What Is The Difference Between The Wright And Babbitt Shootings?

Photo: Brooklyn Center Police Department

Below is my column in USA Today on charging decisions in the Wright and Babbitt shootings. The sharp contrast in the two decisions raises serious questions over the legal and political issues that rage around such cases.

Here is the column:

Within an hour of each other, charging decisions in two lethal police shootings were announced with strikingly different conclusions. The decisions reached in the shootings of Daunte Wright in Minnesota and Ashli Babbitt in Washington highlight concerns over the political and legal elements that can influence such decisions. The timing of the two decisions that involved two chaotic situations raises questions why charges were filed in Minnesota, but not in Washington.

In the Minnesota shooting, police were attempting to arrest Wright who, after a traffic stop, was found to have an outstanding warrant for fleeing police with an unlicensed firearm. Wright broke free of officers while he was being handcuffed and jumped back into the car to drive away. Kim Potter decided to deploy her stun gun against Wright, which would likely be viewed as a reasonable level of force in that circumstance. However, in the struggle, Potter grabbed her service weapon rather than her Taser. In the video, the officer is heard yelling “taser, taser, taser” before she swears and says, “Holy S**t I just shot him.”

Weapon confusion cases

The case has tragically familiar elements as a “weapon confusion” case. There are so many such weapon-confusion cases that departments have tried a variety of solutions, from adding special training to new designs for stun guns. The problem is such training can be lost to the fog and frenzy of the violent scene.

The case is similar to what happened in 2009, when Bay Area Rapid Transit officers struggled with Oscar Grant to arrest him. With Grant on the ground, BART officer Johannes Mehserle warned he was about to use a Taser but then grabbed his service weapon and fired a fatal round into Grant’s back.

The videotape of the incident showed Mehserle moving his thumb over his weapon as you would to release a safety on the Taser. (His service weapon did not have that type of safety release). The jury rejected second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter charges but found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Unlike past cases, the prosecutors did not overcharge Potter. However, under the criminal provision, the prosecutors must show that the 26-year veteran “creat[ed] an unreasonable risk, and consciously [took] chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.” The question is whether a possible split-second mistake legally constitutes a conscious choice of an officer.

The Babbitt shooting

In Washington, the Justice Department announced that it would not charge the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 riot. The decision in Washington had a number of striking differences. Potter was charged within a few days. It has been months since Babbitt was shot in the Capitol. The identity of the responsible officer has not been made public. Babbitt was an unarmed Air Force veteran without a criminal record. While she was clearly trespassing and at the forefront of a riot, there is no claim that she was threatening any officer or possible person with serious bodily injury or death. Indeed, near her were other officers who could have been hit by the round. (Babbitt was trying to climb through a broken door in the Speaker’s Lobby as police fought back the mob).

If the officer intended to shoot Babbitt, it would not likely meet the standard for a justified shooting under governing cases like Tennessee v. Garner (1985). If the officer fired blindly or wildly, it would appear to have many of the same negligent elements as the Wright shooting.

In rejecting charges, the Justice Department statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it noted 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 stressed that this element requires a showing of “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.”

Of course, “weapons confusion” cases are often caused by an officer’s acting out of “fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or poor judgment.” Yet, in one case an officer is charged and in the other the officer is cleared.

An uncertain line

For the public, the line of distinction can be hard to discern. For officers, that uncertain line can be the difference between discipline and incarceration. Officers have to be able to see that line clearly in carrying out duties with often in split second decisions in violent incidents.

Both of these deaths were tragic. There was a clearly different political contexts and timelines for the decisions. After Babbitt’s death, there was no outcry over her death because she was part of an infamous riot that stopped a constitutional process of certifying presidential electoral votes. Yet, the shooting does not appear any more justified than the Wright shooting, which was likely an accident. The Justice Department indicates an intentional shot was fired by an officer either at Babbitt or the mob generally. It does not explain which.

Violent riots are unfortunately common today in cities ranging from Minneapolis to Portland to Washington. The use of live rounds however have never been authorized absent a particularized showing of a significant threat to an officer or others. Nothing in the announcement in the Babbitt case answers how such a showing was made by the officer.

In the end, these cases capture the uncertain line in these cases of when mistakes or errors by police are criminal matters. There is a credible basis for the charge in the Wright shooting, but a jury will now have to decide if this was a conscious decision or tragic (but noncriminal) mistake. All such cases are highly fact specific. However, the Babbitt decision leaves more questions than answers for the public and police alike.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

295 thoughts on “What Is The Difference Between The Wright And Babbitt Shootings?”

  1. A smal but very important point…..just saying!

    “Yet, in one case an officer is charged and in the other the officer is cleared.”

    No….one Officer was charged with a crime….the other was not charged with a crime…..that is one heck of difference than being “cleared”.

    One can commit premeditated cod blooded murder…and there be all the evidence in the world to prove it….and if the Prosecutor declines to prosecute the Killer is not “cleared’….just allowed to get away with its

    Oh….sorry….killing Ms. Babbitt in my former LEO experience was a cold blooded murder.

    The Shooter did not use his firearm as the last option….he used it as his first option….and darn near shot members of his own Department to include a full SWAT Team that was within mere feet of the Victim.

    No use of physical force….like taking her to the floor and restraining her….no use of Pepper Spray…no use of a Taser…no use of an Asp Baton….just shot the poor woman in the neck…killing her…..remember the SWAT TEAM that could have caught her in their arms as she fell back….what if she had been shoved back through that window she trying to climb through at the time she was shot?

  2. Jonathan: The Wright, Bobbitt and Oscar Grant cases all present different factual situations. But except for the shooting of an insurrectionist on Jan. 6 you seem to always side with the police. In the Wright case you argue the defense of “weapons confusion” and incident was simply an “accident”. Maybe when the dust settles we will find out what really happened. But I doubt it was an “accident”. My question is where were the other police officers while Potter was wrestling with Wright? They could have easily assisted in subduing Wright without shooting him. Wright was apparently not armed so where was he going to go had he escaped in his car. They had the car license and knew where Wright lived. Most arrests on outstanding misdemeanor warrants are served at the suspect’s home. Why didn’t the police wait and arrest him later? Wright definitely made a huge mistake. He tried to resist by fighting with officer Potter. Every black parent tells their kids of driving age never to argue with the police. Obey all instructions because if you physically resist you may well be shot. You bizarrely argue that “Potter decided to deploy her stun gun against Wright, …” If Potter had time for such a decision why did she choose to deploy her Glock instead? “Decided” implies she had time to make a choice.

    Now in a column on April 5 you argued, inter alia, in the George Floyd killing that Derek Chauvin could well be acquitted because Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County medical examiner, testified that the primary cause of Floyd’s death was was the huge amount of fentanyl in his system and not due to asphyxiation. You said the prosecution made a big mistake by asking the jury to ignore Baker’s testimony. Apparently Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, was also worried about relying only on Baker’s testimony because he called another medical expert. Nelson put on Dr. David Fowler, the former chief medical examiner in Maryland, Fowler testified that in his opinion he would have ruled Floyd’s death “undetermined” rather than a homicide–and not due to asphyxiation. Now Fowler has testified in other similar cases and his testimony has not been without controversy. In 2018 19 year old Anton Black died in Maryland due to a police chokehold. A federal lawsuit has been filed alleging that Black died of asphyxiation and that Fowler, who conducted Black’s autopsy, intentionally covered up for police by ignoring other factors. Closing arguments in the Floyd case are Tuesday and the jury will have to figure out which medical experts to believe. I am also breathless waiting to hear what the jury has to say.

    On a final note we have a serious policing problem when so many unarmed black men are being killed by police. That’s probably why AG Garland has just rescinded the Trump-era policy of not using consent decrees against police departments found to have flagrantly abused and killed Black people. Perhaps, had the police departments in Minnesota been subject to consent decrees Floyd and Wright would not have needlessly died while in police custody.

    1. >> I doubt it was an “accident”. My question is where were the other police officers while Potter was wrestling with Wright?

      You can hear her cry “Taser, taser, taser” to warn the other officers, and afterward she realizes she shot him with her gun by “accident”. That doesn’t mean she isn’t responsible for involuntary manslaughter.

      One of the other officers was apparently a trainee who couldn’t get the cuffs on fast enough to prevent Wright from escaping. She went over to start helping just as Wright quickly hopped back in the car. The third officer was either on the other side or in back of the car and couldn’t do much except watch the passenger.

    2. DM,

      In any reasonable situation – the police are going to get the benefit of the doubt – and that is how it should be.

      Potter clearly made an error. We can all agree on that. That error had tragic consequences.

      But that error occured during a conflict with a person who was legitimately being arrested, had a past history of violence and was resisting arrest at the time.

      You say – other police could have stepped in – they could have – the world is not perfect.

      Wright could have not resisted arrest. He could have not previously threatened officers with a gun.
      He could have appeared for the procedure that resulted in a warrant for his arrest.

      As should be increasingly evident as rates of violence increase – we need police doing their jobs.

      In the myriads of incidents involving police that have us all charged up right now – not a single one is actual racism.

      Some were fully justified, some were accidents by police. MAYBE some were overzealousness.

      None involved actually innocent people. Most involved resisting arrest.

      Mistakes and misconduct are not the same thing. Nor is even overzealosness or even failure to follow procedure.

      With very few exceptions – we do not prosecute people as criminals for accidents.

      But even their the police are different – while they choose the job – it is a job that inherently involves violence.

      As I said – Duante would be alive if he did not resist arrest.

      You can prosecute Chauvin if you want. You can prosecute Potter, you can jail them forever.

      And then you can figure out where you are going to get a police force from.

      We have had a major spike in violent crime since the George Floyd incident.
      This is independent of the rioting and associated violence.

      We are seeing spikes in murders and rapes and burglaries.
      We are specifically seeing these in cities that have chosen to police less agressively as a response to “defund the police”.
      In addition to purportedly descalative policies – we are also seeing spikes in “Blue flu” – retirements, or just officers themselves not working as hard to catch criminals.

      The consequences of all this are being paid by minority communities.

      Ultimately this should not be my decision – or yours – these communities should decide what they want.

      Do want policing that occasionally makes mistakes and results in deaths like Duantes.
      Or do they want the police to be less agressive – and experience the rise of violent crime.

      This will happen in their neighborhoods – they should decide.

      What you can not have – what they can not have – is perfection. Police are not perfect. Life is not perfect.
      Do something 1000 times and atleast once it will go wrong.

      You can prosecute and jail Potter and chauvin – you can send a message to the police – and I fully expect they will hear it and respond.
      And fewer people will die at the hands of police, and hundreds more will die at the hands of criminals.

  3. “What Is The Difference Between The Wright And Babbitt Shootings?”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    Phantom White Guilt

  4. Turley– “However, the Babbitt decision leaves more questions than answers for the public and police alike.”
    ***
    No questions. The government is corrupt. And it doesn’t even try to disguise its corruption.

  5. Prof. Turley makes a classic mistake in this article, when he says Congress was “certifying” the electoral vote. In fact, Congress does not CERTIFY the election, the votes are certified by each state and the District of Columbia. Congress’ role is merely to receive the votes and count them, that’s all. As for the right of people to protest in Congress, it happens all the time. Sometimes those protests get violent, such as when Puerto Ricans started shooting. Otherwise, a decent article.

    1. Congress does more than receive and count. You can object to the world certify, but congress has the power to accept or reject those votes. The process is not pro forma, and congress has used allegations of fraud as a justification to reject a states electoral votes in the past.

      Beyond that although I agree the article was excellent. There are several errors.

      I have watched video’s of the Babbit shooting from several angles and have not seen clear evidence that Babbit broke the window or tried to climb through it.

      Even the claim she was tresspassing is debatable – many if not most of those in the capital on the 6th were allowed to enter by the capital police. I have not seen evidence that Babbit broke in.

      There is also the independent question of why was the capital shutdown in the first place.
      The whole event was handled badly – possibly intentionally by the capital police – probably at the direction of congressional leaders.

      Shutting congress made things worse. We have allowed – because we must non-violent protests of government throughout this country. Democrats took over the Wisconsin state capital for more than a week almost a decade ago – as on Jan 6 there was some minor looting but no consequential violence. Kavanaugh protestors accosted senators in their offices, in elevators, in cloak rooms in bathrooms. making political demands of them. Back in may armed lockdown protestors peacefully assembled at several state capitals.

      One of the arguments I have made repeatedly with respect to the BLM protests – over the summer and right through the moment is that you petition government, you protest government at the government. At City hall, at state houses, even at congress.
      When your protest loots stores, tresspasses on private property and burns down Target – it is a riot, not a protest.

      The first amendment right to petition government does not exist when government is free to barricade itself from you.

      Missing – deliberately supressed – by the media, by our government – and even by people like Turley is that the Jan. 6th capital protests – including storming congress were legitimate and were important. They were exactly as legitimate as the Kavanaugh protests.

      Turley is examing the double standard regarding Babbit and Wright – but few have examined the double standard regarding
      The Kavanaugh protests and the Election protests.

      1. “I have watched video’s of the Babbit shooting from several angles and have not seen clear evidence that Babbit broke the window or tried to climb through it.”

        She did not break the window. More than one person cracked the glass, and Zachary Alam is the one who broke the glass out of the window. He has been arrested for that and other crimes. She did try to climb through the window and can clearly be seen in the window at the top of the door and falling from it after she is shot, ~5-7 seconds into this video, in both the upper left and lower left videos –
        https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1347253404012261377
        This has been pointed out to you before and your willful denial of it is only that.

        “Even the claim she was tresspassing is debatable”

        It is not. Visitors are not allowed into the Speaker’s Lobby. Even many staff are not allowed into the Speaker’s Lobby. To enter the Speaker’s Lobby, you must have approval. Babbitt did not have approval.

        “There is also the independent question of why was the capital shutdown in the first place.”

        It wasn’t shut down. People could enter legally, which meant going through security (screened by a magnetometer, not bringing any prohibited items like batons and bear spray, tasers, etc.), as occurs when entering many government buildings. Lots of people broke in. Lots of people brought prohibited items and refused to go through security. Those people were not in the Capitol legally. Some locations are even more restricted. For example, small backpacks are allowed into the Capitol but not allowed into the House or Senate chambers –
        https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/plan-visit/prohibited-items

        “on Jan 6 there was some minor looting but no consequential violence”

        Bullsh*t. The USCP estimated that ~140 USCP and MPD officers were injured. The chair of the USCP union, Gus Papathanasiou, said “I have officers who were not issued helmets prior to the attack who have sustained brain injuries. One officer has two cracked ribs and two smashed spinal discs. One officer is going to lose his eye, and another was stabbed with a metal fence stake.” Are you saying that you’d find it inconsequential to lose an eye, to have cracked ribs, to be stabbed? You can see protesters beating police with batons and flag staffs. Would you find it inconsequential to be beaten with a baton? You could see the video of Officer Daniel Hodges as he was crushed by rioters between a door and a riot shield. You consider that inconsequential? WTH is wrong with you?

        “the Jan. 6th capital protests – including storming congress were legitimate and were important.”

        The acts of the hundreds of criminal insurrectionists were not legitimate. Those who broke our laws deserve to be arrested and tried just like those who broke laws during the Kavanaugh protests.

        “few have examined the double standard regarding The Kavanaugh protests and the Election protests.”

