, , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s a cover up.  It can’t reasonably be anything else.  The narrative must be maintained; nothing can stop the march to eliminate the First and Second Amendments.  I speak, of course, of the deaths of Capital Police Officer Brian Sicknick and decorated Air Force Veteran Ashli Babbitt.  I last wrote on this topic in Capital Coverup—A Right To Know? On 02-03-21.

Brian Sicknick

Brian Sicknick:  We know virtually nothing that we did not know a few weeks after January 6.  The early narrative was Sicknick died as a result of head injuries inflicted by fire extinguisher-wielding insurrectionists.  Many still believe that, even though the official narrative makers have mostly soft pedaled that narrative because it’s totally false, which doesn’t normally stop them, but in this case, it’s not sustainable.  It’s not, at least in part, because Sicknick’s surviving relatives aren’t buying it, and aren’t quiet about it, as Stacey Matthews at Legal Insurrection reports:

But contra to the numerous early reports about how Sicknick supposedly died after being struck with a fire extinguisher, there was information from family members early on that suggested that’s not what happened. On January 8th, ProPublica reported that his brother Ken said Officer Sicknick texted him the night of the riots about how he had been pepper-sprayed:

‘He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape,’ said Ken Sicknick, his brother, as the family drove toward Washington. ‘Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.’

But the day after that text exchange, the family got word that Brian Sicknick had a blood clot and had had a stroke; a ventilator was keeping him alive.

He died that Thursday night around 9:30 pm, according to the USCP.

That’s an absolute narrative killer, and so is this:

Speaking exclusively to DailyMail.com Gladys Sicknick [Brian’s mother], 74, was unequivocal in her assertion that Officer Brian Sicknick was not struck on the head and that as far as the family knows her son had a fatal stroke.

She said, ‘He wasn’t hit on the head no. We think he had a stroke, but we don’t know anything for sure. We’d love to know what happened.’

Since Sicknick was more or less immediately cremated, and the Capital Police and related authorities—including the FBI–are refusing to release any information, all we can know for sure is the narrative is evolving, as Mary Chastain at Legal Insurrection reports:

 Federal authorities have arrested and charged two men with assaulting U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick with bear spray during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot but have not determined whether the exposure caused his death.

Julian Elie Khater, 32, of Pennsylvania and George Pierre Tanios, 39 of Morgantown, W.Va., were arrested Sunday and are expected to appear in federal court Monday.

‘Give me that bear s—,’ Khater allegedly said to Tanios on video recorded at the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol at 2:14 p.m., where Sicknick and other officers were standing guard behind metal bicycle racks, arrest papers say.

About nine minutes later, after Khater said he had been hit with bear spray, Khater is seen on video discharging a canister into the face of Sicknick and two other officers, arrest papers allege.

Considering Sicknick told his brother he had been pepper-sprayed and was in “good shape,” I suspect proving this the cause of Sicknick’s later death is going to be a bit tricky.  There are very few police officers serving for any period of time that have not been exposed to such sprays, yet their fatality rate from such exposure is essentially unmeasurable.

As always, I’m limited by not having access to all the reports and other evidence, but based on experience and what we know thus far, it appears the feds are desperate to prop up their INSURRECTION! narrative at all costs. It appears Brian Sicknick died of a stroke—it will be very hard indeed to tie that to incidental pepper spray exposure—but D/S/Cs can’t let a good crisis, or narrative, go to waste, so someone needs to be framed for Sicknick’s death, and they’ll be branded white supremacist, racist insurrectionists regardless of reality.

At this point, what other plausible explanation is there?

Ashli Babbitt, patriot

Ashli Babbitt: When last I visited this “investigation” the word was whoever shot her wasn’t going to be charged.  Other than that, virtually nothing else had been released.  The sort of narrative still out there is Babbitt was such a terrible danger the “officer(?)” that killed her was a noble and praiseworthy hero of the people.  That narrative had virtually no evidentiary support, and there is even less nowPaul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations fills in some of the blanks:

The officer who opened fire on Babbitt holds the rank of lieutenant and is a longtime veteran of the force who worked protective detail in the Speaker’s Lobby, a highly restricted area behind the House chamber, sources say. An African-American, he was put on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation led by the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia, which shares jurisdiction with the Capitol Police. The Justice Department is also involved in the inquiry.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that the officer has been interviewed and cleared of criminal wrongdoing by a preliminary investigation, suggesting that the police killing may soon be ruled justifiable homicide. But D.C. Police spokeswoman Alaina Gertz told RCI, ‘This case remains under active investigation.’

This is the view authorities are working feverishly to suppress:

 ‘That was an execution,’ said Jack Feeley, a fellow Air Force vet and friend of Babbitt, adding that it ‘breaks my heart to know millions of people watched my friend be executed on live television.’

