Here is my column in The Hill on the recent interview of Lt. Michael Byrd who was the hitherto unnamed Capitol Hill officer who shot Ashli Babbitt on January 6th. The interview was notable in an admission that Byrd made about what he actually saw . . . and what he did not see.
Here is the column:
“That’s my job.” Those three words summed up a controversial interview this week with the long-unnamed officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6. Shortly after being cleared by the Capitol Police in the shooting, Lt. Michael Byrd went public in an NBC interview, insisting that he “saved countless lives” by shooting the unarmed protester.
I have long expressed doubt over the Babbitt shooting, which directly contradicted standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement. But what was breathtaking about Byrd’s interview was that he confirmed the worst suspicions about the shooting and raised serious questions over the incident reviews by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and, most recently, the Capitol Police.
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and ardent supporter of former President Trump. She came to Washington to protest the certification of the presidential Electoral College results and stormed into the Capitol when security lines collapsed. She had no criminal record but clearly engaged in criminal conduct that day by entering Capitol and disobeying police commands. The question, however, has been why this unarmed trespasser deserved to die.
When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the chamber’s doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken window. That is when Byrd killed her.
At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.
The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.
Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby recently was convicted for killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his own head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.
Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared “no further action will be taken” in the case. He proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him.
Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”
Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.
Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.
Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. Many violent protesters wear backpacks but officers are not allowed to just shoot them in case they contain bombs or other devices.
According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings. Just as Byrd was apparently authorized to shoot Babbitt as the first person through the window, he presumably could have shot the next ten or more persons. Likewise, in cities like Portland, police could have shot dozens protesters trying to take over police stations and courthouses, including many wearing backpacks.
Politico reported that Byrd previously was subjected to a disciplinary review when he left his Glock 22 service weapon in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex. He reportedly told other officers that his rank as a lieutenant and his role as commander of the House chambers section would protect him and that he expected to “be treated differently.”
In the Babbitt shooting, the different treatment seems driven more by the identity of the person shot than the shooter. Babbitt is considered by many to be fair game because she was labeled an “insurrectionist.” To describe her shooting as unjustified would be to invite accusations of supporting sedition or insurrection. Thus, it is not enough to condemn her actions (as most of us have done); you must not question her killing.
Like many, I condemned the Jan. 6 riot (along with those who fueled the unhinged anger that led to the violence) as the desecration of our Capitol and our constitutional process. But that doesn’t mean rioting should be treated as a license for the use of lethal force, particularly against unarmed suspects. The “job” of officers, to which Byrd referred, often demands a courage and restraint that few of us could muster. As shown by every other officer that day, it is a job that is often defined by abstinence from rather than application of lethal force. It was the rest of the force who refrained from using lethal force, despite being attacked, that were the extraordinary embodiments of the principles governing their profession.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
If he is such a hero, send him to Kabul to protect our citizens and troops there!
Turley is doing nothing more than feeding delusional madness to the cult who choose to live in alternate reality.
Fish: “Turley is doing nothing more than feeding delusional madness to the cult who choose to live in alternate reality.
***
So says someone who calls himself ‘Fishwings’.
-Young,
There are some truly delusional people out there.
They believe, despite the FBI’s own admission, that on 6Jan an insurrection took place.
They believe that Babbitt represented a clear and present danger, despite not being armed, against multiple armed CPD.
Yet, despite all the chaos going on, only one CPD took a shot. Again, against a unarmed woman.
They also believe that Byrd was the last line of defense, despite all those other officers standing next to or around him, against a unruly mob.
They believe that buffalo head tattoo guy was going to overthrow the government and take over.
Delusional is right.
Ooops! I used the word “right.” I hope that did not trigger anyone!
“They believe, despite the FBI’s own admission, that on 6Jan an insurrection took place.”
The FBI itself hasn’t made the “admission” you allude to.
Anon: “The FBI itself hasn’t made the “admission” you allude to.”
***
They haven’t tattooed it on you forehead yet but they have essentially admitted it. They likely have gone as far as Wray will let them let them in admitting they f***up again.
“they have essentially admitted it.”
I’ll believe that when you quote the FBI itself. I doubt you will.
I’m open to changing my mind, but that requires actual evidence, not your say-so.
Don’t believe it then. I just used Bing to search and found several articles confirming it.
I imagine you will have to wait a little longer for Wray to get around to chiseling it on stone tablets and shipping them to you via Mount Sinai.
Meanwhile, believe as you like.
And in for the demntia aspect is fishflaps with his usual turley insult and everything is a cult but his antiqueefa slugs and the dictators of the zeig heil demoratzi party. The more things change the more they remain the same.
