Video emerged on Twitter of Capitol Police allegedly shooting and killing Ashli Babbitt during the attack on Capitol Hill.
Some people claim cold-blooded murder while others say the officer was justified in the shooting. It definitely raises questions about using deadly force.
Here is the video. Remember, we say allegedly because the officer has not been convicted of a crime. We do not know his name and you do not see his face because of his shoulder going up.
https://twitter.com/thejaydenxander/status/1347056697899163648
This happened well after the mob broke in and swarmed the Capitol. Tensions were high, chaos everywhere.
The hallway had a barricade. The rioters were not allowed in the hallway. I believe some senators were sheltering in the rooms. You can see other officers down the hall with their guns drawn.
The video is loud, but I heard the officers behind the people tell them to stop many times. Other eyewitness accounts said that she was told to stop, but refused.
In videos that appear to capture the shooting, a woman wearing a Make America Great Again flag steps up to a ledge next to a door to the Speaker's Lobby when she is shot.
Chief of Capitol Police indicated that members of Congress were sheltering there.https://t.co/EIq4KEgkNB
— Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs (@NickAtNews) January 7, 2021
Let’s think about it.
Have you heard the phrase fog of war? It is “a phrase now much used to describe the complexity of military conflicts.”
It comes from Prussian military analyst Carl von Clausewitz. He said: “War is the realm of uncertainty; three quarters of the factors on which action in war is based are wrapped in a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty.”
The officer’s heart rate was probably at least 190 beats per minute. Everything is moving too fast. Your job is to protect the Capitol and the elected officials.
Was Babbitt a threat to the man or others? The way she moved I doubt he could tell she did not have weapons. Plus, it was a huge crowd of people. How do you know for sure which one if any has weapons?
Maybe the officer only meant to injure her?
Did he only use a gun because he did not have pepper spray? Did the cops behind the mob have pepper spray or tear gas? Could they have helped out by not using deadly force?
We need all the facts. Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to put feelings and emotions aside and wait for facts.
The policeman is on administrative leave.
Capitol Police say the employee involved in the Ashli Babbitt shooting inside the Capitol yesterday “has been placed on administrative leave and their police powers have been suspended pending” an investigation outcome:https://t.co/MwJRpCt3yK
— Shelby Talcott (@ShelbyTalcott) January 7, 2021
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Attempting to enter a secured area by force in which she had no lawful reason to be there and in which others were isolated to protect themselves with a gun plainly drawn and warnings clearly issued seems like slam dunk lawful use of force to me.
Absolutely NOT! The general standard is that use of deadly force is authorized as a last resort to prevent the imminent infliction of serious bodily harm or death by one person against another. This was clearly not the case.
“Fog of War” does not relieve a law enforcement officer or an individual from their duty to take care in the responsible application of the use of deadly force. Trained law enforcement officers have an even higher bar and standard. You cannot shoot someone just because they fail to follow your commands or disobey warnings if they pose no imminent physical threat to another person.
Should this officer be prosecuted? Likely not. Should he be allowed to carry a gun? Again, likely not. The officer should be permanently assigned to non-weapons carrying duties, or should be removed from service. He has demonstrated he is not reliable in a stressful situation.
There were lots of other law enforcement officers in the immediate vicinity. Some directly behind the victim. The shooting officer is the only person to discharge his weapon. The other law enforcement officers acted responsibly, professionally, and coolly, and with restraint even after a weapons discharge and grievous wounding of a person in their immediate vicinity.
I have no doubt the shooting officer was under stress, but from what I can see from the three videos of the incident I have seen, the officer is not able to reasonably control his stress, this is clearly an unjustified shooting, and if I were on a Board of Review, would make that determination.
If it makes you feel better, I’d have been in favor of a lot of deadly force during many of the summer protests as well.
Sure, you would have.
That does not make me feel better. Wanton death is not my thing. I am not in favor of shooting looters and rioters. I am in favor of arresting, prosecuting, and, if found guilty, incarcerating them. Deadly force should be used as a last resort when necessary to prevent serious bodily harm or death of another person.
And, Antifa and BLM rioters throwing bricks, tossing Molotov cocktails, burning buildings or shooting guns would have been legitimate targets of lethal force, but their Praetorian Guard cops always gave them a pass.
The restraint demonstrated by police and National Guard last summer against rioters throwing bricks and Molotov cocktails, and assaulting them with chains and clubs permanently blinding lasers all the while burning cars, and buildings, demonstrates just how wrong the shooter was in this case.
Forcing your way into highly defensible property is a good way to get shot almost anywhere.
Not lawfully in most cases.
Mostly well-said, Brave Sir Robin. I upvoted the comment. But this officer needs to be charged criminally. An ordinary citizen, untrained as most are, under similar stress and with no backup, would be criminally charged under similar conditions – such as shooting an unarmed person on his porch through a closed front door. The fact that the officer is trained and (as you mentioned) should be held to a higher standard only re-enforces the need to charge him – unlike the civilian armed defender, the officer was trained to know better and to react differently. Just because an administrative disciplinary process is available is not an excuse for allowing him to avoid the consequences of his actions.
Hey F, did you see all the Capital Police immediately behind the young lady when she was executed. Those police were about to arrest her, but didn’t get the chance because one cop, backed up by about a dozen other cops down the hall, decided it was his time to end her life.
To be honest, I’ve very confused by the actions of the police in general yesterday. I’ve heard numerous accounts that rather than protestors storming the capital, they were simply “let in” by the police. And I’ve seen several videos that seem to show the same thing. In this particular case, you have once police officer barricaded in with weapon drawn, while you have other police officers that seem to be moving around with the group.
Yeah it is confusing, the contrast with the blm protests is quite stark.
You’re obviously new here and don’t have the benefit of reading the many thoughtful articles (and comments) on the use of lethal force. So go home and do some research into the subject, and come back when you know that a cop can’t just shoot someone who doesn’t following orders. Ashli Babbitt presented no other “imminent threat” than that of simply approaching a barricaded door more closely.
