Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ashli Babbitt’s Family Suing Capitol Police For Fatal Jan. 6 Shooting

Ashli Babbitt’s Family Suing Capitol Police For Fatal Jan. 6 Shooting

“The purpose of the case is to hold the police officer and the Capitol Police accountable for violating Ashli Babbitt’s constitutional right”

https://twitter.com/thejaydenxander/status/1347056697899163648

As Congressional Democrats gear up for their latest thinly-disguised partisan witch hunt in their push for a January 6th Commission, the family of Ashli Babbitt is seeking justice.

Babbitt was the only person who died at the Capitol on January 6 by someone else’s hand—she was shot by a Capitol Hill Police officer.  The identity of this officer has yet to be released, but it looks like that’s about to change with the Babbitt family lawsuit.

The Washington Times reports:

The attorney representing the family of Ashli Babbitt, the woman shot and killed by U.S. Capitol Police during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, plans to sue the agency for more than $10 million and has already put officials on notice, demanding accountability for the slain Air Force veteran.

“Right now, we have no accountability — zero accountability — they give no explanation to justify the shooting and they do not even identify the officer. That is what they do in autocratic countries, not in the United States,” said Terrell N. Roberts III, a Maryland-based attorney.

Mr. Roberts takes issue with those members of Congress who oversee the Capitol Police but who have not demanded transparency when it comes to the Jan. 6 shooting.

“If we call ourselves a free people, you would think that Congress would be the first to demand transparency of its own police agency but you don’t hear that.”

. . . . Mr. Roberts, the family attorney, told The Washington Times he’ll sue the Capitol Police under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which generally requires a notice of six months before filing a lawsuit.

The family will also pursue claims against the officer who shot Babbitt.

The Justice Department and Capitol Police have repeatedly declined to identify the officer involved in the killing.

Mr. Roberts said he’s reviewing video of the shooting that was captured by private citizens using their iPhones. He said he also won’t identify the officer by name at this time.

The Federalist has more:

The 35-year-old Air Force veteran was shot with a round from an anonymous officer’s “service pistol” in the Capitol building after she attempted to climb through a broken glass door in the hallway near the Speaker’s Lobby. Babbitt received aid in the Capitol from a Capitol Police emergency response team before she was transported to the Washington Hospital Center where she later died.

The family plans to sue the law enforcement agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows for monetary compensation if “a personal injury or death, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a Government employee while acting within the scope of his or her office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”

. . . . “The purpose of the case is to hold the police officer and the Capitol Police accountable for violating Ashli Babbitt’s constitutional right — that is the purpose,” Roberts said, noting that he is “reviewing video of the shooting that was captured by private citizens using their iPhones.”

Roberts also expressed frustration that legislators — including those that voted for the partisan, power-grab Jan. 6 Commission — have not demanded further information or answers from the law enforcement agency.

In April, the DOJ announced that it had closed its investigation of Babbitt’s death claiming “there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution” (archive link).

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This cowardly act is archetypical of the least humane of all fascist countries. An unarmed woman goes into the Capital building at the invitation of Capital police and is shot in cold blood. NOT A DAMN THING happens to the officer who used amazingly poor judgement and took her life!

Compare this murder to so many others where the perps had long criminal records, were under the influence of illegal drugs and were resisting arrest, i.e. George Floyd. The family of Floyd was paid twenty seven million, when Officer Chauvin was simply doing his job as he was trained to do and is now in stripped of all his liberties and in prison for up to 40 years when guidelines called for 12 and a half years.

If this case continues to be handled without any justice, sometime in the future each one of us could easily turn into Ashli Babbitt! You can bet your last dollar on that!

    Milhouse in reply to Jmaquis. | May 22, 2021 at 10:23 pm

    Um, she was not there by the invitation of Capitol police. She climbed through a broken window. She can’t have been under any illusion that she had a right to be there.