        Why don’t you start by naming anyone at the Kavanaugh protests who literally broke into the Capitol and refused to go through security, or who brought weapons like tasers, batons, and bear spray. Name any of them who were so violent that officers lost an eye, or was stabbed, or had bones broken.

        You are having tremendous difficulty discussing this truthfully.

        1. “She did try to climb through the window and can clearly be seen in the window at the top of the door and falling from it after she is shot,”

          What does that tell us, anonymous?

          Her hands were occupied! She was in motion and completely vulnerable while at the same time (if in battle) could not protect herself. Time existed as she wasn’t already in the room as she fell back where she came from.

          Anonymous is suggesting that for every police encounter with a trespasser, shooting and potentially killing the the trespasser should be legal. It is good that Anonymous spends his days and nights on the blog so he is not out acting as a policeman killing presumed trespassers.

          1. There is specific federal law regarding the use of deadly force by federal officers.

            It requires an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to others.

            That did not exist.

            Had Alishi been going through the window – I still can not see that in Anonymous’s reperatedly linked videos.
            And had a gun or knife that STILL would not have been sufficient.

            She would have had to be in a position to use them and actually threatening to do so.

            You can not kill someone because what you speculate might happen. Only what is actually happening.

            1. “Had Alishi been going through the window – I still can not see that in Anonymous’s reperatedly linked videos.”

              I don’t think that is significant. It is obvious she wasn’t in the room as she ended up in the room she started from. She was unarmed with more than one armed policeman in her presence. They had a chance to try and restrain her or stop her. It appears she was shot by a police officer from afar. One might say that looked more like an execution than an attempt to prevent harm.

              Nancy Pelosi and Democrats have a lot to do with security. What were their instructions to the police? Who and how were the policemen’s assignments made? The less information revealed the dirtier all of this sounds.

              We know where people like Anonymous the Stupid stand. Execution by proxy I do not believe is beyond what they would do. I wonder how far people like Nancy Pelosi would go.

              1. There remain questions about the speakers directions to the police.

                We know that Pelosi is/was heavily involved in capital security – that it is something that she does not delegate, nor appear to trust others with.

                We also know that the Capital police sought to have 10,000 National guard and were denied because that would be bad optics.

                Frankly, I am highly suspicious that Pelosi set this whole thing up. That she knew something was likely. that she deliberately colsed the capital – in the hopes protestors would try to break in and that would look bad.

                We know that the capital police were given non-confrontational rules of engagement – meaning block the protestors but back down before getting into a fight. We do not know if that direction came from pelosi. Nor do we know why the police at the west terrace entrance ignored that.

                Contra ATS – I have yet to find a single instance EXCEPT the confrontation at the west terrace where protestors and capital police were not cordial with each other.

                ATS repeats the claim that 140 police were injured – yet the only video showing a conflict that an officer could get injured during was at the west Terrace entrance and there were according to the capital police only 30-60 officers there – why the range is so broad I do not know, but that is from their testimony.

                Purportedly one of the reasons that no witnesses were called in the senate was Trump was seeking to call Pelosi.

                There is a lot that is being hidden from us.

                And one of the problems with democrats running everything – is we are not going to find out.

                We only found out alot about the collusion delusion because of the House investigations by Nunes.
                And those were resisted amlmost as fiercley by Rosenstein as the west terrance.

                We now know pretty much everything Rosenstein was seeking to keep hidden in 2017.
                Can anyone tell me a single thing that should not have been made public at the start ?

                The one and only defense i accept for Clinton’s mishandling of classified information – is that 90% of what is classified – shouldn’t be, and much of it is publicly available anyway.

                I want government as open as possible. I want nearly everything conducted out in the sunlight.
                Starting most importantly with all election processes.

                But that is not how things are.

                Regardless, when governent will not let us know something – it is nearly always hiding misconduct or embarrasment.

                  1. To be clear I an not saying that Pelosi orchestrated EXACTLY what happened.

                    But I am saying that she knew there would be protests and she decided it was likely that if she closed down the capital but left inadequeate forces in place with unclear instructions that chaos would likely ensue – and she got what she wanted.

            2. “Had Alishi been going through the window – I still can not see that in Anonymous’s reperatedly linked videos.”

              Then you’re blind. I literally told you the timestamp and which videos show her in the window.

              1. You have told me lots of things that are not true. And you keep posting as anonymous – AKA zero credibility.

                I have frame by framed through atleast a second on either side several times.

                As best I can tell you seem to be concluding that because the person in the window goes backward after the shot – that person is Alsihi.

                But everyone went backward after the shot.

                Several people ended up on the ground at nearly the same time.

                Video’s from other angles appear to show Alishi standing several feet behind the person in the window before the shot – and she can not be two places at once.
                In several videos from other positions the officers aim appears point into the crowd, not at the person in the window.

                There appears to be differences in clothing – but that could be an artifact of lighting, Further the person in the window falls back through others and through even worse lighting so the trajectory is not clear. Nor is the frame rate sufficient to trace each persons motion across several frames.

                If you have a preconception of what happened – it is easy to see that in the video.

        2. “She did not break the window. More than one person cracked the glass, and Zachary Alam is the one who broke the glass out of the window. He has been arrested for that and other crimes.”
          I am glad we can agree on some things.

          “She did try to climb through the window and can clearly be seen in the window at the top of the door and falling from it after she is shot, ~5-7 seconds into this video, in both the upper left and lower left videos –”
          I have reviewed this video – and numerous others – and what you seem to think is clear is not.

          There is atleast one angle I have seen that makes it clear that no one was in the window at the time the fatal shot was fired.

          None of the video’s I have seen are taken under optimal conditions to document this.

          But it still appears to me that anyone claiming Alshi was climbing through the window when shot is seeing what they want to see.

          I will have no problem correcting what I have said with actual evidence to the contrary – but your synchronized tweet video is not it.

          Whether she was climbing through the window makes only small difference – her shooting did not meet the legal requirements for a justified shooting. No one was in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

          If you think you see something I do not in these videos – I can not challenge you – as I said the videos were not taken with the intention of demonstrating this. But I do not see what you think you see.
          And under the circumstances the burden of proof is on those making the allegation.

          No one is debating that someone tried to climb through the window seconds BEFORE she was shot – that does not appear to be her.
          At the time the shot was fired the window was clear as was the lobby behind the door.

          1. “No one is debating that someone tried to climb through the window seconds BEFORE she was shot – that does not appear to be her.”

            You think the person who started to climb through the window and then fell backwards when the shot was fired (between 5-6 seconds into the video I linked to) isn’t her? That person is clearly wearing Babbitt’s backpack, easiest to see in the upper left video. You can see her with that backpack on in longer videos and in still photos. In the the lower left video, you can also see that the person who fell backwards out of the window after the shot is Babbitt, as there’s video of her (showing her face) on the floor after she’s fallen.

            “At the time the shot was fired the window was clear as was the lobby behind the door.”

            No, Babbitt — with her backpack — is in the window when the shot is fired, and the video shows others in the Speaker’s Lobby besides the police officer before and after she was shot.

            “Babbit did not enter the speakers lobby.”

            She was in the midst of climbing into it.

            “If you are inside the capital of the united states during normal hours, and you have not personally and explicitly been asked to leave by those with authority to do so and with proper justification for doing so – you are not tresspassing.”

            Nope. There are areas in the Capitol that are open to the public, and there are areas that are closed to the public and that may even be closed to staff who don’t have approval. Everyone outside the Speaker’s Lobby was trespassing. The relevant laws don’t use the word “trespass,” they refer to things like “[entering or remaining] in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so.” Much of the Capitol was restricted that day because Pence was there, and he is protected by the Secret Service; under 18 U.S. Code § 1752 “the term “restricted buildings or grounds” means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area … of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.” Entering restricted areas without permission is illegal. Also, “An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly— (A) enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress or in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to that floor, in the Rayburn Room of the House of Representatives, or in the Marble Room of the Senate, unless authorized to do so pursuant to rules adopted, or an authorization given, by that House.” It would have been illegal for her to knowingly and willfully attempt to enter the Speaker’s Lobby even if Pence hadn’t been in the Capitol.

            “You keep fixating on the speakers lobby – as if that is consequential”

            It IS consequential. It’s specified by law, part of which I just quoted. It enters directly onto the House floor without any barrier or checkpoint, so preventing unapproved people from entering the Speaker’s Lobby is part of the job of the USCP.

            “Babbit did not enter the speakers lobby.”

            She was in the midst of illegally climbing into it. Part of her body was already past the door frame and therefore inside the Lobby.

            “You make claims regarding the speakers lobby – how were protestors to know ?”

            It’s illegal whether they know it or not. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

            “If you have people who refused to go through security – that was actually present, and otherwise broke in – prosecute them. If THOSE people brought prohibited items – prosecute them.”

            They ARE being prosecuted. I have more than once directed you to the list of HUNDREDS of people being prosecuted for their crimes in the Capitol on Jan. 6. Here’s that list AGAIN –
            https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

            1. “She was in the midst of illegally climbing into it. Part of her body was already past the door frame and therefore inside the Lobby.”

              …And on the other side of the door frame was more than one armed policemen. Based on what you say her hands were occupied climbing in so she was no threat. For Anonymous the Stupid, that was enough to kill her. Anonymous the Stupid is a Maxine Waters type. He promotes violence and isn’t very bright.

              His type of attitude isn’t that much different than the early Nazi’s.

            2. We clearly are not seeing the same things.

              It is probably possible using digital analysis to ascertain whether the person going through the window is babbit.
              I am still pretty sure it is not.
              I am guessing that you are assuming it is Babbit because that person false backward with the shot.
              LOTS of people move quickly – and mostly backward with the shot.
              There are many videos of this from different angles. They do not all give the same impression.
              But if you want to do the digital analysis and prove it one way or the other – go for it.

              Regardless, it would still be murder if Babbit was crawling through the window with a gun – so long as it was not aimed at someone.

              1. “I am guessing that you are assuming it is Babbit because that person false backward with the shot.”

                No, as I already told you, it’s her because she’s wearing Babbitt’s backpack AND because we can see her face once she’s fallen onto the floor.

                “it would still be murder”

                Your opinion. You’re free to write her husband and encourage him to file a wrongful death suit, and suggest he use your arguments.

                “I am tired of this.”

                No one is forcing you to respond. Walk away if you’re tired of it.

                “You are arguing stupid things.”

                You are describing yourself.

                “To be criminally tresspassing you must be somewhere you KNOW you are not permitted to be, and you must refuse to leave when asked.”

                I quoted some of the relevant federal law to you. You ignored it. You have quoted no law. As usual, you insist that your personal opinion is fact.

                “The Vice President is nearly ALWAYS at the capital when the senate is in session.”

                No, the Senate itself says “The vice president presides over the Senate ONLY on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. When the vice president is absent, the president pro tempore presides over the Senate.”

                “They do not lock down the capital because the VP is there.”

                I didn’t suggest that they do. What I quoted simply noted that his presence affects what is legally considered a restricted area. Over and over again, you infer things that aren’t implied. That is YOUR error and stupidity, not mine.

                “Please stop making things up as you go. It is just annoying.”

                Take your own advice. I’m not making things up. It’s one reason that I quote and link to evidence so often.

                “Pelosi is also protected by secret service”

                Not in general, no –
                https://www.secretservice.gov/about/faq/general

                “Ordinary police swear an oath to protect and serve – does that mean they can shoot anyone they want ?”

                Of course not, nor have I suggested otherwise.

                “you still seem to be arguing …”

                BS, which is why you can’t quote me saying anything of the sort. YOU are inferring garbage and then attributing it to me. Work on YOUR ability to not draw false inferences.

                “Do you have video of a person REFUSING to go through security. I have not seen one yet.”

                Then you haven’t been paying attention. When they illegally break the windows and enter through the windows, they are refusing to go through security (that’s Dominic Pezzola breaking one of the windows, you can read all of the charges against him for his crimes that day) –

                1. “No, as I already told you, it’s her because she’s wearing Babbitt’s backpack AND because we can see her face once she’s fallen onto the floor.”

                  We NEVER see the face of the person in the window – not that the quality of the video is good enough for that.

                  There are numerous APARENT differences between Babbit and the person climbing through the window. The very things you think are whit it is here are why I think it is not.

                  There is a person behind Babbit on the floor whose cloths look a better match for the person in the window.

                  Fuerther most of the people there had similar enough clothing that this is very difficult.

                  ““it would still be murder”

                  Your opinion.”

                  No it is a fact – read the actual law. A justified shooting by a federal officer in a federal building must meet specific requirements.

                  An immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another.

                  The Ma’Khia Bryant shooting meets the requirements for a legal shooting – Bryany had a knife and had both attacked another and was attacking another.

                  Crawling through a window unarmed is not an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to anyone.

                  Todate there is not a single instance of a death cause by capital protestors. There is not a single instance of serious bodily injury caused by protestors.

                  Headaches and sprained ankles are not serious bodily injury.

                  “You’re free to write her husband and encourage him to file a wrongful death suit, and suggest he use your arguments.”
                  If is not Babbit’s husband’s job to enforce the law. It is governmets, and it is required to do so blind to race or anything else.

                  “”I am tired of this.”

                  No one is forcing you to respond. Walk away if you’re tired of it.”
                  What I am tired of – is your complete stupidity.

                  Worse still – your idiocy is not the result of stupidity – but willful blindness – that is a moral failure.

                  If your IQ were 80 – you might be forgiven for the stupid arguments you are making.
                  But you are not.

                  ““You are arguing stupid things.”
                  You are describing yourself.”

                  The facts are all here to judge.
                  You lost these debates several times over.

                  “To be criminally tresspassing you must be somewhere you KNOW you are not permitted to be, and you must refuse to leave when asked.”

                  “I quoted some of the relevant federal law to you. You ignored it. You have quoted no law. As usual, you insist that your personal opinion is fact.”
                  I have quoted the law of tresspass. Yes, Ignored YOUR interpretation of what you quoted – as it is overly broad.
                  And it requires very little to grasp that it does not apply – otherwise anyone in the capital at anytime would be in violation of the law.

                  ““The Vice President is nearly ALWAYS at the capital when the senate is in session.”

                  No, the Senate itself says “The vice president presides over the Senate ONLY on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed.”

                  Constitution, Article 1, Section 3

                  “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

                  The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.”

                  When the vice president is absent, the president pro tempore presides over the Senate.”

                  Sorry, anonymous – the Vice President is president of the senate at all times EXCEPT when he is not present, and when he is acting president.

                  “They do not lock down the capital because the VP is there.”

                  “I didn’t suggest that they do. What I quoted simply noted that his presence affects what is legally considered a restricted area. Over and over again, you infer things that aren’t implied. That is YOUR error and stupidity, not mine.”

                  False – over and over you make arguments that are ludicrously stupid.

                  Nothing of consequence changes when the VP is in the capital – just as your stupid argument does not apply when 20,000 people are at an arena for a presidential rally.

                  You do not understand at all the law you are citing, and you are trying to make it far more significant than it is.

                  I would further note that even if it actually meant what you claim – which it does not, it would be unconstitutional.

                  The constitution makes ZERO provisions for the secret service or protection details.
                  But the right to free speech, protest, assembly, and petitioning government are right there in the first amendment.