He murdered an unarmed citizen. No use of deadly force policies that I am aware of justify his action.
And yet we have a plethora of examples of unarmed individuals justifiably being shot by law enforcement. I make no comment on this particular shooting, but whether one is armed or not is just about always a non-starter when it comes to determining justification. The question is whether or not a reasonable person would consider themselves in danger under any given circumstance.
Hmmm. So if one fears another it is permissible to shoot them? Why did not the other police open fire and kill all of them? I hope a million people show up for her funeral, and why don’t we know the cops name. Is it possible that a cop shooting a black drug addicted criminal is named while a cop shooting a white unarmed veteran is not? Yes, it is!
I normally believe police deserve benefit of doubt. In this case I think he deserves to be strung up. There have been quite a few murders of Trump supporters. By and large, I see little being done about this.
Compare this to all the black horse crap, where blacks, usually bald faced criminals, who deserved to be shot are painted as saints, and those who justifiably killed them were crucified.
It is time to pull out all the stops, no more being civilized in the face of all this shit.
If you fear death or serious injury, or being the victim of a serious felony, and that fear is objectively reasonable in the circumstances, and there is no less-deadly means available to you to remove the threat, then yes. That’s what self defense and defense of others means.
The use of force must be appropriate. But..but.. they were protecting the “Temple of Democracy”. Did she have the ability to harm.. not seen. Did she have the opportunity to harm..questionable. Were the cops in jeopardy? As you pointed out.. they were not alone. One must have all three to use such force.
This was a “show of force”. Frankly, the stupid but useable warning shot into the ceiling would be possible. When you tread on “sacred” ground .. you die. When you burn and loot the little guy..so so.
Another thing.. guessing 9mm. Just how many people did they NOT think could be hit by one shot? 9mm can overpenetrate although I would think a hollow point. As serious as this is… the guy needs a desk job forever considering his logic pattern. He will get a medal from Pelosi.
I think that many of the problems we’re having in this country have to do with the fact that our young people are “taught” at an early age to have no respect for rules or laws and that they are also “taught” to play the role of victims. Rather than this kind of “education”, we need to be teaching our young people the difference between right and wrong and what respect really means. Policies that prevent youngsters (particularly teens) from being suspended or placed in alternative programs for violations of school rules has gradually given these kids the idea that they are above the law as they have aged. We need role models for very young kids. I have talked with teachers who have told me that they have been verbally abused (profanity laced tirades) by five year olds in front of the class and that the only consequence was that the parents were notified. The message sent and received is that there are no consequences for those actions. For the past 8 months or so, we have seen the results of the “peaceful protests” in cities like Portland, Seattle, New York, LA, San Francisco, witnessed businesses with windows broken out and most of their merchandise being stolen without consequence. The message there was that it was okay because people were upset.
While I don’t condone the illegal entry of the Capitol, I also cannot condemn those who invaded with the hundreds of examples of the same kind of “peaceful protest” that we witnessed on Wednesday. For months, this same kind of “peaceful protest” was declared by many in Congress as frustration, anger because their rights had been violated, an unwillingness to listen. This “peaceful protest” was encouraged by the same people who defended the spring and summer protests because the feelings of the people involved were exactly the same. You cannot defend one without defending the other. Personally, none of them can be morally defended. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Double standards cut both ways. Those in Congress who defended the riots this spring/summer should not be critical now. Those who condemned the riots this spring/summer should the move into the Capitol now.
There have been calls for independent investigations into many actions for the past 20 years. The majority of these investigations have been politically motivated. The media has played a major role in the current crisis because they have been anything but fair. Had the shoe been on the other foot, Democrats would have screamed just as Republicans have in the Trump presidency. Congress has lost sensitivity to the will and needs of the people. It is more about what those who have been there far too long want. This week has put forth the absolute need for term limits. 20 years in Congress is at least 10 too many. Congress was never intended to be a career much less a family enriching lifestyle. Too many there are entrenched in the power-mad, lobbyist paid lifestyle for themselves and only consider their constituency when it comes to re-election period. We have to change as a country. We have to demand changes at the leadership level. We MUST return to a time where morals are the fabric of which we are made.
Paragraphs. Otherwise, too hard to read. Thanks!
A return to the values of the Protestant, Anglo-American Enlightenment upon which our country was founded is essential. But, in this case the peaceful protestor is a 14-year veteran of the USAF who very likely embraced our founding values. Although it’s long past time to justify a Lockean appeal to heaven in response to the many abuses and usurpations the corrupt government subjects us to, Ashli committed no act of war even though she and all other patriots have a God-given, moral right to do so at this time.
There is a critical difference between this summer’s riots and the incursion into the capitol building. The intent of this summer’s riots (according to their organizers) was to disrupt law and order in this country, and to destroy its institutions. The purpose of the D.C. protest was to intimidate politicians into adhering to the law, and to force them to expose criminal activity that they (the protesters), honestly and in good faith, believe took place. They were protesting in defense of the law. Morally, there’s a world of difference between the two. They have complaints that are directly analogous to those that fueled the summer riots – they’ve been ignored, abused, lied to, insulted, and physically set upon – but they were demanding the enforcement of the law and the restoration of our institutions, not their destruction. BLM’s and Antifa’s complaints arise because of their support for those who break the law and deserve many of the consequences they experience. The D.C. protesters’ complaints arise because of their support for the law and the Constitution, and their demand that government officials adhere to both. So in some ways, the two sets of uprisings are superficially similar. But their causes and purposes diverge so completely and dramatically that they aren’t comparable at all.
Condemning the D.C. protesters would be like condemning the Warsaw Uprising for its use of violence against the state and in contravention of the state’s laws. Obviously, there’s a point at which the use of lethal violence against those in power is morally justified and events like the Warsaw Uprising prove the point (as does the American Revolution – it’s ironic that the officers of a government born of violent revolt against lawful authority should rail so heartily against others doing the same, and for the same reasons). Although we may quibble about when that point is reached, we should acknowledge that the level of violence during the D.C. protest was greatly constrained by the nature of the protesters’ respect for law and order. If it had not been, D.C. would be on fire right now.