    Which makes her a trespasser, just like thousands of “peaceful” BLM protesters; and if anyone had shot one of them for mere trespass we know how that would have gone. So I’m all for this lawsuit, if only to hear them come out and say it’s OK to shoot trespassers; because if it’s OK in the Capitol it must be equally OK in a department store.

      n.n in reply to Milhouse. | May 22, 2021 at 10:54 pm

      Invited into the Capitol, but not into the inner sanctum. Still, unarmed, drug-free, with no known morbidities, in a prone position, surrounded by security personnel, not a probable, or even imminent, let alone immediate threat to justify murder.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Milhouse. | May 23, 2021 at 12:31 am

      Trespass itself, except maybe in TX, is never justification for the use of deadly force (and I think that is only in regards to an inhabited abode, which the Capital is not). I think that there is little, if any, support to the theory that the shooting was within the permitted use of deadly force by the Capital Police.

      The videos of the shooting strongly suggest that she posed no threat to anyone and that there were other Capital Police standing idly by her when she was shot.

      In any case, trespass might have justified the use of non lethal force, but the Supreme Court has determined that the only way that lethal force can legitimately be used by police is if they are protecting their own lives, or the lives of others. There is strong evidence that this was not the case here – not only the videos showing other Capital Police by her standing idly by, but also that she wasn’t carrying a weapon, nor was one found on her or by her body.

        CommoChief in reply to Bruce Hayden. | May 23, 2021 at 9:51 am

        Bruce,

        Once can not use deadly force against a person who is only committing simple/petit trespass anywhere in the US. You can’t legally shoot some guy for being on your lawn. They have to present an imminent danger if outside a dwelling.

        However, if an uninvited person has entered or is in the act of entering a dwelling then the deadly force by the homeowner is presumed as justified in a number of States not just TX. See Castle Doctrine and it’s application or lack in your State.

        Folks please consult your State Code and an Attorney in your jurisdiction. Don’t take what I or anyone else writes as applying to your State or your hypothetical circumstance.

          healthguyfsu in reply to CommoChief. | May 23, 2021 at 12:10 pm

          Doubtful…re-check LOSD book by Branca.

          No assumptions are made.

          I can tell you that in the state of Virginia it is not the case and hasn’t been the case for as long as I can remember, even when the state was highly conservative.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | May 23, 2021 at 12:42 pm

          healthguy,

          My statement about the presumption of justification to use of deadly force against someone entering a dwelling or being in a dwelling unlawfully is valid for Alabama. Of course the jury and the prosecution get a say as well. So consult a legal expert for actual advice.

          I am pretty sure that was the portion you were casting doubt upon and not the part about use of deadly force against someone who is only committing petit trespass.

          healthguyfsu in reply to CommoChief. | May 23, 2021 at 7:32 pm

          Correct on which statement I am challenging.

          My point is that there’s not always time to “consult a legal expert” when in that moment. You are better off using deadly force as a last resort even when someone trespasses on your private property…while keeping that in mind could cause you to end up dead, not keeping that in mind could cause you to end up in prison for most of your life. 6 of one/half dozen of the other because for most of us ordinary citizens, prison is not life at all.

        20keto20 in reply to Bruce Hayden. | May 29, 2021 at 7:02 am

        Bruce, do we even know for sure that the officer who shot and killed Babbit was actually Capitol Police? For all we know, he or she could have been FBI or CIA or other Mafia. We don’t know because Congressional Democrats have squelched any inquiry into this shooting while simultaneously allowing their media wing (AKA the MSM) to drone on about Capitol Police being bludgeoned to death with fire extinguishers, bitterly attacked, and about those who actually entered the Capitol as being armed. These were all thrown as seeds to the low-info public who latched onto it believing in the “purity and goodness” of our politicians. Fool you once, shame on me. Fooled you twice (and many more times), shame on you minions of the media arm of the DNC!!

      UserP in reply to Milhouse. | May 23, 2021 at 8:16 am

      It’s a good thing the Capitol Policeman shot her instead of putting his knee on her neck, otherwise he would have been in big trouble.

      star1701gazer in reply to Milhouse. | May 23, 2021 at 6:38 pm

      I have seen several videos of Capitol police removing barricades and opening doors to protesters. Seems like an invitation to enter to me. The videos are pretty clear the Capitol Police did nothing but stand aside and let people in.

