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

[playtime]

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

I'm shocked only one insurrectionist was shot. The rest got off easy.

He only had to shoot one person, after Ashley no one else wanted or tried to go through that window.

They all still came in.

& he used the last defense they had. per his job.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Castille---high on drugs with kids in the car driving around reaching for a gun? That castille?

 

[playtime]

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.

^^^

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

She was a threat to no one....yeah she was security for the AF and knew that being shot unarmed would be against the law hence why the other what 7 cops in the area didn't fire on her---just the racist one who said that he wanted to kill Trump supporters and wasn't even supposed to be at the door.

Qanon girl? I am not even sure what Qanon is.. I don't think Qanon knows what Qanon is and i know that you don't know that you have no clue either.

 

[playtime]

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.

Castille---high on drugs with kids in the car driving around reaching for a gun? That castille?

seems you got a problem with pathological lying. cough up an unbiased credible link proving that or just stfu.

 

[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.

She was a threat to no one....yeah she was security for the AF and knew that being shot unarmed would be against the law hence why the other what 7 cops in the area didn't fire on her---just the racist one who said that he wanted to kill Trump supporters and wasn't even supposed to be at the door.

Qanon girl? I am not even sure what Qanon is.. I don't think Qanon knows what Qanon is and i know that you don't know that you have no clue either.

the hero who shot her had no idea whether she was armed or had a bomb strapped to her. oh yaaaaaaaaa..... qanon girl - you are waist deep in that world. you prove it with every looney post you write.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

He did not warn them........He snuck up behind the other cops because he wasn't supposed to be there...and said nothing because again he was hiding from the other cops there. And yes pumpkin, there was reporter for some odd site that took a continous clear video stream from the moment they entered the building till after Ashli was shot. He was but a few people behind her.....When she was shot from the racist hiding in the corner---no one even knew where the shot had come from.

 

[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.

He did not warn them........He snuck up behind the other cops because he wasn't supposed to be there...and said nothing because again he was hiding from the other cops there. And yes pumpkin, there was reporter for some odd site that took a continous clear video stream from the moment they entered the building till after Ashli was shot. He was but a few people behind her.....When she was shot from the racist hiding in the corner---no one even knew where the shot had come from.

where's the credible link Qanon girl?

 

[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.

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.

Nobody else was a risk?

 

[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.

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...

The thing I do not understand is why just this one woman? I think that's a question the family needs to hear.

 

[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.

Nobody else was a risk?

he, along with every other security detail were at risk & the congress critters they were protecting - including the 3rd person in line for the presidency.

 

[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...

The thing I do not understand is why just this one woman? I think that's a question the family needs to hear.

I am all for the identity of the shooter being publicly known.....

Some can say that this will put his life in danger and that of his family.....but I am sure the Back-The-Blue loving conservatives wouldn't go so far as to harm this man and his family.....

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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.

Castille---high on drugs with kids in the car driving around reaching for a gun? That castille?

I understand that you have to make up shit to justify the murder of a black man.....

But one thing we do know.......if anyone of us who are not deluded by entitlement and privilege decided we could just storm the Capitol and not be shot -- we definitely would have to be on drugs

 

[bodecea]

There's a difference between justice and revenge. You guys really want to kill this mystery hero.

donny is deliberately trying to put a target on his back.

Absolutely. He's going to get so many death threats he will have to go into witness protection.

trump fluffers are thugs.....

 

[ClaireH]

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

First, I have to eliminate your premise that I mentioned, or that my remarks even alluded to the aspect, that ignorance of the law is a good defense. Similar to the OJ case, however, the family still has the right to sue regardless of the federal’s public interpretation on this matter.

Let’s be specific to avoid wasting time: all actions committed by Babbitt are on her while at the same time all actions, and inactions, by the cop who shot her are on him. Period. There is no gray area in this case at this point of disclosure. Both appeared to be in the wrong is my view, and two wrongs don’t make a right.

The validity of that officer’s statement you posted, that “he used tremendous restraint in only firing one shot” is highly questionable. He would’ve had more solid backing if at least one other officer had fired a shot as well, yet …they did not and that also matters in this case. I doubt many are under the impression that it was a prearranged deal put together that this particular CP(I’ll refrain here from using the name of the cop that’s been given in the media until confirmation) would be the one to shoot to kill (maim?) the first person getting through.
Remember, we’re talking about the same CP who left his Glock in the restroom prior to the day he shot Babbitt (same type of weapon he used with Babbitt) which was later found by another capitol police officer during a sweep. I’m surprised how that negative history even made it out in the media since USCP is not required to submit personnel conduct reports to the public, not even the AG’s report about Jan. 6th has been made public. Isn’t the AG report critical in determining this case? If so, why keep it from the public?

 

[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.

Castille---high on drugs with kids in the car driving around reaching for a gun? That castille?

I haven’t been able to find the video to make that determination turtle soup. I’ve only found the video that was made after it happened with the gf or wife (I don’t recall which) and what appeared to be neighbors and supporters.

 

[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.

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.

Nobody else was a risk?

he, along with every other security detail were at risk & the congress critters they were protecting - including the 3rd person in line for the presidency.

And yet despite not shooting hundreds of others no one else was actually hurt inside.

 

[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.

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...

The thing I do not understand is why just this one woman? I think that's a question the family needs to hear.

I am all for the identity of the shooter being publicly known.....

Some can say that this will put his life in danger and that of his family.....but I am sure the Back-The-Blue loving conservatives wouldn't go so far as to harm this man and his family.....

Of course they will because it's not about principle for most of them, it's about politics. It's the only principle far too many have..

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Castille---high on drugs with kids in the car driving around reaching for a gun? That castille?

seems you got a problem with pathological lying. cough up an unbiased credible link proving that or just stfu.

What do you want to argue here playtime--------------I don't lie asshole.. I am brutally honest which is far more fun.

5 years ago: Philando Castile shot 5 times, killed by officer during traffic stop

MINNEAPOLIS (AP/WNCN) — Philando Castile, a 32-year-old school cafeteria worker, was shot five times by a St. Anthony, Minnesota police officer during a July 6, 2016 traffic stop after Castil…

www.cbs17.com

Officer’s defense can bring up Philando Castile’s marijuana use, judge rules

Evidence of marijuana use by Philando Castile on the day he was fatally shot by a St. Anthony police officer can be used at the officer’s manslaughter trial, a Ramsey County judge ruled Tuesday. Di…

www.twincities.com

 

[playtime]

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.

Castille---high on drugs with kids in the car driving around reaching for a gun? That castille?

seems you got a problem with pathological lying. cough up an unbiased credible link proving that or just stfu.

What do you want to argue here playtime--------------I don't lie asshole.. I am brutally honest which far more fun.

5 years ago: Philando Castile shot 5 times, killed by officer during traffic stop

MINNEAPOLIS (AP/WNCN) — Philando Castile, a 32-year-old school cafeteria worker, was shot five times by a St. Anthony, Minnesota police officer during a July 6, 2016 traffic stop after Castil…

www.cbs17.com

nothing in that article states he was on drugs. nor was there ever anything reported that he was. that makes you :

qanon girl.