In my state, WA, LEOs are prohibited from using lethal force during a riot unless a rioter is in possession of a deadly weapon. This was murder, clear as day.
How many Antifa and BLM rioters in possession of deadly weapons during a riot have cops given a pass to, if not aided and abetted by providing them an armed escort? Then cops shoot to kill a patriot the first chance they get, endangering peaceful protestors and other LEOs right behind their target in violation of fundamental gun safety, i.e., be sure of your backstop. Not giving any consideration to using sublethal force before going for the max.
RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding—Good faith standard.
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
…
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer meeting the good faith standard of this section or person acting under the officer’s command and in the officer’s aid:
…
(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a “threat of serious physical harm” are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Nothing in your selected quotes justifies his action.
And in the walkway immediately behind the victim were several heavily armed uniformed police.
Next time there is a demonstration by conservatives, they need to be heavily armed, and have enough backup to respond in kind.
The policeman right behind her actually raises his long gun and looks like he is looking to see if he needs to shoot at the person who shot her. And the cop who shot her was certainly not paying much attention to what he might hit behind her, i.e. other police.
His “selected quotes” weren’t meant to justify the cop’s actions, they were meant to support his own claim that the law in Washington State doesn’t support such actions.
Everyone upvoting Rabel’s comment should pay closer attention! Rabel was mistaken about the purpose Wulff’s second post.
These are Swamp Feds. They are never guilty of anything, especially killing a Trumpster within the DC judicial boundaries.
The federal legislators loyal to the Deep State will circle their wagons around this criminal cop and defend his immoral action. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Schumer was screaming at him to “Kill her!”
A novel standard of situational assessment and self-defense.
“Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to put feelings and emotions aside and wait for facts.”
I’ve been saying that for years, and all it got me was a bunch of people telling how heartless and immoral I am.
It probably racist as well. I myself to be an unrepentant racist for finding the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative to be totally bogus.
Why is the shooter not being given the same treatment as cops? Why haven’t we seen the shooter’s name and photo? Is the shooter being protected by the press and the government?
Rhetorical questions.
Recovering Lutheran. I had not seen your post at 2:11 when I commented. Your comment is more thorough than mine.
We usually don’t see cops who shoot people identified immediately. It takes some time before their names are released.
No reasonable grounds for downvoting this correct statement of fact.
In my estimation, they’re downvoting the person not the words. He gets that a lot.
Unfortunately – we cannot trust the real facts to come out. We only get the CNN facts.
It was murder. He should be prosecuted. “Fog of war” will not cut it when you are supposedly a professional law enforcement officer. Defund the Capitol Police now.
I see you are taking Mary’s advice to set your emotions aside.
That has merit, then the savages in DC can have their way with politicians.
In a war zone, “fog of war” may mean fight like hell first and ask questions later. But if the police find themselves in a “fog,” they can’t just start shooting everyone and allowing god to sort them out. As I have written here several times in comments about police shootings – we pay police to protect us, we do not pay them to occasionally shoot one of us unlawfully. Having to avoid such a thing does make policing difficult and dangerous, but if you’re wearing the badge that means you’ve accepted the responsibility for your actions. A badge should not be a “get out of jail free” card.
I’ll give you the benefit of my experience in the field of LE. Not a good shooting. The barricade appeared to be holding, fairly well. The person climbing through the window was not in a position to harm him or anyone else. The victim was not obviously armed or reaching in a manner which could be construe a attempting to draw a weapon. The officer was close enough to take two steps forward and push the victim back through the window. In other words, this was NOT a clear-cut case of justified use of deadly force.
We can make excuses such as fog of war, lack of training and experience, etc. But, the bottom line is that the shooting does not appear to be justified under the circumstances. Was it illegal? That I don’t know. We’ll have to wait and see.
Serious question: Do the rules change at all for a protection detail? Is one instructed to shoot first and ask questions later when the zone of protection is being invaded?
They could. It largely depends upon whether the person poses and imminent physical threat to the principle or a member of the detail.
Generally, LE has to adhere to a use of force continuum. This is an ascending scale of reactionary force from mere presence to deadly force based upon the level of threat. I do not see this going beyond non-lethal force, which would include a simple shove.
Spot on. No way the Capitol Police has a Use of Force continuum that would back up the actions that took place. This was the murder of an unarmed person, rioter or not. No evidence, unless someone can provide it, that the Officer attempted to use aggressive response techniques or intermediate weapons, i.e. use of strikes, kicks, stuns, take downs, either with hand or baton, taser, or chemical irritants. These should have been applied long before this guy drew his service weapon and fired a round. I don’t care if this person was a Trump supporter, BLM or even the despicable Antifa scum, this appears to be an unjustified shooting.
Secret Service employees guarding the White House have much broader authority to use deadly force than a cop on the street. Capital Police may have similar authority, IDK.
Some good points, the only thing I know for certain is I would not have wanted to be in his shoes.
I gotta ask here – why is this downvoted? It is the expression of an opinion – one I would hope all of us share. The position that officer is in – regardless of what really went down – is going to be horrible. If he has any conscience at all, he is going to replay that in his mind for years.
So why the downvote?
I would agree. The general circumstances would seem to indicate that there was not an imminent threat. There was literally a set of doors, a hallway, and another set of doors between the shooter and the shooting victim.