Here’s the deal, Turley: If you knowingly participate in an insurrection, you have earned a bullet. And the only apparent relevance of Babbitt’s background is that we now know that she was a trained killing machine who should have known better.
Bouldergeist
There in a nutshell is the Lefty philosophy.
If I disagree with you, then you deserve to die.
Aside from the contempt for you that your statement generates, it shows that you just don’t understand (or care about) the Bill of Rights.
Another unhinged tirade from an obviously deranged individual who knows next to nothing. Jerks like this should never be listened to.
Fair enough. Should be easy pickin’s in Portland, no need to even aim. It’ll be like shootin’ fish in a barrel, yeehah!
It wasn’t an insurrection. Otherwise the police would be justified to kill a lot of “insurrectionists” nowadays.
And nobody’s life was at risk in reality.
“nobody’s life was at risk”
Some of them had built a gallows outside and were looking for Pence and Pelosi and others, chanting things like “Hang Mike Pence!” If I were you, I wouldn’t be so certain that those people wouldn’t have hung him if they’d gotten by the Secret Service.
Analnonymous…you bloviate too much. The only murders being committed are by antiqueefa types… shooting people in the back , stabbings…all true. Yet the only one directly killed on 6 jan was a small white woman by a tainted black city copper. And then this quisling gets a slobbering empathetic interview with lester holt and declares himself full of courage and just doing his job in shooting an unarmed woman hanging through a door window with a bunch of cops all around her and behind her. If any copper deserves to be hung out and dried it’s this guy short an order of nuggets in his happy meal. Total disregard of officers and people all around him , zero situational awareness . And it’s also the same dirty copper that left his loaded pistol in a DC crapper and told those around he would be treated differently due to his minority and guess what…he got off then too.
She was trained as a soldier, not as an abortionist. I wonder if diversity was a motive for the capitol officer. The insurrection is based on a handmade tale and not on facts in evidence, There was not effort to delay or prevent legislative work. Pelosi et al are responsible for denying executive assistance to carry out crowd control (another Katrina controversy). And, of course, the multi-trimester, transnational insurrections of Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter and others to stoke a riot, and the probability of another Whitmer-closet in progress. That said, a novel apology for abortive self-defense established through plausible, perhaps social, not probable, not imminent, and not immediate case. A precedent for expanded rules of self-defense.
So…CHOP will become a dead zone then?
Bouldergeist:
Why do you think the Jan 6 rioters were going to take control of the government, and thereby the country, rather than just protest, and break windows? What were they doing that would have taken actual control of the country?
I keep hearing this argument that it was an insurrection, but when I ask why it was an insurrection rather than either a riot or protest turning into trespassing/property damage, no one has answered me as of yet.
How do you think the guy with the bison horns posing for selfies was going to actually overthrow the country? Is there any evidence that any of them was trying to overthrow the government? The charges have been available for many weeks now. I didn’t find treason or sedition among them, at least when I last checked.
Evidence will keep coming out. If you have a link to any evidence that this was an attempt to overthrow the country, then please share it with us so that we can review it and make an informed opinion.
Not a single charge of insurrection or sedition has been brought, though they are both federal crimes. Use of these terms is entirely propagandistic. Moreover, a number of the felony charges have been pled out as misdemeanours, many akin to trespass. Expect to see much more of that as the DOJ is unable to prove its felony charges.
Are you truly suggesting that when a word — in this case, “insurrection” — has both everyday and legal meanings, people can only use the legal meaning and not the everyday meaning, or else its use is “propagandistic”? If so, do you feel the same way if a word has both everyday and scientific meanings (so, for example, it’s propagandistic for people using “theory” in its non-scientific sense)?
“Expect to see much more of that as the DOJ is unable to prove its felony charges.”
I think they can prove the felony charges for many of the people who’ve been charged. If we’re patient, we’ll find out.
Anonymous:
The terms “insurrection” and “sedition” were not used like hyperbole. It’s not like saying we’re slaving away at work implies being literally chained to a desk.
These terms have been presented as literal, not figurative. It was supposed to be literally a coup attempt, sedition, and insurrection, etc. Remember the entire “Constitutional crisis?”
People are losing their jobs for attending the peaceful Trump rally nearby. People who didn’t set foot in the Capitol or participate in any way in the Jan 6 riot.
They can’t have it both ways, claiming that Trump supporters engaged in actual sedition, and then when called upon to prove it, claim they didn’t really mean it.
Shall news anchors across the country shrug their shoulders, mug for the camera, and say, “Folks, you didn’t think we were serious when we called Jan 6 an insurrection, did you? Learn how to take a joke!”
“The terms “insurrection” and “sedition” were not used like hyperbole.”
