Tags
a bad shoot, Ashli Babbitt, Capitol Police, deadly force, Glock 22, Imminence, Lester Holt, Lt. Michael Leroy Byrd, NBC, Peter Principle, Proportionality, Reasonableness, Speaker's Lobby, unsafe gun handling
Ashli Babbitt, patriot
We finally know, officially, who killed Ashli Babbitt. We know not because the government has finally become honest and told us–government has no conscience–but because the shooter “came out” in an interview with Lester Holt of NBC. The interview was brief, and Holt was, to put it mildly, friendly. OK: he all but gave Byrd a tongue bath. I’ll be quoting portions of the brief, softer than softball, interview shortly, but a version is available here. The entire SMM Capitol Coverup archive is here.
The killer is, as I’ve been reporting with appropriate caveats, Capitol Police Lt. Michael Leroy Byrd. But first, we visit Newsmax.com, for unsurprising news:
The Capitol Police officer who fatally shot Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol ‘will not be facing internal discipline,’ Capitol Police said Monday.
After interviewing multiple witnesses and reviewing all the available evidence:
‘[The Department’s] Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.’
‘The officer in this case, who is not being identified for the officer’s safety, will not be facing internal discipline.’
For regular readers, this is old news. The DOJ exonerated Lt. Michael Byrd back in April of 2021, as I noted in the third article of this series. The result of the Capitol Police internal “investigation” was as pre-determined as the DOJ whitewash. No investigation was necessary to reach the pre-determined conclusion, which was surely dictated to the Capital Police by their political masters. Disciplining the faux-epically heroic Lt. Byrd would be very damaging to the narrative of a nation half full of domestic terrorists, damaging to the pre-determined findings of the House January 6 Commission, damaging to D/S/C electoral outcomes in the coming 2022 midterm elections, and damaging to the outcome of the civil suit Babbitt’s survivors are filing against Byrd and the government. Can’t have any of that.
This is, in essence, saying the Capital Capitol Police can commit murder at will, as long as a panicky incompetent thinks he, or an institution, is in some vague sort of danger, regardless of the reality of the situation. It’s merely saying: Byrd didn’t violate our rules; we’re not going to put a letter in his file or give him a few days off without pay. Equally cowardly and panicky congresscritters of both parties still think Byrd a hero, and so does Byrd:
LESTER HOLT VOICE OVER: FOR MONTHS HE HAS LIVED IN HIDING. HE SAYS, OVER THIS MOMENT, HIS DECISION TO USE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST A RIOTER AS SHE CLIMBED THROUGH A BARRICADED DOOR THAT LEADS TO THE HOUSE CHAMBER. IN THE MONTHS SINCE, HE’S BEEN THE TARGET OF THREATS.
LESTER HOLT: Could you give us the nature of some of those threats?
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: They talked about, you know, killing me, cutting off my head. You know, very vicious and cruel things.
LESTER HOLT: Racist things?
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: There were some racist attacks as well. It’s all disheartening because I know I was doing my job.
It’s a job none of the other heavily armed officers present that day thought necessary, but we’ll get to that shortly.
LESTER HOLT: Given the nature of the threats that you describe, do you have any concern about showing your face and identifying yourself?
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: Of course, I do. That is a very vital point. And it’s something that is frightening. I believe I showed the utmost courage on January 6th. And it’s time for me to do that now.
Keep in mind, gentle readers, Byrd isn’t making decisions like this himself. He is being directed by his political masters, likely through the DOJ, who will be defending the lawsuit. They will use every dirty trick imaginable, and will not be bothered by trifles like the law. They will find as many judges amenable to this as necessary; there are plenty in DC. Byrd appeared for an interview because his masters believe it’s a good PR/legal/political move. Do not doubt for a moment Holt is onboard, and he and Byrd knew every question and answer—the absolute limits—before the interview was filmed, and then very carefully edited under DOJ supervision.
Byrd, following the script speaks of being frightened, and hearing, via radio of “officers being overrun, officers being down,” and of shots fired. The only shot fired that day was fired by Byrd as he killed Ashli Babbitt. Not a single gun was discovered on anyone, other than government personnel, that day. This is an interesting admission:
LESTER HOLT VOICE OVER: HE SAYS OFFICERS BARRICADED THE DOOR. WHAT HE CONSIDERED THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE.
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: I had been yelling and screaming as loud as I was, ‘Please stop. Get back. Get back. Stop.’ We had our weapons drawn.
None of the video available to the public backs Byrd. There is no evidence he said anything before killing Babbitt. The government has untold hours of video they refuse to release, violating their legal duty to provide exculpatory evidence to the hundreds of defendants they’ve arrested.
LESTER HOLT VOICE OVER: BYRD, ONLY HIS HAND AND GUN VISIBLE, TARGETED A FIGURE TRYING TO CLIMB THROUGH A WINDOW.
HE FIRED A SINGLE FATAL SHOT HITTING ASHLI BABBIT. SHE WAS 35 YEARS OLD, AN AIR FORCE VETERAN, TRUMP SUPPORTER AND QANON FOLLOWER.
LESTER HOLT: We see your arm out there for a considerable amount of time. Were you wavering?
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: I was again taking a tactical stance. You’re ultimately hoping your commands will be complied with and unfortunately they were not.
Byrd is implying Babbit’s supposed failure to comply gave him lawful justification to kill her. It absolutely did not.
LESTER HOLT: When you fired, what could you see? Where were you aiming?
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: You’re taught to aim for center mass. The subject was sideways and I couldn’t see her full motion of her hands or anything. So I guess her movement caused the discharge to fall where it did.