Mac, all of your comment AND what would happen to a citizen who shot an unarmed burglar coming through his window? Many of the people this cop was defending believe that citizen is guilty of murder. (Although there are some states in which this might not be the case.) The difference is that he is a cop, meaning he has training in the law, in tactics, and in the use of lethal force. He should be held to a higher standard than the armed citizen, but it seems it’s the armed citizen who gets severely punished (even when innocent the process does the punishing) and the cop, even when found wrong, often gets away with an administrative punishment – reduction in pay and/or rank, re-assignment, or firing. This is exactly the opposite of what should happen because it’s the cop who has been trained to know better and how to act in such situations, but it’s the civilian who is told by a judge “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Lysander Spooner was right – the only people who are excused their ignorance of the law are those responsible for its administration.
Wait. I thought crisis management social workers were unarmed?
Remember when violent leftists occupied the capital building – and Sen. Grassley’s office -during Kavanaugh hearings and no one was shot by police?
Remember when violent leftists assaulted police and stormed barricades around the WH which required secret service to evacuated Trump to a bunker and no one was shot by police?
Weird. How these things only run one direction…
Waiting for Andrew Branca to chime in on this.
Btw: any of you who still has a Facebook account are part of the “surrender caucus”.
Not used facebook for years, don’t want my personal data mined for profit thanks
I’ll look at this from the perspective of the shooter being me.
Officer: Can you describe what happened.
Me: Yes I was in imminent danger. I had to defend myself.
Officer: Was the assailant striking you?
Me: Well, no. She wasn’t striking me.
Officer: Did the assailant posses a weapon?
Me: Well, no, not that I saw?
Officer: What exactly was this imminent danger you speak of?
Me: Well, she was on the opposite side of TWO sets of doors screaming obscenities at me.
Officer: I see. And was she approaching you?
Me: Well, she was trying to get through the FIRST set of doors.
Officer: And what was her progress like?
Me: Well, not good actually. There were officers approaching from the other direction to restrain her.
Officer: So there wasn’t really anything imminent about the threat?
Me: Well, I had an office full of very important people to protect, you have to understand these are the elite of American society, I had to save them.
Officer: Uh huh. I see.
Yeah, if this was me, I’m going away for life. The trial probably wouldn’t even last a day.
The Lefties think he’s a hero. Along with the others who murdered Trump supporters in the last several months.
They hate us and want us dead.
Let me point out that if Ashli Babbitt had been an unarmed black BLM protestor, the name and photo of the person who shot her would have been splashed all over the media within minutes. Twitter would publish the address and phone number, and the death threats would not be blocked. The shooter’s life, and the lives of their families, would be in great danger. Every resource of the DC establishment would have been brought to bear to send the shooter to prison for life, and at a minimum their law enforcement career would be over.
But the perp will likely walk in this case. In fact I predict that more people will go to jail over what happened yesterday than all of those who rioted, robbed, burned, looted, raped and murdered last spring and summer. If you were assaulted or looted in Minneapolis, Seattle or Portland, then you deserved it, you racist. But if you dare to inconvenience one of Communist or Republican mandarins in Congress – woe unto thee!
As someone pointed out on another website: BLM gets streets named after them. Trump supporters get bullets. Welcome to Soviet Amerika.
No, it wouldn’t. It hasn’t in most of the cases we’ve seen so far.
We have never seen the police shoot abnybody during a BLM event.
Respectfully the police used rubber bullets and were heavily militarised during the DC summer protests.
And DC would have gone up in flames last night. Along with a few dozen other US cities.
The double standards are stark and obvious.
But, of course, I only see it that way because of my white privilege and systemic racism. I think China Joe the Illegitimate even said that today, in so many words. /s
Remain quiet and take your genociding like a good patriotic American. /s
If she had been black she would have been forcefully beaten outside the building with batons and tear gas. You know how I know this because that’s how they treated the BLM protestors over the summer.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/06/capitol-mob-police-trump-george-floyd-protests-photos
The rules are always going to be different when it comes to the lives of politicians.
A very long time ago I read a book, it described in fiction a political system where leaders were selected and drafted into service, and to discourage self dealing and nepotism, they were executed at the end of their term.
OK, assumptions in the story were very flawed, but in many cases their solution has merit 🙂
That’s a description of an extreme form of term limits.
Yeah, we could use more facts but it is apparent that the person who was shot did not present an immediate danger to the officers or others and that there were alternative means to control the situation even assuming she got through the window. Not looking good at all.
The name of the prick who murdered her needs to be uncovered.
The only people who win excessive force cases are gentry types (race is irrelevant) and blacks who are selected by gentry types to play the role of oppressed minority. The law is so slippery between the Graham factors and QI that it can be manipulated to protect the cops from accountability for any other negligent use of force.
Cop shoots an unarmed woman point-blank in the throat, but we’re all supposed to be sending Thoughts & Prayers to traumatized Members of Congress whose workday was interrupted for a couple hours.
mob member breaking into a locked room/area gets shot.
next.
She was petitioning the government for redress of grievances
Mary said:
“Maybe the officer only meant to injure her?”
Give me a break.
You can’t tell from this video what Ashli Babbit was doing before she was shot. Why did she have her gun drawn? Did she point it at the officer who shot her?
Those who condemn the officer for acting rashly may be acting rashly. I wasn’t there. I didn’t have any adrenalin pumping. No one was pointing a gun in my direction.
I need to hear from both sides before I form an opinion.
Maybe for now you could just get the facts that we do have straight.
What gun? Can’t draw one if you don’t have one.
She was trained military, if she had a gun she would have nailed him.
She didn’t. She didn’t have one in the first place, so she couldn’t have drawn it.
Feds drew First Blood.
They drew the only blood.
NEVER FORGET
“Maybe the officer only meant to injure her?”
What. The. Fuck. Is. This. Shit?
Mary Chastain: Do you know how fucking stupid that sounds and makes you look?
Let’s get one thing straight: Across the entire USA the use and discharge of a firearm is **deadly force**. NO ONE uses a firearm to wound; it is used only when you perceive deadly force is to be imminently used on yourself or a third party. Even then you are required to stop using deadly force when the threat is neutralized. PERIOD and for everyone; law enforcement or not.