                  Further these are fundimental rights -subject to strict scrutiny.
                  That means that in a conflict between a first amendment right and an desired law – the law MUST infringe on the right in the least possible way – if it may infringe at all.

                  Any law that infringes on the first amendment will ALWAYS:
                  Require the government to impose the law in the least infringing way possible.
                  And be interpreted in the narrowest possible way.
                  OR be declared facially unconstitutional.

                  The law is NOT – your interpretation. It is NOT mine.

                  All laws infringe on rights – that is inherent in the nature of law.

                  That is also why laws must always be understood narrowly with minimal infringement.

                  That said the level of infringement on rights that courts allow varies depending on the rights being infringed on.
                  The first amendment has the highest barriers – it requires the narrowest scope of the law.

                  You clearly do not get that.

                  People are not tresspassing or committing any other crime – merely by being present near the president vice president or some other protected person.
                  Nor are they committing a crime by being there without explicit invitation.
                  Nor are they committing a crime by approaching a protected person without an invitation.

                  With few if any exceptions it is not a crime to be somewhere you are not supposed to until it has been communicated to you that you must leave. There are differences in the law of tresspass with respect to that notice requirement depending on whether the notice is written, oral, or by posting. Whether the place is completely private, privately owned but open to the public, or public.

                  But you are oblivious to all of this.

                  If you interpret law broadly as you do – everything is illegal.

                  I should not need to explain why you are wrong in your misunderstanding of the laws you have cited.
                  The mere fact that you have read them broadly rather than narrowly – that you are completely ignoring that they conflict with rights – and in this case fundimental rights, and that you can not resolve that conflict by mowing dow the rights makes clear that you are both wrong and do not know at all what you are talking about.

                  But you are on the left – and that goes without saying.

                  “”Please stop making things up as you go. It is just annoying.”

                  Take your own advice. I’m not making things up. It’s one reason that I quote and link to evidence so often.”
                  You are, and you do not understand your own evidence.

                  “Pelosi is also protected by secret service”

                  Not in general, no –
                  https://www.secretservice.gov/about/faq/general

                  The secret service monitors the speaker of the house – ALWAYS – that means there is always on SS member nearby – even if she does not have a formal SS protective detail. Everyone in the house and senate in a leadership position has a protective detail and would meet the criteria in your law – their detail is just not SS. As I recall your law cited protected persons – NOT SS Protected persons.

                  Regardless, as noted before – where the law runs into the first amendment – the law must be narrowed to infirnge on the first amendment the least possible – or not at all.

                  ““Ordinary police swear an oath to protect and serve – does that mean they can shoot anyone they want ?”

                  Of course not, nor have I suggested otherwise.”

                  You made a big deal out of the requirement to protect and serve, – once again interpretting broadly what only has meaning narrowly.

                  You do not get the fact that law is an must be narrow. Even if rights did not exist, the law would still have to be narrow, or nothing would be legal.

                  ““you still seem to be arguing …”

                  BS, which is why you can’t quote me saying anything of the sort. YOU are inferring garbage and then attributing it to me. Work on YOUR ability to not draw false inferences.”

                  It is not my problem that your arguments are so broad – that is yours.
                  BTW I do not infer garbage to you. All I do is use the same standards you use on a tiny part of law, for the law as a whole.
                  You do not get to pick and choose what parts of laws to interpret broadly.
                  And no I am not falsely attributing anything to you.
                  What I do is apply to the WHOLE of law, YOUR approach for PART of it.

                  You do not get to argue “in only and precisely this instance ….” absent actual laws very specific to that instance.

                  When you make Tresspass or other law far broader than it is – that has logical consequences.
                  I agree you have not stated those consequences – but that does not change the fact that they are the direct logical result of your arguments.

                  ““Do you have video of a person REFUSING to go through security. I have not seen one yet.”

                  Then you haven’t been paying attention. When they illegally break the windows and enter through the windows, they are refusing to go through security (that’s Dominic Pezzola breaking one of the windows, you can read all of the charges against him for his crimes that day)”

                  Once again – you are going overly broad.

                  I explicitly asked for video of people REFUSING to go through security. No someone breaking a window is NOT refusing to go through security. Actually refusing to go through security is refusing to go through security.

                  Further I am seeking to make a bigger point – Security screening was not “setup” – i.e. operational – because the capital was shutdown.
                  The people coming up the capital steps – even being invited by the capital police were not asked to go through security – because there was no operational security in place, because the capital was closed down.

                  The entire reason people were breaking into the capital – and very few of those in the capital actually broke in.
                  Was NOT to evade security. It was because the capital was locked down – albeit badly and the Capital police themselves were unclear about what they were doing.

                  What we had was chaos – with different people in different places having different understanding of circumstances.

                  That arrose because of GOVERNMENT FAILURE.

                  It arose specifically from the failure of democrats to grasp that while they could possibly Bull through the process of anointing Biden, they could not do so in the dark and without respecting not merely the right of senators and representatives to object – but of ordinary sitizens to do so.

                  BLM protestors have gone to various state capitols – at the moment they are in the OK state capital and have made it impossible to conduct business.
                  No one has been arrested.

                  This also happened in Wisconsin in 2012. Like it or not, right left, it is perfectly legitimate and constitutional.

                  It is petitioning government, it is NOT tresspassing.
                  While the rights of the protestors are not infinite. they are also not ZERO – as the left deciding on Jan. 6.

                  So far security at the OK capital has not murdered any protestors.

                  I think BLM is full of $hit and they are pushing policies that are harmful and will result in more crime, and violence to black people – by black people.

                  But as wrong as they are – they are free to protest. They are free to speak, they are free to assemble, they are free to petition government. They are ESPECIALLY FREE to do so at the capital.

                  Our elected representatives are public servants – not overlords.

                  While we expect them to follow their conscience, the constitution, and the interests of the whole country, they are NOT free to silence dissent or to supress it or protect themselves from being exposed to it.

            3. I am tired of this. You are arguing stupid things.
              There is atleast one video out there that pans the speakers lobby more than a minute before the shot is fired and it is empty.

              Of course none of this matters – short of Babbit jumping through the window with a gun into a crowded room her shooting is a murder.

            4. You do not understand tresspass – which BTW is not justification for a federal officer to shoot someone.

              To be criminally tresspassing you must be somewhere you KNOW you are not permitted to be, and you must refuse to leave when asked.

              The public non-public distinction is important (but not sufficient) – but ONLY when it is known.

              The Vice President is nearly ALWAYS at the capital when the senate is in session.
              They do not lock down the capital because the VP is there.

              Please stop making things up as you go.
              It is just annoying.

              Pelosi is also protected by secret service – the House does not become a non public space when she is present.

              Have you ever seen a Trump rally – the president is in a building with 2000 other people.

              It is common to check for weapons – which could have been done had the building been open as it should.

              Do you have any more idiotic claims you wish to make up.

              I would note that even the secret service could not have legally shot Ashli under the circumstances if Pence was 10ft away – unless she aimed a gun at Pence.

              Protecting the president. VP, Speaker is the job of the SS.
              Protecting congress is the job of the CP.

              Protecting does NOT mean shooting anything that comes near.

              Ordinary police swear an oath to protect and serve – does that mean they can shoot anyone they want ?

              As is typical of lefties you are reading into the law things that are not there.

            5. Do you have video of a person REFUSING to go through security.

              I have not seen one yet.

              The capital was CLOSED – so say the capital police.

              But you still seem to be arguing that people broke into a building that was already open, assaulted police so they could sneak bear spray in the back door.

        3. “This has been pointed out to you before and your willful denial of it is only that.”

          It has and you remain wrong.

          ““Even the claim she was tresspassing is debatable”

          It is not. Visitors are not allowed into the Speaker’s Lobby. Even many staff are not allowed into the Speaker’s Lobby. To enter the Speaker’s Lobby, you must have approval. Babbitt did not have approval.”

          Babbit did not enter the speakers lobby.

          I would further note that Tresspassing – particularly criminal tresspassing has a number of eleiments.
          Purportedly Not being allowed to be somewhere is NOT sufficient.

          It is especially not sufficient when you are not on private property.

          If you are inside a locked target after hours you are tresspassing.

          If you are inside the capital of the united states during normal hours, and you have not personally and explicitly been asked to leave by those with authority to do so and with proper justification for doing so – you are not tresspassing.

          I would not personally suggest debating justification with an armed capital police officer. But that does not change the facts.

          You keep fixating on the speakers lobby – as if that is consequential. While it is self evident that there were protestors who Sought to go there. Tresspassing is something you do – not something you think about.

          there is no crime of preparing to tresspass.

          And all this presumes that your remarks regarding the speakers lobby are relevant.

          As with the main capital itself – protestors at times were locked out of public spaces and at others were escorted in.

          Actual crimes including tresspass require intent.
          You make claims regarding the speakers lobby – how were protestors to know ?

          There were plenty of instances where they were barricaded out of or locked out of places they were allowed to go.
          There were plenty of instances they were allowed into both public spaces and placed they were not allowed to go.

          A great deal of confustion was created by the improper and poorly thought out lockdown of the capital itself.

          Had the our fearful leaders directed the capital police to allow public access to the capital – but search for weapons and control the numbers – then it would be perfectly reasonsable for all of us to assume that going through locked doors is tresspass.

          But that is not what occured. Protestors encountered a capital that was in a confused state. Partly locked down, partly not, and with no clear means to determine what was public and what was not.

          With respect to many of your other claims.

          If you have people who refused to go through security – that was actually present, and otherwise broke in – prosecute them. If THOSE people brought prohibited items – prosecute them.

          But the FACTS do not for the most part bear out your claims.

          Dozens of people have spoken about entering the capital unobstructed without going through security.

          You are trying to pain a picture that protestors overwhelmed securtity – that is quite clearly NOT what happened.

          The capital was at the start completely barricaded – BADLY. It was clear that the capital was improperly CLOSED.

          It is also clear that the capital police were given conflicting instructions. You can not expect that if the capital police are unclear about what was and was not permitted – that protestors were required to know.

          Whether you like this or not – Congress created this mess – not the protestors, and frankly not the capital police.

          Regardless, I have no problem prosecuting people who were doing things that would be crimes under any circumstances.

          Such as trying to take a gun from a police officer, and looting,

          But all reasonable doubt – by our constitution goes to the protestors.

          Further specifically because protestors rights to assemble, free speach and petition the government were being infringed on – more than the normal presumption must go in their favor. When government is action to infringe on peoples rights – they lose a significant portion of their lawful authority.

          While I would not encourge people to challenge the lawless instructions of a police officer – because dead is dead – whether you were killed lawfully or not, a law officer acting lawfully does NOT have lawful authority.

          The burden of providing protestors with their LAWFULL constitutional rights to protest, speak and petition government falls on GOVERNMENT. Nearly all harms that result from failure to do so – or doing so badly – fall with government not the protestors.

          Protestors should have been allowed through the public spaces of the capital. They should have been allowed into the public galleries where the house and senate were meeting. they should have been allowed to chant and stomp and shout and demand whatever they wanted of congress. They should have been allowed to Chant “Death to Pence” or any similar violent threats – so long as they did not act on them. Just as BLM protestors should “Death to Pigs”.

          Congress was free to:
          Shut down until later.
          Give protestors what they wanted
          or try to wait them out.

          But every single one of these protestors had the right to go into congress and make whatever demands they wanted.

        4. In the previosu post I addressed what pretty much any angry protestors can do pretty much any time.

          But Jan. 6 was actually unique.

          It resulted from a lawlessly conducted election.

          And please – since you fixate on courts – I believe we are up to 6 courts that have found consequential lawless actions by state election officials thus far.
          I do not think we have a single court that has found that any challenge of lawlessness in the election was unfounded.
          We have several state legislatures – that in hearing with testimony and evidence presented have found the same thing.

          UNARGUABLY the election was conducted lawlessly.

          Completely absent the claims of fraud – the Jan 6. Protesters were fully justified in demanding – even FORCING congress to act to remedy that lawlessness.

          I would suggest you READ the declaration of independence – this is our founders legal brief on the requirements to justify violence against otherwise legitimate government.

          I would also again remind you of lexington and concord – it seems incredibly appropriate at the moment – Colonist shot and killed 73 british soldiers for trying to take their guns.

          But Jan 6. was not just a protest against lawless government – it was a protest against government lawlessness in ELECTIONS.

          We can remedy the conduct or misconduct of the republican party, the democratic party etc – at the polls.
          Everyone expects each of the parties to do whatever it takes to win elections.
          That is a norm.

          But the standards are different – when regardless of party – you are a public servant.
          Every single member of government – elected, appointed, or just employed swears to uphold the constitution and the law.
          In states they swear to uphold the state constitutions and laws too.

          That is NOT optional. Every single member of the executive – federal state or local is expected to uphold the law – as it is – even laws they do not like. Even the judiciary has the same obligation – follow the constitution and the law.

          If they do not do so – if they choose to “make it up as they go” if they put personal values above the law – then we are lawless.

          Finally, if they do so in elections – we no longer have legitimate government.

          The constitution does not and can not have provisions to deal with a lawless election.

          When trust that elections are lawful – the constitution is meaningless, government is not legitimate – we are little different from the original colonists under british rule.

          To be clear – the british killed colonial revolutionaries – and would have hung the signers of the declaration of independence had they prevailed. Challenging an illegitimate government does not protect you from prosecution by that government.

          But all of that does not alter the fact that the government is illegitimate, and weak, and that violence in response to a lawless election is justified – so say the signers of the decalration of independence.

          “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”

          Without the consent of the governed – government powers are not just.

          To be clear – Consent means MORE than elections – it means TRUST – and right now trust in government is at an all time low.
          But we do attempt to build trust in government – through elections.

          A lawless election does not constitute consent.

          Further – Government does NOT get to decide what the criteria for Consent are – the people do.
          If the manner in which government conducts and election does not have the trust of the people – nearly ALL of the people,
          there is no consent, there is no legitimate government.

          A lawful election is NOT sufficient, but it is is NECESCARY. Lawful elections are the starting point for TRUST – Consent.

          The first requirement for Trust – is the rule of law not man. The 2020 election is the text book example of the rule of man not law.

          Even the court decisions that the left revels in – DID NOT establish the legitimacy of the election – in fact they made things worse.

          Refusal to take the blinders off and actually conduct inquiry into an election that a plurality of people thought was stolen and a majority thought was fraudulent – is a FAILURE OF THE COURTS. It is more evidence of govenrment lawlessness.

          With specific respect to Fraud – it is NOT ENOUGH that government – even the courts tell us that elections were free from fraud.

          Government telling people “trust me” – is NOT the way to establish trust. Trust must be earned.
          Following the law is the FIRST step to earning trust. Conducting an election that even the losers beleive was trust worthy is the next.

          You rant that assorted frauds were never proven. While I think you are wrong – that is not actually relevant.

          An election do not confer the consent of the governed – even if it was completely free from fraud – but a signficiant portion of people beleive it is fraudulent.

          The reason for election observers, for following the law, for acting openly and poublicly, for not hiding everything is to earn the trust of voters. The left has ranted over and over that there is no election fraud – not in this election – not in any election.
          That is BS – but even if it were true – that is NOT ENOUGH. It is more important that an election is BELEIVED to be free of fraud than that it is actually free of fraud.