I didn’t say they were hyperbole. I said that the word “insurrection” has distinct legal and everyday meanings, just like “theory” has distinct everyday and scientific meanings. If you use the everyday meaning of “theory,” it’s not being used as hyperbole, and if you use the everyday meaning of “insurrection,” that’s not being used as hyperbole either. My point to Daniel was that there’s no reason to insist solely on the legal meaning, when most people are using the everyday meaning. Are you objecting to people using the everyday meaning? If so, why?
“These terms have been presented as literal, not figurative.”
Yes. Using their everyday meanings. I quoted a non-legal definition to you in my 5:57 PM response to you, and I hope you’ll read what I wrote there.
“The terms “insurrection” and “sedition” were not used like hyperbole.”
I didn’t say they were hyperbole. I said that the word “insurrection” has distinct legal and everyday meanings, just like “theory” has distinct everyday and scientific meanings. If you use the everyday meaning of “theory,” it’s not being used as hyperbole, and if you use the everyday meaning of “insurrection,” that’s not being used as hyperbole either. My point to Daniel was that there’s no reason to insist solely on the legal meaning, when most people are using the everyday meaning. Are you objecting to people using the everyday meaning? If so, why?
“These terms have been presented as literal, not figurative.”
Yes. Using their everyday meanings. I quoted a non-legal definition to you in my 5:57 PM response to you. What occurred fits that definition, and I tried to say why. I hope you’ll read what I wrote there.
Insurrection and sedition are terms that take their meanings within a legal and constitutional context. They cannot be, and are not meant to be, separated from their context when they are used. That is what gives them their power. That no one has been charged with those offences indicates that not even the DOJ has probable cause to believe they were committed. Yet the terms continue to be used for their propagandistic value.
Anonymous
Your response was stupid.
Repetition didn’t improve it.
Sorry for the repeat reply. The first one took several minutes to show up, and I thought it had been rejected for some reason.
You were recently pushing the legal meaning of the word insurrection with me on another thread, Now you are trying to push something else. “has both everyday and legal meanings,”
I quoted an article from MSN with a headline saying that the FBI said it was not an insurrection, and you argued that claim saying the FBI didn’t say it.
How often will you try to deceive those on the blog by changing what you say from one post to the next, hiding behind an anonymous alias? The same thing happened when you said fascism was good for the little guy. Then you hid behind your Anonymous icon.
How much Stupider can you get.
“You were recently pushing the legal meaning of the word insurrection with me on another thread”
You say, without providing a shred of evidence. For all I know, you’re once again confusing me with another anonymous commenter. I accept that since I post anonymously, people may confuse me with others. You do so regularly.
“I quoted an article from MSN with a headline saying that the FBI said it was not an insurrection, and you argued that claim saying the FBI didn’t say it.”
Yup. Because there was no quote from the FBI itself in your article. I’m still saying that I haven’t seen any quote from the FBI itself about that particular issue.
“you said fascism was good for the little guy.”
I didn’t. I oppose fascism.
“How much Stupider can you get.”
I’m not stupid in the first place, no matter how often you claim otherwise. I’m certainly smarter than you are.
“For all I know, you’re once again confusing me with another anonymous commenter.”
When you assume the name anonymous, you assume the risks as well. You have been tied to many comments with reasonable proof. Do you want to deny it? Go ahead, but you remain Anonymous the Stupid who constantly lies to avoid responsibility for what he says.
-Karen S,
In a real attempt to over throw a sitting government, there needs to be a number of things.
A well organized plan, leaders to execute the plan with a clear chain of command. Effective command, control and communications. Weapons. Financial backing or support to supply and pay for the previously mentioned arms, comms, logistical support.
By their own admission, the FBI reported there were NO firearms within the Capitol building, other than what the CPD were armed with.
By their own admission, the FBI did NOT find any large, over all plan, or organization or connection to Trump. Hence, no charges of insurrection have been filed.
There were some reports of coordination/comms on social media.
I think the FBI did charge three people with conspiracy. And their evidence dates back to as early as November of 2020, well before Trump made his speech on 6Jan. Again, three people, with no other links to others in a grand over reaching plan.
But buffalo head, tattoo guy was a clear and present danger to over throwing the government.
I recently heard that some are refusing to take nickels with the buffalo on it, as it “triggers” some folks.
To see what a successful insurrection looks like, see the current state of affairs in Afghanistan. Note the pictures with various fighters with carrying arms.
And in one, arms and ice cream.
Upstate Farmer and Daniel, I agree with you. I have not heard any evidence that this was anything more than a riot, for some people, and trespassing and taking selfies, for other participants.
When I ask people who claim this was sedition, an attempted coup, or the like, what evidence they have that they planned to overthrow the government, they never say anything. I want to give them the opportunity to make their case.