Babbit was not moving when Byrd fired. If he was aiming at the center of her chest, he missed badly, shooting her in the neck.
LESTER HOLT: And what did you think this individual was doing at that moment?
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: She was posing a threat to the House of Representatives.
Holt does not ask obvious, essential, questions: “what kind of threat? What was she doing that posed that threat?” He did give a brief voiceover that mentioned some of the Babbitt family’s attorney’s comments, but never touched on the real issues.
LESTER HOLT: Her family points out that she was not armed.
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: That’s correct.
LESTER HOLT: The fact that you weren’t aware whether she was armed or not, did that alter the decision making?
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: It did not.
And there is where the government lost the civil case—if the judge is honest. I’ll explain shortly. again this question, Holt almost sounds like a journalist. He did not, of course, followup on Byrd’s incredibly weak, inadequate, and clearly scripted, answer:
LESTER HOLT: What are we to make of the fact that there were other officers in potentially life threatening situations who didn’t use their service weapons that day?
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: I’m sure it was a terrifying situation. And I can only control my reaction, my training, my expertise. That would be upon them to speak for themselves.
Note Byrd’s finger on the trigger when no danger was present
What Holt likely doesn’t know is the absolutely necessary legal criteria for the use of deadly force. Few do. What he missed too is the other officers, because they do know those criteria, or simply by luck, did not kill anyone, because they had no lawful cause to do so, even though some were physically attacked and injured. Byrd was not. Byrd’s training and expertise are clearly dangerously, horribly faulty. Holt asked Byrd about his leaving his handgun in a bathroom in 2019, giving Byrd the opportunity to confirm it, and to explain it away. Holt, as usual, did not follow up.
For regular readers, what follows will be a bit repetitive, but one can never study the criteria for the use of deadly force too much. As always, keep in mind, I have not seen the official reports, not that they would likely be very helpful, their conclusions known before the “investigations” began. My inferences and conclusions are drawn based on the video, photographs, and reporting in the public domain. Should errors be brought to my attention, unlike the media, I will immediately, prominently, correct them. Byrd’s own admissions should be, in an honest courtroom, deadly to the government’s defense of the civil suit.
Deadly force is authorized only when a reasonable police officer would believe they are facing an imminent threat of serious bodily injury to oneself or another. There are three primary criteria that apply to this case, and to all shootings by police officers:
Imminence: one can’t use deadly force against a possible attack, or against an attack that might happen at some time in the future. Officers aren’t required to be mind readers. The observable threat must be real, clearly about to occur–within mere seconds of occurring–or already occurring.
Proportionality: the threat can’t be of humiliation or minor injury. A reasonable person–a reasonable police officer–must believe nothing less, at that moment, than deadly force will suffice. They must believe they’re facing–or another is facing–at the moment they pull the trigger, a threat—an imminent threat–of serious bodily injury or death, and deadly force is necessary to stop it.
Reasonableness: a reasonable person in the same circumstances would be compelled to use deadly force. To do anything less would be unreasonable and would result in serious bodily injury or death to the officer or an innocent.
Notice there is nothing in these criteria about issuing any kind of warning prior to using force. The law does not require warnings, though any professional, non-panicky officer will try to use words to avoid using force, if they have time, and if doing so is reasonable. There is no legal or moral requirement for warnings, and even if a warning is given and ignored, absent the fulfillment of each and every criteria at the moment the trigger is pulled, deadly force is not lawful.
Now that we have Byrd’s own account, let’s analyze the situation more completely. We know Byrd was in the house chamber, which by that time had, reportedly, been evacuated. The Representatives weren’t there. They were elsewhere, safe, under constant armed guard. Photographs reveal the doors to the Speaker’s Lobby, the hallway immediately outside the chamber, were not only barricaded with heavy furniture, but covered by multiple agents, their guns drawn.
We also know Byrd was demonstrating a fundamental lack of gun safety. Professionals never put their trigger finger on the trigger until the moment they are about to fire, leaving it instead firmly in contact with the frame of their handgun, just as the agent to Byrd’s front/left is demonstrating. This is a fundamental safety issue, because under stress, it’s all too easy to pull the trigger accidentally. Glocks—Byrd is carrying a Glock 22, a .40 S&W caliber handgun—have 5.5 pound standard trigger pulls, which is relatively light. Knowing of Byrd’s abandonment of his handgun, his lack of handgun safety skills is not unexpected.
Ashli Babbitt is dying at this officer’s feet. Note his response to an unexpected gunshot.
We know a small group of protestors had been trying to break out the glass on a row of doors/windows opening into the hallway of the Speaker’s Lobby, but when Byrd entered that hallway, alone, had succeeded only in breaking out the window at the far right. When Byrd was briefly observing Babbitt, and as he shot her, no one was trying to break the glass or push in the doors. This is likely because multiple officers in armor, carrying long guns, were on the opposite side mixed in with the protestors.
Ashley Babbitt on the ledge (flag backpack)
Ashli Babbitt somehow managed to climb onto the narrow window ledge where the glass had been, and was not moving, but was precariously perched there, both hands grasping the edges of the frame to keep her balance. She had no visible weapons in her hands (she had no weapons of any kind). She could not have; both were occupied keeping her from falling.
The moment of firing
Keep in mind in order for Byrd to be in that hallway, he had to—apparently alone—breach the barricades that had been erected inside the chamber, open the door, and step out into the alcove of that door to the chamber. We have no idea why he did that. If the situation were so dire, why would he breach the barricaded chamber, opening it to attack? He claimed to have been locked/barricaded inside, with no escape, which supposedly heightened the danger, giving him justification for shooting Babbitt, yet he opened the chamber to attack and expose himself to the deadly danger Babbitt represented? We have no idea if any of the investigators with the DOJ or Capitol Police bothered to ask such questions, questions any competent investigator would consider basic and essential.