        5. “Bullsh*t. The USCP estimated that ~140 USCP and MPD officers were injured. ”

          Nearly all of those injuries occured when the cappital police FORCED the protestors out of the capital and adjoinging parts of the city.

          We rarely see video of that – but it makes the events in front of the whitehouse look tame

          I am sure you doubt this – but it is actually self evident from all the video that was shot as protestors entered the capital.
          There were a few very specific instances in which a very small number of police were engaged in real violent encounters with protestors.

          And we see those over and over and over again – Why ? Because that is the only real evidence you have.

          If you have hundreds of police injuries during the incursion in to the capital – where is the video of HUNDREDS of police being injured.

          In your own Alishi shooting video – there are ARMED officers on both sides of the door. None are mistreated or attacked.
          Almost the entirety of violent clashes with Capital police occured either at the lower entrance that is featured constantly in videos, or AFTER as the police attack protestors to remove them from the capital and surrounds.

          “You can see protesters beating police with batons and flag staffs.”
          Yes – and that all occurs at a single place and we have all seen what occured their involving maybe a dozen officers at most many many times.

          I would further note that ALL the violence that we are publicly shown by the media – is violence associated with ENTERING the capital.
          Something that NEVER should have been prohibited.

          “You consider that inconsequential?”
          Compared to any night in portland almost all summer – yes, Compared to portland now – yes, Compared to Brooklyn city now – yes.
          Compared to many parts of the country now – yes.

          “The acts of the hundreds of criminal insurrectionists were not legitimate.”
          As is typical of the left – you include numerous false presumptions in your claim.

          Were the Kavanaugh protests legitimate ? If so the Jan 6. protests were also legitimate.

          The fuindimental differences between the two were:

          GOVERNMENT attempted to thwaert the right to assemble and protest and petition govenrment of the Jan 6. protests.
          As a consequence Govenrment bears responsibility for much of the violence.

          Even the violent video that you like to feature – shows protestors trying to get in.

          The Kavanaugh protestors walked through the front door.

          You do not get to create circumstances where the only way people can excercise their rights is through the use of force and then malign them for using force.

          Was this an “insurection” – in fact we do not know. I do not have a problem if it was. But AGAIN because of the actions of government we do not know what this was.

          Had the event been handled as the Kavanaugh protests were – do you have a compelling reason to beleive there would have been violence ? Looting ?

          There was no actual attack on a member of congress. The Kavanaugh protestors did attack several members of congress.

          On what basis do you claim this was an “insurrection” – rather than a protest that government botched ?

          Distinguish this from the violence at the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention ?
          I would note that was far far far more violent – and the government LOST its case against the leaders.

          ” Those who broke our laws deserve to be arrested and tried just like those who broke laws during the Kavanaugh protests.”
          There were about 200 arrests at the Kavanaugh protests – there was not a single prosecution – all charges were dropped.
          We are MOSTLY seeing the same with the violence at the BLM protests of many hundreds of arrests there are very few actual prosecutions.

          “Why don’t you start by naming anyone at the Kavanaugh protests who literally broke into the Capitol and refused to go through security,”
          You keep pushing this false nonsense. The capital was fully opened at the time of the Kavanaugh protests.
          No one broke into the capital itself – Kavanaugh protestors DID break into private offices and non-public spaces.

          When Jan. 6 protestors arrived at the capital – it was fully barricaded – though badly. In some instances protestors moved relatively flimsy barricades, in some instances the capital police did.

          You claim that security was setup. PROVE IT! I have seen absolutely no video that has shown anything approximating the normal operations of the capital.

          Regardless, I am not claiming that the capital police were not free to take extra-ordinary measures.
          They were NOT free to prevent protests, free speech, petitionining government.

          The very violent video that you fixate on is PROOF that the capital was locked down. No one gets into a confrontation with police when the front door is open. Even the Police do not get into violent confrontations with protestors – if the front door is supposed to be open.

          The entire melle at the lower level entrance could have been avoided – had the police their told protestors – Go arround and come in the front do (or any other entrance). They did not – because those entrances were not supposed to be open either – and most were not.

          “or who brought weapons like tasers, batons, and bear spray.”
          Again – no one stopped the capital police from searching protestors before allowing them to enter.

          “Name any of them who were so violent that officers lost an eye, or was stabbed, or had bones broken.”
          That has happened at portland constantly. As it is happening right now in manhy cities accross the country.

          Regardless, Violent confrontations with police occured for TWO reasons – the first is because they were denied entry – unconstitutionally.
          The second because they were violently driven out of the capital in the evening.

          “You are having tremendous difficulty discussing this truthfully.”

          Look in a mirror.

          This was tame compared to the Democratic convention in 1968 – which ultimately was found to be caused much as this was – by the police interfering with legitimate protests.

          This is still tame compared to most nights at portland.

    2. Turley is correct and you are incorrect. States and DC certify their state votes, and Congress certifies the electors votes from the Electoral College.

      Congress’ role is NOT “merely to receive the votes and count them, that’s all.” If a member of the House together with a member of the Senate object to any EC votes, the objections must be dealt with by Congress.

      National Archives: “In January, Congress sits in joint session to certify the election of the President and Vice President.”
      https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/state-officials/presidential-election-brochure.pdf

      “As for the right of people to protest in Congress, it happens all the time.”

      They still have to abide by the law. They must go through the normal entrances and be checked for weapons (breaking in is illegal). They cannot bring weapons (tasers, bear spray, batons, …) into the Capitol. They may not enter restricted areas like the Speaker’s Lobby. Etc.

      1. “They still have to abide by the law. They must go through the normal entrances and be checked for weapons (breaking in is illegal). They cannot bring weapons (tasers, bear spray, batons, …) into the Capitol. They may not enter restricted areas like the Speaker’s Lobby. Etc.:”

        I completely agree with that – so how do protestors excercise their right to assembly, petition government and free speech when the government locks them out ?

        We have had similar protests many times before. I am not aware of congress ever locking the public out while in session before.

        The moment Congress locked its doors it justified breaking them down and lost the ability to control what was brought in.

        There are 2500 members of the capital police and another 1100 members of the DC national guard. This protest was telegraphed well in advance – there was no doubt it was happening.

        There would have been no problem controlling access to the capital – i.e. allowing in reasonable numbers of peaceful protestors who had been searched.

        That did not happen.

        Thus far there has been very little serous questions about why that did not happen.

        But I can speculate – The leaders of congress were deeply concerned that senators and congressmen MIGHT be swayed by protestors and agree to a 10 day delay and an actual audit of the election.

        It would have been relatively simple to direct the national guard throughout the country to hand count ballots in their states.
        The entire process could have been live streamed on the internet. And it could have been completed in a day or two.

        The left rants about the purported judicial review of this election. But the FACT is that massive effort has gone into assuring that there would be absolutely no public scrutiny of this election, and the courts have been on the wrong side of that.

        Nor is this issue particular to THIS election. We INCREASINGLY have elections determined by razor thin margins.

        90,000 votes would have flipped congress and the presidency. 45,000 the presidential election. A few thousand the senate.
        Congressional districts were decided by as little as 6 votes.

        These razor thin margins are not rare events they are increasingly common place and likely will remain so.

        There is no honest estimate of election fraud that does not make it a potential determining factor in tight races.

        Further the people have the right to know that their elections are being conducted in a trustworthy fashion.

        This “Trust us” nonsense MUST end.

        ALL elections everywhere must be conducted with meaningful public scrutiny.

        It is not Trump of Biden that is entitled to lawful and fraud free elections – it is citizens.

        It is crystal clear that the 2020 contest was conducted by the political class for their own ends.

        1. John, you haven’t presented a shred of evidence that the Capitol building was entirely closed prior to the beginning of the insurrection, as compared with being shut once the insurrection began.

          I’ll also note that there are times when entrance to the Capitol is highly restricted, including during the SOTU –
          https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/news-notices/state-union-address-street-closures-and-other-restrictions
          (Should your bias incline you not to click on it, “aoc” in the URL stands for Architect of the Capitol.)

          “We have had similar protests many times before”

          No, John, there are very few protests where ~140 Capitol Police are injured, including as follows – “I have officers who were not issued helmets prior to the attack who have sustained brain injuries. One officer has two cracked ribs and two smashed spinal discs. One officer is going to lose his eye, and another was stabbed with a metal fence stake.”

          “how do protestors excercise their right to assembly, petition government and free speech when the government locks them out ?”

          Gee, did you consider that they could enter through the normal security procedures? And that they could also protest outside on the Capitol grounds, as many of them did?

          1. “John, you haven’t presented a shred of evidence that the Capitol building was entirely closed prior to the beginning of the insurrection, as compared with being shut once the insurrection began.”

            False, I presented an interview of one of the officers who explicitly said that the capital was closed.
            I also provided several other sources.

            That is far more than a shred of evidence – but as is typical – you will not accept what is right in your face.

            “I’ll also note that there are times when entrance to the Capitol is highly restricted, including during the SOTU –
            https://www.aoc.gov/about-us/news-notices/state-union-address-street-closures-and-other-restrictions
            (Should your bias incline you not to click on it, “aoc” in the URL stands for Architect of the Capitol.)”

            So ?

            The SOTU is not a legislative session.

            I am sure there are plenty of times the capital is completely locked down.
            That is not relevant.

            There is no consequential difference between confirming a supreme court justice and voting on the results of an election.

            Protesting government and pettitioning government requires being able to do so when it will have an effect.

            Nor is this unique to the Federal capital. We have had protests at state capitals accross the country.

            The wisconsin state capital was occupied by democrat protestors for something like 3 weeks during 2012.

            This summer armed but peaceful lockdown protestors marched into several state capitals without incident.

            “No, John, there are very few protests where ~140 Capitol Police are injured, including as follows – “I have officers who were not issued helmets prior to the attack who have sustained brain injuries. One officer has two cracked ribs and two smashed spinal discs. One officer is going to lose his eye, and another was stabbed with a metal fence stake.”

            Again we have been through this before. I am not interested in 140 sprained ankles as reported by the head of the police union.
            All the violence occured at the west terrace entrance – you know one of those “open” entrance.

            That darned protestors, they busted windows and attacked Capital police rather than walk a few hundred feet to an “open” door where they would have to go through a metal detector – can;t have that, someone might spot the flag pole they were carrying.

            I am sure that qualifies as a “deadly weapon”

            “D.C. police officers have said they were determined to hold the rioters back from that path to the Rotunda, not knowing that other entrances already had been breached.”
            Wapo.

            There are about 40 actual assault charges filed according to WaPo – 1/3 of those are for the West Terrace – where 30 officers were trying to keep people from getting to the Rotunda – you know a nearly always open public part of the capital. Which BTW was ALREADY filled with protestors.

            So there was a pitched battle at the west terrace where officers were violating the directive to delay but not confront protestors, to prevent one group of protestors from getting to where many other protestors had already gotten.

            “how do protestors excercise their right to assembly, petition government and free speech when the government locks them out ?”

            “Gee, did you consider that they could enter through the normal security procedures?”
            Again, The capital was CLOSED. That is precisely why the capital police on the west terrace were vigorously trying to keep protestors from getting in to the rotunda.

            Right behind those capital police on the west terrace where the very security equipment that you seem to think was an option – but it was not.

            Given that those 30 police held out against “thousands” for a really long time – I am not sure the west terrace entrance was ever breached. Do you think that instead of getting into a war with protestors – they could have just taken them through security one at a time ?

            No – you don’t think.

            You keep fixating on all these – inconsequential “weapons” – bear spray, …
            Do you think that 2400 capital policemen could not handle running protestors through security and dealing with a bit of bear spray ?

            No guns, no knives, no swords,

            I guess protestors were going to bear spray members of congress into submission ?

            Alishi Babbit was an ex service person – do you think she did not have a gun ? Do you think she did not know how to use it ?
            Yet she did not have a gun on Jan. 6. None of the protestors did. No maces, no bayonetts no semi automatic rifles either.

            There were national guardsmen, policemen and firefighters among the protestors – do you think they do not own guns and know how to use them ? Yet they did not bring them.

            At portland guns are common – though they are rarely used. The “weapon” of choice is lasers to blind the police.

            Did any capital police get blinded ?

            You say there was all this assault and injury of police – I have ceded that there was violent conflict between police and protestors at the west terrace – that was 30 total officers – where they all injured each 5 times over ?

            So where is the video of these other violent conflicts.

            “And that they could also protest outside on the Capitol grounds, as many of them did?”

            You can protest there – you can not petition government there.

            Regardless – you still have not explained why the Kavanaugh protestors were allowed in the capital and the Jan 6 protestors were not.
            The Kavanaugh protestors could have protested outside ?

            Those at the /Michigan capital in 2012 could have protested outside.

            Those at various capitals this summer – could have protested outside.

            The protestors at lexington and concord did protest outside – with guns.

      2. From 12A:
        “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;”

        Since Biden got the majority of the EC, there is no vote to take, no procedure to object to EC votes, and no certification needed from the VP or Congress.

        1. “The electors seal Certificates of Vote and send them to the OFR and Congress. In January, Congress sits in joint session to certify the election of the President andVice President.”
          https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/state-officials/presidential-election-brochure.pdf

          “Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. …”
          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

          That’s law. Congress is required to certify the EC vote.

          1. The laws you quoted are real, but also violate the Constitution and thus are invalid. Congress does not have the power to re-write the Constitution outside of the amendment process.

            1. Molly, you haven’t explained why you believe that that law violates the Constitution.

              “Congress does not have the power to re-write the Constitution outside of the amendment process.”

              That’s true, but the Constitution leaves a great deal up to Congress to decide via legislation. You have not explained why you believe that part of the US Code to be unconstitutional, nor provided any evidence that any court agrees with you.

              1. I quoted what the Constitution says. It uses the word “shall” and thus does not give Congress any leeway to disregard EC votes if one person has the majority of the votes. If one person does not get the majority, then it goes to a vote of the House by state. Any law that would allow Congress to reject EC votes is thus invalid because the Constitution lays out the process to count the EC votes and no where does Congress have the ability to vote to accept or reject EC votes at all.

                1. Yes, it says “the votes shall then be counted.” Allowing challenges to be heard is part of the process of counting and certifying the EC votes. Certifying the EC vote involves a vote by Congress. Always. Even if one candidate has received a majority of the EC votes.

                  “no where does Congress have the ability to vote to accept or reject EC votes at all.”

                  Actually, they do, if the votes are contested. Here’s a good discussion –
                  https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-how-congress-settles-electoral-college-disputes

                  You may believe the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to be unconstitutional, but AFAIK, it has not been challenged in court.

                2. I guess congress violates the 12th amendment in 1876 as the 12th amendment has been in place since 1804

          2. NOPE.

            You can not actually require congress to do anything.

            They meet for the purpose of certifying the election.
            They are free to accept or reject states results as they please.
            Protests are the norm. They have happened at every single election.

            The 1876 election was ultimately decided by congress in a deal between republicans and democrats

            IF Congress chose not to accept slates of electors from GA, NV, and AZ – Biden would not have won, and the election would have then been up to congress to decide.

            Congress is not obligated to accept slates of electors.

            So that you are clear – you can not direct that congress count the EC vote and certify the election – without allowing them to do it as they please – including not doing it.

            The constitution and law can dictate process to congress – it can not dictate results.

