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

[westwall]

It's simply asking if somehow the rules for a good shoot change when its either in the capitol, for some reason, or just because it was a white trump supporter getting shot.

According to these idiots interpretation it is open season on any black dude who refuses to follow a cops order.

That's now all that's needed.

Let the games begin!

 

[DrLove]

Meh - Turdley used to be respected attorney ... until he started defending Trump on just about everything.
He's been entirely dismissible for the past 5-6 years. About as much credibility as Dershowitz.

 

[westwall]

Because he was faster and smarter than the other cops. You only need to kill one to scare the other cowardly bitches.

He was whining like a bitch. Kind of like you.

 

[Clipper]

So now Democrats justify the killing by black members of the DC Police of unarmed people especially if they're white and women?

Only if they're rioting in the Capital threatening the lives of people including police officers, idiot. Which is exactly what happened that day whether you Trump apologists believe it or don't believe it.

Babbitt would be alive today if she didn't listen to that lowlife Trump. It's tragic. She paid with her life as Trump is living large on a golf course. Which surprises no one.

 

[otto105]

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.

Damn, John turdly caught the same virus that Rudy died from.

This little time left fir him.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Or, alternatively, and contextualized:
Officers, upon hearing on their personal mobile communications that a mob is violently attacking police officers outside the capitol; officers are down; the mob has violently breached the building, and is charging inside ---- and then when that mob is attempting to attack the people they are sworn to protect by destroying barricades intentionally installed to prevent them from doing that; and when a breach is created by violent methods and a hostile mob member hastens through the breach headed towards the police .......despite being loudly and repeatedly warned not to do so by the threatened officers.......

.....well, let's just say "use-of-force" guidance allows for extraordinary measures.

Which were applied.
--------------------------------------------------------------

OK, that is righteous perspective based on the common sense of the officers behind the barricade.

Let's next turn our attention to Ms. Babbitt and her defenders.

• Ms. Babbitt decided to join a violent mob.
• Babbitt decided to participate in the violent breaching of a police barricade in a critically important Federal governance building.
• Babbitt decided to loudly threaten and remonstrate at the officers behind the barricade.
• Babbitt decided --once the breach was opened ---to hurl herself into the breach towards those defending officers on the opposite side. Charging at them.

Does anyone here....other than my poor avatar......think that Ms. Babbitt bears responsibility for her voluntary series of bad decisions?
Accountability for one's actions is a thing.
Responsible adults know that. And try hard to adhere to it's obvious strictures.

Babbitt is dead ...... because of Babbitt.

Duh!

By your standards, the officers that were actually in danger outside the building and doors should have been able to open fire. They didn't. The two officers directly in front of Babbitt and the broken window didn't open fire either. Apparently only one officer felt endangered and he was the furthest from Babbitt of all the inside officers. Under any other circumstances and in any other "police" force the shooter would be suspended pending charges.

 

[Chillicothe]

Ashley B. is dead. Shot by an officer of the law.
The shooting was ruled as justified.
Which brings us to the Sequel of prior posts.
To wit:

Accountability for one's actions is a thing.
Responsible adults know that. Babbitt is dead ...... because of Babbitt.

How many times does it need be repeated? -----Babbitt is dead because of Babbitt.
Personal accountability for one's actions really is a thing.
The adults knows that.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Ashley B. is dead. Shot by an officer of the law.
The shooting was ruled as justified.
Which brings us to the Sequel of prior posts.
To wit:

No answers, I get it, avoid, avoid, avoid when you can't refute.

 

[Rigby5]

Other views:

The barricade was being violently attacked and shattered, with Ms Babbitt vocally encouraging the destruction while loudly denigrating the uniformed police on the opposite side.

The crowd was warned to back away. Repeatedly.
A gun was brandished and pointed.
It was loudly acknowledged by Ms Babbit's cohorts beside her.
She knew it was there.
And pointed at the location of the violent breach.

Still, she persisted.
When the violent breach was finally effected she charged at the officers through that shattered breach....despite the warnings.

Babbitt, the duped political naif....paid for her foolishness with her life.


Important Takeaway:
Do not participate in a violent mob destroying police barricades in an important U.S. government building .......and then charge at the police after being warned not to......and when you know a gun is pointed at you.*




* Source: "Staying Un-shot for Dummies" by Captain Obvious.

Wrong.
The point is the cop had no legal authority to shoot, so then not only is this murder, but it means next time the government does something that requires protesting, like segregation, the Vietnam war, etc., the first thing we will have to do is KILL all the police.
The fact I do not agree with the protestors is irrelevant.
They right to protest is of the highest importance.
Anyone violating that right and murdering people, are the lowest of criminals and can not be tolerated in a civil society.
I would rather have NO police at all than police who decide to commit murder when clearly unnecessary.
That destroys the whole purpose and credibility of the entire government.

 

[Rigby5]

Absolutely right. They could have hosed down the lobotomized hillbillies with their services weapons. I am glad they did not.

But the point is shooting anyone was illegal.
The capital cop only has authority use lethal force is under direct threat of lethal attack.
He has to personally observer the physical threat.
No such treat was visible.

