Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Cop Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Will Reveal Himself in Interview With NBC’s Lester Holt

Cop Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Will Reveal Himself in Interview With NBC’s Lester Holt

The Capitol Police exonerated the cop three days ago. They found his “actions were within department policy.”

The cop who fatally shot Ashli Babbitt on January 6th will reveal himself during NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt at 6:30 PM ET.

The Capitol Police exonerated the cop three days ago.

The investigation found the cop’s “actions were within department policy, which allows deadly force only when an officer reasonably believes they are protecting themselves or others from serious physical harm.”

The department wrote: “The actions of the officer in this case potentially saved members [of Congress] and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and to the House Chamber where members and staff were steps away.”

The Capitol Police did not want to identify the man because he received death threats along with his family.

Babbitt family lawyer Terrell Roberts asked what we all are thinking: “Did the Capitol Police’s fear that by identifying the officer he would be exposed to grave danger just evaporate into thin air?”

NBC News said the cop will “share his perspective on the events of that day, including the aftermath of the deadly insurrection and the threats he has received.”

Deadly? Babbitt is the only one that I know of who died during the riot.

He will also discuss the investigation by the Capitol Police along with the policy they used to clear his name.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


JusticeDelivered | August 25, 2021 at 6:44 pm

NBC will try and whitewash him, in the end he still used really bad judgement. All the rationalization will not change this.

Colonel Travis | August 25, 2021 at 6:46 pm

Yeah this will really smooth things over.

    They’re not trying to ‘smooth things over’.

    They’re rubbing it in our faces that they can do whatever the fuck they want and nothing will happen to them.

      Colonel Travis in reply to Olinser. | August 25, 2021 at 7:30 pm

      No they can’t just do the fuck what they want. I’m sick of people not understanding the law. Go read Andrew Branca and stop with the emotional, political BS. Unless there is a drastic change of evidence, there is nothing illegal with this shooting.

        Subotai Bahadur in reply to Colonel Travis. | August 25, 2021 at 8:29 pm

        Just a thought.

        Let us say that there is a soldier guarding a government building in a large American city. And a crowd gathers around him, taunting and insulting him and the government. Help is sent for, and a Captain joins a detachment [2 NCO’s and 7 Privates] that goes and joins the soldier guarding the government building. There are further exchanges, and first one soldier fires [without orders] and is joined by the rest. There are casualties, fatal and non-fatal.

        There is a trial afterwards. It comes out that two of the soldiers are found guilty of manslaughter, and the rest found not guilty by the court. I note that the court and trial were public and the testimony and evidence were published, unlike the “inquiry” on Michael Byrd. So that the confidence in the results of the Byrd inquiry are not exactly trusted, with cause.

        That is an abbreviated form of what happened on the night of March 5, 1770 outside the Government Custom House in Boston. It is referred to colloquially as the Boston Massacre. Except for the two convicted of manslaughter, the rest of the soldiers were acquitted in open court. The law freed them. The two convicted, by the way, were not imprisoned or hung, but were branded on the hand for the 5 who died [some the next day] and 6 who were wounded by the soldiers.

        The law acquitted most of the soldiers, and the penalties for the two convicted were minimal for those they all killed and wounded.

        OK, what passed for the rule of law was obeyed. And Yet. And Yet. Politically the Boston Massacre powerfully motivated the people of first New England and later other colonies to decide that it was time to stand and fight. The Boston Massacre helped lead to Meriam’s Corner and thence to Bunker Hill.

        The killing of Ashli Babbit may have been legal under the rigged system that protects any government official. But that does not mean that it does not have political and moral effects among Americans. The Social Contract is frayed and failing, if it has not already failed.

        Subotai Bahadur

          The whole issue breaks down to unequal application of the law. Most people have a difficulty viewing this is a silo. Most of us see it in context to all the recent cop shootings and how those shootings were handled. In contrast, it definitely looks like they do what ever the fuck they decide.

          Colonel Travis in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | August 25, 2021 at 11:26 pm

          Either you have a valid claim for self-defense or you don’t. You have given no legal arguments here.

          The Boston Massacre has nothing to do with this, that was 250 years ago, there were conflicting accounts and self-defense law wasn’t established in this country because we weren’t a country yet.

          I wish people would stick to the law. And if you can explain – in detail – why there was no valid case for self-defense here, then do that.

          Pepsi_Freak in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | August 26, 2021 at 9:43 am

          You say, “Either you have a valid claim for self-defense or you don’t.” Exactly.

