Jonathan Turley: Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’

[Eric Arthur Blair]

There is no statute of limitations on murder. He has never been tried, so when the midterms turn both houses, we may see justice prevail.

I pray it is so.

 

[beautress]

Thank you, Jon Turley.

 

[Oldestyle]

Whew!!!
This is such well-plowed ground.
We all can hope that Ms. Babbitt's family finds peace.....and do not expose themselves--purposesly or inadvertently--- to the distasteful waving of her bloody shirt for political purposes that we see in uber-partisan social-media postings.

Let's take a look at what the Poynter Institute's fact-check organization 'Politifacts" has reported in July of 2021:

"Fact-checking Donald Trump on there being 'no reason' for shooting Ashli Babbitt"​

PolitiFact - Fact-checking Donald Trump on there being 'no reason' for shooting Ashli Babbitt

During a press conference to announce that he was filing a lawsuit against several social media giants, former President

www.politifact.com

With all due respect...the claim that that officer feared for his life and therefore had the right to shoot an unarmed person is a load of crap! In order to make that leap of logic you have to assume that the protesters who just let police walk away from in FRONT of those doors so they wouldn't be harmed would have been turned into a violent mob as soon as they breached those doors! Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. Were protesters in other parts of the Capital violent? Did any protesters harm any members of Congress?

I'm sorry but you don't get to shoot an unarmed person because you think they MIGHT become violent later on! That's absurd!

 

[Oldestyle]

No, she was the front man of a violent mob who had just bashed in part of a door and was climbing in where people hid who had not yet been able to flee to safety. She had a back pack which could have held a bomb and was likely going to open the door and let tbe mob in. She sure as hell wasn’t lying on the floor.

LOL...so now you're jumping to the conclusion that Babbitt MIGHT have had a bomb in her back pack? That's your excuse for opening fire on an unarmed protester?

So under that kind of logic Police all over the country can shoot to kill anyone protesting that is wearing a back pack? Seriously?

 

[Oldestyle]

Eeeeeuw!
I really hesitate to participate anymore in this distasteful exhumation of Ashli Babbitt's corpse for partisan political debate points. It is disrespectful.

Still, I could not let pass the above assertion by the good poster 'WEATHER53".

That poster asserted...despite many airings of videos of the shooting from different cameras that Babbitt was clearly NOT lying on the floor when shot. It is shameful to assert such for mere political advantage.

When she was shot Babbitt was charging towards the officers who had commanded her to stop, to retreat, to leave. She refused. She continued forward. Towards a police officer aiming a gun at her.

Ashli Babbitt made a series of bad choices.
And, as in much of life, there can be an accounting for one's actions.

May the woman's family find peace.

Once again...have you EVER watched the video of what happened? Nothing went down the way you describe it! Not even remotely close! You need to shut up.

 

[Concerned American]

I really hesitate to participate anymore in this distasteful exhumation of Ashli Babbitt's corpse for partisan political debate points. It is disrespectful.

You didn't seem to turned away by her distasteful MURDER for partisan political benefit. HYPOCRITE.

 

[otto105]

Wrong.
Riots are an essential means of political expression, and always have been.
If not for riots, we would still be a British colony and have slavery.

The fact I politically disagree with Ashli, does not at all change the need to protect the means of political expression she was using.
Anyone who shoots unarmed rioters needs to go to jail for a long time.

No, you're just wrong.

She made her choice in the insurrection.

 

[otto105]

I think ANYONE would be more qualified to speak on the Babbitt murder than a leader of our partisan
jibber jabber squad here.

And anyone that tries to defend shooting an unarmed protestor, nay, cheers for it, doesn't have an
ounce of moral authority to prop up their morally bereft idiocy.

I say dig her up and shot her again.

 

[Chillicothe]

"With all due respect...the claim that that officer feared for his life and therefore had the right to shoot an unarmed person is a load of crap!"

Here, read this:

PolitiFact - Fact-checking Donald Trump on there being 'no reason' for shooting Ashli Babbitt

During a press conference to announce that he was filing a lawsuit against several social media giants, former President

www.politifact.com

 

[Chillicothe]

"That's your excuse for opening fire on an unarmed protester?"

---------------------------------------------------------
See post #209 above.
Do it.
Read it.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Once again...have you EVER watched the video of what happened?"

Third time's a charm?

See post #209 above.
Really, I mean it.
Read it.

 

[Chillicothe]

"You didn't seem to turned away by her distasteful MURDER for partisan political benefit. HYPOCRITE."

You too.
See post #209 above.
It's easy to read.
Read it.

 

[Concerned American]

You too.
See post #209 above.
It's easy to read.
Read it.

Hide and watch moron. A partisan political investigation in no way absolves Michael Byrd of murder and your partisan bs fact checkers that are irrelevant have no bearing either. What will have a bearing is Nov. 2022 congressional turnover when the justice department will revisit this travesty and Michael Byrd will stand trial for the unjustified murder of an unarmed civilian. I understand you are triggered. People in the wrong usually are.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Hide and watch moron."

Really, I meant it.
Read it.
But, if you really have read it,.....
...well then, tell us what you think of Politifact's reportage.
What did they get right?
What did they get wrong?
And why do you think either?

This is Adult Swim.
It's for adults.

