Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Who killed Ashli Babbitt?  We don’t know with certainty, but there is growing evidence focusing on one person.  Why isn’t that killer being prosecuted?  We don’t know with certainty, but the most likely reason is prosecuting him would badly damage, perhaps destroy, the insurrection narrative.  It would be hard, even for Democrats/Socialist/Communists to maintain that narrative if the “insurrectionists” were unarmed, killed no one and went home after awhile, while a government agent murdered a woman that was no threat to anyone.

Real Insurrection…

There is no doubt many people know exactly who shot Babbitt.  Now, it’s getting embarrassing:

Days ahead of his summit with President Biden in Geneva, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the United States was being hypocritical in its criticism of the way his country handles internal dissent.

During an interview with NBC News, Putin said Russia was no worse than the United States in this regard, and used the government’s handling of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot as an example.

He even pointed to the arrests of hundreds of suspects in the U.S. Capitol riot and the death of one rioter as proof that the U.S. also targets its citizens for their political opinions, just as Russia is accused of stifling dissent. (The FBI has arrested people for the violence inflicted on the seat of government in Washington, rather than for their political opinions.)

He has a point, and made an even better one:

He then countered by asking whether the U.S. was guilty of assassinating Ashli Babbitt during the Capitol riot.

‘Secondly, I want to ask you: Did you order the assassination of the woman who walked into the Congress and who was shot and killed by a policeman?’ Putin said. ‘Do you know that 450 individuals were arrested after entering Congress? And they didn’t go there to steal a laptop. They came with political demands. 450 people have been detained. They’re facing jail time, from 15 to 20 years. And they came to Congress with political demands. Isn’t that persecution for political opinions?’

It’s unlikely anyone ordered the shooter to kill Babbitt.  Available evidence suggests he should never have been trusted with a gun in the first place, panicked, or saw an opportunity to kill without consequences.  It’s possible the shooter, like Mohamed Noor, is a diversity hire, rising to a relatively high position on the color of his skin rather than on demonstrated ability and competence.  Can I prove this?  No, but it’s not an unreasonable inference.  Consider this 2019 article from Roll Call:

A U.S. Capitol Police lieutenant left his service weapon in a bathroom Monday night and the unattended gun was discovered later by another Capitol Police officer.

After the House adjourned on Monday, Lt. Mike Byrd left his Glock 22 in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex, according to sources familiar with the incident. Byrd is the commander of the House Chambers section of the Capitol Police and was on the job Tuesday and Wednesday.

Byrd addressed the incident at Tuesday morning’s officer roll call and, according to sources, told fellow officers that he ‘will be treated differently’ because of his rank as a lieutenant. It was not clear what exactly the lieutenant meant by the comment.

I’ve not been able to find a specific organization chart for the Capital Police, but in most law enforcement agencies, a Lieutenant is a second level supervisor, supervising a number of Sergeants, who in turn supervise a greater number of officers.  In most agencies, Lieutenants ride desks, and in all too many, they hold those jobs for political reasons—skin color, gender, they’re beloved by higher ups, etc.—and/or because they’ve been promoted to get them away from actual law enforcement duties because they’ve demonstrated they’re too dangerous to the public and their fellow officers.  Why wouldn’t such a person be fired?  See “political reasons” above.

Capitol Police said a service weapon was discovered “during a routine security sweep” Monday. Once the weapon was secured, the department began an immediate investigation into the matter, according to Capitol Police spokeswoman Eva Malecki.

‘The Department takes these matters very seriously, and has a very thorough process to investigate and review incidents such as these, and holds personnel accountable for their actions,’ Malecki said in a statement. ‘Following the investigation’s conclusion, appropriate actions will be taken in accordance with the Department’s official policies and procedures.’

Personnel matters are normally exempt from public disclosure, and Congress has exempted the Capital Police from all disclosures to the public, so we have no idea what sort of consequence, if any, Lt. Byrd faced.  This sort of thing is not exactly common, but it’s more common than most law enforcement agencies like to admit.  Normally, anyone doing something like this would be facing up to a week of suspension without pay.  Obviously, Byrd believed he would be “treated differently.”  What we don’t know is if that’s true, and if so, why?  One would think a higher-ranking officer, someone with greater experience, would be held to a higher standard, but apparently not.  Rank has its privileges.

As I noted in Capital Coverup 2—enter “capital cover up” into the SMM homepage search bar to find related articles–the shooter demonstrated actively dangerous firearm handling, and that was before he murdered Ashli Babbitt.  Consider this from Breitbart:

On Monday’s [06-14-21] broadcast of FNC’s ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight,’ Terrell Roberts, an attorney for the family of Ashli Babbitt, the woman who was shot and killed by a police officer during the January 6 U.S. Capitol Riot, said he believed he now knows the identity of the officer responsible for the shooting.

Up until now, the officer had not been identified, but Roberts told host Tucker Carlson it was his ‘belief’ it was the same officer that had previously left his firearm unattended in a U.S. Capitol bathroom.

I viewed that show, and came away with the impression Carlson knows who shot Babbitt, and so does Roberts.  If that’s so, why wouldn’t they reveal his identity?  The most likely explanation for Carlson is he doesn’t want to burn a source that may provide information in the future.  For Roberts, it’s most likely legal tactics.  We have no idea, of course, exactly what Roberts knows, or where he is in dealing with the government, but it’s a reasonable inference.