        20keto20 in reply to star1701gazer. | May 29, 2021 at 7:04 am

        Don’t forget that we have seen some videos of the Capitol Police actually giving directions on how to move within the Capitol.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | May 24, 2021 at 1:16 am

      Try shooting an unarmed trespasser coming into your home, when said trespasser is presenting zero threat of lethal force or bodily harm, and see where you end up.

      The McCloskeys merely displayed firearms to an unruly, trespassing crowd, and you see what they’re in for from the state. (Although we recognize what the state is doing in the McCloskey’s case is wrong, the point is that there is a double standard here, in which Trump supporters are made valid targets by state agents, while private citizens can’t protect their own property with a mere show of force. Something is unbalanced here. Just asking for some balance.)

    Antifundamentalist in reply to Jmaquis. | May 23, 2021 at 8:08 am

    Woman, part of a group of baseball-bat wielding vandals, is shot attempting to crawl through a window (broken by her baseball bat-armed companions), on a locked and barricaded door, after the guards on the door deserted their posts under threats of physical harm. Behind this door and further down the hall are elected officials who would seem to be under threat by this group of people who are determined to break into a secured area. That group as a whole could very well have been deemed an immanent threat, given what they said to the deserting guards. She just made the mistake of trying to be the first one through.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Antifundamentalist. | May 23, 2021 at 8:32 am

      Sooner or later, the prick’s name will be exposed.

      Why is it relevant that the people down the hall are elected officials? What do you think would happen if some department store security guard reacts the same way to BLM protesters, because the store staff are down the hall? Would you accept that defense?

        Antifundamentalist in reply to Milhouse. | May 23, 2021 at 1:11 pm

        It’s relevant because the people down the hall needed protecting. And yes, I would react the same way to violent BLM protestors who posed a threat to store employees.

          It would be far better for the country if your preference was to apply the law instead of politics. ALL law enforcement officers are trained (heavily trained as in drummed into their conscious mind) that the only legal application of lethal force is in situations where the officer’s life is in imminent danger, another person’s life is in imminent danger or the fleeing subject has already used lethal force against one or more people and is a threat of continued use of lethal force against the public.

          You do a disservice to the country and yourself when you imagine your own applications of law and seek to justify extra-judicial capital punishment.

          Antifundamentalist in reply to Antifundamentalist. | May 24, 2021 at 4:58 pm

          My stance is not at all “political.” Definitely a difference in paradigm perhaps, in that I believe a reasonable person (especially a former service member), would understand that threatening guards, breaking windows and attempting to enter a locked and secured area on Federal property that is protected by armed guards is very likely to result in lethal force being legally applied; and IF that person is shot while engaging in such behavior anyway, that person should have known better. As to the rule of law, it has already been determined that the officer was not guilty of a criminal act. As has been said by others: “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” I guess you didn’t grow up around Federal Installations where armed guards were a thing you learned about well before you started grade school.

      chrisboltssr in reply to Antifundamentalist. | May 24, 2021 at 8:08 am

      This here is some deluded dog shit.

      Men and women, part of a group of bat, stick, knife wielding vandals, is shown firearms while and after breaking down a security gate (broken by their companions), on a locked. iron gate, in what was a safe neighborhood before a riotous invasion. Inside this house were the children of those threatened with violence, shouting and impending physical harm who would seem to be under threat by this group of people who have broken into a secured area. That group as a whole could very well have been deemed an immanent threat, given what they said to the protective parents. The parents just made the mistake of trying to protect their family and their home.

    mark311 in reply to Jmaquis. | May 23, 2021 at 10:24 am

    “An unarmed woman ”
    Was the officer able to know that?

    “into the Capital building at the invitation of Capital police”
    No, they were let in, there was no invitation as you characterise it.

    “shot in cold blood”
    Well it was a pretty stressful situation, could there be a self defence argument in context of l multiple people trying to break through. She did after all lunge through the opening.

