As regular readers know, I’ve been writing about the faux “insurrection” at the Capital Building on January 6, 2021 for some time. Enter “capital coverup” in the SMM homepage search bar to find every article in this series. Among the dangerous and despicable themes in the D/S/C media—apart from comparing a weak protest that caused little damage and ended within a few hours to 9-11 and Pearl Harbor—is Ashli Babbitt somehow deserved to be murdered and her killer is noble, a genuine hero of the people. Matthew Rosza at Salon has produced one of the most sickening pieces in that vein. Rosza compares Babbitt, and normal Americans, to—you guessed it–Adolf Hitler and Nazis:
Ashli Babbitt, the 35-year-old QAnon supporter and Trump superfan who was killed in the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, is already far more famous in death than she ever was in life. Her fate reminded me of a famous 1963 episode of ;The Twilight Zone,’ “He’s Alive,” in which Adolf Hitler’s ghost (Curt Conway) returns from the grave to teach a young neo-Nazi named Peter Vollmer (Dennis Hopper) how to manipulate a crowd. Hitler explains that exploiting the death of an obscure follower transforms that individual into a heroic martyr. ‘This is an act of friendship,” says the spectral Führer. “We are allowing him to serve the cause.’
Whether or not Donald Trump and his movement think they are doing Babbitt a favor by lionizing after her death, she has clearly become a sacrifice to the ex-president’s ego and glory. Trump’s supporters are eager to uncover the name of the police officer who shot Babbitt, but much less eager to remember that she died after Trump urged an angry right-wing mob to storm the Capitol. The video of her shooting, which makes clear that Babbitt and other members of the mob were literally trying to break into the House chamber and attack members of Congress, is likewise swept under the rug. That’s without even mentioning the obvious fact that Babbitt died in service of the bogus cause of Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election.
Not quite. Babbit, unlike vicious felons like George Floyd, is not being “lionized” or martyred. That’s not what telling the truth about the exemplary character of a murder victim does. Americans supporting justice and the rule of law, rather than social justice and equity, demand answers for her murder, just as they do for any American genuinely unlawfully killed. Also unlike holy social justice martyrs, Babbitt was a good woman, a veteran who honorably served and who, at the time of her death, was engaging in the kind of protest D/S/Cs laud as the epitome of democratic virtue—unless they’re done by normal Americans in support of the Constitution. The Harris/Biden/Whoever Administration—Gropin’ Joe Biden, Temporary President–is determined to cover up her murder. To tell the truth would destroy the narrative and badly damage the police state prosecutions of people—one of who entered the Capital merely to use the bathroom—exercising their right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Anyone who legitimately broke the law, including Antifa, BLM and FBI agitators, should be prosecuted.
And who, or what, is “QAnon?” I know of no one who knows what that is or anyone who professes membership. I’ve yet to see a “QAnon” spokesman in media or read anything written by anyone professing membership. One might be tempted to think this yet another D/S/C invention, a boogeyman like “white supremacists.”
And how much damage did an attack on Democracy worse than Pearl Harbor do? At American Greatness, Julie Kelly reports
The Architect of the Capital, J. Brett Blanton, set the bill at $30 million dollars(?!). This must be why the government is refusing to release any of the video of the events that day: the damage is just too horrifying for Americans to endure. It’s also a lie:
During a plea hearing on June 2 for Paul Hodgkins, a Capitol defendant charged with various trespassing counts and obstruction of an official proceeding, a felony for which he pleaded guilty, the government said damages at the Capitol totaled around $1.5 million. Hodgkins agreed to pay $2,000 in restitution for his share of the damage even though he, like the Oath Keepers and many others, is not charged directly with causing any of it.
Somehow, I doubt it’s even that much. Kelly concluded her article—by all means take the link and read the whole thing—with this:
Now another aspect of the official narrative has crumbled. The question remains: If January 6 was as bad as they say, why do they have to keep lying about what happened?
That’s a good question. On July 7, Paul Sperry, Writing at Real Clear Investigations, updated his reporting on the identity of the man who killed Ashil Babbitt: Capital Police Lt. Michael L. Byrd.
In a little-noticed exchange, Byrd was cited by the acting House sergeant at arms during a brief discussion of the officer who shot Babbitt at a Feb. 25 House hearing. Both C-SPAN and CNN removed his name from transcripts, but CQ Transcripts — which, according to its website, provides ‘the complete word from Capitol Hill; exactly as it was spoken’ — recorded the Capitol official, Timothy Blodgett, referring to the cop as ‘Officer Byrd’ His name is clearly audible in the videotape of the hearing…
I’ve previously identified Byrd as the probable shooter in previous articles in this series. We know he remains in hiding on paid administrative leave. There is also considerable additional evidence he is the shooter in the earlier articles (“capital coverup”). By all means, also take the link to Sperry’s article and read the whole thing.
As regular readers know, the lawful use of firearms is a topic I often address. Particularly for those that carry firearms, it’s essential knowledge, and is a topic I addressed in Capital Coverup 2: A Right to Know? Let’s revisit it again in light of what we now know, and the virtual certainty it was Lt. Byrd that murdered Ashli Babbitt.