          Self-defense is a claim of necessity; it is not punitive in nature. To raise a claim of killing in self-defense, you must show:

          1. An honest belief that you (or whoever you are defending, if you’re claiming “defense of another”) are in danger of imminent death or serious bodily injury from the decedent; and
          2. An honest and reasonable belief that killing the decedent is required to avoid being killed or injured.

          In this case, we don’t know what the mystery killer told the people who were “investigating” (and I use the term loosely) whether their co-worker committed murder, but we do know some things.

          As to the first element, we do know that if he claimed to be defending Congressmen from being killed by Ashli, none of the allegedly threatened people was even in the room where she was killed, and she was not visibly armed with a weapon that could act over a distance. There thus seems no evidence that someone was in danger of imminent death or grievous bodily harm from Ashli.

          At best, there is some speculation that somewhere down the line someone might somehow be placed in danger from this apparently unarmed woman, but no evidence that I’ve heard of that there was any actual present or imminent danger, nor any reason to believe that anyone was in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Without present or imminent (i.e., immediate) danger, there is no necessity and thus no self-defense. Speculation on what might somehow happen in the indefinite future isn’t enough.

          As to the second prong, the videos show not only no Congressman near Ashli, but lots of security personnel between her and any potential victim whom the killer would be protecting from Ashli. If she were to begin moving toward a Congressman, there were plenty of people who could have physically blocked her or otherwise subdued her without killing her.

          The video also shows the killer deliberately moving forward, lifting his weapon, and pointing it at her face, so this was not an accident or someone jostling the killer — he did it knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately, which could be evidence of malice.

          The whole of the known circumstances may not (yet) show guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but to say it establishes the defense of self-defense is ludicrous.

          If it was an actual trial and I was the trial judge, I would question whether the defense was actually even raised sufficient to require instructing the jury on it. Of course, if the killer testified that he did believe he was acting in self defense, I’d probably give the instruction to protect the record even though it seemed unsupported by the record. But to say this was clearly self-defense is, to me, not supported by the evidence.

          Of course, we don’t know what he told his co-worker “investigators”, but if there is a good aggressive interview tonight, we may find out. He may have evidence that totally exonerates himself, but so far I do not believe we have seen such evidence.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Olinser. | August 25, 2021 at 7:38 pm

      It is very strange because pending civil litigation could be made on his answers in this interview alone. He has a lawyer who will get the questions in advance, and the scope of his interview will be to make the capital riots sound as dangerous as humanly possible (that serves his interests and the msm).

    Ben Kent in reply to Colonel Travis. | August 25, 2021 at 9:43 pm


Skinnedknuckles | August 25, 2021 at 6:51 pm

And how much do you think he is being paid for this “interview”?

Revealed nice, tried better, hung best. But nothing will ever happen.

If he’s just now revealing himself how was he getting death threats?

Subotai Bahadur | August 25, 2021 at 7:43 pm

He is now a Stakhanovite Hero of the Peoples’ Republic and we will be encouraged to love and emulate him.

[not sure if I can put a /s behind that . . . because I don’t know if it is /s]

Subotai Bahadur

If that cop was in fear of his life, why just one round at one person.
Just maybe it was a Negligent Discharge. High pressure situation and scared.

    Colonel Travis in reply to donp. | August 25, 2021 at 8:27 pm

    You don’t empty your magazine when you are shooting in self-defense. You shoot to stop the threat. The fact that he waited and only fired one shot tells me that wasn’t a ND and he was very aware of when he would pull the trigger. If you carry this is something you need to think about and prepare for a lot. What is my red line. That officer’s red line was the breaking through the door.

      RickTheBear in reply to Colonel Travis. | August 26, 2021 at 8:34 am

      @Colonel Travis: Apparently, some do empty their gun in self-defense (per Mas Ayoob). They don’t realize how many shots they’re firing and don’t immediately process the threat’s reaction. Just sayin’.

      Pepsi_Freak in reply to Colonel Travis. | August 26, 2021 at 9:57 am

      “breaking through the door” eh? Really? Sounds punitive to me.

      He better have said, “When I realized my life was threatened” or he’s arguing “defense of a door” rather than “self-defense”.

    alaskabob in reply to donp. | August 25, 2021 at 9:06 pm

    He advanced on the woman, pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. The minute the gun was pointed at the woman, “negligent” doesn’t cover it. Now as for general negligence … his gun handling prior to the killing was just that… finger on trigger with gun pointed at the back of fellow cops… who had correct handling.