        2. FALSE.

          This country has already been through this before – long after the 12th amendment.

          The EC votes are presented to congress – one state at a time.
          Members of the house and senate can object to those votes.
          If there is an objection – and there have been objections by democrats to every republican president since Reagan.
          There is a vote to decide whether to accept or reject those EC votes.

          As in this election there are sometimes competing slates of electors.

          The constitution has the State legislature approving a slates electoral votes. But today they are typically approved by the Sec State of that state.

          One of the issues that was touched on in Bush Vs. Gore is that the constitution does NOT say “the states” when it talks about federal elections – it explicitly says “the state legislatures”

          Regardless. please look into the election of 1876.

          It as very similar to 2020. Allegations of fraud. and congress deciding the election.

          I would further note – as with the recent impeachments – when the constitution assigns congress a task, without providing for judicial review. Congress can do as it please.

          Only an idiot thinks that any of the accusations against Trump were “high crimes and misdemeanors” in fact our founders explicitly wished that Impeachment never be used as democrats did.

          But the democrats impeachment actions were constitutional – because only congress gets to decide what “high crimes and misdemeanors” actually means.

          Congress can “count” the votes however it pleases.

          I would note that some democrats were explicitly trying to get electors or congressmen to challenge the 2016 vote in congress.

          There was nothing improper about what Jan 6 protestors were demanding.

  6. The window that Babbitt was climbing though was the last barrier between the rioters and Members of Congress who were taking shelter on the House floor and in the nearby rooms. There were only a few police guarding that barricaded door. Had Babbitt and her fellow rioters gotten past that door their would have been no stopping them from hurting or killing Members of Congress. No Member of Congress interacted with the rioters, so even today we do not know what would have happened, and in the middle of it there was every indication that they intended harm to Members of Congress. Shooting Babbitt was fully justified in order to protect Members of Congress. She and the rest of them were a direct and imminent threat.

    1. I find your comment to be untrue. I also seen clips of this, I did not see Ashley going through a window

      1. It is so weird how Trumpers will deny what there is clear video evidence for, yet believe the Big Lie, where there is no evidence.

        1. :”She did try to climb through the window and can clearly be seen in the window at the top of the door and falling from it after she is shot, ~5-7 seconds into this video, in both the upper left and lower left videos –”

          You keep saying that. I have reviewed the video several times and I have not seen that.

          While this is not a critical point – the shooting was murder regardless.

          1. John, does it make that much of a difference? Assume she was trying to get through a relatively small window where glass had been broken and some remained. If that is fact she, hadn’t gotten through the window because her body ended up on the other side. Therefore, she was entering a room with policemen while her hands were occupied trying to get in and not get cut by glass. That means she was totally defenseless and could have been restrained by one of the policemen.

            We are left without any knowledge of the exact circumstances in the room. It could seem that the police officer that shot her was acting as a sniper. I am not making that claim only stating a possibility since the Capitol police are refusing to provide a fair accounting of what happened. That makes the Capitol Police actions suspicious and is a reason to reveal all the details unless that possibility is correct.

            Anonymous the Stupid can’t deal with Babbitt’s death at the same time he talks about Wright. Babbitt was unarmed and purposely shot and killed, perhapsps executed. Wright was a violent criminal. By accident, Wright was shot with a gun instead of the taser.

            To Anonymous the Stupid the intentional shooting or execution was valid while the accident was not. That tells all we need to know about Anonymous the Stupid for now and the future. He is unable to explain his strange and awful behavior. At best it is because he is Stupider than we think, but I don’t think that is true. At worst he supports the execution of unarmed persons in his quest to have his political side gain power. That means there is nothing he won’t say or have others do to gain such power.

            That was the nature of the early Nazi’s who incentivized others to violence and even executions.

            1. Do you trust the media – I don’t ? Do you trust Anonymous – I don’t.

              It is not like the media has not made lots of claims before that were not supported by the facts.
              It is not like anonymous is credible.

              It does matter – not because it changes anything legally.
              but because it would be another of the many examples where the media and Anonymous have bald faced lied about something that was not so.

              While there is no possible version of events consistent with facts that we absolutely know that justifies the shooting of Alishi – and to that sense it does not matter, we already know that the media and Anonymous have and continue to lie about this.

    2. Completely false narrative.
      Please actually review the video’s

      Congressmen had exited the room prior to breaching the glass, no one was in the room except capital police.
      I have seen several angles, but not a single video yet in which Babbit broke the window or tried to climb through it.

      Even if both of that claims were true which they are not – the use of deadly force requires the clear immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or others. That was not present. No weapons have been found on any protesters to date.
      No weapons were fired – except by capital police on that day. The “threat” to congress was having to confront angry constituents.
      That is not sufficient justification for ANY action much less deadly force.

      Kavanaugh protesters similarly accosted actual senators – often in their offices.

      Those trying to defend this shooting – trying to distinguish it from the Wright shooting or from the Kavanaugh protests – only highlite their double standards.

      The Jan. 6 capital event was LESS egregious – less a threat to actual law and order, LESS lawless – than a typical BLM protest.

      The objective of the capital protesters were clear and legitimate – stopping the certification of a lawlessly and probably fraudulent election. And demanding a real audit.

      You can make whatever arguments you want about the election – but these protesters had just as much a right to come to congress and demand that congress stop doing something they objected to – as the Kavanaugh protesters did.

      They had far more right to come to congress and make demands – than BLM protestors had to come to neiman marcus and steal or come to grocery stores and burn them down.

      Congress is free to take action to protect itself and its members – It could have chosen not to have a session and delay to the next day.
      If could have chosen to limit the number of people allowed in the capital at one time.
      It could have chosen to search people entering the capital for weapons.

      Congress did NONE of these things. Instead it engaged in a disorganized and confused lockdown that resulted in some people fighting with capital police to get in, with others being lead into the capital by capital police.

      1. “Congressmen had exited the room prior to breaching the glass, no one was in the room except capital police.”

        That’s false. A few members of Congress and staffers were still on the House floor and the Speaker’s Lobby.

        “interviews with two people with direct knowledge of the officer’s account suggest he will make the case that he acted to protect lawmakers from harm. ‘I could look them in the eyes,’ said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, who had been presiding in the speaker’s chair and was one of the last to leave as the mob attempted to break through the doors. ‘I mean, that’s how close they were.’”
        https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/capitol-police-shooting-ashli-babbitt.html

        “I have seen several angles, but not a single video yet in which Babbit broke the window or tried to climb through it.”

        For the umpteenth time, she did try to climb through the window and can clearly be seen in the window at the top of the door and falling from it after she is shot, ~5-7 seconds into this video, in both the upper left and lower left videos –
        https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1347253404012261377
        This has been pointed out to you before and your willful denial of it is only that.

        “No weapons have been found on any protesters to date.”

        False again (and this has been pointed out to you before too). Many had weapons: batons, tasers, bear spray, etc. Many have been charged with weapons violations.

        “The objective of the capital protesters were clear and legitimate”

        No matter what their objective was, they were illegally interfering with an official proceeding. Many of them chose to break the law, and hundreds of them are now facing charges, just like those who broke the law during the Kavanaugh hearings faced charges.

        “It could have chosen not to have a session and delay to the next day.”

        Certifying the EC vote is actually required by law to occur on Jan. 6. The protesters could have chosen not to break the law.

        “It could have chosen to search people entering the capital for weapons.”

        It DID! For goodness sakes, that’s required every single day of the year. Many of them broke the law by entering without being searched, many after breaking windows to enter or pushing their way through entrances that are not for the public.

        Once again, you are having tremendous difficulty discussing this truthfully.

        1. The issue is Babbitt’s death

          “For the umpteenth time, she did try to climb through the window “

          She tried to climb through the window mean she wasn’t through the window or inside the room. She wasn’t a threat. Further, I understand there were other policemen in the same room which means she was less of a danger. If that is true are you saying any trespasser can be shot and killed while trying to enter a room filled with armed policemen?

          1. “are you saying any trespasser can be shot and killed while trying to enter a room filled with armed policemen?”

            Of course not.

            I find it amusing that you troll me and others all the time but now want to pretend that you can just switch over to having a serious conversation. I will never, ever trust you to have a serious conversation, Allan, given how often you troll with insults and dishonesty.

            1. “pretend that you can just switch over to having a serious conversation.”

              Anonymous the Stupid, I don’t pretend. I want serious conversations, but you have proven that you cannot have them. All you have to do is answer directly with knowledge skipping links that are meaningless, lies and meaningless verbiage. In this case you can’t have a serious conversation because you have exposed yourself for what you are. …”any trespasser can be shot and killed while trying to enter a room filled with armed policemen” if they are white, conservative, and not PC. However if a black man dies of drugs convict the police officer of homicide. If a black man who has a rap sheet laced with violence is accidentally shot, hang the police officer.

              There is no justice or honesty in your world so there never will be serious discussion.

            2. “”are you saying any trespasser can be shot and killed while trying to enter a room filled with armed policemen?”

              Of course not.”

              Then the Alishi debate is over – she was murdered.

              You claim that SM is dishonest – I certainly have found him honest.
              But you have just accepted all the facts necescary to conclude Alishi was murdered – but can’t get yourself to say the words.

              That is not only dishonesty – it is being dishonest with yourself.

          2. SM

            Have you watched this video he linked ? Are you seeing her climb through the window ?

            Just to be clear – there is no argument that the window was broken.
            There is no argument that a person tried to climb through the window.

            I beleive that person has been identified and is not Alishi.

            The issue he is did Alishi try to climb through the window.

            Anonymous is constantly making false claims.

            It is not important to me whether Alishi was climbing through the window.
            It does not change the fact that the shooting was not justified.

            This is a somewhat better video than the one anonymous linked.

            It definitely clarifies some things.

            Members of congress were in the speakers lobby – about 2:30 before the shooting. All were further than 20′ from protestors.
            Nor were they panicked.

            The capitol police were armed and on BOTH sides of the door.

            When the congressmen had cleared the speakers lobby the capital police moved away from the door to allow protestors to break through.

            about 15 seconds AFTER that Alishi was shot.

            In this video there is a poor angle on the person climbing through the window. But pictures of that person several seconds before match a person that is NOT alishi and is further back in the frame after Alishi is shot.

            https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/video-shows-fatal-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-in-the-capitol/ar-BB1cAzWs

            1. “Have you watched this video he linked ? Are you seeing her climb through the window ?”

              I have seen enough video’s used by radicals that show something that did not occur but occurred only on certain angles. That was a problem in Israel at one time so they created some type of unit to video episodes so that more angles could be obtained. I collect art so I am used to having my eyes fooled .

              It doesn’t matter. The government is hiding many of the facts and for all we know this could have been akin to an execution rather than a simple killing. We have confusion about other things as well. Therefore all ideas are open to question unless all the details are released starting with the planning and risk assessment stages

              1. I do not beleive this was an execution.

                I do not beleive this was planned (by the capital police).

                I beleive this was a miscommunication.

                We can not tell for sure what was communicated. But we can tell the actions of the capital police.

                They stopped the protestors at the doors to the speakers lobby – while congressmen were using it to get out.
                There were about half a doze present on the same side as protestors – heavily armed, and several more on the other side.

                They refused to let protestors at the door until the speakers lobby was empty – then they moved out of the way and protestors started to break into the speakers lobby, and THEN Alishi was shot.

                My Guess is that the officer shooting did not get the “all clear/stand down”.

                That still poses him a problem – as short of Alishi aiming a gun – the federal law on deadly force would not have allowed the shot.

                In many states catching someone in the act of breaking in MIGHT be sufficient to justify deadly force.
                Some instances of resisting arrest are also justifications for deadly force.

                We are at the moment debating the Duante Wright shooting – while several years ago local police shot (in the back) and killed a man fleeing his car after being pulled over. Local prosecutors found that a justified shooting and did not file charges.

                While Potter who shot a person who violently resisted arrest and was fleeing is being charged with manslaughter.

                Potter made a mistake. I would fire her. I would eliminate qualified imminuty. The wright familiy can sue her and the city.
                But I am not going to support criminal charges for clearly unintentional negligence by a police officer.
                Discipline, firing, lawsuits – absolutely.

                I have noted this problem before – we have made it damn near impossible to fire or discipline public servants,
                the result is that we are increasingly moving to charging them criminally.

                1. “I do not beleive this was an execution. …My Guess is that the officer shooting did not get the “all clear/stand down”.

                  John, it is unlikely that an execution type play came from the top. It’s unlikely it came at all but we have those that will do things like that and others that will push them to do it so that is a possibility. Suggestions by people like Pelosi can be very powerful and that type of communication can lead to terrible things.

                  I remember the left long ago pushing younger minds to do things solely so that the police would react and they could get a cracked skull or better yet from their viewpoint a dead young person whose picture could end up on the front page. The left was real nasty then and even nastier now. They were smart, not dumb like the likes of Anonymous the Stupid.

            2. “Anonymous is constantly making false claims.”

              It is true Anonymous the Stupid makes false claims and does everything he can to prove his case whether true or not. He is a liar and typical of the radicals whether they be Marxists, Islamist or plain despots. When it comes to facts, Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t debate them. He deflects and lies though to me he responds to truthful statements with insult. He cannot go beyond the superficial.

        2. “No matter what their objective was, they were illegally interfering with an official proceeding.”

          Anonymous is that a reason for an unarmed woman to be shot and killed before she entered a room full of policemen?

          1. Just about every protest of govenrment in existance is arguably “interfering with an official proceeding.”

            Atleast as anonymous defines it.

            I am not actually sure there is a federal law to that effect.
            There are state laws like that, and usually the courts find them very narrow in scope.

            They do not prevent people from protesting government.

            They would apply to someone leaving the gallery and going onto the floor of the house.

            Not people moving through the capital.

            But as is typical – lefties make laws as broad as necescary to criminalize those they do not like and so narrow as to not interfere with their own actions.

            Anonymous wants to fixate on arrests – that further distinguishes the Jan 6 event from Kavanaugh.

            I beleive 57 people were arrested at the capital on Jan. 6. Almost 200 people were arrested during the kavanaugh protest.

            The DC prosector subsequently dropped all charges against Kavanaugh protestors and there were no arrests except those that day.

            There are now 381 arrests for Jan. 6. and very few charges have been dropped.

            Prosecutors have been going over video to find everyone they possibly can charge.
            To be clear – I do not have a problem with that.

            What I have a problem with is the double standard.

            Protest the Kavanaugh confirmation – get arrested – changes dropped. no effort to find other violations.

            Protest a lawless election – and they will hunt you to the ends of the earth.

            When the law is not applied blindly – that is what increases the rpbability of violence.

        3. “Congressmen had exited the room prior to breaching the glass, no one was in the room except capital police.”

          That’s false. A few members of Congress and staffers were still on the House floor and the Speaker’s Lobby.”
          AGAIN the video – from several angles shows the last people leaving the far end of the lobby BEFORE the shooting.

          And AGAIN – even if that was false – which it is not, it is still irrelevant – there must be an actual threat of death or serious bodily harm.

          “interviews with two people with direct knowledge of the officer’s account suggest he will make the case that he acted to protect lawmakers from harm. ‘I could look them in the eyes,’ said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, who had been presiding in the speaker’s chair and was one of the last to leave as the mob attempted to break through the doors. ‘I mean, that’s how close they were.’””