If anyone, including a law enforcement officer, stated that they were shooting to would they would have charges of manslaughter against them so fast everyone would get dizzy. Shooting to wound means that you used deadly force against a non-deadly threat. Which is such a big no-no I can’t imagine even the LAPD, CPD, or NYPD covering it up.
That you throw out such a remark so flippantly simply shows that you have zero idea what you’re talking about. I recommend you take some firearm self defense classes and read some books from some experts (Like Massad Ayoob) before you spit out such nonsense again.
Damn.
Lots of people do not have experience with guns and have never had cause to think much about their use. I think that you are being too hard on Mary.
Hollywood has created many misperceptions of how one should use guns, for example shooting someone who has tried to kill, and not finishing them off. Isn’t that the point of double tap?
Another is shooting to wound, thereby putting bystanders at great risk.
Mary needs to do some research before putting her thoughts into cyberspace.
Good lord, she works for Legal Insurrection! How many articles on the laws of self-defense and the use of lethal force by police and citizens have we read here over the years? She is not familiar with them?
Seriously?
The old shoot-them-in-the-leg ?
You don’t shoot to injure. Period.
You either have a fear of imminent injury or not.
Sorry, but that is not a reason to say “allegedly”. There’s nothing alleged about the fact that a Capitol police officer shot and killed her. Nobody disputes that. You don’t need an individual to be convicted of anything to report that as established fact. Even if nobody is ever tried for it, it will still have happened.
Sorta like: “mountains of evidence of voter fraud but no ‘proof.'”
Actually, there is proof. The issue is whether the irregularities and fraud are sufficient to overturn the certifications.
Sorry, I should have left the /s/ signal.
I think that the “mountains of evidence but no proof” is a ridiculous concept.
The issue is that the irregularities demanded an investigation before the certification of the votes. For all Congress knows, they’ve certified a fraud.
Pelosi wants the Capitol Police chief to resign.
House Sargent-at-Arms has already resigned.
Why do I get the feeling that this resignation was “arranged” because protesters got inside the building and were not heaped up outside the outer doors after deadly force was used against them? A “resignation” not because of the death of the woman inside the building, but for failing to ensure the building itself was not breached, regardless of any cost to do so.
I thought Nancy Pelosi was in charge of the Capitol Police, so as long as people are resigning over this….
Well said, Milhouse. The “allegedly” is in connection with an allegation of criminal misconduct, not that something happened. We can all agree something in fact happened, but criminality is only alleged until a conviction is reached by a court of law. The difference you highlighted is indeed important and should be remembered.
“allegedly shooting and killing Ashli Babbitt”
I think you have misread Chastain’s statement. I suppose it possibly could be photoshop or deep fake but she clearly says that the shooting and killing was alleged, with no reference to the criminality of the act.
There are several videos from different angles, and eye witnesses, a dead body with a gunshot wound, and a grieving family. So unlikely as to beg non-consideration, in my view.
Allegedly is sort of thrown around too much. Proper application of the term is important, but I do not take any real umbrage at its use in this instance. And sometimes, I am forced to give Milhouse his due. We would not want him to stop posting. He is too much of a personality on this site.
The entire article was written from the perspective that the shooting of an unarmed woman by a capitol LEO was an actual occurrence, and not merely an “alleged” occurrence. In this context, the word isn’t being used with regard to the event itself, because that would contradict her reportage elsewhere in the article.
What would the reaction be if the woman would have been African-American?
An African American Trump supporter would have been shot multiple times and ruled justified homicide immediately.
This video shows the cop who pulled the trigger is actually black.
Remember when Lon Huriuchi (200 yards away) shot Randy Weaver as he went to see his dead son? Then he shot again at a fleeing man, wounded him, but also killed Vicki Weaver as she held her baby in her arms? It was determined to be a bad shoot, so of course Lon got punished, right? Remember how he and other FBI members lied about a helicopter as an excuse? He didn’t even get reprimanded for those shootings or his blatant lying under oath.
What do you think is going to happen to this guy? Literally the only thing that could make this a good shoot is if there is video of her drawing a weapon while she (clumsily) tries to fit through the window. The man is not in imminent danger. His charges are not in imminent danger. He steps forward from his doorframe, fires a shot, and retreats back behind it.
Bottom line: A woman that is all scrunched up in a windowsill simply isn’t a lethal threat unless she has deployed a firearm.
That is made even worse by the fact that there were riot cops within arms length of her and there were more big, burly armed men in the hallway.
How is it that I, a high school teacher, have tighter RoE if somebody pulls a weapon than trained LE/Guards?
Actually 100 yards and I knew people that knew Weaver. The FBI agent on site… Larry Potts (Waco fame) ordered shooting which was later judged unconstitutional. Potts said legal as no judge on site to overrule him. Dah. When no judge around… open season by the feds. Dont forget, US Marshals in ninja and without ID attacked and killed alerting family dog and then defending son at start of the siege. Potts promoted for Waco. Now.. Defending the Tabernacle of the Treasonous and the Timid.
Ahh. I couldn’t remember the distance. That makes it even worse. How does a marksman accidentally shoot a woman in the head? Even a mediocre marksman can shoot cloverleaves at 100 yards with a decent shooting position.
IIRC, the shot missed his intended target and went through the door that Vickie was holding for her husband, who was running back inside.
Running targets at 100 yards aren’t easy. I’ve done it, but it wasn’t easy.
Agreed. If you’re a cop and you’re about to be overrun by people who aren’t threatening you with lethal violence, you can’t just start shooting people. It’s not a war, a cop is not a soldier, it’s not a war zone.
If Ashli Babbitt or anyone else there represented an “imminent” threat, it was not a threat of lethal force, it was the threat of obtaining access to a place from which the cop was told to exclude unauthorized personnel. Without the actual threat of lethal violence, orders to defend a place or position from unarmed civilian occupiers do not justify the use of lethal force. Imagine if the Seattle PD had opened fire on the CHAZ or those who breached their precinct building because they had orders to prevent the occupation of those sites!