My perception is that they are just repeating what they’ve heard, that it was sedition, without knowing what a successful or attempted coup actually requires. Most people are lucky enough that they haven’t endured actual government overthrow or sedition, so they might not really think about or question what that would look like.
You are absolutely right that the evacuated American civilians, and Afghani, would know exactly what a coup is like.
The FBI is far from finished in investigating the Trump Insurrection. It just came to light how many Republican members of Congress were in telephone contact with Trump, including Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz. Trump told the disciples that he would be there to lead them, but lied, of course.. That is a fact. It is on video. There was a large group of Trump disciples just outside the DC limits with a massive number of weapons and ammunition, waiting for the word from Trump to proceed. All of the facts have not come to light yet.
Natacha
Aah yes, the “large group of Trump disciples…with a massive number of weapons and ammunition.”
I remember a similar story about Poles attacking a radio station on 9/1/39; people didn’t fall for that one either.
But the target audience was the same – gullible dupes listening to the propaganda arm.
Why is the only logical conclusion that the Trump insurrectionists were there to take control of the government? It is because Trump said, and I quote: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more”. And: “Let’s hope Mike Pence does the right thing”. This was after a series of “Stop the Steal” rallies in which Trump promised “it’s going to be wild”, all pushing the Big Lie. And, what about the Big Lie? Where’s the proof of a “steal”? Why haven’t certification by all 50 states, multiple recounts, and Trump trying to bully election officials into giving him some of Biden’s votes been enough to convince you? Why do you keep believing a proven liar, in the fact of absolutely no supporting facts.
You don’t need to assault, beat, and bear spray police officers just to make known your “protest”. You always leave out the fact that these losers assaulted the Capitol Police, beat them and severely injured some, including one officer who lost an eye, and they did lots of property damage while breaking into the Capitol, carrying Trump flags. You also leave out the fact that they left human excrement in the Capitol, and that they defaced John Lewis’s memorial. Why did they need to break into the Capitol while the Congress was in session if all they wanted to do was “protest”?
What was there to protest, anyway–the fact that Trump, consistent with polls and historically-low approval ratings, lost the election? Were they protesting the right of the majority of Americans to have their choice for President get lawfully elected? Your stupid argument doesn’t even make sense. They were there because Trump told them to “fight like hell”, and that he would lead them. He didn’t show up, but they had armed compatriots just outside the DC limits, ready to move in. If all that is documented on video and the fact that they had armed compatriots ready to move in is not proof of an attempt to overthrow the government, then what was it?
But, consistent with the Republican narrative, echoed by Fox News, in an effort to downplay Trump’s fomenting of an insurrection to prevent Biden’s victory from being accepted, you keep trying to downplay the truth, too.
“when I ask why it was an insurrection rather than either a riot or protest turning into trespassing/property damage, no one has answered me as of yet.”
Karen, it may depend on which definition of “insurrection” you use. Merriam-Webster defines it as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” If you have a different definition in mind, you can present it.
Here are some reasons that I characterize it as an insurrection:
– They were there at Trump’s behest: he chose the date/time/place to coincide with Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote, he falsely told them that the election had been stolen and they needed to “stop the steal,” he falsely told them that Mike Pence could stop the certification, he encouraged them to go to the Capitol and falsely told them he’d go with them, he told them in advance that it would be “wild” and on 1/6 told them that they needed to “fight like hell.” He was explicit about wanting to prevent the certification, and many of those arrested have stated that they believed they were doing Trump’s bidding in attempting that. They were trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
– Some of the protesters brought weapons and wore body armor, some were coordinating with each other during the insurrection, some were literally wearing shirts that said “MAGA Civil War, January 6, 2021.” I excerpted some of the relevant testimony about weapons here: jonathanturley.org/2021/08/16/unconstitutional-but-legal-court-agrees-cdc-does-not-have-the-authority-for-moratorium-before-upholding-moratorium/comment-page-1/#comment-2114412
– Some of the people built a gallows outside the Capitol, looking for Mike Pence and saying things like:
“Mike Pence, we’re coming for you too, f—ing traitor.”
“Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence.”
“They’ve got the gallows set up outside the Capitol Building. It’s time to start f—ing using them.”
“Start making a list. Put all those names down, and we start hunting them down one by one.”
A number also bragged on social media that they would kill liberal members of Congress. Although I don’t think most of the protesters were there to murder anyone, I believe that if some of them had captured Pence, Pelosi, and some others, that subset of protesters would have tried to kill Pence and those members of Congress. You may believe differently.