A former White House national security aide and Pentagon official agreed the officer appeared trigger happy. ‘It was an assassination. I’ve never seen a more clear case in all my years. I’ve seen EJKs that were cleaner than that,’ said the former official, referring to an extrajudicial killing, or state-sponsored killing outside the formal legal system of a country. ‘He stepped into it [the shot] for [expletive deleted] sake.’

Take the link to read the rest of the article.  I wouldn’t go so far as to call Babbitt’s killing an execution, but there are reasonable grounds to believe it was an unjustifiable homicide.  As I continue, again understand I’m working only with the information publically available.  Among that information is that provided by The Gateway Pundit.

According to the Gateway Pundit, this is the man that shot Babbitt. He remains unidentified.  Notice in the photos that follow the distinctive bracelet he is wearing on his right—shooting—wrist:

Previous accounts have suggested the shooter is black and fired a .40 caliber Glock, which is the handgun this man appears to be holding.  He appears to be inside the barricaded House chamber, and is not the only armed security agent present:

Note in the previous and following photos the apparent absence of any politicians, and multiple uniformed and plain clothed, armed, security personnel.  Note also the other armed agents are using proper armed protocol; their trigger fingers are “in register,” extended straight in contact with the frames of their handguns, out of the trigger guard.  This is basic safety protocol; one doesn’t put their finger on the trigger until milliseconds prior to firing.  The shooter is obviously not a professional, and/or is so frightened he doesn’t realize he’s 5.5 pounds of pressure—standard Glock trigger weight—from firing.

Notice the shooter is not in a position to see anything outside the chamber, which is barricaded and covered by multiple armed men.  This is significant in that, as following photos will reveal, he had to get past the barricade and into the hallway outside the chamber in order to see and shoot Babbitt.

Notice in the preceding photo, the shooter is now standing in the doorway to the exterior hallway.  He has breached the barricade.  The broken window through which Ashli Babbitt will try to enter is a window in a door to the shooter’s immediate right, and only about 15’ away.  This screenshot was taken seconds before he fired a single shot.  Notice the distinctive bracelet, his finger is on the trigger, and it’s the same type of Glock as in the earlier photos.

In this photo, Babbit is nearly through the window.  The shooter is obscured by the headgear of several protestors, but he is to Babbitt’s left, behind the left most double door.  This screenshot was taken only seconds before he shot her and she fell backward, mortally wounded, to the floor.  He clearly shot her as soon as enough of her body was protruding through the window.  News accounts suggest she was struck in the upper chest.  The video—take the link to see the entire thing—reveals the bullet likely traveled crosswise through her chest, likely destroying her lungs and heart, causing mortal damage.

Analysis: Take this link for an article that lays out the criteria for the use of deadly force.  Briefly, one may use deadly force only when a reasonable person would believe they, or another, is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death.  Claiming there were protestors in the Capital building gives authorities blanket justification to shoot and kill any of them is grotesque nonsense.  Each and every bullet fired, each and every application of deadly force must be individually justified.

In this case, we know, or can reasonably believe:

*No Senators, Representatives or other “innocents” were apparently present in the House chamber.  All had been moved to “safety,” though there is little reason to believe any of them were in any real danger.

*The House Chamber was adequately barricaded and guarded by multiple armed men.

*There was no reason for anyone to breach that barricade to enter the exterior hallways.

*There were multiple uniformed Capital police officers in that exterior hallway, on both sides of the pictured doors, which were locked and at least partly barricaded.  The officers on Babbitt’s side of the doors actually moved away from the doors, allowing protestors to break out the window and did not try to stop Babbitt from climbing through.

*Ashli Babbitt was clearly female, and unarmed.  It’s virtually certain the shooter did not take the extra few seconds to determine if she were armed, and if so, he had even less justification to shoot.  Shooting because someone might be armed is immoral and unlawful.

*At the time he fired, Babbitt was only partially leaning through the broken window.  She was balancing preciously on the narrow door ledge, both hands occupied; no reasonable person could have believed she had to be shot at that moment.  Even if she managed to get through the window, she posed no apparent danger.  Even if she got past the shooter, there were multiple other armed security personnel behind him.

*The shooter actually moved, very fast, about 6’ closer to Babbitt, fully into the hallway, before firing.  The muzzle blast at the moment of firing is visible, the muzzle just beginning to rise.  From the amount of muzzle flip apparent in the video, the shooter is not a practiced shooter.

*There is no apparent evidence she knew the shooter was there or about to kill her.

*In firing when he did, the shooter was not protecting his own life, or the life of anyone else.  He could have had no reasonable belief Babbitt was an imminent threat of serious bodily injury to himself or anyone else.

*Considering there were multiple officers on the opposite side of the locked doors, the shooter could not have reasonably believed the protestors on that side would inevitably and imminently break through the doors.  If he was unaware of those officers—all he had to do was glance to his right to see them—he was even more negligent and panicky.