Why isn’t BLM/Antifa rioting over this police brutality?
There were two heavily armed cops right behind her. They could have easily shot her and did not.
The cop who shot her is a coward.
Contrast this video with the video of Jacob Blake who was…
1) Armed with a knife
2) Resisting arrest for sexual assault
3) Fighting with the cops
4) Attempting to drive away in a vehicle containing kids who were not his
5) Reaching for something under the seat of the vehicle when shot
VP elect Kneepads Kammy said she was proud of Jacob Blake — a criminal. The MSM treated him as a hero and a victim.
The Dems and the media think we’re stupid. They hate us and would like to see us shipped off to an American Gulag for re-education and CRT indoctrination.
I count at least 5 in the video.
You just reiterated my point. Those in Congress who glorify one group and condemn LEOs must at least be consistent and not speak out using only their political lens to view a situation. The media has done this with impunity and done an outstanding job of polarizing the country as a result. Very few stories in the media bear any semblance of honesty and an unbiased point of view. It is one reason I tend to check everything out (which includes social media).
If you are a representative of the people, listen first, verify first.
This whole situation could have been avoided. When half of the country feels that the election had fraud playing a major role, why not investigate? All Congress had to do was tell the states involved to conduct a 10 day serious bipartisan investigation. Couldn’t do that–it was more like so many in Congress wanted to keep the fires burning, wanted the looting. Notice that on November 4, there were no riots as had been previously predicted. There were also large numbers of citizens who had watched the returns, heard that counting had shut down for the night, and then before daybreak seen massive turn-arounds in tallies. It simply didn’t pass the smell test. Stop the steal? Way too late. That process was put into place with the passage of HR-1 (116th Congress). There have been illegal actions in elections for years that were never addressed. Once again, you overlook these actions for years and then when they rear their heads like an atomic mushroom cloud, what can you possibly expect?
No controversy in this statement, what a shitshow.
Who here thinks that a Washington DC jury would ever convict this shooter? Reality check – most of DC’s inhabitants deeply loathe Trump and his supporters.
Per Andrew Branca, if you can’t check all these boxes then guilty of murder. If you need legal advice, get a lawyer.
1) Innocence – Check. The cop didn’t start the fight.
2) Imminence – Check. The action was happening at the moment of the shooting.
3) Reasonableness – subject to debate
4) Proportionality – I don’t believe Ashley posed a lethal threat to anybody in that building. However, gov will emphasize the size of the mob, any weapons in the mob, and any violence done by the mob.
5) Avoidance – the cop actually approached Ashley to shot her. Gov will argue evacuation of the building was not safely possible.
This looks like a marginal case where a DC jury would reach for excuses to acquit.
Also, the media’s hypocrisy is god tier.
“Protest and demonstration refer to specific actions such as marches, sit-ins, rallies or other actions meant to register dissent. They can be legal or illegal, organized or spontaneous, peaceful or violent, and involve any number of people.”
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1311357910715371520.html
> 2) Imminence – Check. The action was happening at the moment of the shooting.
Huh? Let’s assume I have an entry way in my house, maybe 10 foot square. And it has doors on the outside and doors on the inside leading to a hallway. Now, let’s assume an unknown person outside the house banging on the entryway doors, which are closed and locked. Let’s assume I’m inside the hallway with the inside doors locked and barricaded.
You’re telling me that’s represents enough of an imminent threat that I can shoot through the first set of doors, across the entryway, through the second set of doors at the person banging on said doors?
No way, not gonna happen. Any civilian that made that shot, with a few exceptions like Texas, is going to jail forever.
The video only shows one set of doors between Ashley and the shooter.
In the video it sure looks like the shooter is standing in an entryway with the doors propped open. It could be an alcove, but at that point he simply could have walked away.
I have to agree. “Imminence” doesn’t mean “nearby presence,” it means “imminent threat of violent, potentially lethal force.” This is completely absent in this situation, with the officer being behind a closed door. Remember the situation used to describe the difference between “imminence” and the lack thereof? Someone with a knife on the other side of a 12′ chain-link fence does not present an imminent threat. Someone on the other side of the street with a rifle does. The protestors were all unarmed and on the other side of closed doors. No imminence.
Where are all the demands to defund the Capitol police?
Guy admits to being paid to protest …
https://rumble.com/vcisnv-admits-being-paid.html
Mary,
That doesn’t appear to be a justified use of deadly force. Liken it to your home and you come downstairs to discover someone has climbed halfway in/through a first floor window, no weapon visible.
If you shoot that person, under those circumstances, you are at high risk of being charged, tried and convicted.
Why? Not an imminent threat because:
A. No visible weapon
B. Lack of proximity to you isn’t really putting you or others in danger
Disobeying police commands by individuals happens many times every single day. LEO are constrained from simply using deadly force in response to someone not following their directives.
I think it likely that this particular officer was caught up in his emotions and that overcame his training. He is likely to be charged, plea out to a lesser offense IMO.
“He is likely to be charged, plea out to a lesser offense IMO.”
I do not think he shall be charged, not do I think he should be, unless we find some probable cause to believe malicious intent or malicious and callous disregard.
It’s a hard job. People screw up, sometimes with very tragic results. Without a finding of the above, and this requires investigation, I am in favor of administrative review and action. Given what I have seen, the guy does not need to walk around with a gun, but I do not think he belongs in prison.
I believe you just described what was called ‘death by misadventure’ several centuries ago in England. That concept which was basically ‘shit happens and the defendant didn’t really mean it and even if he did he’s very sorry’.
We don’t have that in our system. The jury could buy that sort of reasoning and nullify but that isn’t a legal argument.
Obviously more info will come out and we will gain knowledge of a more complete picture of the events. As of now, IMO the guy didn’t follow his training. He did, let’s not say ‘panicked’, certainly allow his emotions to overcome training.