    “Floyd was paid twenty seven million, when Officer Chauvin was simply doing his job”

    Due process found Chauvin guilty of murder. Whether there were issues at the trial is a separate question, due process is still ongoing given there could well be a mistrial. In this case the due process is via the civil litigation. Mob decisions aren’t generally well thought out

      henrybowman in reply to mark311. | May 23, 2021 at 10:46 am

      .

      “An unarmed woman ”
      Was the officer able to know that?

      You have absolutely no clue about burden of proof, do you?

      “How did the officer know she wasn’t the Antichrist?”
      “Yeah sounds justified to me!”

        Actually – in CA and I assume everywhere – you do NOT need to be positive the aggressor has a weapon before using deadly force. You have to be concerned that the person has the capability of using deadly force. You don’t need a weapon at all. Hands and legs can be deadly force. You have to be in fear of imminent death, loss of limb, or major body injury which can be contusions. The standard is “what would a reasonable person think?” In this case – and I’m as conservative as they come (not crazy though) there’s a mob that just broke a window and is looking to break through the doors. I’d be concerned with my life and shoot the first person that came through.

          CommoChief in reply to krb. | May 23, 2021 at 7:29 pm

          krb,

          My post was in response to the statements made by mark to refute those comments.

          As to CA and use of force…. be careful. I feel very confident that because I live in an unincorporated, rural county the likelihood of of being charged in the aftermath of a legal home defense situation is practically nil.

          The Sheriff, the DA and the Circuit Judge are elected. Their constituents which form the electorate and the potential jury pool would vote all three out of office and refuse a conviction under a basic home invasion shooting by a homeowner.

          CA…may not have the same cultural context within the community as a rural Alabama county. Be very damn careful.

      CommoChief in reply to mark311. | May 23, 2021 at 10:54 am

      Mark,

      That’s a laughable response.
      Let’s review.

      1. How was the officer to know the victim was unarmed?
      Positive ID of a weapon prior to shooting someone is …kind of a big deal. That’s part of the training and doctrine. To suggest it isn’t necessary is unserious.

      2. Let in v invited.
      That’s a distinction with out a difference. If I verbally invite a crowd outside my gate to enter or I open the gate the effect is to invite an unopposed entry.

      3. Shot – high stress situation.
      LEO have specific initial training at their entry into an agency and sustainment training to replicate these types of high stress situations. Shooting a suspect because the adrenaline is flowing is a big no no.

      4. Floyd

      Meh that’s not relevant to this discussion

        krb in reply to CommoChief. | May 23, 2021 at 7:12 pm

        Sorry – my response was supposed to be to this comment:

        Actually – in CA and I assume everywhere – you do NOT need to be positive the aggressor has a weapon before using deadly force. You have to be concerned that the person has the capability of using deadly force. You don’t need a weapon at all. Hands and legs can be deadly force. You have to be in fear of imminent death, loss of limb, or major body injury which can be contusions. The standard is “what would a reasonable person think?” In this case – and I’m as conservative as they come (not crazy though) there’s a mob that just broke a window and is looking to break through the doors. I’d be concerned with my life and shoot the first person that came through.

        CommoChief, @mark311 was responding to someone else mentioning Floyd. The problem with his comment is that he’s pretending to be unaware (or may actually be ignorant) of the fact that Floyd’s family was awarded that taxpayer-funded windfall during jury selection, when Chauvin was supposed to still be presumed innocent.

        He wrote: [quoting another commenter]: “Floyd was paid twenty seven million, when Officer Chauvin was simply doing his job”

        “Due process found Chauvin guilty of murder.”

        “Due process” had nothing to do with the settlement, obviously, since jury selection wasn’t even complete at the time the settlement was announced. @mark311 is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree as we are constantly reminded (i.e. yet again here).

          CommoChief in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 23, 2021 at 8:41 pm

          Fuzzy,

          Thanks. I actually like sparing with mark. He isn’t dim IMO, just misguided. He has an unfortunate tendency to take positions that are unsound logically, like a few others from time to time.

          If he keeps showing up and reading and debating then who knows maybe he can be converted. If not then the interplay and back and forth arguments may influence someone else to convert so to speak.

