple little thought exercise.....if a bunch of muslims stormed the DC capitol to delay or stop a government action they were against -- the only shock would be that just one woman was killed instead of hundreds...