There wasn’t a weapon in view nor has one been found on scene; that we know of. Woman was attempting to crawl/climb through an opening. She had no balance, she wasn’t in an aggressive posture nor in a position to inflict any physical damage or harm to anyone. In fact she was physically vulnerable.
The LEO shot an unarmed person who wasn’t a threat. That’s a crime for you, me, that LEO and everyone else. No way that’s going to be administrative only with no criminal charge.
I feel for the guy, it is a tough place to be. The area between pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger is not easy to navigate. I have been there, under wartime ROE, even then there are shots I would like to have back with hindsight. Made the correct decision based upon ROE our SoP and enemy TTP but still.
He wasn’t in a war zone. He, for whatever reason, failed to follow his training. You can bet that Capital Police Dept will throw this poor guy to the wolves before they admit that the Department training wasn’t good or that the Department didn’t adequately conduct refresher training. I don’t believe a Department training officer will testify that his actions are what the Capital PD teaches.
Again my opinion is he is going to be offered and will accept a sweetheart plea deal with minimal time to be served and segregated from general population. Throw in good behavior points and he will be out in a very short time.
Given the inflamed passions right now if this isn’t prosecuted then the clear message is ‘tough nuggies you Trump loving rubes. We, the elite, will steal an election, prevent any recourse in court or State legislature or Congress. When you come to DC we.will gun you down’.
That doesn’t seem like a very wise or a very conciliatory tone to take at this juncture. In fact it’s very inflammatory and likely to further fan the flames.
Nope, I’m saying bad things happen, and people make mistakes. I am in favor of imprisoning people for malicious acts of violence, not because they screwed up. I think the policeman is basically guilty of malpractice. Doctors kill and maim patients all the time due to malpractice. We do not imprison them. We may, if warranted, remove their ability to practice medicine. This is closer to my analogy.
The shooter, with the information now available, deserves permanent desk assignment or removal from the force.
If we find evidence of malice, then charge and prosecute him.
No doctor (at least no sane doctor) ever operates on someone intending harm. When a cop decides to shoot, he intends to harm. When a doctor harms someone it is not intentional. When a cop shoots someone who shouldn’t have been shot, it may have been a bad decision, but it was still intentional.
“Given the inflamed passions right now if this isn’t prosecuted then the clear message is ‘tough nuggies you Trump loving rubes.”
Inflamed passions do not justify treating people unjustly. It is the job of reasoned purpose to uphold justice, and make decisions and act with deliberative dispassion, so that further injustices are not committed and the chain of injustices is broken.
During the riots over the summer, many policemen have been unjustly prosecuted to salve the passions of the mob. This is an injustice. We should not repeat it.
From what I can see, this policeman does not deserve prosecution, though his actions were clearly and tragically inappropriate. To prosecute him for the express purpose of offering as a sacrifice to a mob is grossly unjust.
I also do not think Trump supporters are a mob, and are quite capable of dispassionate reason, compassion, and mercy, especially to those who do act out of malice and cruelty, and have an inherent interest in fair justice, and whose motive and purpose is to uphold the same.
What is required now is a reduction of the inflamed rhetoric from Democrats, liberals, the media, and even Republicans who are calling Trump supporters, who only want their concerns to investigate election integrity and fair actions to right wrong, seditious, treasonous, and the like. This will not tamp down passions. Just the opposite.
Everyone, step back. Take a breath. If we go over the cliff, it’s a long way down, and the bottom is the deepest circle of Hell.
“…especially to those who do act out of malice and cruelty,”
Should have been “…especially to those who do NOT act out of malice and cruelty,”
Sorry.
Justified or not, it was a voluntary killing at point blank. Shocking. It reminded me of Jack Ruby.
Daniel Shaver
I’m sorry, but anyone who uses the phrase “shoot to wound” needs to be wearing a red clown nose and oversized shoes while they are spouting this tripe. If your intent is to wound, a firearm is the wrong weapon for that job.
This is not totally a self defense case. The LEO has two legal options:
1) his duty to protect the people within the building and,
2) his right to self defense.
Now, there did not appear to be an imminent threat to anyone, other than himself. All other person’s, on his side of the doors, were a distance away. Also, the level of the threat was significantly reduced because the invader was still outside a viable barrier and did not have a visible distance weapon. The group was attempting to breach the barrier, the doors and barricade within, but it did not appear as though that was happening, at the time that the shot was fired. And, given the proximity to the invader, as she was climbing into the window opening, the LEO could have taken two steps and pushed her back outside, with little danger to himself or anyone else. It does not appear as if deadly force was legally authorized, in this case.
For these reasons, this was not a cut and dried OIS. Whether it was lawful or not is still to be decided.
“Now, there did not appear to be an imminent threat to anyone, other than himself.”
I do not think there was an imminent threat to him, either. I think you likely agree and suspect you mistyped.
If the victim had posed an imminent threat to anyone, then if would have been a justified shooting. This does not seem to be the case.
Thank you, but my wording was intentional. She did represent and imminent threat to him, if she chose to attack. All she had to do was to jump to the floor, beyond the door and attack or even dive at the officer. Her position in the door window made both possible. However, simply because an attack is imminent does not necessarily justifies the use of deadly fore in self defense. This sentence explains that: “Also, the level of the threat was significantly reduced because the invader was still outside a viable barrier and did not have a visible distance weapon.” Therefor, no imminent threat of death or great bodily harm existed, from the victim, and the disparity of force, as represented by the mob, was negated by the intact barrier. Self defense is somewhat complicated.
Question (totally out of ignorance) could it be argued that she might have taken his gun, I mean there were a group of them so the threat might construed as being overwhelmed and being relieved of his weapon. I know slightly hypothetical just curious if this argument has any basis.
She made no aggressive move towards the shooter. She was not facing the shooter, who was off to the side. If she had made it to the floor, then turned to face him, then started to move towards him, the shooter may have a case for justifiable self-defense, even if the victim had failed to produce a weapon.
