What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,551
Points
290

Jonathan Turley:

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

141 officers were injured and numerous were seriously injured. The reason for this was because they refused to fire. I have no issue with hundreds being killed. I don't give a damn about terrorists.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,551
Points
290
Like I've been saying, this was murder. There was no imminent threat, no deadly force, Ashli was pinned in a doorway window and there were other police present. For some reason known only to Officer Byrd, he inexplicably jumped forward gun drawn and shot her point blank in the face.

This was not murder you fascist pig. The imminent threat was the fact that the police were heavily outnumbered. Every officer should have opened fire. She was not pinned, she was trying to break through the door. He did not shoot her in the face you lying fascist.
 

GMCGeneral

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
2,242
Points
1,938
Location
For me to know and you not to find out.
141 officers were injured and numerous were seriously injured. The reason for this was because they refused to fire. I have no issue with hundreds being killed. I don't give a damn about terrorists.
So you don't give a damn about Real Americans. I always knew you were Communist scum.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,551
Points
290
He murdered her because he was unfit for the duty and far too fearfully preemptive and lethal over matters that he had no confirmation of as to lethality presented by her. Speculation is insipidly weak defense

She got exactly what she deserved. If she were not there, it would not have happened.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,551
Points
290
So you don't give a damn about Real Americans. I always knew you were Communist scum.

They like you are terrorists. Neither you or your Nazi brethren are un-American. You are the commie as well.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,551
Points
290
So say a cop is watching 5 black guys trespassing and trying to get further into the structure, it's OK for him to shoot one of them to discourage the others from continuing, even if cops are both in front and behind said black guys?

This was not trespassing. They were trying to break the door down and unlawfully gain access. Others were threatening to hang Mike Pence. That is what Republicans are trying to do.
 
Last edited:

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,551
Points
290
No, I am more American than those of you who want to usher in Far Left Socialism.

You are attacking this country to establish a right wing dictatorship. You have no clue what socialism is.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,551
Points
290
No cop was killed.
The fact one later had a stroke or heart attack, is not related.

All the violence was caused by and due to the cops.
The demonstrators just wanted to be heard and get media coverage.
They did not want to get clubbed, gassed, and hit with rubber bullets.
But the police tried to prevent them from getting any recognition from Congress or the media, but trying to brutalize them.
It was ALL entirely the fault of the violent police.

He died as a result of the attack. If you commit a crime and someone has a heart attack, you can be charged with their death.
 

GMCGeneral

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
2,242
Points
1,938
Location
For me to know and you not to find out.
You are attacking this country to establish a right wing dictatorship. You have no clue what socialism is.
You mean return America to what it should be. No free healthcare, no free welfare, everybody rises or falls on their own merits, as it should be.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,551
Points
290
You mean return America to what it should be. No free healthcare, no free welfare, everybody rises or falls on their own merits, as it should be.

You are a right wing lunatic as I thought. You come from the "let them eat cake" branch of crazyland.
 

konradv

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
33,154
Reaction score
8,112
Points
1,330
Location
Baltimore

konradv

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
33,154
Reaction score
8,112
Points
1,330
Location
Baltimore
Nope. Government is NOT there to wipe your pathetic weak far Left ass every time you screw up in life!
You’re assuming it’s always the person’s fault. That‘s false on the face of it.
 

BS Filter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
26,163
Reaction score
13,708
Points
1,415
She knew what she was doing. Why is personal responsibility only for the other guy when talking to Trumpistas? :dunno:
Yes, she was protesting just like BLM and antifa. She was killed for protesting. Too bad she wasn't a Black leftist because then she would be excused.
 

WEATHER53

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
18,455
Reaction score
8,932
Points
950
Covid and Babbit wasn’t murdered were the two successful hoaxes.
Pathetic scorecard others wise of 2-37.
 

MarathonMike

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
31,561
Reaction score
35,336
Points
2,945
Location
The Southwestern Desert
This was not murder you fascist pig. The imminent threat was the fact that the police were heavily outnumbered. Every officer should have opened fire. She was not pinned, she was trying to break through the door. He did not shoot her in the face you lying fascist.
Well aren't you a charmer? Fascist pig I haven't heard that one in about 20 years LOL. Here is something sure to confuse you since it is written in plain English that a 5th grader could understand:

Under the Constitution, when may police officers use deadly force? As Professor Rachel Harmon explains, generally, police officers can use lethal force under two circumstances: when they have probable cause to believe a suspect poses an imminent threat of serious bodily harm and when a dangerous suspect of a crime involving the infliction of serious physical injury is attempting to flee.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top