          McGovern can say whatever he wishes – in the video the last congressmen leaves the lobby several seconds before the shooting.
          And that congressmen is the FULL LENGTH of the lobby away.

          Regardless – I can can see their eyes” – is NOT the legal standard – a serious threat of dead or serious bodily harm is the standard.
          That standard was NOT met. Interviews do not change that.
          The officers motives do not change that.

          Potter is being charged with manslaughter – I do not think ANYONE thinks she intended to Shoot Duante Wright.
          She intended to Tase him. Duante was atleast someone with outstanding Warrants for serious crimes – Alishi was not.

          It appears you are REPEATEDLY wrong about the facts. But even if you were right – you still do not have the justification for deadly force.

          Down at the lower entrance were police and protestors were in actual violent confrontation you MIGHT have the elements for a police officer to shoot a protestor. Certainly if as was alleged a protestor actually went for the gun of an officer – deadly force would be justified.

          But in the one place where there MIGHT have been an actual justification – there were no shooting.

          Elsewhere you alleged this massive amount of serious injuries by police.

          If those injuries were real, and they were serious – and the head of the police union is not my idea of a reliable source, then deadly force would have been justified in response – and yet there was no other use of deadly force.
          Not by the capital police, not by protestors.

          The only use of deadly force the entire time was by the capital oolice against an unarmed woman without justification.

          I would note – the law on the use of deadly force by law enforcement – does NOT have a special provision for protecting congressmen from encounters with the public.

          As to Rep. McGovern – he SHOULD be scared

          “People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.”
          V for Vendetta.

          There was no actual insurrection. But there was justification for one. And Actual insurrections are violent.

          In Boston in 1775 British officials were tarred and feathered.

          While I can not hold McGovern personally responsible for a lawless election – if he voted to certify it then he bears responsibility for that.

          The american people were entitled to lawful elections. They were entitled to elections conducted such that THE people could be sure – from their own observation that the election was free of fraud and could be trusted.

          We did not get that. It is precisely that kind of lawlessness that leads to insurrections.

          1. “It appears you are REPEATEDLY wrong about the facts.”

            I don’t think Anonymous the Stupid appears wrong in all too many instances. He IS wrong, plain and simple. To me it sounds like he alters the facts to suit his narrative and when he has difficulty doing that he deflects or uses LINKs that frequently take one nowhere. I believe him to be a liar. He wants to justify a killing or an execution if it furthers his goals. That seems to be his 24/7 24 hour a day goal in life.

            1. He constantly argues that anyone else must prove that whatever he has decided today is not true.

              And as with the collusion delusion – he makes arguments that make no sense.

              In anonymous’s world we are not to beleive – despite testimony and news coverage to the contrary, that the capital was actually open on the 6th and that plenty of ordinary people came in and went pleasantly through security – before the protestors decided to bash their way in the back door when they could just as easily gone in the front.

              That the entire conflict with police on the west terrace was merely to avoid going through security.

              This BTW is a new argument of Anonymous’s.

              And concurrently with attempting to force us to beleive that the capital was actually open, we are also to beleive it was completely shut down because Pence – a covered person was their. Failing to note that the Vice president is at most sessions of the senate, and that the Speaker is at most sessions of the house. In anonymous’s world the Capital must be in semi permanent lockdown – while concurrently being open, because he has found some law somewhere that he does not understand.

              And this all begs the question of how come there were 20,000 people tresspassing at Trump rallies.

        4. “False again (and this has been pointed out to you before too). Many had weapons: batons, tasers, bear spray, etc. Many have been charged with weapons violations.”

          AGAIN – had the capital been opened – no one would have gotten in with bear spray.

          And AGAIN – the only GUNS were with the capital police.

          I have no interest in this ludicrous expansive weapons nonsense.

          Were there any GUNS – how about Knives ?

          In my state bedroom slippers and eggs have been determined by the courts to be deadly weapons.

          I honestly could care less if protestors had Bear Spray or Tasers – the capital police has GUNS.

          “The objective of the capital protesters were clear and legitimate”

          No matter what their objective was, they were illegally interfering with an official proceeding. ”

          FALSE – Any law that criminalizes petitioning government – is unconstitutional.

          All protest is “interfering with government in some way” – the Kavanaugh protestors interfered with an official proceeding.

          If protetestors do not have the right to DEMAND that government act differently that it is acting – then there is no right to protest, no right to petition the government.

          It was the absolute right of these protestors to go to congress and be heard.

          At the bear minium they had the right to scare the shit out of congressmen making them well aware that a plurality of the contry believed the election was stolen and a majority beleived it was fraud ridden.

          That alone REQUIRED congress to act. Our government – states, governors, courts, congress has 2 months before this event to do what was necescary to prove the election results to the people OR to fix the problem if they could not do so.

          Instead they HID from the problem. I beleive even Turley was asking Biden to request a real investigation into election fraud towards the start. That never happened. Election officials shucked and jived. The courts did everything possible to prevent further inquiry.
          Congress shirked its duty.

          You claim there was not fraud – then why are you, democrats, the courts all so afraid of actual inquiry ?

          There has been little real inquiry so far – but what there has been had favored Trump.
          Every court that has conducted an inquiry has found problems – many of them uncorrectable.

          If government has nothing to hide – if democrats have nothing to hide – why were you so busy hiding everything ?

          Regardless, the protestors demands to congress were more legitimate than the actions of congress.

          And you do not seem to grasp the import of “lawless”.

          When government is lawless – there is no law. The rule of law is gone.

          You want to rant about tresspass and weapons and other nonsense.

          These protestors did not conduct the lawless election – they were the victims of it.

          “Many of them chose to break the law”
          Thjat is correct – many members of state executives chose to break the law and run lawless elections – what are the consequences of that ?

          “hundreds of them are now facing charges, just like those who broke the law during the Kavanaugh hearings faced charges.”

          And ALL – 100% of the charges in the Kavanaugh protests were DROPPED.

          ““It could have chosen not to have a session and delay to the next day.”

          Certifying the EC vote is actually required by law to occur on Jan. 6. The protesters could have chosen not to break the law.”
          Wrong. Please look at past history. Congress has chosen not to certify an election before – in fact in the late 19th century we had a very similar election – lots of election fraud as a direct result of not having secret ballots – much like in 2020.
          Congress did not certify the election and the president was subsequently determined by vote of congress.

          Regardless, are you saying that if congress did not certify the election on Jan 6. then the election was null and void ?
          Congress can not be required by law to act. This is a stupid argument. There is absolutely nothing that congress is or can be required to do.

          ““It could have chosen to search people entering the capital for weapons.”

          It DID! For goodness sakes, that’s required every single day of the year. Many of them broke the law by entering without being searched, many after breaking windows to enter or pushing their way through entrances that are not for the public.”

          You keep repeating this nonsense – Many People Entered through the normal public entrances – they WERE NOT SEARCHED –
          Yes, searches are the norm – when the capital is open.
          The capital WAS NOT OPEN. It was deliberately and haphazardly shutdown without any rational plan.

          You KNOW this and are just being stupidly obtuse.

          There is plenty of video of barricades arround the capital on Jan 6. and protestors removing them. And even a few of capital police removing them.

          Further – why the violent confrontations, the climbing scaffolding, the breaking windows to get into a building that according to you was completely open to the public.

          The capital has many public entrances. There was no need to break windows or get into a mele with Capital police if all protestors needed to do was go to another entrace.

          The capital was NOT open to the public. All the processes that you claim are normal – were not in place.
          Had them been it is unlikely this would have happened.

          “Once again, you are having tremendous difficulty discussing this truthfully.”
          No that would be you.

          I have a reputation for accuracy and integrity – you do not.

          You continue to post as anonymous – that alone – means you have no credibility

        5. Weapon: An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.

          Did any of the protestors have guns, missiles or swords ?

          If this had been an actual inssurection – they would have come with Guns.

          If this was more than a protest – they would have come with guns.

          If they intended to kill people – they would have come with guns.

          You rant about Bear spray – WOW! What is evident by the list of “weapons” that YOU claim they brought is that they did NOT come intent on killing or hurting anyone.

          They came with the tools needed to break into a building that had locked them out when it should not have.

        6. YOU have claimed many of these people are charged with Tresspass.

          You can not tresspass on open public spaces.

        7. “NBC News interviewed former US Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer about claims Capitol Police let protesters into the building. While Gainer wasn’t there and can’t say with certainty what happened, he said it is likely police were trying to deescalate the situation and became overwhelmed. He said he wants to give the officers the “benefit of the doubt.”

          Again – the place was barricaded – CLOSED, this is well documented.

          While there is video of the capital police moving barriers and allowing protestors in – there are many many reports and videos of barriers at all entrances to the capital and police preventing people from entering.

          The capital police never intended to allow anyone into the capital – that was NOT their orders.

          Most even too many republicans are chastizing Pelosi for not bringin in the national guard – because the capital police were inaddequate to CLOSE the capital.

          Frankly that is a dubious claim – there are 2400 capital police. I am not sure what the total number of protestors entering the capital was – but it was less than 2400.

          There were more people than that AT the capital, but not more IN the capital.

    3. You presume criminal intent – from what ?
      Could we shoot the Kananaugh protestors – who chased Senators throughout the capital even into their own offices ?

      What about those at the supreme court who were chanting death threats, foaming and frothing at the mouth and slamming arround the massive doors of the supreme court. All that prevented much worse than the Capital was the actual strength of the building.

      You are concocting a standard that is rife for political abuse. It is trivial to presume that those whose political views are different from you are more violent and dangerous than those whose protests you support.

      Over the past year we have seen BLM protestors chasing conservative politicians and pundits to their homes – often vandalizing them.
      Todate one BLM protestor was shot by the national guard while he was an active shooter targetting police.

      You wail crocodile tears over the safety of congressmen – from what – no protestors had firearms. The only shots fired were by capital police.

      Regardless – in what world is it perfectly acceptable to protest the appointment of Kavanaugh to the supreme court – accosting senators in their offices and disrupting hearings, but not acceptable to protest a lawless and possibly fraudulent election in the same way ?

      There is clearly a huge political double standard.

  7. Ashlie Babbitt was climbing through the broken window “with police in helmets” right behind her. The police were NOT “fighting back the mob” they appeared to be “escorting” the trespassers to the chamber. How come there is no explanation of the helmeted officer giving the thumbs up to the shooter of Ms. Babbitt. What did that mean? If I am “fighting back the mob” there would be bloody people, including myself, everywhere along the way. The Capitol Police were escorts, tour guides if you will, for the trespassers. Shameful way to protect the Capitol! Drain the Swamp . . . If we can!

    1. The liberal media ‘narrative’ (not same as truth) is that there were thousands of armed insurrectionists storming the Capitol on Jan. 6. Dems and their media have been trying to ‘broaden that narrative’ to smear all 75 million Trump voters as ‘insurrectionists’ who have bought into The Big Lie that the election was stolen. (Which is was).

      The liberal media is narrative driven (not news driven). Liberal media is nothing more than Democrat propaganda and activism being sold as “news.”

      But of course the glaring hypocrisy is that it was fine for Dems (and their media mouthpieces) to push out Russian disinformation and hyperventilate about “Russian interference” for four years.

    2. The police “were NOT “fighting back the mob”?????

      What videos are you watching to reach that conclusion?

      1. There are a few videos where the police do not resist the rioters and thus they claim that it proves that the rioters were invited and allowed to be inside the capitol.

    3. “The police … appeared to be “escorting” the trespassers to the chamber.”

      BS. If you’re going to discuss it, do it truthfully.

      Please link to a photo of the “thumbs up” you claim.

    4. I agree that Turley is incorrect to say “police fought back the mob” around Ashli Babbitt. Videos I saw showed two cops in front of the doors and facing the mob before the shooting. The special agent (shooter) was behind the doors, off to the left. There were also three uniformed officers with AK-15s on the stairway behind Ashli Babbitt. Then the two cops in front of the doors moved away, maybe because they expected to be replaced by the three. But the three with the AK-15s merely bided their time on the stairway long enough — a minute or so — for a couple of guys to use a helmet to pound on the glass doors and eventually break the window Ashli Babbitt tried to climb through. If all five cops in the crowd had actually stood and stayed in front of the doors and windows and “fought back”, the window might not have been broken.

      This is not to say police didn’t fight the mob elsewhere at the Capitol.

      1. The police on the protestor side of the door were in control the entire time.
        There was some jostling but no actual violence.

        The officers in front of the door moved away when the speakers lobby was empty and the doors at the other end secured.

        As we saw at numerous other locations the “rules of engagement” were not to engage protestors, they were to delay them.
        The only place there was a confrontation was the west terrace.

        The attack on the doors began in earnest when the officers moved away from the doors. I doubt they expected to be replaced.
        No one did anything to stop protestors from breaking down the doors. That appears a deliberate decision.
        These officers had delayed protestors to allow congressmen to leave and that was all they were trying to do.

  8. We don’t even know for certain this was a Capitol police officer in the Babbitt shooting. Those are NOT the actions of a trained police officer. And this individual, regardless of status, should be forced to show cause.

    1. Can anyone explain why this was assessed as a potential civil rights case and not as a murder or manslaughter case? If the DOJ has no jurisdiction with respect to murder or manslaughter, who does? Surely, someone can be charged with murder or manslaughter in D.C.

      1. I don’t understand your response. The DOJ press release spoke only about violation of a civil rights statute and said nothing about murder or manslaughter. If those charges were considered and rejected please say where that is mentioned.

        1. Daniel, the indentation indicates that the 10:33 AM comment was a reply to the 9:49 AM comment from another Anonymous, not a reply to your 9:59 AM comment.

          1. Thanks. My mistake. Do you know the answer to my questions? The intent standard for a civil rights violation seems very high, and it’s puzzling to me that murder or manslaughter charges have not been addressed. The other police killings charged one or the other or both, or carefully considered and rejected them as in Kentucky.

            1. Daniel, as I said in response to another of your comments earlier,
              There are federal murder and manslaughter crimes, 18 U.S. Code § 1111 and 1112 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 and /1112). I am not a mind-reader and cannot tell you whether either of those charges was considered. I highly doubt that any other authority can bring charges for a crime committed in the Capitol building by a USCP officer in the course of his work.

              I doubt that the shooting meets the “malice aforethought” requirement for 1111 murder, and it also doesn’t seem to me to meet the “heat of passion” requirement for voluntary manslaughter in 1112, or the “In the commission of an unlawful act” standard for one kind of involuntary manslaughter. Perhaps it could be considered for “without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death” (the other involuntary manslaughter possibility), but they’d need to present evidence that there wasn’t sufficient caution and circumspection in those specific circumstances (e.g., members of Congress and staff were still being evacuated from the House floor and Speaker’s Lobby, there was a mob that hadn’t gone through security, some of whom were using weapons, etc.).

              1. Thanks very much. I missed your earlier response. Without a deep dive into the precedents it’s hard to know, but it seems to me a pretty good case could be made for involuntary manslaughter under the “without due caution and consideration” standard. Relevant facts might be, among others, that she was not through the window (it’s not even clear she could get through), she was unarmed (and there was nothing to suggest she was armed), there were other armed officers in the room, and there were several armed officers behind her. Compare the explanation of this decision not to prosecute to explanation of the decision by Daniel Cameron not to prosecute in Kentucky.

