Except the cops let everyone in that day. Why?

Not past that barricade they didn't. The senators weren't throughout the building, the were consolidated. Although USCP is also tasked with protecting the building, that is not as high a priority as the congress, and they didn't have the resources to stop everyone.

Having been at lafaytte square during the blm riots, at the end of the day, if the crowd just bumrushed us there would be no way to stop all of them, except using deadly force. Had they started breaching the Whitehouse fence, USSS would have started dropping them. And it wouldn't have been because of trespassing.

Glad nobody got murdered there.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I almost always give officers the benefit of the doubt. I am in this case also, as I believe the Grand Jury should review the case. Personally, I think he is a cold blooded murderer and lower than pond scum.

---

One shot, one kill. Pretty good for someone not looking.

---

Lucky shot, for sure.

Murder. Worth gloating over.

Quote:

---

Ashley Babbitt was a traitor to this country.

---

She had a political beef and she was trespassing. She had also served her country honorably.

She was in the wrong, to be sure. There is no law that justifies her murder in cold blood. Fascist countries do things like this.

---

She was not murdered. She was shot for attempting to insurrect the government.

---

Bless your heart.

How many people were charged with insurection?

Another false talking point.

Anonymous Source said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I almost always give officers the benefit of the doubt. I am in this case also, as I believe the Grand Jury should review the case. Personally, I think he is a cold blooded murderer and lower than pond scum.

---

One shot, one kill. Pretty good for someone not looking.

---

Lucky shot, for sure.

Murder. Worth gloating over.

Quote:

---

Ashley Babbitt was a traitor to this country.

---

She had a political beef and she was trespassing. She had also served her country honorably.

She was in the wrong, to be sure. There is no law that justifies her murder in cold blood. Fascist countries do things like this.

---

She was not murdered. She was shot for attempting to insurrect the government.

---

LOLQUE'!?

She was absolutely in the wrong for breaking through a window in a place she shouldn't have been.

She was shot because the officer in question was a limpwrist with an itchy trigger finger. She was exactly zero threat to anyone, especially a large dude with a gun.

---

You left off "who had a duty to protect whoever it was behind that barricaded door using any means necessary."

---

I get the feeling, that it she hadn't been trying to break into an area that was locked, and had just been hanging out in the souvenir shop like everyone else who was there just as tourists and nothing more, she wouldn't be worm food right now.

Quote:

---

I get the feeling, that it she hadn't been trying to break into an area that was locked, and had just been hanging out in the souvenir shop like everyone else who was there just as tourists and nothing more, she wouldn't be worm food right now.

---

I believe that to be true. Doesn't change the fact that the shooting was reckless and frankly unjustified.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

I get the feeling, that it she hadn't been trying to break into an area that was locked, and had just been hanging out in the souvenir shop like everyone else who was there just as tourists and nothing more, she wouldn't be worm food right now.

---

I believe that to be true. Doesn't change the fact that the shooting was reckless and frankly unjustified.

---

Agreed.

Unfortunately, cops tend to always get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to them killing people. There's an infinite amount of examples of this in this country, unfortunately.

She deserved to be body slammed, cuffed, and arrested. Not shot to death.

Slicer97 said:

---

She deserved to be body slammed, cuffed, and arrested. Not shot to death.

---

However, using the "logic" of our unreasonable friends here, between the ICE incident the two weeks ago and the BLM riots four years ago, the body count would likely be around 50, or so.

Wonder if they'd support those actions?

Slicer97 said:

---

She deserved to be body slammed, cuffed, and arrested. Not shot to death.

---

Yes………….but when you play stupid games with folks who carry firearms………….tis the risk you take.

aggiedent said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

She deserved to be body slammed, cuffed, and arrested. Not shot to death.

---

Yes………….but when you play stupid games with folks who carry firearms………….tis the risk you take.

---

And murderers usually have to at least answer to a Grand Jury.

Quote:

---

Agreed.

Unfortunately, cops tend to always get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to them killing people.