However, the shooter was a trained law enforcement officer, and larger in size than the victim. The use of deadly force can still be construed as disproportionate in even that case.
I cannot even discern a rationale for the shooter to have his weapon drawn. A proportionate response would have been to try and enforce the barrier by standing in the breach and push back on anyone trying to go through.
I can discern no rationale for a justifiable use of deadly force in this instance.
Anyone standing in close proximity to a LEO could make a go for his gun. That doesn’t mean a LEO can shoot someone who merely gets too close. A person’s intent to take an officer’s weapon must be manifest is specific actions.
“A person going for your gun is a person going for a gun.”
Massad Ayoob
This blog item has no connection to the incident.
“Fog of war”: What was the nature of the “fog”?
Citing von Clausewitz was completely inappropriate.
“The officer’s heart rate…”: Another irrelevancv. If he can’t cope with stress, then he’s in the wrong profession. (Well, we know that.)
“Everything is moving too fast”: The video does not support this assertion.
“Maybe the officer only meant to injure her?”
Policemen are not trained to “shoot to injure.” They are trained to hit center-mass with every shot, in order to take down a suspect. However, this officer did not aim for center mass. He aimed for a head shot, and missed and hit Ashli Babbitt in the throat. He intended to kill Babbitt, but had no legitimate reason for doing so.
This may have been a racially-motivated hate crime.
If you’re going to caution people to put aside their emotions and look at the facts, you need to do likewise.
While I agree that the LEO intended to shoot the victim, there is no evidence that he intended to kill her. We do not know how accurate his fire was. It appears that the bullet struck low on the left side of her neck. He could have hit this spot whether he was aiming in the general area of her upper chest or her head, especially if she moved either up or down when he fired. In fact, if his POA was what is called a high center mass, a technique taught on and off for decades, depending upon the agency, it is much more likely that his POI would have been her lower neck than if he was aiming at her forehead.
Regardless, the shooting itself does not appear to be a justified use of deadly force.
Everyone is trained in law enforcement that if you draw your service weapon, point it at someone, and pull the trigger, the intent is kill. The shooter’s intent can only be interpreted in this way. My contention is that there is no apparent criminal intent involved. Without more evidence, my conclusion is the shooter is poorly disciplined, poorly trained, and not suitable in constitution for the duties assigned.
Of course he intended to kill her. Does it look like he aimed at her foot?
My first question is why he shot her and not someone else? Or was he just firing blind?
I think took careful aim and intended to kill her. He wanted blood.
She was in the window frame. It looked to me like the shooter had set a red line in his mind to shoot anybody coming through.
From his angle that was likely the first opportunity to shoot somebody without other people in the line of fire.
I was involved in creating civil disturbance reaction plans for the Army in the late sixties. Under the rules of engagement, a soldier who reacted the way this police person reacted would have been charged with murder.
The big problem here is that when the shooting occurred, he was MOVING TOWARD the victim, obviously in no fear of any danger she might pose.
Why was she not physically subdued by tackling once she hit the ground? That would have been the common sense way to handle the situation.
She was coming through a window- well not actually coming through, starting the effort to. A whap on the hands or arms with a baton as she was grasping the frame for support would have stopped her- and the shooter was at point blank range- he had that option. He WANTED to kill someone.
Was this the new Concord? The shot heard round the world?
“Maybe the officer only meant to injure her?”
You’re out of your mind.
He meant to kill her and he did. It was a murder, pure and simple.
He WANTED to kill someone.
____________________________
believe you are correct–have tried to view the video from the officer’s perspective–first off the victim is a lady(he is bigger, stronger and presumably better trained), she is unarmed(or at least does not appear to be), she is trying to gain entry to the building not commit a direct assault on his person/other persons–to my mind, she is a low-grade threat at the most–certainly not a threat requiring a deadly-force response–he either panicked(without cause, to me)or he meant to kill her–either way, agree he meant to kill her
For an officer, or a civilian for the matter, to use deadly force on someone, the perpetrator must have ability and opportunity that puts you in jeopardy. Unless the officer knew that Ashli had the ability to cause him or someone he was protecting grave bodily harm he had no right to shoot her when she jumped through the window. If she had a weapon and he or the people he was protecting were in jeopardy he would have been justified. We will see in the investigation if she had such a weapon. I suspect not.
This is very bizarre, because I’ve seen two very different videos of AshleyBabbit’s murder. About two hours after it happened I saw the first one, which showed Babbitt behind two men smashing a window leading to a hallway. She was talking to two people behind her and several police officers were right behind them. In the second video, a day later, Ashley is seen leaping through a broken foot like a merged-up bunny rabbit. I couldn’t believe it, and still don’t. The second video is a fake. Ashley Babbit had served as a member of an elite security force. Do you really think she’s going to leap through a window at an armed black man aiming a gun at her? It makes zero sense.
Here’s what I do know: Muriel Bowser made a written deal with the DOJ that no Capitol police would be sent in as re-Inforcements for the Whote House without her consent, and she was not about to consent. This is a Reichstat event, fully planned and intended to shut down a free society. Fight these people in any way possible. BLM and Antifa are their paid brownshirts. Fight them to your last breath.
Damn spellcheck. Obviously, I was trying to say Babbitt was supposedly leaping through a broken window, not a broken foot.
By this time I read this the videos where suppressed by Twitter. (I’m thinking that as I used “Inspect Elements” to check the source code…) In any event, way back in the stone age (1970’s) we were read in on the Rules of Deadly Force. Bad enough to use deadly force in a police / security / guard operation if you were right. Woe unto you if you were wrong.
PS – Perimeter control? After 9/11 my observations of the Capitol and environs, with anti-air missiles, AAA cannon, security troops, etc., said it would give pause to any riot, mob, protest, or just plain simple visitors – hi, welsome to my armed camp.
I would truly like to know what the security boffins had in mind for SECURING their charge. What I saw via video looked like something for channeling the tourists. Or maybe the Memorial Day concert. (If we have that anymore.)