                1. Daniel, looks to me like she could definitely get through the window. Look at the upper left video at 5-6 seconds in –
                  https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1347253404012261377

                  As for “there was nothing to suggest she was armed,” maybe not, but she was carrying a backpack that was not allowed in that area and with no way to know what was inside and with knowledge that many of the insurrectionists had not gone through security and some were known to be carrying weapons (tasers, bear spray, etc.), and she was in the midst of trying to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby while the last of the members of Congress and staff were being evacuated from both.

                  I would certainly have preferred that she not have been shot, but I can understand the choice not to charge the officer. I hope that at some point more information is released from the investigation.

                  1. Me too, but I am not holding my breath. This was a closer call than the focus in the Press Release on the civil rights statute with its high intent requirement would suggest. Were the politics different — BLM riot, Black victim, White police officer shooter — the decision would almost certainly have been different. I believe there would have been at least an involuntary manslaughter charge.

                    1. I doubt it. He was a plain-clothes officer there to protect members of Congress and staff, and members of Congress and staff, including Republicans, have defended his choice to shoot. For example, quoting Politifact: “Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told Good Morning America he was in the hallway behind the officer who shot and killed Babbitt. ‘When they broke the glass in the back, the (police) lieutenant that was there, him and I already had multiple conversations prior to this, and he didn’t have a choice at that time,’ Mullin said in a Jan. 7 interview. ‘The mob was going to come through the door, there was a lot of members and staff that were in danger at the time. And when he (drew) his weapon, that’s a decision that’s very hard for anyone to make and, once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force.'”

                      As for your last sentence, I doubt that the Capitol Police would have been as deferential in general had BLM protesters entered the Capitol illegally, many with weapons. But these are conjectures.

                    2. So aparently the video from MSN with the entire speakers lobby – back to front being empty at the time of the shooting is false.

                      I guess it is russian disinformation.

                      MSN probably edited it to make the capital police look bad.

                      Or maybe Project Veritas has a hand.

                      Give us all a break, it appears that the speakers lobby had been clear for possibly 2 1/2 minutes prior to Babbit’s shooting.

                      There were officers on both sides of the door. The officers on the side with the protestors moved away from the door – allowing the window to be broken.

                      It appears they did so when they were informed that the speakers lobby had been cleared.

                      BTW we saw this throughout the capital – the capital police stalled protestors, negotiating with them, asking them to wait, but assuring them they would be allowed through momentarially.

                      Uniformly the protestors followed the directors of the capital police – waiting until the police moved out of the way.

                    3. Back to the weapons nonsense.

                      How many spears were found ?

                      While it would be a crime to bear spray Pelosi, I think an awful lot of people hope that would have happened.

                      You also talk about hundreds of injuries – outside the west terrace do you have any evidence of physical conflict with capital police ?

                      There is none in the alsihi shooting video.

                      I have seen none in any of the video inside the capital.

                      Outside the west terrace there was no pepper spraying no altercations no use of “weapons”.

                      Protestors and capital police negotiated the orderly movement of protestors through the capital.

                      With the police doing nothing more than asking for time for others to clear congress and staff from the building – which protestors allowed.

                      If you have ever seen the videos of Kavanaugh protestors it was far more extreme.

                    4. If it had been BLM protestors the charges would have been dropped by now – as they were with Kavnaugh, as most are with the riots accross the country.

                      And Pelosi and Waters would be celebrating a “peaceful” protest.

                    5. We do not need to conjecture about the differences in treatment.

                      We have the real world example of the capital protests and the kavanaugh protests and BLM riots accross the country.

                      We know there is a double standard.

                  2. “she was carrying a backpack that was not allowed in that area “

                    Anonymous the Stupid has now put a hit on all white women carrying back packs. The fact that she was unarmed and her hands had to be occupied if she was climbing in meant she should be shot dead instead of restrained or ordered to Stop. This type of argument is about as Stupid as arguments get. But that is the Anonymous the Stupid who will now say I am trolling for voicing an opinion. She was white and not a brain dead Liberal, therefore Anonymous the Stupid wants her dead.

                    1. This guy, Meyer, should think about using the 24-hour rule before posting. What a bunch of rubbish.

                      This blog attracts some real winners.

                    2. “she was carrying a backpack that was not allowed in that area “

                      Anonymous the Stupid has now put a hit on all white women carrying back packs. The fact that she was unarmed and her hands had to be occupied if she was climbing in meant she should be shot dead instead of restrained or ordered to Stop. This type of argument is about as Stupid as arguments get. But that is the Anonymous the Stupid who will now say I am trolling for voicing an opinion. She was white and not a brain dead Liberal, therefore Anonymous the Stupid wants her dead.

                    3. If her back pack was not permitted – then security would have taken it – or not allowed her in.

                      But they did not do that.

                      Therefore:

                      Either

                      she WAS allowed to have a backpack

                      There was no security present – so there was no one to tell her what she could or could not have.
                      BTW this are rules – not laws.

                      Or the capital was unconstitutionally shutdown while congress was in session, and she had to break in to excercise her right to petition government.

                    4. Do you have an argument ?

                      If as you say what SM posts is “rubbish” – then show that – with facts, logic, reason.

                      If you can do that – all of us will agree.

                      Without it – you are foolish.

    2. “We don’t even know for certain this was a Capitol police officer in the Babbitt shooting.”

      Yes, we do, the DOJ identifies him a “U.S. Capitol Police officer” –
      https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt

      “this individual, regardless of status, should be forced to show cause.”

      She was trying to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby, a restricted space (even to most Congressional staff) that opens directly onto the floor of the House. They were in the midst of evacuating Representatives and staff from the House chamber.

      1. “She was trying to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby, a restricted space “

        Anonymous, it is reported that the space she hadn’t yet entered was occupied by more than one armed policeman. Is your answer to shoot the woman dead before she even has her feet in the room? You talk about the regulation of guns so people don’t get shot and killed, but once politics enters the picture you forget about your hysteria over gun deaths.

        1. The space she was in was occupied by muliple capital police.
          They blocked the doors until congress completely exited the speakers lobby.

            1. In the videos there are 3 capital police at the doors on the same side of the doors as protestors,
              There are atleast another two off to the right in most videos.

              There are atleast 2-3 on the speakers lobby side of the doors – where the shooter was.

              Shortly before the shooting the 3 officers at the doors moved together from the doors to join the other officers off to the right.

              That is when breaking down the doors started in earnest.

              BTW this is a pattern that you can see throughout capital videos.

              Protestors move down a hallway – they hit some kind of barrior – doors, a line of police, ….
              They are stopped by the capital police for a few minutes, and then the police move away.
              All of this happens repeatedly and without violence. Over and over.

              My conclusion is that the capital police were ordered to be nonconfrontational. To stall, to delay.
              That the capital was being emptied of congress and staff and all the police were to do is to slow protestors to create time to get congress out of the capital.

              I beleive there is some testimony confirming that.

              The only place where the capital police stood their ground and where things became violent was the west terrace.
              And there have been several statements that action was in violation of the days rules of engagement.

              I beleiver that was loosely “the plan” by the capital police.

              But I am still asserting that “plan” was wrong.

              The proper course of action was to open the capital as normal – but with more than normal security.

              These people are NOT BLM protestors – we have seen time and time again that protestors on the right remain orderly so long as they are allowed to go forward with their protests.

              The only instances of violence involving protestors from the right (or counter protestors from the right),
              Have been when Antifa directly engages them in violence and the police get dragged in.

              Even “the proud boys” do not start violence.

              Had the capital remained open – the capital police – likely without any additional support, could have set up highly visible outside checkpoints at the main entrances where protestors were allowed through and on into the capital – in limited numbers.
              They could have manually searched bags etc – even required that people could not enter with bags PRIOR to sending them up the stairs to the regular security checks and metal detectors.

              Given the opoortunity to march arround inside the capital, stomp their feet and shout at congress – this near certain would have remained more peaceful than the Kavanaugh protests.

              The Kavanaugh protests also beg the question of why weren’t the capital police better prepared.

              They had experienced an event like this just 2 years earlier – and they had several days prior warning of this event.

              They had ample time to set up controlled peacefull access and protests.

              I do not think Pelosi wanted that.

              Pelosi wanted disorganized Chaos, she wanted congress critters to feel physically threatened.

              Had the protests remained peaceful – had proper access been allowed – Pelosi would not have been able to rush the congressmen out of the capital in fear for their lives – a clearly completely unjustified fear.

              Instead she would have had congress going through the motions, with protestors streaming through the capital protesting,
              and thousands more on the outside chanting.

              This is the difference between congress being pressured to do their jobs – and without certification pending an audit of the election,
              and pushing them to rush forward blindly.

              There is no doubt that protestors were there for a reason – to thwart certification of the election.

              For the left that alone is enough – alone left wing protestors are permitted to thwart government actions.

              I think this was also a critical event for Pelosi.

              It was of critical importance to the left – as is self evident, for this protest to FAIL – as badly as possible.

              Why ? Because a successful right wing protest at the capital – even if the election was certified would have lead to MORE.

              It was absolutely critical to be able to disrupt this protest – to make it turn into chaos.

              Democrats were aware of the Tea Party protests a decade earlier – so peacefull that the TP left the capital and the mall nicer than when they found it.

              They were aware of the anti-lock down protests of the summer – armed people marking through statehouses – with no violence.
              Not even sprained ankles.

              Governments fall when middle aged people take to the streets to peacefully protest their governments on a regular basis.

              This was about more than Jan 6. It was necescary to give right wing protestors a black eye in front of the entire nation.
              It was necescary to be destroy any contrast between those protests and the violent BLM riots.

              This is also why the social media crackdown is important – why the claim this was planed on Social media is key.

              The post Jan 6 social media crackdown is not just a crackdown on the right. It is a specific effort to disrupt anyone on the right ORGANIZING.

              It is trivial for those on the right to learn from the Jan 6. protests and to do better next time.

              But it is not possible to have future ORGANIZED protests – if social media can block all efforts to organize peaceful protests by thwarting ANY effort by the right to orgnaize.

              This is also why the Right need to grasp that they are now ‘anti-establishment” – to embrace things like Crypto and P2P.
              This is actually happening right wing people at the fringes like Alex Jones are starting to do this.

              Parler is back, but it is still the same top down structure – it is still a censored platform – if not as censored as twitter.
              while it will permit political rhetoric, it is likely to shutdown efforts to organize any protest, or to discuss how to organize a peaceful protest and to thwart efforts to cause chaos in a protest.

              But republicans are not quite ready to embrace the fact that many of the things they fought – the dark web, Silk Road, P2P, Crypto are the tools they need to organize and continue.

              When the banks are shutting down Republican efforts to raise money – right wing political contributions are essentially the same as porn sites or drug dealers trying to move money. When the financial establishment closes its doors to you – you must use the same tools that all the others who have been shut out use. Cyrpto currencies shut down the financial gate keepers. P2P disempowers big tech censorship.

                  1. many screeds by john Say, today

                    that is my comment

                    that is my observation

                    one is not required to make “an argument”

                    1. One does not expect a Gerbil to make “an argument, and you never do.

                      Your friend Benjamin, competing with you for the king of Stupidity makes a lot of untrue statements. John has answered almost all of them while not being wordy. Apparently, you have difficulty in the comprehension department.

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid was given a big box of LINKS for Christmas. He doesn’t know what those links say as evidenced by his lack of explanation.

                    3. “Allan the Rodent-lover trolls again.”

                      “Those giant Trump Rat balloons are made for you, Allan. They combine two of your loves, Trump and rodents.”

                    4. More likely they are made for you. You are the rodent and those that created the balloons have nothing to do with my politics.

                      But I do note they are of limited intelligence though possess a bit more than you. You have to repeat the cartoon over and over again and even have pretend friends applauding your lack of genius.

                    5. You are not required to do anything.

                      But this is a legal blog.

                      If you wish to shill leftist propoganda – DailyKos is an appropriate forum for that.
                      If you wish to trade adolescent insults – Twitter is an appropriate forum for that.
                      If you wish to discuss knitting techniques – I am sure you can find a blog for that.

                      I do not have the power to censor jonathanturley.org – and would not if i could

                      But tolerating your off point distractions does not constitute approval.

                      I would note that you burn your own credibility – but you are posting as anonymous – you have none.

      2. Mullin saying once you draw your weapon you have to defend yourself with deadly force is not terribly persuasive, especially since Babbitt was not even through the window and was unarmed.

        1. Rep. Mullin is flat-out wrong. He said “once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force” as if drawing a weapon requires subsequent use of deadly force. It’s more the reverse — there needs to be an imminent threat for an officer to justify even drawing his weapon in the first place. Most agencies require officers to file a report with an explanation every time they draw a weapon, whether they fire it or not.

          Here’s a DOJ memo which says “Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”
          https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/attorney-general-october-17-1995-memorandum-resolution-14-attachment-0

  9. The feds can get away with the murder of Ashli Babbitt….withholding her killer’s identity….refusing to bring charges….refusing to answer any questions, etc. Because they know the right will capitulate.

    The left is organized. They have Antifa and BLM. They have loud Congress members who go out and incite violence IF THEY DO NOT GET WHAT THEY WANT. If they do not get THEIR DESIRED OUTCOME, they get lout and they incite mob violence. And they have most of the media in their corner.

    Rep. Maxine Waters joined the protest march in Brooklyn Center MN last night. She said “we are looking for a guilty verdict.” She told the people to take to the streets if Chauvin is not convicted of murder.

    Maxine Waters said that Chauvin premeditated the murder of George Floyd and that if Chauvin is not convicted (of a crime he wasn’t charged with) protesters should get “more confrontational”

    More confrontational than burning down buildings, burning cars, looting and destroying neighborhoods? What does Congresswoman Maxine Waters mean by that?

    A sitting member of Congress is INCITING a VIOLENT MOB.

    When will she be stripped of her committees? She won’t, of course. She will get away with this. As they always do on the left.

    THIS is why the feds can get away with Ashli Babbitt’s murder.

    1. Maxine Waters is trying to intimidate a jury to influence the outcome of a murder trial. Every elected Republican in the country should be calling for her immediate arrest and removal from congress.

  10. Did anyone expect justice in the murder of an Unarmed White Woman by ???. What’s the reason for hiding his identity???? Is it time for White Americans to take a lesson from Black Americans on a call for justice?

    1. Seriously?

      She was part of an invading mob. Sorry that this led to death but she precipitated this tragedy by breaking the law as part of a violent mob. Time to get a grip, people.

      1. “She was part of an invading mob”

        Anonymous, I guess since you believe killing her was right because she was part of an invading mob, had you been in charge you would have requested machine guns to shoot all of them dead? Is that what you are saying? If you want to kill part of the mob wouldn’t you want to kill all of the mob?

    2. Plenty of cases of murder of white women are brought to trial. They get at least as much justice when murdered as unarmed women of color do.

      The reason for not releasing his identity is that he wasn’t charged, and naming him puts him at risk of harm from rightwing fanatics.

      1. Rubbish! And you know it! The names of police officers involved are always released and done so in advance of any findings or charges.
        In fact I think that they probably have no legal right to withhold his name.

        1. “The names of police officers involved are always released ”

          No, they aren’t.

          “I think that they probably have no legal right to withhold his name.”

          So file a FOIA and test your conjecture.