Byrd watched Babbitt for a short time, how long, we cannot tell with certainty from the video available. But we do know he pointed his gun at her, moved rapidly forward about six feet, and fired a single shot from close range–on the order of 10 feet–according to reports, striking her in the neck. Babbitt immediately fell, limp, back through the opening, landing hard on her back, dying, perhaps paralyzed. She quickly died.
From the photo above, we can see the doors were also barricaded, and there appears to be no one in the hallway, certainly not in the immediate area, but Byrd, and Babbitt precariously balancing on the narrow window ledge. There is no evidence whatever Byrd ever warned Babbitt, or if he did, she heard him. There is no evidence, no indication, Babbitt was even aware he was there, pointing his handgun at her from close range. Again, warnings are entirely irrelevant, a distraction at best, a lie at worst.
Ashli Babbitt was a small woman. credit: twitter.com
Imminence: Byrd tells us: “She was posing a threat to the House of Representatives.” All he could see was a tiny woman—5’2”, 100+ pounds—precariously balanced on a ledge. Both hands were clutching the window edges. He could see, at best, her left hand, which held no weapon. If he could not see her right hand, where is the threat that justifies shooting? She, apart from tottering on the ledge, was motionless. She was not in the hallway. She was doing nothing any reasonable police officer could have considered threatening. Byrd was the only person in the area, and he had her covered with his handgun from about 10 feet away. Where is the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to Byrd? Remember, at the instant he fires, he does so lawfully only because of the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to himself or another. Nothing less justifies shooting at that moment.
Where is the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to another in that vacant hallway? Even if armed, in order to injure a Representative, Babbitt would have had to enter the hallway, uninjured, overcome Byrd, breach the barricaded house chamber, and only then could she have potentially—not imminently—injured one of the armed agents within, who like Byrd, had their guns drawn. She posed no threat at all, certainly not an imminent threat, to the Representatives; they weren’t there. Interesting that Holt didn’t think to ask where they were.
Even if Babbitt had gained the hallway uninjured and advanced on Byrd, he would have had no grounds to shoot. Many officers elsewhere that day were actually physically attacked and injured, yet did not shoot. If a man of Byrd’s size and supposed training and experience could not subdue a tiny, unarmed woman without resorting to gunfire, what’s he doing in police work? One does not lawfully use deadly force to defend property or an institution.
Proportionality: Officers must exhaust every lesser use of force before using deadly force—if possible. Sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes things happen so fast an officer can’t employ lesser, escalating, force. That was not the case here. Remember where Babbit was and what she was doing when Byrd killed her. Here are only some of the options a reasonable, professional officer could have employed, options police officers employ in similar situations every day:
1) Approach closely enough so you’re sure you have Babbitt’s attention—make eye contact–and order her to go back through the frame. “What are you doing? Let me help you back to the other side.”
2) Simply walk over to Babbitt and ease her back through the frame to the other side. She was off balance; it would be easy.
3) If you didn’t care if you injured her, push her back through the frame. If you thought she was the vanguard of a mob that was about to follow her though the frame–video and photos illustrate that supposition was nonsense–why not?
4) Get the attention of the many armored and armed officers on Babbitt’s side of the doors to pull her back to their side.
5) Help Babbitt through the frame, arrest and handcuff her.
It would seem Byrd–any reasonable officer–had many options other than shooting Babbitt in the neck.
Byrd actually admits he couldn’t tell if she was armed. THEN YOU DON’T SHOOT! If Babbitt is not doing anything threatening, or if you have no idea if she’s armed, where’s the threat, any threat?
Reasonableness: The law does not require officers to be absolutely perfect, to do everything as perfectly as it could possibly be done. It does require them to be reasonable, to do what a reasonable police officer in like circumstances would do. Multiple armed and armored officers were as close to Babbitt, perhaps closer, than Byrd, yet they saw no need to shoot her. Indeed, the available video suggests they were shocked when Byrd shot her. I’ve already demonstrated there was no imminent threat to Byrd, or to anyone else. Byrd claims Babbitt was a threat to the House of Representatives, but we know there were no representatives present to threaten, and we know one may not shoot to protect an institution, no matter how exalted those not occupying it when Babbitt was shot might consider it.
In a Washington Post article, Byrd is quoted:
‘I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,’ Byrd told Holt. ‘But they had shown violence leading up to that point.’
Babbitt was unarmed, though Byrd could not know that when he shot her any more than he could have known she was armed. Knowing neither, where was the imminent threat? Who are “they,” where were they and what threat were they making at the moment Byrd fired to justify shooting Babbitt? Unarmed people can present imminent threats of serious bodily injury or death, but not Ashli Babbitt, not on January 6, 2021, not at the instant a panicky, foolish police administrator shot her. No reasonable person, seeing what Byrd saw, could have believed the only reasonable course of action was shooting Ashli Byrd. A supposed, non-deadly threat of violence occurring at some point in the past, or elsewhere, is not grounds for deadly force when none is occurring where one is standing.
But Byrd heard radio traffic of officers down, officers in danger, shots fired! He thought himself possessed of the “utmost courage,” and believed he was defending the House of Representative! Unless he can articulate, specifically and exactly what Ashli Babbitt was doing, at the moment he shot her, to present an imminent—right now—threat of serious bodily injury or death to himself or another, when he fired he committed some degree of murder. If he can’t, and we’ve already proved Byrd failed the imminence and proportionality tests, he fails the reasonableness test as well.