          Heh, I admit that I do occasionally amuse myself by engaging with him. I do think he is beyond conversion, though, and stand by my point that he’s not very bright. This non sequitur response to the mention of the Floyd settlement is an example of why, and this may be related to my teaching English for so long, but I cannot stand logical fallacy. It’s intellectually lazy and, if relied on to the near exclusion of any other kind of argument, intellectually dishonest.

          Almost everything @mark311 writes is some form of logical fallacy; indeed, his (not quite) six months commenting here have been a case study in logical fallacy (red herrings, non sequitur, straw man, false dichotomies, equivocation, causal fallacy, and on and on. His all-time favorite is the twofer crutch of the dim: appeal to authority + ad hominem).

          Anyway, thanks for this comment because it’s making me think that my pet peeve is coloring much of my reading of @mark311’s posts. All I see is logical fallacy after logical fallacy, and my hand itches to grab for that red pen and start marking up his text with “No, no, no!” 😛

      gospace in reply to mark311. | May 23, 2021 at 6:57 pm

      She was shot at point blank range. A rap with a baton would have sent her back through the window. Shooting while your hands are occupied crawling through a window? Try it. Ashli Babbitt posed no threat, zero, none whatsoever, to the black thug that shot her at point blank range without legal justification

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | May 24, 2021 at 9:39 pm

      Mark – seriously?

      ““An unarmed woman ”
      Was the officer able to know that?”

      So, are you saying you can shoot anyone because you do not know they are unarmed or not? You are saying it is justified to shoot anyone, then? This violates all known notions of the legitimate use of deadly force. The woman not only needed to be armed, but needed to present a clear, present, and immediate threat to someone else with that weapon to justify the shooting. There were numerous options to repel Babbitt other than the use of deadly force, such as standing in front of the hole in glass, and then pushing her back, and verbally warning her, then striking her, etc., in an escalation prior to simply deciding to shoot her. You cannot kill someone simply because you are concerned that maybe, perhaps, they are armed.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

George Floyd’s family received 27 million.

I don’t get it.. How does anyone come up with these numbers?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to amwick. | May 22, 2021 at 10:33 pm

    Babbit’s family deserves at least ten, maybe a hundred fold what was paid to POS Floyd’s POS family. Also, whoever shot her deserves justice.

      Babbitt was a “burden” h/t Obama, not wholly innocent, but not a mark for self-defense (e.g .beating a head into a sidewalk, wielding a knife with an immediate threat to life, threatening a pregnant mother and her unborn child… fetus). Her elective abortion was socially justified. Her abortionist may have been motivated by diversity, not limited to racism and sexism, or ideology. Demonstration of an actual depraved state of mind.. And Pelosi et al came tumbling after.

      Do you know what justice even is ?

        healthguyfsu in reply to mark311. | May 23, 2021 at 12:12 pm

        lulz

        Like you have any inkling of justice with your warped “google a lefty source and claim fact” as your bar for ethical discourse..

        DaveGinOly in reply to mark311. | May 24, 2021 at 1:25 am

        Well, if you think Officer Chauvin was justifiably found guilty of murdering a person who was under arrest for a variety of reasons (and was being held in submission due to his resistance to officers), then surely you must also believe that if an officer intentionally kills someone who wasn’t threatening is likewise a criminal offense and he should be charged and tried.

        An approving reference to Officer Chauvin’s conviction would logically demand a similar examination of the Capitol officer’s actions (specifically, his prosecution so a jury could judge his actions).

        JusticeDelivered in reply to mark311. | May 28, 2021 at 4:05 pm

        Mark311, do you recognize injustice? I prefer rule of law, but there are times when people have to take action, as in when the system of law is preverted, the same is true for politics.

        The question today is will the system right itself, or will lots of external force be needed to fix this?

They’ll have about the same chance of prevailing in DC with DC judges and juries as a poor black family would have had with Alabama judges and juries when suing the police for a wrongful lynching in 1930’s Alabama.

    n.n in reply to JHogan. | May 23, 2021 at 12:08 am

    Yes, diversity, inequity, and exclusion are a systemic, and, in fact, progressive condition. Just when you think you’re out, they pull you back in.