The Law of Deadly Force: I’ve known the legal criteria for the use of deadly force for decades, and have taught it using various terms. For our purposes, we’ll use the terms of Andrew Branca, the current American authority on the issue. His book–The Law of Self Defense,–is a must-have for those interested in this subject, and should be read and reread by anyone carrying a concealed handgun. His website is here.
The use of deadly force is lawful only when reasonably necessary to immediately stop the imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to self or another. Branca begins with the dual criteria of Innocence and Avoidance, which generally do not apply to police officers in the pursuit of their duties. You can read about those criteria if you wish by taking the link to CC2. For now, we’ll stick to the final three criteria:
Imminence: One can’t use deadly force against a possible attack, or against an attack that might happen at some time in the future. The danger must be real, clearly about to occur–within mere seconds of occurring–or already occurring. If you shoot, you must be able to explain why it was reasonably necessary at the very second you fired.
Proportionality: A reasonable person must believe they’re facing the imminent threat of serious–-Branca uses the word “grave”–-bodily injury or death. Again, if you shoot, you must be able to convincingly explain exactly what that threat was and why it was imminent.
Reasonableness: A reasonable person in the same circumstances would be compelled to use deadly force.
As always with this sort of situation, I am providing analysis based on the videos widely available, as well as the writings of others. I have no first hand knowledge of this case—I wasn’t there—and I do not have access to any of the official documentation. The Government is doing its best to hide it from the public. I rely on my police experience, training and studies during and after my police years. I could be wrong about matters large or small, and if so, I’ll make corrections as necessary. In this case, I do not believe I’m wrong.
That said, it is more than reasonable to believe Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed by Capital Police Lt. Michael L. Byrd. It is also reasonable to believe he had no cause to shoot her; his actions were inherently unreasonable, hence, unlawful. It is also reasonable to believe:
*No Senators, Representatives or other “innocents” were present in the House chamber or hallway outside the 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 federal agents.
*There was no reason for anyone to leave the House Chamber, to breach the barricades to enter the access hallway. Any such action would have made the supposed innocents in the Chamber less, rather than more, safe.
*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—back–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 Byrd 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, or might present some danger at some point in the future is immoral and unlawful. Remember the criteria of imminence.
*At the time Byrd fired, Babbitt was only partially leaning through the broken window. She was balancing preciously on the narrow window/door ledge, both hands occupied; no reasonable person could have believed she represented any kind of threat at that moment. Even if she managed to get through the window, she posed no threat. She was a tiny woman. Even if she somehow got past Byrd and tried to enter the House Chamber, the doors were barricaded, and there were multiple other armed security personnel present.
*Byrd 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, Byrd is not competent with his firearm. Sadly, this is common. Most police officers are not expert with their firearms.
*There is no known evidence Babbitt knew Boyd was there or about to kill her. The government claims Byrd—they have refused to identify him—gave verbal warnings before he fired. No one else present heard any such thing. Verbal warnings, if the criteria for the use of deadly force are not present, are irrelevant. They don’t render an unlawful killing lawful.
*In firing when he did, there is no evidence Boyd was protecting his life, or the life of anyone else. He could not have reasonably believed the diminutive, unarmed Babbitt was an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to himself or anyone else.
*Considering there were multiple officers on the opposite side of the locked doors, Boyd 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 Byrd, 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 also been said Byrd 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? Byrd shot her when she was precariously tottering on a narrow wooden ledge, off balance, both hands occupied, unaware of his presence. Such a man is not a man, nor should he be a police officer.
Was Boyd so frail as to be unable, with the help of multiple other officers, to subdue a tiny—5’2”, 110 pound–unarmed woman? A rational officer could have merely walked 10 feet or so and eased her back through the opening, or easily subdued her as soon as she leapt–or more likely—fell, through the opening. The many officers present could easily have prevented anyone from coming through the opening, particularly by coordinating with the officers on the other side.
Byrd was only about ten feet from Babbitt when he fired. He could easily have walked several more steps and prevented her from entering.
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; Byrd is Black. In a case like this, even if the shooter were white and the victim black, the cover up 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 corrupt FBI has said never happened. No one was armed, and the only death attributable to the events of January 6 was that of Ashli Babbitt, killed by Lt. Byrd, though the deaths by suicide of two capital police officers remain unexplained.
The Capital Police are now branching out, establishing offices in Florida and California, ostensibly to deal with unprecedented numbers of threats to members of Congress. Apparently there are no other federal law enforcement agencies with a presence outside the Beltway. This is only a small part of the expansion of the police state justified by the horrible threat of “insurrectionists” and “white supremacists,” sparked by January 6, the worst threat to America since the Civil War, until Temporary President Biden decided Texas’ election integrity law was the worst threat to America since the Civil War.
When the death of a Black criminal helps a D/S/C narrative, heaven and earth will be moved to persecute/prosecute the officers involved, and to hell with the presumption of innocence, due process and a fair trial. The only way we’re ever going to get even part of the truth about Babbitt’s death is through the lawsuits filed by Babbitt’s survivors. It will be a long process. The Government will do everything it can to derail justice in this case. It has no intention of ever telling the public the truth.
But wait a minute: hasn’t the Biden Administration said it wants “to bring transparency back?” Hasn’t it claimed to be the most ethical in history? Ashli Babbitt’s parents and husband would disagree.