Final Thoughts:
Ashli Babbitt
Honest, professional officers in the Capitol Police know this was, in police parlance, a “bad shoot.” Honest, professional prosecutors in the Department of Justice, if any such thing exists there these days, know this was some degree of murder. I’ve explained the law as it’s taught to police officers across the nation. Based on all I know and can infer, Byrd is no hero. He’s an unlawful killer, a premeditated murderer.
If I’m right, why are so many in politics, in the media, and even some lawyers, saying otherwise? There is the narrative of the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor, an insurrection that came within an instant of toppling the government, a nation of domestic terrorists, which justifies a two-tiered justice system and the infringement of constitutional rights to maintain. Admitting Byrd murdered Babbitt would make the Jan. 6 Commission rather—irrelevant, an exercise in crude, cynical politics rather than a noble hunt for the truth on behalf of—domestic terrorists? There are mid term elections to win, a public to distract, political fortunes to be lost or made, and Ashli Babbitt was not one of the self-imagined elite. Her life doesn’t matter.
Take the example of Paul Mirengoff, an attorney, writing at Powerline:
What did Byrd know about Babbitt and her intentions? He says ‘I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are, but they [the mob] had shown violence leading up to that point.’ Byrd adds that he was a aware of reports (erroneous as it turned out) of gunfire by protesters.
If Byrd’s rendition of the facts is true, it seems to me that he was justified in shooting Babbitt. In police shootings of lawbreakers who threaten officer safety or the safety of others, it is always my position that the officer has the right to shoot. He need not wait to be certain that lives are in danger. It’s enough that the victim breaks the law, ignores police warnings, and surges forward towards the officer or those he’s charged with protecting.
In Byrd’s account, all of these conditions are met.
If a BLM mob storms a courthouse or a police station and, ignoring an officer’s command, surges towards the occupants, I will defend that officer if he or she stops the mob by shooting the person leading the charge. I see no reason to analyze Byrd’s conduct differently. (The left, by contrast, would condemn the officer in the BLM case while having no problem with the shooting of Babbitt.)
Is Byrd’s account true? I don’t know for sure.
Attorneys, unless specialists in self-defense law, generally know little about it. This is not a blanket indictment of attorneys. The law is vast and voluminous, so lawyers specialize. Do Mirengoff’s inferences stand up to the reality of the situation or the law? There was no mob attacking Byrd. I point this out not to attack Mirengoff, but merely to make the point most lawyers know little about these issues. Even Mirengoff admits Byrd had no idea of Babbitt’s intentions or if she was armed, and he presents no evidence of any threat, let alone an imminent threat. If officers, as Mirengoff suggests, really don’t have to wait to be reasonably certain lives are in imminent danger… Would you, gentle readers, want to live in a country like that? The DC self-imagined political elite apparently want you to do just that.
Why did Byrd do it? I am now engaging in speculation—mostly. We know by his admissions and actions, he was panicky, frightened out of his wits, and unsafely wielded his handgun. How did such a person retain their job, to say nothing of holding a management position? Honest police officers will admit they are often afraid, but they are exposed to fear so often they learn to deal with it; they don’t let it control them. In police work, there are always officers who are so unfit for the job, so actively dangerous to themselves, their fellow officers and the public, something must be done. In unionized shops, or civil service, it’s almost impossible to fire people. Sometimes one is an untouchable minority or member of another favored victim group. Perhaps higher ranking officers, for whatever reason, think the screw up one of their own and want to protect them. In such cases, the only option is promotion, promote them away from direct, dangerous contact with the public. Put them where they’re unlikely to kill anyone; it’s a sort of perverse Peter Principle in action. Sure, they’ll make a mess of things, perhaps even damage careers, but what else can be done with such people? Honest, professional cops will tell you every police agency has such people. I’ve had back channel information indicating Byrd is just such a screwup.
Was that the case here? I’ve no way to tell, though Byrd’s abandonment of his handgun in a bathroom, his dangerous handling of his weapon, and his panicky, utterly unreasonable and unlawful shooting of Babbitt, are certainly suggestive.
There is much more to come in this case, and I’ll continue to report as necessary. But know this: Michael Leroy Byrd is a courageous hero only if heroism is defined by murdering an unarmed, non-threatening, helpless woman. That’s D/S/C heroism for you, circa 2021.
UPDATE, 08-29-21, 1930 MT: Noted law professor Jonathan Turley, notably shares my opinion on this case. He made many of the same points. This is not surprising in that the law does not change, Byrd violated it and will not be held accountable. Any and all honest cops, former cops, and prosecutors, given the same evidence and examining the same law, should come to the same conclusions. I hadn’t seen Turley’s article until long after I posted and scheduled this article. Turley’s article at The Hill, is available here.
Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.
And any officer who followed the DOJ’s logic in shooting rioters, or that of Paul Mirengoff of Powerline, would be looking at a death sentence. There really is a two-tiered system of justice in America, circa 2021.
The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it stressed that ‘prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’ It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove ‘a bad purpose to disregard the law’ and that ‘evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.’
What incredible nonsense. Fear, panic, negligence and poor judgement are absolutely factors that can and should establish Byrd did not fulfill the necessary criteria for the use of deadly force. We really wish to excuse those failings in police officers, particularly when they result in the murders of innocents? Turley continues:
Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders.