– If you didn’t watch the testimony of four of the LE officers under oath before Congress, I encourage you to watch it on Cspan. Those officers referred to the violent protesters as “terrorists.” When asked why, Officer Hodges said “I came prepared: U.S. Code, Title 18, part one, chapter 113B (as in brown), section 2331. ‘The term domestic terrorism means (A) activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, and (B) appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'” Would you agree that there was a subset of protesters there who were engaged in acts that endangered officers’ lives and appeared intended to coerce Congress into refusing to certify the EC vote?
That’s a start. Does it address your question sufficiently?
Anonymous:
I said, “When I ask people who claim this was sedition, an attempted coup, or the like, what evidence they have that they planned to overthrow the government, they never say anything. I want to give them the opportunity to make their case.” Instead of explaining how this group could have possibly overthrown the government, you responded with a broad definition of insurrection, which could be applied to any number of protests and civil disobedience. Yet we’ve been told that Jan 6 was sedition. A coup attempt. Treason. These terms were used literally, not figuratively.
Do you therefor believe that all of the BLM riots were insurrections and sedition?
How do you overthrow an entire government by barging in on the EC certification? After all, the Jan 6 riots did, in fact, delay the EC count, yet the country did not change hands to the control of the rioters. There was no attempt to overthrow the government. No plan or apparent means to do so.
if you’re going to consider every protest against civil authority or government to be an insurrection, then most universities in the country are in a constant state of insurrection. BLM obviously is. So is Antifa. So are the Handmaid Tale protestors at Kavanaugh’s hearing. So are the Women’s March with their genitalia hats, because they were definitely in opposition to the government. So are those who knelt on the ground screaming when Trump was declared the 45th president.
Let’s talk about people bragging on social media about wanting all white people, all men, all Republicans, Trump himself, or all Trump voters to die. If you devote 99 years of your life, you might be able to read them all. If you only wanted to devote a month, you could restrict yourself to the rhetoric from professors in US universities, calling for all of the above.
Also from Mirriam-Webster:
REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.
And from Oxford Languages
in·sur·rec·tion
/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Terrorism requires the use of violence, or the threat of violence, to terrorize people for political purposes. The KKK would be one such example of domestic terrorism. BLM threatening to burn entire cities to the ground unless Chauvin gets convicted on all charges could be another example.
If the Jan 6 rioters intended to assassinate Mike Pence, or anyone else, why were none of them charged with attempted murder? If there was evidence that they were in the act of carrying out a plan to murder anyone, then why weren’t they charged?
Karen,
I was responding to your 3:15 PM comment, as should be clear from the fact that I quoted a bit of your 3:15 PM comment at the beginning of my response. Now you’re complaining that my response didn’t respond to something you wrote in a different comment at 4:15 PM.
I wasn’t responding to your 4:15 PM comment.
I have never accused anyone of sedition, and if you want an answer, you’ll have to find someone who *does* call it sedition.
Instead of complaining that I didn’t respond to a totally different comment, instead of complaining that I’m not explaining why other people use words that I don’t use, I explained why I do use the word “insurrection.”
You said “when I ask why it was an insurrection rather than either a riot or protest turning into trespassing/property damage, no one has answered me as of yet,” and THAT is what I addressed in my response. Why did you say it if you didn’t want a response to THAT?
“Do you therefor believe that all of the BLM riots were insurrections and sedition? ”
Again: ***I*** have never called it sedition, and I have no interest in conjecturing why others use that word.
No, I do not believe that “all of the BLM riots were insurrections,” as most of them were peaceful. I might call a small minority of them insurrections, but I’d have to think about whether they were really revolts against the government itself rather than general lawlessness.
“After all, the Jan 6 riots did, in fact, delay the EC count, yet the country did not change hands to the control of the rioters.”
Because they failed. Not because that wasn’t their goal.
“There was no attempt to overthrow the government.”
Sure there was. It wasn’t an effective attempt, but there was an attempt. Do you deny that some of them were aiming to kill Pence and Pelosi and to prevent Congress from certifying the EC vote?
“REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds”
Many of them were armed. I gave you a link to quotes from LE about the diverse weapons. This particular uprising failed in a few hours.
“Terrorism requires the use of violence, or the threat of violence, to terrorize people for political purposes.”
Yes, I quoted Officer Hodges, who was quoting the US Code about it. If you believe that it does not meet the description in the US Code, it would help for you to say why.
“If the Jan 6 rioters intended to assassinate Mike Pence, or anyone else, why were none of them charged with attempted murder?”
Some (not most) of them said they wanted to, and they weren’t charged because they didn’t find him (as the Secret Service whisked him away to a secure room), so they were unable to attempt it. Simply saying and meaning “I want to kill him” is not sufficient grounds for attempted murder charges. I think you know that, so I’m baffled that you’re asking this question.
Anonymous
Do you ever say anything succinctly?
Your wife must either be a saint to tolerate you, or brain dead.