---

Especially on the Federal level. There is a reason there are so few convictions under 18 USC 242. "Willful" is a high burden to meet.


And before anyone says "What about Chauvin?" He pled guilty on the Federal charges to avoid having to go to State prison.

Slicer97 said:

---

She deserved to be body slammed, cuffed, and arrested. Not shot to death.

---

Then what do you do when people continue to pour in?

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

I get the feeling, that it she hadn't been trying to break into an area that was locked, and had just been hanging out in the souvenir shop like everyone else who was there just as tourists and nothing more, she wouldn't be worm food right now.

---

I believe that to be true. Doesn't change the fact that the shooting was reckless and frankly unjustified.

---

Frankly unjustified huh...

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/09/law-of-self-defense-analysis-jan-6-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-was-legally-justified/


"The shooting of Ashli Babbitt is justified for criminal liability purposes if it would be untenable, to a reasonable degree of legal certainty, for a prosecution to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lt. Byrd had a genuine and reasonable belief that he was facing an unavoidable, unlawful and imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to either himself or those he has a duty to protect".

InfantryAg said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

I get the feeling, that it she hadn't been trying to break into an area that was locked, and had just been hanging out in the souvenir shop like everyone else who was there just as tourists and nothing more, she wouldn't be worm food right now.

---

I believe that to be true. Doesn't change the fact that the shooting was reckless and frankly unjustified.

---

Frankly unjustified huh...

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/09/law-of-self-defense-analysis-jan-6-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-was-legally-justified/

---

Yes. Unjustified.

Branca article

I'll take care of that for you. I read his analysis early on. However, I do not believe he exercised due care of a police officer in this situation. It's telling that there was one shot fired the entire day.

Because of your "feelz"

I don't see how due care is applicable to the legality of this use of force.

If you're refering to the angle he was shooting at, it was fine. He was angles into the wall, and even if there was an officer or someone else directly behind her, the shot is fine, so long as he didn't miss. Regardless it did not make the use of force illegal.

You can certainly have a different legal opinion, but to say yours is the only valid one is absurd. Do you even do criminal law?

If like hawg you are releying on your interpretation of graham v connor, you should look at scott v harris.

The US Attorneys office came to the same conclusion and at least at that time, they were not a pro-police office.

The other officers not firing also has no bearing on the legality. He was the first to fire, no other use of force was needed.

InfantryAg said:

---

Because of your "feelz"

---

Murdering an unarmed woman who was no threat to anyone is not "my feelz." It happened. There is no reason the Grand Jury shouldn't have been involved, at least. Byrd was allowed to do it because we have two systems of justice in this country.

Quote:

---

The US Attorneys office came to the same conclusion and at least at that time, they were not a pro-police office.

---

Duh. They were radical leftists who excused it because she was a Trump supporter. That made it a "justified" killing. That's the whole problem.

Quote:

---

Byrd was allowed to do it because we have two systems of justice in this country.

---

You know who is allowing it now and perpetuating the two tiered system?

Thanks for the laugh, OP. She was invading our congress thru a window.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Byrd was allowed to do it because we have two systems of justice in this country.

---

You know who is allowing it now and perpetuating the two tiered system?

---

This DOJ is not going to open the book back up on Byrd, and I am not suggesting they do so. I am only pointing out that's why the guy didn't go through any public process of being exonerated. They hid his name from America for a good while. They were never going to prosecute him. But it wasn't because some normally anti-cop US Attorneys thought the guy was justified in shooting her. It's because they are on the same team.

Much of J6 was set up. This whole situation was (d)ifferent.

Quote:

---

This DOJ is not going to open the book back up on Byrd, and I am not suggesting they do so.

---

Why the hell not???

I don't think letting a murderer walk without proper investigation is right.

(I agree with everything else you wrote BTW)

InfantryAg said:

---

I don't see how due care is applicable to the legality of this use of force.

If you're refering to the angle he was shooting at, it was fine. He was angles into the wall, and even if there was an officer or someone else directly behind her, the shot is fine, so long as he didn't miss. Regardless it did not make the use of force illegal.