I believe I made exactly those points. Imagine that.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
This sickens me to no end. Good, hardworking police officers are vilified every day when they have to use deadly force to protect themselves when they can specifically articulate the danger they perceived. Yet here is an officer who admits he didn’t know what Babbit was doing. My only hope in this outcome is that the next police officer who is being crucified for actions he perceived saved his life, can hold Byrd up as an example. If it’s ok for him, it should be ok for them.
Dear Corley598:
What’s particularly sicking about this is professional officers around the country know this was a bad shoot. They know people like Byrd have no place in law enforcement. While it’s possible the DOJ, Main Justice, supposedly the premier prosecutors in the nation, really believe the utter bullshit they wrote to exonerate Byrd, I’m sure at least some of them know they’re letting a killer walk.
Byrd’s lame excuses are straight out of the Cop Union Self-Protection 101 play book: Always claim fear of personal harm, and mention your inability to see the murder victim’s hands. Then you’ll walk free.
Sounds hauntingly familiar, doesn’t it, Mike? [“License to Kill: The Murder of Erik Scott” by Mike McDaniel and SENTINEL]
Dear ThePermit:
This is is not so much a union issue as a political issue (I know: same thing). Byrd is skating in part because he’s Black, even though D/S/Cs absolutely hate the police, but mostly because there’s a political narrative of a nation full of white supremacist, domestic terrorist, racist, insurrectionists to maintain. Sure the FBI admitted there was no insurrection, but anything that contradicts the narrative has to be ignored. If any FBI officials are called to testify, we can be sure they’ll say whatever D/S/Cs want, reports be damned.
I agree 100%.
Dear Mike,
Beg to differ. Small distinction, I know; but the D/S/C machine doesn’t hate ALL police…just the ones they can’t control. So, I agree 98%. -wink-
Dear TBS:
I understand, but I suspect they do indeed hate them all–they’re lesser beings, after all–they just find some more useful than most. -wink- indeed!
A hierarchy of useful idiots…with each rung despising lower rungs. I can see that.
I’m curious.. if you were doing the interview what questions would you have asked?
Dear Doug:
Among them would be:
1) Where, exactly were the legislators, when were they evacuated, and who was guarding them?
2) You say you were barricaded in the House Chamber and had no retreat. Why did you breach those barricades, alone, and enter the hallway?
3) If as you say, an angry mob was about to burst through the doors and attack everyone in the House Chamber, why did you breach it for them?
4) What, exactly, was Ashli Babbitt doing that constituted an imminent threat of serious bodily injury to you when you shot her?
5) No one else was apparently presented in the hallway when you shot her. How then could there be an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to anyone else?
6) Did you believe you were incapable of subduing a single, unarmed, tiny woman without shooting her?
7) You say that you could not see her hands. Where then was any threat to anyone?
8) Video reveals that when you shot her, she was immobile, balancing on a ledge. How then did she represent an imminent threat to anyone?
9) Video and photographs show you with your finger continually on the trigger of your handgun. Do you consider this a safe practice?
These are just a few of the questions that absolutely must be asked and answered. Any competent investigator would demand answers to these and much more. Officer shooting interviews normally run for hours, and every single detail must be explored, every single second accounted for. This is absolutely essential, because if the officer is innocent, all of those details and a complete time line will exonerate him. If he’s not, they’ll reveal that too.
None of that, obviously was done in this case. Or if it was, it was ignored. I’d love to get the complete interview and investigation reports in this case. Of course, that’s not going to happen, because the Congress has exempted the Capitol Police from the FOI Act.
Fair questions I suppose. It carries over the essential point you are making in all of this which is Boyd killed HER.. specifically. I might contend that he didn’t pull the trigger on HER specifically.. but rather the impending threat he perceived from the entire crowd attempting to break in. She became the target because she broke into “the perimeter” in which he was trying to defend.. not against her specifically but against the crowd that now broke through the glass and was on the verge of entry.
You are basing your entire “case” on the rule of law enforcement authority to kill someone.
I might contend that there are many agencies in government, agencies with rules of engagement with a weapon and what conditions must be met to administer lethal action. I would think all these agencies have different threat levels by which they exist to protect assets and people that may require a certain lethal response not the same as street cops. I can very easily imagine the Capitol police protecting the building and campus from threats that might include defensive postures to include collapsing, fallback, positions by establishing internal defensive perimeters.
I can very easily imagine a Capitol police officer listening to his/her radio and hearing about other officers falling to the mob, calling for medical help, and describing the mob as being using weapons, maybe even chatter about gunfire. I can very easily imagine hearing radio chatter about the mob breaching the building, causing damage, climbing through windows.. I can imagine all the chaos possible for an officer inside the building posted directly to protect those inside the chamber itself feeling as if he/she were under a siege attack by a mob screaming about killing or harming those inside he/she is supposed to protect.
You are presenting that Boyd killed her “personally”. Of course he took her life and you can’t get more personal that that… but when you are making all these accusations about reading HER specific intent… that SHE had no gun… that SHE was just on an afternoon stroll minding her own business…. well.. I contend he saw her as “the crowd” penetrating the perimeter he was posted to protect. This idea that his finger was not positioned on his weapon like a “real professional” cop would do.. or he left his weapon in a rest room some weeks prior.. that’s just biased attempt to villainize by profiling past behavior. Pure BS to his action at the Capitol that day.
I have no idea how a civil action would be judged but that’s a normal response to any unnatural death. Still.. none of this absolves Babbitt from personal responsibility for placing herself in a very possible dangerous position. As soon as she entered the building with the riot crowd.. and caused damage to property… she surrendered any claim to “I was just exercising my First Amendment right.”. She was at the wrong place doing the wrong thing at her choosing.
Dearest Doug,
Valid points, I suppose. Yet, I’m left wondering.