Derek Chauvin put his knee on George Floyd’s neck and went to prison for 22.5 years. He should’ve just shot him and said he feared for his life from the big hulk of a man who was high on drugs and could’ve killed him with his bare hands. An even more dangerous situation, of course, would be an unarmed woman climbing through a window. Any law enforcment agent would shoot to kill under such circumstances. If you don’t agree, wait till tomorrow night and Lester Holt will explain it to you.

George_Kaplan | August 25, 2021 at 8:53 pm

How can the officer in question have “… received death threats along with his family” when nobody knows his identity?

As for deadly insurrection, NBC seem to be hitting all the emotive terms, just not the objective ones.

Deadly: Causing or tending to cause death – except Babbitt was the only one killed during the rally, march on the Capitol, or during the wander through the Capitol.

Insurrection: an act or instance of rising in arms or open rebellion against an established government or authority – except people did not take up arms or rebel, this was a mostly peaceful event where people expressed their desire for election honesty to beat fraud.

    How can the officer in question have “… received death threats along with his family” when nobody knows his identity?

    The same way Jussie Smollett was attacked by two white men wearing red maga hats at three o’clock in the morning when he was on the way back from picking up a sub sandwich on the coldest day of the year in Chicago.

      You so forgot the noose Smollett hung around his own neck. That’s the key detail, in addition to MAGA-hat wearing Trump supporters who are known to frequent pretty much no part of Chicago. These hoaxes are so transparent as to be laughable. In fact, I am still LMAO about the FBI decending on NASCAR over a pull rope.

      The more woke the feds get, including the military, the more of an absolute joke they are.

        Are they the joke or are they effective partisans in the service of a cause?

        At the height of McCarthyism the FBI came across to communists the way it comes across to us today. The population by and large trusts authority, including in America.

He is Black and she was White
Pretty sure he wouldn’t have shot a Black woman
She was a Veteran, and a woman amd they don’t care , they have tried to destroy her

We must never forget

    Danny in reply to gonzotx. | August 26, 2021 at 6:40 am

    It would have depended on context i.e. could he get away with it? Would it make him feel like an authority figure who is superior to his colleagues etc…

    Every police force is more than likely to have a bad egg, it is inevitable. A riot going on and an opportunity to get away with murder and tower over his idle colleagues knowing he would be protected.

    The bad cop isn’t the problem and neither is race (which probably didn’t matter) the problem is a corrupt department with immense powers that is vindicating police brutality for political reasons.

Liberals haven’t woke to the fact that they are now the man.

Since they have never been officially identified, how do we know that whoever shows up really is the officer in question?

I also can’t help but notice the timing. The “insurrection” narrative is collapsing. This “interview” is, in my opinion, really about shoring it up.

No weapon, she wasn’t near anybody, and she wasn’t large enough to conceivably be a threat…..

She was breaking the law, as did countless rioters the police ignored over the summer who cops did not see fit to shoot.

I don’t for a second think there was an investigation I do however think there is a purge desperately needed at all of the people who did a Soviet style propaganda effort.

I don’t give a damn who police brutality is against it is always wrong.

His name is widely known at this time so he may as well enjoy the notoriety. Compare this to the St Louis couple who brandished weapons in front of their house.

His name is widely known at this time so he may as well enjoy the notoriety. Compare this to the St Louis couple who brandished weapons in front of their house.

No, I did not say this previously.

Capsaicin_Addict | August 26, 2021 at 8:29 am

Revealing himself on network TV? Aren’t there rules against that?

(sorry, injecting a little levity here)


This is disgusting. I am nauseated.

I’m envisioning decades from now that school children will be learning of the Great Insurrection of 2021, instead of, I don’t know, the Revolutionary War. 8~(

I’d like to see the officer have an interview with Tucker Carlson- that would be watchable…the fact that Lester Holt is interviewing him tells me that we will never hear the truth

If i were him, i would move to another country. He is a filthy, lying left wing coward. I watched that video a dozen times. It was clear none of these people were armed, and this POS steps out of the shadows and murdered this woman in cold blood. If that had been my daughter, finding this cowardly POS would become my full time occupation,

“I don’t care about your affiliation.”

Absolute lying scumbag. His sm accounts were FULL of radical, partisan ‘takes.’

Funny how they mention him only discharging his weapon once…but no mention of leaving it laying around.

He murdered her. He is a lying, self-aggrandizing pos. This is an absolute JOKE.

Aww heck…they did address the incident. My mistake. I read the indifference plea and jumped the gun.