Avatar feed
Responses: 11
1SG Signal Support Systems Specialist
11
11
0
The investigation further determined that Ms. Babbitt was among a mob of people that entered the Capitol building and gained access to a hallway outside “Speaker’s Lobby,” which leads to the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. At the time, the USCP was evacuating Members from the Chamber, which the mob was trying to enter from multiple doorways. USCP officers used furniture to barricade a set of glass doors separating the hallway and Speaker’s Lobby to try and stop the mob from entering the Speaker’s Lobby and the Chamber, and three officers positioned themselves between the doors and the mob. Members of the mob attempted to break through the doors by striking them and breaking the glass with their hands, flagpoles, helmets, and other objects. Eventually, the three USCP officers positioned outside the doors were forced to evacuate. As members of the mob continued to strike the glass doors, Ms. Babbitt attempted to climb through one of the doors where glass was broken out. An officer inside the Speaker’s Lobby fired one round from his service pistol, striking Ms. Babbitt in the left shoulder, causing her to fall back from the doorway and onto the floor. A USCP emergency response team, which had begun making its way into the hallway to try and subdue the mob, administered aid to Ms. Babbitt, who was transported to Washington Hospital Center, where she succumbed to her injuries.

The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. In order to establish a violation of this statute, prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer acted willfully to deprive Ms. Babbitt of a right protected by the Constitution or other law, here the Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure. Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.

The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
(11)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Part Time
11
11
0
While I am normally on the side of law enforcement, I do not think the shooting was justified. She was not armed, she was pushing her way through an opening into a government building. The law enforcement inside the building had communications and was stating where people were.

To put this in context, we have had over 200+ riots over the last year with many of them being far more violent and deadly than this.
If a police officer at each or any of those 200+ riots had shot 1 person under similar circumstances, breaking into a police station, a courthouse, throwing explosives or bricks at law enforcement, would the public agree that it was warranted? Would the individual Prosecuting Attorney or DOJ feel the same way?
(11)
Comment
(0)
MSG Part Time
MSG (Join to see)
2 mo
SPC Kevin Ford -
The officer is stating his point of view. I am stating what is plainly observed on several available videos including the ones I attached above
He is giving his rationale for what he did. Just because I disagree with his tactics and use of force, doesn't mean I am saying he is lying. Based on him standing next to the doors, he could say that he felt threatened.

Similarly, there have been quite a few cases of officers who have shot people inside moving vehicles. In many of those cases, the officers ran in front of the vehicle to stop it, the vehicle didn't stop, the officers felt their life was in danger, and opened fire. Quite a few agencies now have policies against shooting at a moving vehicle and many stress tactics that avoid putting yourself in that position.

Talking about tactics, if he had moved down the hallway where the other officers were, would he have felt the same way? The other officers did not open fire. Why?

He stated he opened fire "as a last resort". Most officers would tell you that a "last resort" is you or someone else is in immediate danger of death or bodily harm. An unarmed woman crawling through a window doesn't normally meet that standard.
As I pointed out before, if Officers had shot unarmed rioters (or even armed rioters) at Portland or other locations where the Officers were defending a location such as the courthouse, liberals would have been demanding that they be fired and charged for murder.

As for his statement that he saved countless lives, I don't recall hearing any officer say something like that before, and I have worked with people who have done things such as crawl into a burning building and drag unconscious people out. It sounds like hubris.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSG Part Time
MSG (Join to see)
2 mo
SrA John Monette -
It wasn't an insurrection.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SPC Kevin Ford
2 mo
MSG (Join to see) - This was a split second decision. With the benefit of hindsight, you claim you would have made a different one. Fair enough. I disagree based on the facts of the case and what the officer could possibly have known at the time.