Just replace the cop with anyone else, like your neighbor.
Would they have been justified as being under a physical threat?
No, of course not, since Ashlie had no visible weapon.
So then your neighbor could not legally shoot, and then neither could a cop.
The idea cops have more authority to shoot is a false misconception that only exists in dangerously authoritarian governments.

 

[Rigby5]

Nobody gives a shit what you MAGA turds think because DOJ exonerated Byrd. You Trump asslickers want to nail Byrd so you can justify Trump & his goons actions that day.

We know what you're up to & ya don't give a rat's ass about Babbitt, so take a hike, cultist.

Wrong.
When a cop makes a mistake, it can be rectified, excused under emotional strain, etc.
But when the DOJ makes a mistake like this, is it time for torches and pitchforks.
I am very anti-Trump and do not believe there were election irregularities, but clearly this was just a political protest, and at no time warranted the use of deadly force.
But by supporting the illegal violation of law, the DOJ has now made itself an organization of felons.
When you start murdering protestors, you got to go.

 

[Rigby5]

5? Ha, see the weaselly things you have to do try to draw a comparison? That should be your first clue.
Have they assaulted and injured 140 police officers and shouted death threats? Oops left that out. Second clue.

Still illegal unless you see a deadly weapon about to be used.
You can not shoot, Byrd could not legally shoot.
You could let him off on a reduced charge due the nature of the conditions, but you can't say what he did was legal.
If you do that. then the protestor would have the right to kill any cop who was armed, because they then would obviously be a deadly threat.
And it would be legal self defense kill every armed cop you run into.
The only reason you can't legally shoot cops is they are supposed to be taught to not pose a deadly threat unless they have proof of an a deadly threat to them or others.
This cop threw that all out the window.
So the all armed cops then are fair game.
They all represent a deadly threat, so then all can be legally killed.

 

[Rigby5]

Ashley B. is dead. Shot by an officer of the law.
The shooting was ruled as justified.
Which brings us to the Sequel of prior posts.
To wit:

No, the result if that the DOJ has to be prosecuted for its illegal ruling.
This is worse then the Kent State murders because there were no rocks being thrown, and the cop was safely behind 2 barricades.

 

[Rigby5]

Only if they're rioting in the Capital threatening the lives of people including police officers, idiot. Which is exactly what happened that day whether you Trump apologists believe it or don't believe it.

Babbitt would be alive today if she didn't listen to that lowlife Trump. It's tragic. She paid with her life as Trump is living large on a golf course. Which surprises no one.

Irrelevant as to how wrong the protest was.
The point is shooting by the cop can NOT possibly be justified under any interpretation of law.
No one can just shoot because they can imagine a possible threat.
They have to see physical evidence of an actual deadly threat, such as a weapon being drawn.

 

[woodwork201]

By Byrd's standard, hundreds of rioters could have been shot. I fully agree. That only one was shot proves how much the Capitol Police were trying to use restraint.

I can guarantee you that if a bunch of riotous Antifa types were attacking my home, I'm unloading on them, not just a single shot.

Good job, Officer Byrd. He was the thin blue line. I support the police.

 

[AZrailwhale]

By Byrd's standard, hundreds of rioters could have been shot. I fully agree. That only one was shot proves how much the Capitol Police were trying to use restraint.

I can guarantee you that if a bunch of riotous Antifa types were attacking my home, I'm unloading on them, not just a single shot.

Good job, Officer Byrd. He was the thin blue line. I support the police.

And you’d go to jail for killing at least some of them.

 

[Chillicothe]

"The only reason you can't legally shoot cops is they are supposed to be taught to not pose a deadly threat unless........"

Ummm?
Maybe possibly you should wanna re-think that one poster Rigby.

The "only reason you can't legally shoot"......... is because cops should know better than to be a deadly threat to you?

And that's the "only reason"?

Really? No kidding?
It would then be 'legal' to shoot 'em if they hadn't been taught that?
And if they were a deadly threat.....could you still legally shoot 'em?

IMHO, that sorta kinda sounds like blaming the victim for being a victim.

But honestly, the good poster's suggestion is, well, ridiculous.

No dis intended.

 

[Rigby5]

Nobody gives a shit what you MAGA turds think because DOJ exonerated Byrd. You Trump asslickers want to nail Byrd so you can justify Trump & his goons actions that day.

We know what you're up to & ya don't give a rat's ass about Babbitt, so take a hike, cultist.

Wrong.
Anyone who is anti-Trump, like me, knows that deliberate murder of an unarmed person is an incredibly dangerous precedent.
Regardless of who is president or which party is currently in control, there have to be standards that prevent just wholesale abuse of individual rights, or else this becomes an authoritarian dictatorship. If any political opinions are not protected, then none are safe any longer.
If Babbitt can be murdered without punishment, then anyone can be and lots of people will be in the future.
"It's the end of the world, and you know it".

 

[Rigby5]

Accurate

No its not.
All political view require equal protection, or no political views will be safe, ever again.

 

[Rigby5]

5? Ha, see the weaselly things you have to do try to draw a comparison? That should be your first clue.
Have they assaulted and injured 140 police officers and shouted death threats? Oops left that out. Second clue.

There were no death threats.
The hanging in effigy is a time honored tradition no one takes literally.

The police were doing the injuring.
They were clubbing, gassing, etc.
There was no significant injuries to cops, and all the deaths were the demonstrators.