    CommoChief in reply to JHogan. | May 23, 2021 at 10:27 am

    Well maybe. I would point out that justice ultimately prevailed in the early 1930s Scotsboro cases. Granted via Appellate action in the first instance SCOTUS overturning but all were eventually released, after six or seven years as I recall. Appeals are a part of the judicial system after all. Pardons were issued in mid 1970s.

Discovery will be key to this case because the verdict is fixed (if you expect a fair trial in DC I have a bridge to sell you) but the more transparent it is that this was a murder and the media/dems are fine with it the better because not everyone who voted for Biden is a committed leftist.

    I.e. the Capitol Police are more likely to make a rapid settlement if something from discovery shows up that they don’t want made public. Therefore, the judge in charge of this will make absolutely certain that nothing comes up in discovery.

    It’s that easy.

      Danny in reply to georgfelis. | May 23, 2021 at 12:37 am

      Some judges are that partisan but most aren’t.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to georgfelis. | May 23, 2021 at 12:45 am

      I very much expect a generous settlement if they ca get as far as discovery. The Dems running Congress are currently building the false narrative of white supremists rioting in Congress that day. Discovery very likely would end up acquiring a lot of the security system videos, which very likely would show a mostly peaceful but boisterous, crowd, with most of the actual violence being instigated and carried out by AntiFA false flag instigators (as they also did last summer in many of the BLM riots). Regardless, the Congressional Dems, along with the Biden DOJ, are heavily invested in this narrative, and the last thing that they want the public to see is the security video that day, or even of the shooting.

      Oh, and supposedly the Capital police lieutenant who shot her is Black. The natural question arises then – why is it ok for black cops to shoot white civilians, without cause, while it isn’t ok for white cops to shoot black civilians, even when there is good cause?

        MarkS in reply to Bruce Hayden. | May 23, 2021 at 8:06 am

        Nancy and the courts are already blocking the release of security video… for what reason, other than embarrassment is not clear

          gospace in reply to MarkS. | May 23, 2021 at 7:01 pm

          She was shot at point blank range. A rap with a baton would have sent her back through the window. Shooting while your hands are occupied crawling through a window? Try it. Ashli Babbitt posed no threat, zero, none whatsoever, to the black thug that shot her at point blank range without legal justification

    healthguyfsu in reply to Danny. | May 23, 2021 at 12:13 pm

    You assume discovery will be allowed.

    Corrupt DC could easily rule

    No standing….person with standing is dead.

    No latches…person with latches is dead.

    Ben Kent in reply to Danny. | May 24, 2021 at 3:16 pm

    They will settle – using taxpayer money – before the reveal the POS that shot Ashley.

JusticeDelivered | May 23, 2021 at 8:48 am

Falsely claiming that there was an insurrection and the associated BS may well trigger a real insurrection

texansamurai | May 23, 2021 at 8:52 am

we weren’t there–difficult to determine her intent as she is deceased–she could have been pushed through the window–regardless, from the video and other evidence, she appears to have been unarmed–difficult to prove imminent threat from an unarmed individual(particularly a female of smaller stature)–regardless of the colors involved, believe the officer panicked/fucked-up–her death is on him

seems the real message to “ordinary” americans(not soros-paid agitators such as antifa,blm)is that you(us)may end up dead should we resort to active/physical resistance to the junta’s policies and that the shooters will face no consequences for manslaughters/murders they, and they alone, deem “necessary” or “appropriate”

a sobering precedent indeed as it will, from here on, genuinely endanger the lives of leos and police should(rather when)actual, legitimate protests occur

    DaveGinOly in reply to texansamurai. | May 24, 2021 at 1:30 am

    An unarmed female crawling through a broken window? Appropriate response – pull her through and put her in cuffs, pass her along to the next officer. “Next!”

She is white , so therefore, no standing

case dismissed with prejudice

John Roberts approves

Y’all are hella pessimistic. A trial CT would have two broad choices here. Allow discovery or not.

If allowed then the narrative currently employed by Capital PD et al will be examined. Based upon recent examples in these sorts of situations in other jurisdictions I don’t see a convincing avenue to avoid allowing discovery.