Yeah, when you flood the disciples with facts they can’t spin away or ignore, then you are verbose, stupid or brain-dead. Just another example of the turmoil Trump has caused and continues to cause, enabled by his media outlets.
🤣 Bwahahahahaha!!!
boulderdash…angry are we not ?. You accuse Mrs Babbitt of being a trained killer , 5’2″ 130lbs and was a tech in the “chairforce”. Seriousl you can do better than that. You may as well have called her a ninja assassin or some such as you ludicrously label her a trained killer. So you sir are as delusional and daft as they come.
You are the very kind that would take the kings shilling and do his bidding…right or WRONG.
When are you going to write the most important article, how the Elites stole the damned Election Mr. Turley, are do they have you cowed from mentioning what we all know took place. As long as people like you do not call the theft of an election out (you are very intelligent, you know exactly what happened) then we have no hope of correcting this injustice.
The fact is we have lost the Republic is these Marxist Elitists theft is aloud to stand. Tis will lead to a civil war, if you think these American Patriots will keep allowing Marxist thugs to run our nation through treachery then you sir are full of crap, stop being a damned coward and DEMAND the the Peoples Choice be placed in the White House. Until you call for that, you sir will never gain my respect.
Turley doesn’t believe that the election was stolen, so don’t hold your breath waiting for him to say it was.
He’s intelligent enough not to go there, as he would be skewered. Ten lawyers will lose their licenses over that lie.
Turley: you should be ashamed to write this piece–selling your credentials to support the “Ashli Babbitt was murdered” narrative.. Tell us–does Fox give you a list of things to keep the disciples stirred up? They must because this piece is beneath someone who teaches law.
First of all, Ashli Babbitt’s background, military service, lack of prior criminal history, etc, are irrelevant to the threat she posed to the Capitol Police officer who shot her while she was trying to break into the Speaker’s Lobby and attack members of Congress. You know damn good and well that mentioning these things is calculated to help stir up the disciples and keep them believing that she was somehow a martyr to the cause of “Stop the Steal”. Turley doesn’t even mention “Stop the Steal”, which is the reason she was there.
Secondly, did the officer know whether or not Babbitt was armed? How could he know this? What was her intention in breaching the window to gain access to the Speaker’s Lobby? How was the officer supposed to know what her intentions were? In fact, do you, Turley, know what her intentions were if the police had allowed her to proceed? Turley claims she was there to “protest”, something that is protected by the First Amendment, but it’s not necessary to beat and bear spray Capitol Police, break down barricades, break windows, and ignore police commands in order to “protest”. She wasn’t “protesting” when she was killed–she was breaking and entering the Speaker’s Lobby with the intention of preventing the peaceful transfer of power by intimidating, injuring and possibly killing Pence and members of Congress. We know that the Trump Cult intended to harm Pence because they had erected a noose and there were chants of “Hang Pence”. And, she wasn’t shot until after she started going through the window. Was Babbitt in a place she had a right to be? Was her participation in attempting to break down the barrier to the Speaker’s Lobby legal?
Turley says that in order for Babbitt’s shooting to be legal, she had to pose an immediate threat to the officers. How is it possible to argue that she DIDN’T pose an immediate threat, and, again, how was Officer Byrd or the others supposed to know whether she had a gun? Turley doesn’t mention this point—how would Officer Byrd know whether or not Babbitt had a gun or knife? Since she had already broken past barricades, broke into the Capitol Building, refused to follow police commands, and insisted on proceeding into the last barrier to the floor of the House, why should Officer Byrd or the other officers have any reason to believe that her intentions were anything other than to use deadly force, if necessary, to try to force Trump to say in office?
Turley says nothing about Trump’s promotion of the Big Lie as the impetus for the insurrection and Babbitt’s death. She wouldn’t have died but for Trump and his Big Lie.
BS, this was more like a college panty raid than an insurrection.
You are an idiot
So it’s ok for the the Capital Police to execute anyone?????
First of all spare us your support of this Police Officer. You on the left dont give a rats butt about LEO (See Defund the Police) This is as always …political. And the “The Big Lie” is even bigger after the crap show the current guy in the White House is putting this country through. 81 mill votes LOOOOOOL
The comment above seems to make sense. However it ends with the admission that the writer does not admit the fact that the election was fraudulent.
It’s not a fact “that the election was fraudulent.”
You’re crazy
Natacha
Brevity is the soul of wit.
The “big lie” backed by affidavits, videos, and, despite the novel denial of American standing., several dozen cases ruled to uphold charges of irregular and fraudulent democracy, and others in progress.
That said, Babbitt was presumed guilty, and based on plausible cause, and social justice, was deemed a “burden” and summarily aborted.