He had to decide then because if he doesn't fire at the first one, he doesn't fire at the second for the same reason, and the third. Soon enough, enough would have come through where he had no ability to control the mob. What did he know about the mob? There were violent clashes, injuries, they were armed, they broke into the capitol, they were ignoring orders to stay back, breaking though an improvised barrier, a report of shots fired had come over the radio, reports of explosives and the target of the mob's ire was right behind him. So split second decision. Stop them here or let them though and let whatever was going to happen to the members of Congress, happen.

Don't take this the wrong way but I wouldn't want you protecting me from a mob out to get me. I suspect I'd end up hanging from a tree.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSG Part Time
MSG (Join to see)
2 mo
SPC Kevin Ford -
I base my opinion on 35 years of experience in multiple positions of law enforcement and countless hours of instructor courses and training people on Defensive Tactics, Firearms, advanced firearms, along with being a military instructor on countless courses including tactics and firearms. Where does your expertise come from?

It didn't have to be a split second decision. The video shows people were hammering on the windows for minutes before finally breaking through. During that time, several officers were standing outside with the mob in front of the door. There was sufficient time for officers to line up at the far end of the hallway and another one to stand at the midpoint of the hallway. The fact that they broke through should not have been a surprise to anyone much less the fact that someone crawled through.

He fired at one person and hit them. Did this stop the riot? Were there no more people who made entry? If more people entered, why didn't he continue shooting? There were countless people that entered the building and he likely had 3 magazines.
Out of the estimated 800-1,000 people who made entry, none of them fired a shot. No explosives were set off inside the Congressional building. To date, less then 5 people have been identified as having a firearm and no reports have been made that anyone pointed a firearm at anyone.

Your opinions reflect your politics, specifically, this was one of the few riots where almost everyone involved was a conservative. There have been far more than 250+ riots in the past year. These included ones where officers were attacked by mobs that had Molotov cocktails, baseball bats, explosives, and other weapons. Would your views be the same way if Officers shot people in Portland that were attacking the Courthouse or police stations?

Try reading the below article. It lays out what the standards are for a law enforcement officer to use deadly force. It also cites cases where the suspect did have a weapon, the officer felt either they or someone else was in danger, and was still charged and convicted for using deadly force.

"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."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justified-shooting-or-fair-game-shooter-of-ashlii-babbitt-makes-shocking-admission/ar-AANQxm4?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Edward Tilton
9
9
0
She was an insurrectionist forcing her way into a session of Congress. Shooting her was a service to all of us
(9)
Comment
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Capt Gregory Prickett
2 mo
04884165
Gene, how much training have you had on protecting priority resources of the United States? This was painted on the flight line and hung on fences around aircraft and other resources. Certain resources got you shot faster than others. Nukes, for example, were a big deal. So were the President and Congress critters. And all you have to articulate is a threat, which occurred when she forced her way into a broken window.
(2)
Reply
(0)
A1C Mike Allen
A1C Mike Allen
2 mo
If there were any evidence of insurrection then there would have been charges and convictions of insurrection.
I mean come on, Prick ett, if you were a lawyer, wouldn't you charge someone of the crime if there was overwhelming evidence of that crime?
(1)
Reply
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Capt Gregory Prickett
2 mo
Come on Ass len, if you were a human, wouldn't you know that the government oft times charges people with other crimes because they are easier to prove? Tarrant County, Texas almost never charges anyone with Intoxication Assault, Tex. Penal Code §49.07, because they can charge them with Aggravated Assault, §22.02. Why? Because they have to prove less yet it is a longer prison sentence if convicted.

You learn that type of stuff in your three years of law school vs reading crap on the internet.
(3)
Reply
(0)
A1C Mike Allen
A1C Mike Allen
2 mo
Like I said, Prick ett,
If you were a lawyer, would you take the case on a Insurrection charge?
If you were a even mediocre lawyer, you sure wouldn't.
You wouldn't because there is no evidence of insurrection.
In the US, a person must be proven guilty of a crime.
If you want to act like you know the law, you should go to law school and learn it!!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close