If not allowed then that reinforces a counter narrative of cover-up and collusion to ‘hide’ the facts. Throw in the ‘racial’ angle and this becomes a problem. If the Capital PD are allowed to basically state ‘ allowing discovery would reveal TTP to other potential bad actors’ and the CT simply let’s that stand…… that would create a precedent which almost everyone outside the LEO community would strongly condemn.

The ‘lawfare’ tactics employed by the d/progressive and opportunistic attorneys seeking large judgments of settlements are either valid or not. I don’t see how a reasonable basis for applying them selectively could be constructed much less maintained.

    DaveGinOly in reply to CommoChief. | May 24, 2021 at 1:36 am

    I’ve mentioned here before that I believe the Dem narrative of the entire Capitol intrusion incident was in the can before the event, and they were hoping that the event would be as violent and destructive as the (already prepared) narrative describes it. When that didn’t happen, they pushed forward with the narrative anyway, knowing that a compliant MSM would carry their water.

    But the Babbitt killing provides another purpose for running with the narrative – justification for Babbitt’s killing. After all, the narrative describes an “armed insurrection” with participants seeking out Congress critters to “kill” or “abduct.” Babbitt was a part of the “armed insurrection,” so her killing is “justifiable.”

      CommoChief in reply to DaveGinOly. | May 24, 2021 at 10:36 am

      Yeah maybe. They seem hell bent on attempting to simply brazen it out…

      The problem is the charges won’t stick. It’s super splashy to yell ‘armed insurrection’ from a podium to a fawning media. Presenting evidence to support that is not as easy.

      Lots of past, present and future propaganda with an assist from media allies but at the end of the day the prosecution can’t make their case.

      Why? Well for one thing the group isn’t responsible for individual acts. Some guy did x in y office and their are photos? Cool now how does apply to everyone else? It doesn’t. That individual is solely responsible.

      The timeline is tricky as well. Some of the charges relate to the presence of the VP. Well, one the VP was evacuated he wasn’t present so everything after that can’t be based on that.

      Some of the charges relate to, in essence, disruption of official business’. Was the process of opening and counting the EC votes truly an exercise of official power or was it simply a pro forma requirement?

      In other words if they were so!ply going through the motions but were not exercising any discretion or power then, I would sure as hell argue it didn’t meet the threshold for ‘disruption’.

      We all know that if they could prove the immediate charges they would be doing so in a very public manner. They have not. IMO, they can’t. So they will use pretrial confinement as a punishment and try to dig up anything else on these folks; unpaid taxes, firearms violations ECT.

      IMO, they may not even be able to make what amounts to a simple trespass charge stick. Since some people were allowed in unopposed by personnel removing barriers then those folks were let in and thus not trespassing. Now the prosecution has to prove each person didn’t come in like that v a forced entry.

response to mark 311 @ 10:24 a.m.

Tell that to the French peasants of the 17th century.

If I was his fellow officers I would not want him out there with a gun. If you look at the video there are 3-4 officers coming up the steps behind the group she was in. If he had missed the bullet would have gone pretty close to where they were coming into the hallway. So regardless if it was justified he put the other police in danger by doing it.

    /This.

    I saw that in the video,too, there were cops right behind her, fgs. I suspect that this officer has been removed from any duty that would place him in a position to fire his duty weapon. He almost certainly underwent some psych eval and was then assigned to desk duty or quietly retired. If he’s actually still wandering around the Capitol complex, armed, I wouldn’t want to be one of his Capitol Hill police colleagues the next time he starts wildly shooting into a crowd.

Richard Aubrey | May 24, 2021 at 9:32 pm

If Babbit, reportedly 5’4″, 11olbs, were attacking an average man, I expect somebody would alert him to the issue. Only polite thing to do.
After which, a slap upside the head might be excessive.

Why are we commenting on the laws in other states which are irrelevant to DC?

What is the law in DC re use of deadly force?

    lawgrad in reply to Y2K. | May 29, 2021 at 8:03 am

    There are different legal standards for civilians and police officers. This is more than just trespass but also failure to obey a lawful order.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend