Avatar feed
Responses: 6
1SG Signal Support Systems Specialist
10
10
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
(10)
Comment
(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)
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
4 y
I find it hard to comprehend the callous thoughts being stated.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SSG Edward Tilton
SSG Edward Tilton
4 y
She was a traitor, apparently that doesn't matter to you. It does to me
(4)
Reply
(0)
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
4 y
SSG Edward Tilton - it would be a matter of definition that would be acceptable to both sides before I would label her a traitor. What about all of those who gained entry, why weren’t they shot. It’s a real stretch to call an unarmed someone crawling thru a window, a traitor. There was sufficient means to restrain here if she would have got thru the window. Life is very precious to me. I am so saddened by the lack of compassion for an unarmed person being killed when there was no one in serious jeopardy of any physical harm. Wow, just wow!
(1)
Reply
(0)
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
4 y
Greg, it’s s a stretch that she was committing an act of insurrection. There are many people who say they never heard a warning. The officer was behind a pillar and not in any jeopardy. It was drilled into me at the Academy that I must articulate a serious threat of grievous harm to me or someone else , before I was on legal ground to shoot someone. There definitely alternatives available.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Michael Hasbun
6
6
0
Edited 4 y ago
3bcbe24c
Fcef776e
A6490681
Makes sense. There's no crime in killing a terrorist in the commission of a violent act. At this point any censure would be administrative, and since the police officer was in the right, there'll be no action.
(6)
Comment
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
(4)
Reply
(0)
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
4 y
SFC Michael Hasbun - I thought we were talking about an unarmed woman crawling thru a window.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
SFC Michael Hasbun
4 y
PO1 H Gene Lawrence no, we're discussing one member of a violent group of insurrectionists who was stopped in the middle of a mass assault on police defending the capitol.
She didn't get where she was by throwing rose petals and reciting peaceful poetry.
(3)
Reply
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
SFC Michael Hasbun
4 y
MSG Joseph Cristofaro I suppose if one were illiterate and had never actually read the definition of "insurrection" nor had it explained to them, that comparison might seem apt...
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

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

close