– Why did Byrd breach the barricaded doorway, leaving a place of relative safety with many other LE personnel who were armed and poised for action, ALONE?
– Why did Byrd shoot only one person? (Especially if, as you suggest, Babbitt was not viewed as an ‘individual’ but as part of a purportedly dangerous, raging mob.)
– If Byrd were genuinely ‘concerned’ about his own safety/survival, why weren’t other (some tactically armed — and hopefully so trained) guards/officers/agents likewise concerned and dropping the rampaging offenders like flies?
– You wrote: “I can very easily imagine the Capitol police protecting the building and campus from threats that might include defensive postures to include collapsing, fallback, positions by establishing internal defensive perimeters.” What substantiation do you propose for your imagination?
– Please tell me how the statement of facts, regarding things that occurred before Byrd pulled the trigger, constitutes a “biased attempt to villainize by profiling past behavior,” or “pure BS to his action at the Capitol that day.” Abandoning one’s weapon — whenever, wherever — and showing hazardous weapon handling are pieces of a big puzzle. Perhaps little pieces, but still pieces.
Now, in hindsight, Babbitt was clearly in the ‘wrong place’ in that moment. I would disagree with your assertion that Babbitt, and many others (not all) at the Capitol Building that day, were doing the ‘wrong thing’. Redressing grievances, by ‘petition’, can take many forms. Sometimes people die, even.
One last two-part question: Should have all of the signers of The Declaration of Independence been rounded up and summarily executed? Would King George and his men have been justified in doing so?
Be well.
– Why did Byrd breach the barricaded doorway, leaving a place of relative safety with many other LE personnel who were armed and poised for action, ALONE?
Mike wants to ask that as well and ok.. I suppose. But if Byrd is in-charge on scene I can easily surmise the possibility he was trying to get a better visual assessment. In asking the question sounds like there’s something your trying to prove.
– Why did Byrd shoot only one person? (Especially if, as you suggest, Babbitt was not viewed as an ‘individual’ but as part of a purportedly dangerous, raging mob.)
Seems easy to assume what triggered Boyd’s response was the glass being broken in an obvious attempt to enter by an “individual or individuals unknown”
– If Byrd were genuinely ‘concerned’ about his own safety/survival, why weren’t other (some tactically armed — and hopefully so trained) guards/officers/agents likewise concerned and dropping the rampaging offenders like flies?
As I suggested… only one person was at the broken glass door attempting entry and Boyd targeted that person.
– You wrote: “I can very easily imagine the Capitol police protecting the building and campus from threats that might include defensive postures to include collapsing, fallback, positions by establishing internal defensive perimeters.” What substantiation do you propose for your imagination?
It would be my strategy and it’s a kind of standard defensive tactic in confined areas requiring security. I was just an E-4 something like 40 years ago so I have absolutely no training… yet I have enough interest in armchair understanding of tactics to bring an armchair opinion.
– Please tell me how the statement of facts, regarding things that occurred before Byrd pulled the trigger, constitutes a “biased attempt to villainize by profiling past behavior,” or “pure BS to his action at the Capitol that day.” Abandoning one’s weapon — whenever, wherever — and showing hazardous weapon handling are pieces of a big puzzle. Perhaps little pieces, but still pieces.
Not sure what kind of case you’d be trying to bring to the forefront by suggesting his finger was positioned in the “wrong” spot “if he were a true and competent law enforcement office”. I might see it as a enhanced sense of urgency and preparedness given that environment is not “street cop” obligatory rules.
Now, in hindsight, Babbitt was clearly in the ‘wrong place’ in that moment. I would disagree with your assertion that Babbitt, and many others (not all) at the Capitol Building that day, were doing the ‘wrong thing’. Redressing grievances, by ‘petition’, can take many forms. Sometimes people die, even.
Not sure where you get any of that from Babbitt’s actions. Had she stayed outside and not damaged the place.. you are correct. But she did not. She surrendered any and all defense to “exercising my right to petition.. ” yada, yada. You are trying to impose your bias to the overall event.
One last two-part question: Should have all of the signers of The Declaration of Independence been rounded up and summarily executed? Would King George and his men have been justified in doing so?
He’s King George.. and at the time he could do anything he wanted. What are you trying to establish with this comparison?
Dearest Doug,
Allow me to first touch on something near the last of your reply: (you wrote) “You are trying to impose your bias to the overall event.”
(1) I am in NO way *trying* to impose my bias on any part or all of the “overall event,” (2) I have not ever pretended that I have no ‘bias’, (3) I don’t waste my time or energy pointing out what I may perceive as ‘bias’ in others’ words. Every person is biased. Each and every person experiences only his or her perception of reality.
First question/answer: (your response) “Mike wants to ask that as well and ok.. I suppose. But if Byrd is in-charge on scene I can easily surmise the possibility he was trying to get a better visual assessment. In asking the question sounds like there’s something your trying to prove.”
Indeed. There was a touch of the rhetorical in my question. And your response doesn’t answer the question — tactically OR administratively. In his own words, Byrd claimed that he was “…very afraid.” And…
“LESTER HOLT: What are we to make of the fact that there were other officers in potentially life threatening situations who didn’t use their service weapons that day?
“LIEUTENANT MICHAEL BYRD: I’m sure it was a terrifying situation. And I can only control my reaction, my training, my expertise. That would be upon them to speak for themselves.”
In a nutshell, Byrd is saying “I was scared shitless, so I went through the *barricaded* chamber door, *alone*. No backup. And shot this woman…who I couldn’t tell whether or not she was armed…and it didn’t matter either way…because she was posing a threat to the House of Representatives. I showed the utmost courage that day…and saved countless lives.”