Why don’t or won’t you disciples address the 400 lb gorilla: WHY WAS SHE THERE? WHO TOLD HER TO GO TO THE CAPITOL AND “FIGHT LIKE HELL”? WAS THE REASON SHE PARTICIPATED IN THE INVASION OF THE CAPITOL BASED ON THE TRUTH, OR A BIG, FAT LIE TOLD BY A BIG, FAT LIAR?
The “lawmakers” are some of the biggest lawbreakers of all. Corrupt as h*ll. Ilhan Omar broke laws, but, meh, no big woop, no need to investigate or prosecute her. Same with Pelosi and the whole lot of them. Corrupt, self serving, self enriching liars one and all. It would be no big loss if we lost Pelosi or any one of them, really. NBFD.
If Ashli had been black this would have had a very different ending.
Our country would have been on fire. When regarding woke idiots you can delete the ‘woke’ portion of the statement. This is not the behavior of the sane or even the grown adult.
Yup. If that had been a black horde, we’d have a body count well into triple-digits.
She wasn’t armed. She was a woman he could have overwhelmed without deadly force, easily. There is no excuse. Period. This was on our own soil handled by our own people. I am secular and don’t believe in hell, but if I did, I would hope that every modern Dem politician ended up there.
The officer couldn’t have known whether or not she was armed. There were dozens of others with her, so could the 3 or 4 men (one of whom was a member of Congress) defending the Speaker’s Lobby “overwhelm” them? There is no excuse for her or them to be there, and her blood is on Trump’s tiny hands. Period. She had no right to be there.
The officer couldn’t have known whether or not she was armed
I’ve responded to the rest of the know nothing trolls, but I’ll keep going. As an officer of the law, the only assumption to be made is the person is unarmed.
Does this “assumption” to someone who had already broken past police barricades, who had invaded the Capitol Building by breaking down doors, smashing windows, who was in a group that had erected a noose and was chanting “hang Pence”, and who persisted in proceeding through a broken window after being ordered to “cease and desist”? Does the “assumption” apply when 3 cops and 1 member of Congress are trying to hold back a violent mob attempting to force their way past the last barrier to the floor of the House?
She was a trained killing machine, James. How do we know? We trained her.
If she were to break into YOUR house, you would demand the right to shoot. Well, she broke into OUR house.
Her house too. She fought for it.
Byrd showed disregard for the safety of officers in close proximity to Babbitt. He was too eager (finger ON the trigger too soon) and recklessly fired a shot that could have just as easily hit one of the police. He belongs in jail. Period. The DOJ had better take it’s foot off America’s neck.
No statute of limitations on MURDER… so this foul dinge will face justice when Trump or DeSantis gets in…
I’ll bet against your last statement. Trump is a loser and loose-mouthed uber-whoremonger whom still to this day denies that he lost. DeSantis wants to spread FL’s rate of Covid infection throughout the US, killing as many as he possibly can.
The GOP nominee will be either Pompeo or Nikki Haley, two of the biggest most putrid soul-dead warmongers whom ever breathed, rivaling John McCain and even Lindsey Graham for the title of world’s biggest, most self-righteous warmongers. Warmonger Hillary would proudly serve under either Pompeo or Haley.
Pompeo or Nikki Haley, two of the biggest most putrid soul-dead warmongers whom ever breathed,
Smearing our Military Veterans, West Point Graduate, no less, and Women of Immigrant parents.
So you’re a mysoginist, and hat the Men and Women, selflessly, putting their lives at risk to protect you.
Such a role model
Screw all you anti-Trump pukes ! I voted for a strong business man, note a f*******Pope. Yea, his over the top rhetoric was brash, but try to consider what a marked improvement of ALL economic conditions he presided over while not sniffing little girls hair.
Perhaps the other OFFICERs behind Ms Babbit were not really officers themselves, but merely ACTORs dressed as officers hired by our own very FBI. Just saying that we should not discount this theory.
One of them was a member of Congress.
So what? They’re all useless mofo’s anyway. Who cares?
He was a Republican. I don’t recall his name, but he was also a veteran. Is he still a “useless mofo”?
We have politics now over ruling the rule of law . Disgusting place in our history
So, too bad so sad? They’re the authorities so shut up and sit down or we’ll cancel you from society.
Another totalitarian wanna-be. Bugger off, nitwit. Once the adults are back in charge, this murderer will get his day in court before his conviction. You will cry.
Strange that a law professor cannot distinguish between a riot and a protest.
David– True. CNN explained it to us. Peaceful BLM protests burn cities down. Not riots at all. It isn’t a riot unless you have white grandmothers waving American flags.
Some people at BLM protests rioted and broke other laws. They should be charged. The rest of the BLM protesters did not break laws.