The invaluable Sharyl Attkisson provides a statement from Roberts:

The shooting of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021 by an unidentified U.S. Capitol Police Officer was an unjustified use of deadly force which violated her constitutional rights. It is clear from video footage that Ashli did not pose a danger to the officer, or any other person, when she was shot. Ashli was unarmed. She did not assault anyone. She did not threaten to harm anyone. There was no excuse for taking her life.

As I pointed out in Capital Coverup 2, being unarmed is not, by itself, a factor that would make it impossible to apply deadly force, but in this case, Babbitt posed no threat, not an imminent threat, not a potential future threat, to anyone.  No imminent threat, no deadly force.

The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard the government is using is more evidence of a cover up.  “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” is the standard for conviction at trial.  All that is necessary to bring charges—to make an arrest—is probable cause, a far lower standard.

It is a universal law enforcement standard that a police officer should use no more force than necessary to accomplish a lawful purpose.  At 5′ 2″ tall and 110 pounds, an arrest of Ashli could have been accomplished by a single trained officer with a set of handcuffs. At the time of the shooting, there were over a half-dozen police officers in close proximity to the Speaker’s door where Ashli was standing. Some of those officers had just allowed protesters access to the door by stepping aside. Other officers, dressed in full tactical gear, stood among the protesters just a few feet behind the door. Still others stood casually at the opposite end of the Speaker’s Lobby, unconcerned with the activities of Ashli and the protesters around her. All of these officers were in a position to have aided in the apprehension of Ashli if it was necessary. Given her background as a 14-year veteran of the Air Force, it is likely that Ashli would have complied with simple verbal commands, thereby making the use of any force unnecessary.

This too is entirely accurate.  If any of those officers thought Babbitt an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to anyone—that’s the minimum legal standard for the application of deadly force—they certainly showed no indication of it.

However, the officer who shot Ashli never attempted to arrest her. Nor did he call on his fellow officers to arrest her. Instead, he fired a shot into her chest. Witnesses confirm that the officer did not give Ashli a single verbal warning prior to firing. In fact, Ashli was not even aware that the officer was present, as he was located in the doorway of a room off to the side of her field of vision.

The Government is claiming the shooter was faced with a “split-second” decision, and in making that decision, showered himself with glory.  He’s a real hero.  Analysis of available video—the government is hiding many hours of video—indicates he had on the order of 15 seconds before firing.  Should you, gentle readers, think 15 seconds a short time, stop and count it out.  Any police officer that has ever been forced to shoot would have been delighted to have that long.  The “split-second” assertion is a lie, but even if it were true, we hire police officers and train them to make just that kind of decision, and to make it correctly.

To date, the officer who shot Ashli has not been identified. Neither the Capitol Police nor any other governmental authority has given an account of the facts surrounding the shooting. There has been no official explanation or justification for the use of lethal force in this matter. This lack of transparency impedes the public scrutiny, which is necessary to hold government officials accountable in a free society. It also interferes with the ability of Ashli’s family to obtain justice for their loss.

My law firm and I represent Ashli’s husband and family members. We will continue to investigate this matter.  We intend to take appropriate legal action when our investigation has been completed.  We call upon the Capitol Police as well as the United States Congress to make public the facts and circumstances of Ashli’s shooting.

If you have information regarding this matter, you may contact us and receive updates on Twitter at Justice for Ashli Babbitt @ForAshli.  Emails can also be to the address alone.

Terrell N. Roberts, III

Roberts and Wood

Riverdale, Maryland

Final Thoughts:

Ashli Babbitt

Why should we suspect Lt. Mike Byrd killed Ashli Babbitt?

1) In 2019, Byrd left his handgun unattended.  A mistake anyone could make?  Not really.  Such things happen, but they’re remarkable for their relative rarity.  The overwhelming majority of police officers never do this sort of thing.  It is indicative of someone lacking in firearm and tactical awareness.

2) The shooter, prior to shooting Babbitt, demonstrated unprofessional and dangerous firearm handling.  His weapon was drawn where there was no apparent threat. His trigger finger was not in register—out of the trigger guard and in contact with the frame of the handgun—but on the trigger.  No competent shooter should ever place their finger on the trigger until milliseconds before firing.  To do otherwise invites a negligent discharge.  It would not be unreasonable to expect someone who left their handgun in a bathroom to demonstrate this kind of dangerous incompetence.

3) Byrd left his gun in a bathroom in 2019.  That’s a two-year gap.  Police administrators commonly use their positions to avoid the kind of training and firearm qualification that might tend to identify and correct this kind of deficiency.  Is this the case with Byrd?  We don’t know, but I suspect Attorney Roberts is going to find out.

4) Byrd is Black; the shooter is Black.  This is a more potentially definitive factor than one might think.  Blacks make about 13% of the population.  According to Yahoo News, about 1/3 of the force is Black, and of that number, about 8% are female.  This narrows things down a bit.

5) The apparent shooter and Byrd are at least superficially similar in appearance, and both wear pocket hankies, an uncommon affectation.  We can’t be certain because the shooter was wearing a mask.

6) The shooter was absolutely not tactically proficient; he appeared to panic for no reason, which is what one might expect of someone not familiar with the daily stresses of police work.

Certainly, all of this does not prove Lt. Byrd was the shooter, but media accounts suggest Byrd is not on duty, and is not living at his home, which if true, is also suggestive Byrd is being kept under wraps.  Perhaps Byrd should be worried about developing a sudden and fatal case of suicide?

More, as always, as it develops.