If you buy that, then there’s probably no sense even discussing this further.
You wrote: “Seems easy to assume what triggered Boyd’s response was the glass being broken in an obvious attempt to enter by an ‘individual or individuals unknown’.”
And… “It would be my strategy and it’s a kind of standard defensive tactic in confined areas requiring security. I was just an E-4 something like 40 years ago so I have absolutely no training… yet I have enough interest in armchair understanding of tactics to bring an armchair opinion.”
And… “Not sure what kind of case you’d be trying to bring to the forefront by suggesting his finger was positioned in the ‘wrong’ spot ‘if he were a true and competent law enforcement office’. I might see it as a enhanced sense of urgency and preparedness given that environment is not ‘street cop’ obligatory rules.”
The sound of breaking glass does not justify the use of deadly force — to a reasonable person. I’m not bringing a case to the fore by my suggestions. Byrd’s trigger finger certainly was positioned incorrectly. And it doesn’t have *anything* to do with “…’street cop’ obligatory rules.” This point is apparently lost on you, but having and keeping your finger ‘in register’, UNTIL it’s time to shoot, is one of the most basic safety rule in firearms handling.
It seems to me that you don’t know that even the slightest stumble can cause a finger flinch that could lead to a non-intentional discharge.
I was just an E-4 +/- 35 years ago, and I’ve been fortunate to experience quite a bit of training. Military firearms training and certification (inc. M16, M2, M60, M16A1, and M1911); civilian LE training and cert (inc. S&W Mod. 64, Glock 17 & 19, and Rem. 870). Lucky for me, even though I sent many thousands of rounds downrange, I paid attention in all of the Use of Force training classes and scenarios. In over 16 years of military and LE service, I never had to shoot anybody…and, using other elements of my training, e.g. deescalation, less than lethal force to effect arrests, etc., I passed on taking a few shots that would have been justified.
“yada yada,” indeed.
Finally, if you truly don’t grasp the rhetorical analogy made in the last questions I posed — I quit.
Best to you and yours.
————-
Transcript for the Holt/Byrd interview (close the space before “.com”:
https://newsbinding .com/uk-news/capitol-cop-who-shot-rioter-ashli-babbitt-dead-defends-his-actions-saying-he-saved-countless-lives/
..and I was a USAF Security Cop, like Mike.. although he was on the Law enforcement side and took to the career. Thank us all for our service. But I do know, as well as you, that until confronted with a situation you have no idea how you might handle it as all are different. My entire reply was entirely based on not being trained at all (other than 40-45 years ago that likely isn’t relevant anymore). I was addressing your questions based on that.
Yep.. we all have biases. In fact, I am sure Boyd might even had one or two. Nothing wrong in pointing it out to assign context.
On duty here in the States… I was locked and loaded and aiming and ready to pull the trigger that night on my M-16 to kill a friend because he crossed some damn red line on one of the nuke laden B-52’s that HE was guarding.. and there was NO time for using a radio. Had I pulled the trigger I would have been totally exonerated in using deadly force. He walked smacked into a landing gear tire.. shook his head.. looked around and saw where he was and ran out of the red line area. He was walking in his sleep. Yep.. it ended well for all.. but I should have technically taken the shot as I was trained to do given the responsibility I had. I failed in my responsibility… but I was evaluating my need to pull the trigger by what I was perceiving was happening in real time… looking for a precise threat. There obviously was little personal threat to me (other than a possible threat my buddy was imposing). That was NOT my job to do. More than one side to every story like that. Needless to say we never reported the incident. That in itself a violation. But in the end we all get to sleep at night.
We are human beings and we all respond differently under pressure. That in itself does NOT justify taking the life of another without establishing responsibility and/or justification.
What “perturbs” me is this idea that Babbitt.. a human being who met her end at the hand of another human being, is being made a political martyr to fit the Trumpian explanation of the event. A “Horst Wessel”.
I flew Air-Evac (C-130 & C-9), then cross-trained to SP … then on to civilian LE.
Glad we can find some common ground.
Training is always relevant.
Yes. None of us knows precisely what might or will unfold in confrontation. Since my retirement, I’ve done everything possible to AVOID confrontation. That doesn’t keep me from preparing, though.
I’m glad you let your sleepwalking friend live. It’s not the first unreported incident; won’t be the last. IF there was a red line (literal or figurative) at the doorway where Babbitt was ‘entering’, and IF the USCP officers were ordered and authorized to kill red line violators, this would be a totally different story.
Speaking of biases…and martyrs. I am not a ‘Trumper’ and I do not embrace ‘Trumpianism’ (whatever that is). I am, though, an unabashed Constitutionalist who believes strongly in putting principle before personality. It is not my intent to elevate Ms. Babbitt to martyr status.
Her shooting/death was, however, from the evidence that I have seen, avoidable. The punishment meted out by Lt. Byrd was far worse than the crime that Babbitt is said to have been committing. My bias is towards liberty, responsibility, and accountability. Ashli Babbitt lost all her freedom due to irresponsible behavior (Byrd’s AND Babbitt’s). Who can be held accountable? What has become of The Peoples’ House?
[The Horst Wessel allusion is a bit of a stretch — especially if we consider the ‘political implications’ in the Wessel affair. But I catch your drift.]
“What has become of The Peoples’ House?”
I dunno.. does the Babbitt case imply that something “there” has happened?