 

[easyt65]

Jonathan Turley:​

Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’​

“Under Byrd’s interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6.”​

Jonathan Turley: Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’

"Under Byrd's interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6."

legalinsurrection.com

29 Aug 2021 ~~ By Stacey Matthews
Numerous aspects of what unfolded during the Capitol riot have been hotly debated in the months since it happened, but few have been as contentious and emotional as the debate over the officer-involved shooting death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt.
The 35-year-old Air Force veteran was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6th after she tried to climb through a glass-paneled door after parts of it had been shattered by another rioter, identified as Zachary Jordan Alam.
Babbitt, who reportedly had been standing next to Alam, was shot.
n April, the Biden Department of Justice announced they had closed the investigation into the fatal shooting and would not be pursuing criminal charges against Byrd, citing “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”
Just last week, the Capitol Police confirmed a report from NBC News that they had exonerated Byrd, a 28-year veteran of the force. They stated in a press release that Byrd – who they did not name – “will not be facing internal discipline” because in their view Byrd’s conduct “was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”
On the heels of the USCP exonerating Byrd, he did an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, identifying himself publicly for the first time.
Instead of clearing things up, the interview only intensified the debate over his actions and whether they were justified. Here’s a key moment from their back and forth:

Video shot by a person in the crowd showed two officers posted in front of the door. Heavily outnumbered, they eventually stepped aside.​

Byrd said he had no knowledge that any officers were there. Because of the furniture stacked on his side of the door, he also couldn’t make out how many people were on the other side or whether they were carrying weapons.​

“It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side,” he said.​

But he did see the person now known to be Babbitt start coming through the broken glass.​

“I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”​

Byrd, who says he has been in hiding since that day and has faced death threats, told Holt it was the first time he’d ever fired his weapon.
Watch an edited version of the interview below:

​

The extended interview can be viewed here.
Georgetown University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who has long been a critic of official media narratives surrounding the shooting, said that instead of confirming that the respective decisions by the DOJ and the Capitol Police not to pursue action against Byrd were the right ones to make that Byrd “proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him” after he admitted he could not determine whether Babbitt was armed:

​

He expanded on his opinion in a piece published at The Hill:

While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters. ​

Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers.​

[…]​

Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.​

I’m not a legal analyst, but I think Turley makes some good points here.



Comment:
Not a single officer at the Capitol that day was threatened with deadly force. If they had been, other rioters would have been shot. “Context” shows that the officer’s lives were not in danger, and no other officer present thought that they were. This includes the officers who had their guns drawn right alongside Byrd; even they did not fire.
Someone crawling through a broken window? Haul them through, put them in zip ties, pass them to another officer to take away, or tell them to sit down and don’t move. Byrd was not a homeowner at night in the dark, defending his home while alone. He was a trained LEO, with armed fellow officers by his side, and still had a barrier between himself and other rioters, who were not known to have been armed (and were, in fact, not armed).
Please note the following:

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r190_14.pdf

Byrd violated the Rules of Engagement of both the Military and Law Enforcement. Had a soldier shot a unarmed civilian under the same circumstances he would have been court martialed.
In incidents involving police shootings, LEO's have been prosecuted for shooting supposed unarmed perpetrators, yet in this case there is no indictment or real investigation. The justification of the murder of Ashli Babbitt is purely political and Byrd has virtually gotten away with murder.
Succinctly said. If Byrd were White and Babbitt were Black, there would have been riots, arson and looting. Personally, I would like him to receive justice

The fact that this asshole, Pelosi, and the 2 Sergeants-at-Arms who rejected Trump's suggestion of having the National Guard in place testify before the committee just proves what a political theater scam Pelosi has concocted yet again. Combine that with D-Schiff being caught AGAIN manufacturing false evidence in an attempt to make a case out of nothing, and it proves those running this farce should be in DC Gitmo.

 

[Concerned American]

tell us what you think of Politifact's reportage.

Politifact's irrelevant reporting of Trump is not on topic. Please return to the topic of Jonathan Turley determining that the investigation was a sham. Please stay on topic and quit trying to hijack the thread because it disproves your leftist talking points.

 

[lantern2814]

Eeeeeuw!
I really hesitate to participate anymore in this distasteful exhumation of Ashli Babbitt's corpse for partisan political debate points. It is disrespectful.

Still, I could not let pass the above assertion by the good poster 'WEATHER53".

That poster asserted...despite many airings of videos of the shooting from different cameras that Babbitt was clearly NOT lying on the floor when shot. It is shameful to assert such for mere political advantage.

When she was shot Babbitt was charging towards the officers who had commanded her to stop, to retreat, to leave. She refused. She continued forward. Towards a police officer aiming a gun at her.

Ashli Babbitt made a series of bad choices.
And, as in much of life, there can be an accounting for one's actions.

May the woman's family find peace.

Blatant lies. No surprise. Show your proof of Babbitt charging officers. That never happened. Amazing how you leftards have to lie like crazy to protect your precious feelings.

 

[lantern2814]

Third time's a charm?

See post #209 above.
Really, I mean it.
Read it.

You were told to take your off topic politinofact crap and shove it. Really. We mean it.

 

[Concerned American]

This is Adult Swim.
It's for adults.

Why are you here then?

 

[otto105]

Hide and watch moron. A partisan political investigation in no way absolves Michael Byrd of murder and your partisan bs fact checkers that are irrelevant have no bearing either. What will have a bearing is Nov. 2022 congressional turnover when the justice department will revisit this travesty and Michael Byrd will stand trial for the unjustified murder of an unarmed civilian. I understand you are triggered. People in the wrong usually are.

A partisan investigation?

Was the deceased not part of a riot?

Was the deceased not trying to illegally enter a restricted area?

I know, let's dig her up and shot her again.