Final Thoughts:  Video of the shooting–taken by an Antifa operative and bought by the legacy media for $35,000 dollars–is available here and here.  Even if upon jumping to the floor, Ashli Babbitt turned and walked toward the shooter, absent the appearance in her hands of a deadly weapon and the clear intention to use it, where is the justification to shoot?  We now know she was unarmed, yet unarmed people, under certain specific circumstances, can still present an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death, however, no such threat is apparent in this situation.

It has been suggested the shooter was worried about a bomb because he knew about the few pipe bombs discovered elsewhere, and since Babbitt was wearing a backpack, she might have been carrying a bomb.  What we don’t know is when he learned of those bombs.  What we do know is a great many people were wearing backpacks that day, and Babbitt had nothing in her hands.  We have to judge the event on what a reasonable person in the same situation could have known.  By that measure, even if we assume the shooter had prior knowledge of discovered bombs, he could not reasonably have believed she had a bomb.  Backpacks are certainly not necessary to conceal explosives.

It has also been said the shooter believed his life was in danger.  I wouldn’t want to be the lawyer trying to prove that.  Where was the imminent threat?  Where was the weapon?  Where was the intent to use one?  He shot her when she was precariously tottering on a narrow wooden ledge, off balance, both hands occupied, apparently not even aware of his presence.

It has been asserted he made some sort of a verbal warning.  Even if he said “don’t move an inch or I’ll shoot you,” that does not, in any way, relieve him or anyone of following the law relating to the use of deadly force.

Perhaps there are facts we don’t know, but it’s hard to imagine what they could have been.  An execution?  No, not by law or rational definition, but this does appear to have been a completely unjustified shooting.  Was the shooter so frail as to be unable, with the help of multiple other officers, to subdue a small—5’2”, 110 pound–unarmed woman?  A rational officer could have merely walked the 15 feet or so and eased her back through the opening, or easily subdued her as soon as she leaped–or more likely—fell, through the opening.  Others could easily have prevented anyone from coming through the opening, particularly by coordinating with the officers on the other side.

The shooter was only about ten feet from Babbitt when he fired.  He could easily have walked several more steps and prevented her from entering.

The shooter’s attorney, and at least one idiotic member of Congress, have claimed the shooter was an absolute hero, and a country where the shooter was prosecuted wouldn’t be a country anyone would want to live in.  In order to justify the death of Ashli Babbitt, the shooter’s only defense is he had no other choice than to shoot her at the exact moment he did, because failing that, he or others would immediately suffer serious bodily injury or death.  The shooter’s lawyer must argue no reasonable person would have done anything else.

Based on what we know, and what we can reasonably infer, no such cause existed.  There are also indicators the shooter was unprofessional, and not in control of himself, or perhaps, wanted the opportunity to shoot.  If not, why did he breach the barricaded doors and go into the hallway?   Alone?

Why cover up this shooting?  D/S/Cs hate the police.  But there is the insurrectionist narrative to maintain, Trump, white supremacists, racists, you name it, to blame.  It’s also possible there may be a racial element.  Ashli Babbitt was white; the shooter is Black.  In a case like this, even if the shooter were white and the victim black, the coverup would likely continue.  But there are surely political points to be made by protecting a black “hero” of the people, who saved the capital from sure destruction by an “armed insurrection,” which even the FBI has said never happened.  No one was armed, and the only shot fired on January 6, 2021 was the shot that killed Ashli Babbitt.

I know this: When a death helps the D/S/C narrative, heaven and earth will be moved to persecute/prosecute the officers involved, and to hell with the presumption of innocence and due process.  I also know this: the only way we’re ever going to get the truth about Sicknick’s and Babbitt’s deaths is if lawsuits are filed and discovery granted and mandated (the feds will surely try to avoid any discovery).  Are the denizens of the Beltway our hired hands, or our masters?  We’re learning more about that every day.

UPDATE: 03-23-21, 1530 MT:  An article by redpilled raises an issue that may or may not be of any significance.  The officers–at least those in plain clothing–in the Capital on January 6 all appear to have a red and white sticker on the slides of their Glocks.  The significance of such stickers is unclear, however, Redpilled points out the apparent shooter of Ashli Babbitt did not have such a sticker on his Glock.  Take the link and see for yourselves.

Several of the photos in that article reveal even more clearly there were more armed officers in the chamber than I initially realized, and they securely barricaded the door, which again raises the question of why the shooter, apparently alone, felt the need to breach that barricade to enter the hallway where he shot Babbitt.

If anyone has a clue why those officers would have what appear to be some kind of warning sticker on their Glocks, I’d be interested in hearing from you.  Warning labels for guide rod lasers?  Some sort of inventory label?