There’s a lot of folks who claim to be “Constitutionalists”. To the level that you may or may not be I would not know. I’ve generally found “Constitutionalists” prefer interpreting the document their own way… although they claim it’s more like “the way the Founding Fathers intended”. Well, to me that means the Founders intended the document to be a dynamic document hence their creating the rules by which we make adaptive changes along the way.
In my case I have “faith” in the Constitution. I’m not trying to jam some level of interpretive meaning into universal acceptance. In fact, I explain it in more detail here if interested…
https://www.theindependentknight.com/humanism-philosophy/is-the-real-pandemic-our-national-loss-of-faith/
You did mention something that has always been a question in my own mind.
“Ashli Babbitt lost all her freedom due to irresponsible behavior (Byrd’s AND Babbitt’s).”
Seems to me anyone’s unnatural death is, in fact, the ultimate denial of personal freedom as assured under the Constitution. I think you could agree to that. If so, why is the punishment for taking the ultimate freedom away from another human being left up to 50 different individual states with 50 different forms of inconsistent and unequal applications of justice and punishment? In other words, left up to the jurisdiction in which the violation occurred unless it was a violation of a federal statute or on federal property. Yet the killing of another human being is not a federal offense universally (I’m speaking in principle… we can’t just dump this kind of responsibility on the FBI as it would likely double in size).
But regarding Babbitt’s death… why has it become political? Why is it that those who want to see Byrd fry in the electric chair are the same people who think the riot on Jan. 6th was nothing but visitors in MAGA attire expressing their freedom of speech, while strolling through the Capitol?
Dear Doug:
Ah. A fundamental difference. Constitutionalists do not, for a moment, see the Constitution as a “living,” or as you put it, “dynamic” document. They recognize that it may be changed, but only by the specific mechanism spelled out, in plain English, in the Constitution: amendment. It may not be ignored, altered by executive order, legislated from the bench, or otherwise twisted or weasel-worded. Amending the Constitution is is purposely difficult, as it must be, because the Constitution not only affirms fundamental, unalienable rights, but limits the government. Government, and D/S/Cs, don’t like that.
As to the relative blame bourn by Babbitt and Byrd, you’re joking, right? Babbitt, at worst, might be guilty of a misdemeanor, perhaps trespassing, and I very much doubt even that is legitimate as a great many of those present ton January 6 were let in by the Capital Police. Byrd, on the other hand, committed murder.
You really don’t know why the states have their own laws? May I recommend the Constitution, particularly the 10th amendment? The Federalist Papers might be useful as well.
Boy, you are all over the map on this one.
No question that to change an amendment the process is there. I was referring to the process where the Constitution has within it’s framework protections of our freedoms… largely through the courts.. and The Court. The Executive can make proclamations all day long just as Congress can make laws all day long. SCOTUS is the final authority… and Congress can try, try again if necessary. A sitting Prez can fill the courts with his buddies to attempt to change future SCOTUS decision.. welcome to American democracy. My faith is in the checks & balances as protection. As I indicated, Constitutionalists seem to just want to interpret their own way.
Again… why is the argument regarding Boyd’s actions so aligned with the different political perception of the events of that day?
Not sure I understand your last paragraph given I didn’t reply a thing regarding “not knowing” why states all have their own laws. As you used to tell your students, reading for comprehension matters.
Dear Fellows,
I will refer back to a previous remark of mine: I *choose* to put principle before personality. To that choice, challenges arise frequently.
The seeming reality — as fallible my perception may be — that scant few of my fellow citizens have ever read the Declaration of Independence, or the US Constitution, or the Federalist Papers (preferably all of the above), is ‘proof’ to me that nearly all of the underpinnings of Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness have nearly been destroyed.
I will continue to the best of my ability to discuss these matters in a principled manner without resorting to personal attacks.
If BLM actually OBLM, with the “O” standing for “only”, how would things look any different?
Pingback: Jonathan Turley: Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’ – It's Karl
As far as I know, the Capitol Police don’t publish their use of force policy anywhere.
USCP is CALEA accredited. If you’d be interested, the CALEA National Consensus Policy on Use of Force is available online (five page PDF):
Click to access National_ConsensusPolicy.pdf
I can very easily imagine a lot of hypothetical scenarios. But I would not use deadly force based on imagination.
Dear Tom:
Exactly. That mob violence may or may not be happening at a remove does not give one justification to kill elsewhere.
I’ve just seen Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection weigh in on whether this was a justifiable shooting, and he says it was.
I left a comment on the piece, noting among other things that a retired police officer, trained in use of force, disagrees. I closed with
Dear karllembke:
Thanks. I’ve read it, and also disagree. Branca takes for granted facts not in evidence. For example, he says Byrd claimed he could not see the officers on the other side of the doors, and there is no evidence to contradict that. There is indeed; the photographs, though the glass, of Byrd shooting Babbitt. If photos of Byrd could be taken through the glass in the doors, Byrd could see the officers. He also suggests Byrd was justified in part because rioters on Babbitt’s side of the doors were going to follow her through, but the videos available reveal they were preparing to do no such thing, and there were armed officers among them to stop them.
I’ll not respond to Branca’s article–I have considerable respect for him–other than to note when the civil suit is filed, I suspect it will never go to trial because the government is not going to want honest citizens to make the kind of judgements I’ve made in this case. They’ll settle–big.
Pingback: Law of Self Defense Analysis: Jan. 6 Shooting of Ashli Babbitt was Legally Justified – It's Karl
Dear Karllembke:
Thanks for the link. I’d note Branca and I have come to different conclusions because neither of us has access to the information a jury would have.
Pingback: The January 6 Hoax: The Least We Can Do | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Capital Coverup 10: Murder Of A Patriot | Stately McDaniel Manor