        2. BTW, if you want evidence that officers’ names aren’t always released after a shooting, just Google officer’s name has not been released, and it will pull up lots of examples.

          One of the results is this Post article that says the name isn’t released 20% of the time –
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/in-fatal-shootings-by-police-1-in-5-officers-names-go-undisclosed/2016/03/31/4bb08bc8-ea10-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

      2. “The reason for not releasing his identity is that he wasn’t charged, and naming him puts him at risk of harm from rightwing fanatics.”

        ‘Rightwing fanatics’, like this guy:

        “Iowan arrested for allegedly beating D.C. police officer, attempting to steal service weapon during Jan. 6 US Capitol attack”

        https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2021/04/16/kyle-james-young-charged-with-assaulting-washington-dc-police-officer-capitol-riot-attack/7262650002/

        ‘According to the indictment, which was filed April 9 and unsealed Friday, Young attempted to take Fanone’s service weapon.

        ‘In Fanone’s recount of the assault to media, he said he heard rioters shout to kill him with his own gun as the pro-Trump mob beat him. Fanone said he thought if he used deadly force, he would have been overpowered and killed.

        ‘In an interview with the Washington Post, Fanone recalled hearing: “We got one! We got one!” and “Kill him with his own gun!”’

        1. Fanone is alive.

          We give some latitude – especially to police to act based on what they perceive to be the threat.

          But the actual threat the real threat is always what actually happens.

          If after the fact it is clear that people did NOT act as you FEARED – then it is also clear they did NOT actually threaten you.

          Had Fanone acted – had taken his weapon and shot and killed people who he perceived as trying to take his weapon – he would be justified.

          HOWEVER, as he did not and we KNOW after the fact that no one took Fanone’s servicce weapon and no on tried to shoot him

          We can not charge people with crimes based on Fanone’s fear, or speculation. Only what actually occured.

        2. Also from the article in the Des Moines Register:

          “Fanone tried to free himself, he told CNN, by telling the mob he had children. Some rioters began protecting Fanone after that.”

  11. Federal hitmen are above the law. Like when FBI HRT sniper (that’s *sniper*, as in “one shot, one kill’) Lon Horiuchi blew off Vicki Weaver’s head while she was standing in a doorway holding only her infant daughter. Also see “Waco, Branch Davidians.”

  12. Young man, prior history of gun possession and fleeing officers (cops knew this beforehand) startles cops by jumps into car. Would the peanut gallery feel differently had body camera showed him subsequently twisting to fire point blank, thus killing the officer?

    For me the tragedy is in her shouting ‘TASER” because what reasonable person would fear for their life? Sadly, the police officer involved is ruined at the end of a fine career. Anyway, it’s my opinion Dunte Wright was a thug in training, if not in fact, and had a gun for thug-purposes. He’s now dead, which is sad for his mother, but good for society. Sorry, no tears from me.

    Different from Chauvin, that was murder. Also a thug, but murder.

    1. We don’t know that Chauvin committed murder. Oh, he will be convicted regardless of the facts or law but we don’t know that it was murder and will likely never know.
      The video of Floyd expiring is upsetting, too upsetting to watch for long, but it doesn’t prove murder.
      My only question is why did they bother holding a trial?

      1. The jury will determine whether Chauvin murdered Floyd, based on the evidence presented in court.

        1. I would like to beleive that but do you honestly beleive that a not guilty verdict will not set off riots throughout the country and result in death threats to the jurrors ?

          Thus far the evidence against Chauvin is actually worse than that against Potter.
          Potter clearly made a mistake that resulted in Duante’s death.

          Chauvin followed actual Mineapolic policy. The technigue he used was adopted specifically to replace beatings with night sticks and similar more violent compliance methods.

          There is very little evidence supporting claims that Floyd was suffocated. It is nearly impossible for Chauvin who is half the size of Floyd to suffocate FLoyd with his entire weight. Further Floyd was removed from the police cruiser because he was violent and out of control.

          Finally Flyod died of a massive heart attack caused by a 3 times fatal drug overdose in a man with severe heart disease.

          This case never should have been prosecuted. I am not even sure there is a justification for police discipline regarding Chauvin.

          I would further note that the Wright event – as well as that in Atlanta much earlier and several others recently have demonstrated publicly that when the police have a suspect in custody seemingly under control, that things can turn suddenly violent at any time.

      1. “Wright didn’t have a gun with him when he was killed.”

        In other words wright was unarmed at that moment just like Babbitt except Babbitt had a clean record.

        Wright’s problems:

        outstanding warrant
        resisting arrest
        reported waving a gun around
        no permit for the gun
        didn’t appear in court
        aggravated robbery
        arrest warrant for armed robbery
        accusation of threatening a woman at gunpoint.

        A mistake was made in Wright’s case. There was no intent to kill. In Babbitt’s case she had yet to enter a room where armed policemen were in the room. Her hands were busy in the process of seemingly climbing in. She was intentionally shot and died. Anonymous approves of that type of killing. I believe anonymous draws his conclusions based on politics, color, PC and virtue signaling. I don’t think Anonymous thinks.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid here is a pretend friend giving +1000 for calling another a troll.

              No wonder Anonymous the Stupid posts under an anonymous name. Who would want this type of garbage linked to themselves?

          1. Let’s see what is really happening. Anonymous the Stupid is having a problem. He thinks the person who was accidentally killed and had:

            outstanding warrant
            resisting arrest
            reported waving a gun around
            no permit for the gun
            didn’t appear in court
            aggravated robbery
            arrest warrant for armed robbery
            accusation of threatening a woman at gunpoint.

            was a man that didn’t cause great anxiety in the police officer causing her to make a mistake. Anonymous the Stupid wants the police officer hung for a mistake on that guy.

            On the other hand Babbitt, according to Anonymous the Stupid, was engaged in climbing through a window into an area occupied by more than one police officer. Her hands were occupied climbing in so she was no threat. For some reason Anonymous the Stupid thinks she deserved to die.

            “Anonymous approves of that type of killing. I believe anonymous draws his conclusions based on politics, color, PC and virtue signaling. I don’t think Anonymous thinks.” …And if anyone thinks differently they are trolling.

              1. You have argued countless of times on this subject but always refused to deal with the issue of comparison. Anonymous the Stupid, that tells us you can’t. Your life revolves around PC and virtue signaling. Perhaps your Marxist racist friends would cancel you and you would be left alone. Being both a coward and Stupid is a major problem. I’m glad not to be in your shoes.

                    1. S. Meyer blog-stalks and harasses any commenters he dislikes, even if they’re not anonymous.

                1. Is Anonymous the Stupid a nutcase or Stupid? He responded to the following statement with his responses at the bottom.

                  “You {Anonymous the Stupid} have argued countless of times on this subject but always refused to deal with the issue of comparison. Anonymous the Stupid, that tells us you can’t. Your life revolves around PC and virtue signaling. Perhaps your Marxist racist friends would cancel you and you would be left alone. Being both a coward and Stupid is a major problem. I’m glad not to be in your shoes.
                  ——
                  S. Meyer continues trolling, begging for attention.
                  S. Meyer blog-stalks and harasses anonymous commenters.
                  S. Meyer blog-stalks and harasses any commenters he dislikes, even if they’re not anonymous.
                  S. Meyer’s a creep.

        1. There is absolutely no doubt based on the facts that the Babbit shooting is more serious than the Wright shooting.

          Wright was in the “heat of the moment” in the midst of an arrest, resisting arrest, physical confrontation with police.

          Babbit was in a building protesting.

          No one was being threatened. No one was being arrested.
          Except the officer who shot babbit other officers were backing down, descalating.

          The officer who shot Babbit was not acting “in the heat of the moment”.

          He had plenty of time to consider what he was doing.

          He drew his gun – aimed patiently and fired at an unarmed woman.

          1. “He drew his gun – aimed patiently and fired at an unarmed woman.”

            That describes an execution.

  13. I appreciate the professor’s rational analysis on each shooting but we all know the reason for one being prosecuted and the other not has everything to do with satiating the mob and almost nothing to do with law. it’s the sad state of affairs in our country that the two tiered justice system is not only permitted but encouraged. Like the Sage of Monticello said “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

    1. mespo

      Washington denied justice in order to send a FU to Trump and his supporters.

      Justice was subverted for political reasons.

      I am furious, but just don’t know what to do.

    2. “we all know ”

      No, mespo727272, you don’t know. You believe, and you pretend that your belief is knowledge even though it isn’t.

  14. We all know the answer as to why the difference. This needs no law professor’s analysis.

  15. The treatment of Bobbitt’s killer might be legal, but it isn’t right.

    Justice took another hit and Americans are once again shown that the government manipulates the laws.

  16. The fact that the officer’s name was never released in the Babbitt shooting tells you all you need to know.
    The language of the press release also hints at their defense for doing nothing. The statement said the prosecutor didn’t think there was sufficient information to be able to prove the officer “violated her civil rights”.
    They are trying to hide behind the differences in federal laws on homicide and state laws. Look for this failure to prosecute to be used as ammunition to try to justify DC statehood, even though the Capitol would still stay in the Federal District.

    1. “They are trying to hide behind the differences in federal laws on homicide and state laws.”

      It occurred on federal property, and DC is not a state. It involved a Capitol Police officer, not a DC Police officer. DC laws have never applied to what occurs in the Capitol. It’s silly to describe this as “hiding behind” anything. That the Capitol is under federal jurisdiction has been out in plain sight for over 240 years.

  17. Shooting an insurrectionist on the brink of reaching lawmakers seems prudent, screaming taser before discharging a firearm seems tragically clownish.

    1. So you want the authorities to be able to use deadly force on rioters? Even if they present no imminent threat?
      Do you want the same standard applied to all federal buildings? The Portland Courthouse for example?
      I take it you were good with the clearing of rioters so Trump could walk across the street to look at the arson damage to the church?

      You kind of thinking poses a grave threat to us all. And they warned us about Trump.

      1. If they’re looting and burning, absolutely. Because they are endangering the lives of innocents. How many good people have to die so these idiots can play politics?

        1. Whose life was Babbitt endangering? Wasn’t the danger to the police behind her and those near her, far greater than any risk she posed to anyone?

      2. No one was rioting before Trump walked to the church. He didn’t walk over to look at the arson damage. He walked over for a press op. If you’re going to discuss that event, discuss it truthfully.

        Whether authorities are justified in using deadly force depends on the circumstances.

        She was trying to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby, a restricted space (even most Congressional staff don’t have approval to enter it) that opens directly onto the floor of the House. The Capitol Police were in the midst of evacuating Representatives and staff from the House chamber. It was the officer’s job to protect the Representatives from harm. If Trump had been on the floor of the House and she’d been shot by Secret Service, I doubt there would have been charges either.

        1. They were not in session so he was protecting a room.
          If there was no rioting across from the White House, it must be spontaneous combustion that set fire to the church the night before.

          1. There were still a few staff and members of Congress in the House chamber and the Speaker’s Lobby.

            “‘I could look them in the eyes,’ said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, who had been presiding in the speaker’s chair and was one of the last to leave as the mob attempted to break through the doors. ‘I mean, that’s how close they were.’”
            https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/capitol-police-shooting-ashli-babbitt.html

            “it must be spontaneous combustion that set fire to the church the night before.”

            Do you often confuse the night before and the next day. As I said: No one was rioting before Trump walked to the church. In case it wasn’t clear to you, I was referring to the day he walked to the church, not any previous day.

            1. ““‘I could look them in the eyes,’ said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts,”

              I guess Democrat representatives are afraid to look the people in the eyes. What a bunch of cowards.

              1. I do not want to beat up the Reps who are talking about this – they are not as Bad as AOC who made up a bald faced lie about her Jan 6 experiences.

                How big a lie does a lefty have to tell before people quit buying.

                All that said – there was about 20′ from the closest rep. to the doors where protestors were.

                I beleive other protestors in other parts of the capital were able to get to senators and representatives – and no congress critter was harmed, and none of them were shot.

            2. Anonymous there is a long video from MSNBC from a different angle than yours – I am pretty sure it makes clear that the person going through the window was not Alishi – you can actually see that person behind Alishi after the shooting.

              Further no one has argued that there were never congresmen in the speakers lobby.

              The MSN video clearly shows them – about 20′ from the door where the protestors were.

              If Rep McGovern could see anyone’s eyes he is very far sighted.

              Regardless, McGovern is one of the last out of the speaker lobby – and he left atleast 2minutes before the shooting.

              Further up until a few seconds before the shooting several ARMED capital police officers where between the protestors and the door.

              When the speakers lobby was completely clear and the doors at the other end locked and the congressment long gone,
              THEN those officers moved away from the door to allow protestors to get through.

              And after all of that the officer on the other side of the door shoots alishi.

              This is a really bad shooting.

              1. “This is a really bad shooting.”

                John, we need line drawings with times, distances, people and obstructions along with movements. Then those line drawings have to be compared with proper police actions. Then all the police need to be interviewed along with any none police that had any thing to do with this event or who had some element of control.

                We won’t get that. Instead we will see more secrecy to protect the players not the nation.

            3. Why is it that you think that you get to control the arguments other people make.

              You spin your arguments so hard the clothes fly out of the washer.

              I stick to actual facts.

              With respect to the riots in front of the whitehouse – they had been going on for 3 days before.
              Again many police had been injured. Rocks were thrown, frozen bottles were thrown – and there were several cases of arson.

              But you are correct – at the time that the Park police cleared the street infront of the whitehouse.
              Protestors were not violent – or more accurate – they were no more violent than the capital protestors.

              They were not burning anything at the time. They did throw things at the police – including trying to throw smoke grenades back at the police. The police slowly marched them down the street and out of the area. They did not beat them or club them.

              When the capital police were clearing the capital and surrounds they were beating the crap out of protestors – who had been much less violent than those at the white house.

              Btu we do not see that video too much anymore.

    2. Why didn’t the officer just take the “insurrectionist” into custody? She wasn’t armed, so why not arrest her? He certainly didn’t need to shoot her.

    3. Pirelli, are saying “lawmakers” are more important than average citizens? The woman was not armed. He could have arrested her instead of shooting her.

      1. Yes, members of Congress are more important than average citizens, just like the President and members of the Cabinet are more important than average citizens.

        They were in the midst of certifying the Electoral College vote, one of the most important official acts they carry out, and the insurrectionists were attempting to stop them, which is a felony (corruptly impeding an official proceeding).

  18. It appears that the decision not to charge in the Babbitt killing was made by the DOJ on the basis of a civil rights statute. Is the intent requirement for that different from the one in a murder or manslaughter charge? If so, why was a murder or manslaughter charge not considered? Are those crimes not within DOJ’s purview? If they are not, is there another authority able to bring those charges, and, if so, are those charges under consideration?

    1. Imagine if officers start opening fire at people who breach public buildings. That’s what the Federal officer did at the capital. The government is saying that the opposite of Black Lives Matter. Trump voters lives don’t matter.

    2. There are federal murder and manslaughter crimes, 18 U.S. Code § 1111 and 1112. I am not a mind-reader and cannot tell you whether either of those charges was considered. I highly doubt that any other authority can bring charges for a crime committed in the Capitol building by a USCP officer in the course of his work.

      1. ClydeA, it does look that way from the video. Has there been any reporting about this possibility?

Leave a Reply