I agree 100% NVM about thinking a cop might think that "if a person can see me addressing them and telling them to cease whatever behavior they're engaged in with my firearm in my hand, and for whatever reason they think they don't have to pay attention to what I'm saying to them, that behavior in and of itself is worrisome MINUS THIs NEXT PART: and can cause them to get shot". That last part seems subjective not absolute.
The last part is subjective and not absolute because no situation is identical, including the protection officer's training, prior experience, knowledge, etc. and what else is going on around him.
But what is absolute is that a person is ONLY supposed to use lethal force to counter a threat and the amount of force has to be commensurate with the threat and this applies to civilians as well as law enforcement officers.
Many individuals have been complaining that Ashli herself was not a threat and that she was unarmed. She was the head of a mob attempting to breach the last barrier between the mob and our representatives. Had they breached that last barrier then the only thing between the mob and our representatives would have been the armed protections officers (I don't know if they were LEOS, secret service, etc.) who were
vastly outnumbered. Therefore the best strategy was to prevent/discourage them from coming through that window where they had just broken out the glass which demonstrated their intentions to use it to gain entry to the chambers by climbing through it). They this to be their plan when they hoisted Ashli up so that she could climb through.
There was more than one officer on the other side of that window and in that area with their weapons all trained on that window, all presumably prepared to shoot if the mob began coming through. And I'm saying all of this to simply make the point that I don't know anyone who would ignore law enforcement officers, with guns, pointing specifically at them and then expect not to be shot if they ignored their commands.
The mob was the threat primarily because they would have quickly overcome the officers and the best chance that they had to prevent that scenario from playing out was preventing anyone from making it through the window. That's what happened, Ashli tried and was shot and after that no one else tried, so they effectively neutralized the threat.
Questions that would come to the mind of a juror and relevant to your remarks:
1. Was there evidence that Ashli Babbitt was considered to be the “leader “ of this particular group of protesters? I haven’t read up enough to know if there is evidence or otherwise.
2. Did the amount of force used commensurate with Babbitt’s attempt to climb through the broken glass on one of the doors?
3. Why did the other capitol police decide to not shoot when they saw Babbitt attempting to climb through the window?
4. Did A. Babbitt hear any officer, particularly of importance would have been the officer who pulled the trigger, give a verbal warning? As I stated earlier, this should weigh in heavily about the legal outcome particularly if none was given.
I agree with your opinion about the cop who shot Ashley likely figured that if he took one out (perhaps he planned to only injure her, but that would be evidence he was a very poor shot and had no business firing in the first place as well as being the first to do so) would send a message to all others and stop their attempts from breaking through the doors.
Had Babbitt not died but only grazed, the USCP wouldn’t have to carry on its traditional role of being separate and secretive and come out publicly with its AG report about January 6th. (I had no clue USCP played by a different set of rules- no reports required about personnels’ public complaints kept secret, and no reports by USCP’s AG required for public disclosure…. ever!? If the reason for their nondisclosure of incidents is the officers’ safety, I’m not buying it. If the reason for their non-disclosure is that it would somehow reveal the US Capitol’s layout better for potential infiltration there are maps available online to view the whole layout -tunnels and all.
So my area of a focus boils down to two things: first, did this cop give a verbal warning-at this point I don’t think he did nor did any of the other cops near him yell out, “First one through the door gets shot!!” That matters greatly. Second, why are capital police allowed to be above the law and have their own separate laws without any legal requirement for disclosure, partial disclosure, or even a glossed-over public version? I can only imagine there must’ve been various coverups to save face in CP’s history…. sorry, I’m just a normal human who suspects when things are intentionally kept below the surface, there’s usually a purpose for it and I’d like to know the purpose.