You can certainly have a different legal opinion, but to say yours is the only valid one is absurd. Do you even do criminal law?

If like hawg you are releying on your interpretation of graham v connor, you should look at scott v harris.

The US Attorneys office came to the same conclusion and at least at that time, they were not a pro-police office.

The other officers not firing also has no bearing on the legality. He was the first to fire, no other use of force was needed.

---

Cannot focus on just one (angle of the shot, officers in the line of fire) does not comport with the "totality of the circumstances" and the reasonable office standard.

No other LEO fire a real bullet that day, in far more potentially threatening situations.

BigRobSA said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I almost always give officers the benefit of the doubt. I am in this case also, as I believe the Grand Jury should review the case. Personally, I think he is a cold blooded murderer and lower than pond scum.

---

One shot, one kill. Pretty good for someone not looking.

---

Lucky shot, for sure.

Murder. Worth gloating over.

Quote:

---

Ashley Babbitt was a traitor to this country.

---

She had a political beef and she was trespassing. She had also served her country honorably.

She was in the wrong, to be sure. There is no law that justifies her murder in cold blood. Fascist countries do things like this.

---

She was not murdered. She was shot for attempting to insurrect the government.

---

LOLQUE'!?

She was absolutely in the wrong for breaking through a window in a place she shouldn't have been.

She was shot because the officer in question was a limpwrist with an itchy trigger finger. She was exactly zero threat to anyone, especially a large dude with a gun.

---

She was leading a mob chanting 'hang mike pence'. If she breaches that threshold, hundreds of other 'harmless' people are following with nothing stopping them from our elected officials.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

She was leading a mob chanting 'hang mike pence'. If she breaches that threshold, hundreds of other 'harmless' people are following with nothing stopping them from our elected officials.

---

You do realize that by this time most if not all of the protectees were in secure areas with many of the higher level protectees no longer even in the building?

From what I recall, that hallway is at the back of the chambers. Protectees would have been escorted through evacuation routes and to vehicles, tunnels or protected, secured rooms.

Byrd was in almost all certainty just guarding an empty office at that point against a band of unruly, but unarmed protestors who in turn had police escorts with them.

But don't let facts get in the way of your "overthrow the government" thriller you think you watched.

This chicks direct actions won her stupid prizes! Zero chance she gets shot if she is out on the steps protesting.

Not really the point. Officer Byrd is not judge, jury, and executioner for anything and trespassing is not a capital offense.

Well, I guess he was actually executioner.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Not really the point. Officer Byrd is not judge, jury, and executioner for anything and trespassing is not a capital offense.

Well, I guess he was actually executioner.

---

It was an angry mob and there was one door between whoever was trying to get in and the people he was defending. You seem to so easily call him a murderer/executioner under what for him must have been seriously stressful and chaotic circumstances. My how easily we judge people.

If I was in his shoes given the circumstances, I would have assumed the worst and most likely done exactly what he did.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Not really the point. Officer Byrd is not judge, jury, and executioner for anything and trespassing is not a capital offense.

Well, I guess he was actually executioner.

---

If I seem to recall she was trying to climb through a broken window inside the capitol with an angry mob behind her. Good shoot.

Honestly, I'd imagine that most of those who are angry about this shoot feel like the rioters at the Capitol were justified.

InfantryAg said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

She deserved to be body slammed, cuffed, and arrested. Not shot to death.

---

Then what do you do when people continue to pour in?

---

You know that I was a Leo for 16 years and am currently an attorney that represents police in UOF incidents.

I would not have shot in that situation. I would have punched or kicked her in the face after giving commands. I might have OC sprayed her.

If another came through the same opening I would have repeated the process. Only if I thought multiple people were breaking through would I have considered using deadly force.

That dude was a coward. A large percentage of police are now,

I do not think what he did was criminal, but he would never wear a badge again if I was in his chain of command. And I would have called him a ***** to his face.