The people who broke laws on 1/6 should also be charged.
Anon– “The people who broke laws on 1/6 should also be charged.”
***
Yes, that is what we are saying. Officer Byrd should be prosecuted.
What do you want him charged with?
Murder or manslaughter. He was some sort of BLM type and I would like to know if his social media or emails or comments to others indicated he might be looking for an opportunity to shoot a white person to get even for social justice. If so, then murder.
Have you noticed that usually the media scours history and social media for evidence of intent in cases like this but are shockingly incurious in this case? Why?
Babbitt’s family is planning to sue him for wrongful death. The trial should be interesting. I wonder what the jury will decide.
It might be settled before it gets to a jury. Too many people in authority don’t want discovery or certain questions to be asked publicly and under oath.
For what? Murder is the unjustifiable killing of a human being, and lethal force was absolutely justified in that case. No way you would ever get a DC grand jury to rule otherwise.
Protesters who brake down barriers and illegally enter buildings become rioters.
Tell that to the “rioters” in Wisconsin. and all the BLM/ANTIFAS breaking into and looting where ever they can. Okay to shoot them now!!!????
Wen Bars, Remember when Mayor Lightbrain had to raise the drawbridges in Chicago to keep swarms of looters seeking ‘reparations’ by cleaning out the posh shopping districts?
Nobody shot.
I sure as Hell am!
Gee, Blob, I wish you would explain that to the mayors of Portland and Seattle.
What about the protesters who were waved through barriers and let into the building by the police?
Lawprofs are trained to be able to ignore even the most obvious facts. I won’t call Turley a whore, because ladies of the evening have moral standards.
Boulder:
“ladies of the evening have moral standards.”
***
They do, but I doubt you have had the privilege of knowing any. As you said, they have standards.
If Byrd had been white, and Babbitt had been black, there’s no question that DOJ would have found “a bad purpose to disregard the law”
Would Byrd even have his rank but for ‘diversity’ and ‘affirmative action’?
Would Byrd even have been cleared but for ‘diversity and affirmative action”?
Would the outcome have been the same if Byrd had been white or Asian and promoted for merit rather than color and Babbitt had been a black BLM demonstrator?
You know the answers to these questions. I don’t even need to explain.
“You know the answers to these questions.”
You presume too much. Whatever we believe about those questions, it’s a guess, not knowledge.
Anon– Well, I will presume that YOU don’t know the answers to those and are lot of other questions. Or at least that is what you pretend as so many on the left do. How else can you maintain the charade?
Learn the difference between knowledge and other belief.
You don’t KNOW the answers either. You simply think you do. Many people claim to know that Christ is the one god or that the Muslim Allah is the one god. That’s not knowledge either; it’s faith. Belief is sometimes knowledge, but often it isn’t.
So you really don’t know the answers?
“So you really don’t know the answers?”
Of course it does.
As a skeptic, it’s motivation is to undercut other people’s confidence in their answers. And notice the technique: Make erudite references to things like “knowledge and other belief,” in the attempt to intimidate them into surrender.
No, Sam, I really don’t *know*. I have beliefs about the answers, but my beliefs aren’t knowledge. I’m not trying to “intimidate” anyone. Knowledge is justified true belief. It is therefore a proper subset of belief, so it makes sense to talk about knowledge and other belief (the remaining subset).
You clearly have beliefs about me that aren’t knowledge either.
Anon– “Learn the difference between knowledge and other belief.”
***
Okay, I am curious.
Was the Ptolemaic description of the universe knowledge or belief?
How about Phlogiston?
How about disease and humors?
How about the ether?
Is mathematics discovered or created?
Hmmm?
Assuming that I’ve correctly interpreted your very abbreviated questions 2-4, the answer to the first 4 is “other belief.” (Knowledge is itself a kind of belief: justified true belief, which should help you recognize that if a belief is not true, it cannot be knowledge.)
The fifth is not framed in a way that asks for “knowledge” versus “other belief” as an answer. There is a philosophic debate about whether math is discovered or created. There may be a correct answer, but I certainly don’t know it.
You have had too many sips of Old Tanglefoot. Your thinking is in knots.
“(Knowledge is itself a kind of belief: justified true belief”
Pilate said it, “What is truth?”
By your standards Ptolemy was ‘knowledge’ until it wasn’t. It could be justified–until it couldn’t.
Kuhn sort of addressed this in his “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. You never know when everything you think you know will be upset by a paradigm shift.
The only way you could not know the answers to my rhetorical questions was either stupidity or willful blindness. I don’t think you are stupid so it is up to you to pull the scales from your eyes. More Indulgence in self-imposed sophistry will only blind you.
“By your standards Ptolemy was ‘knowledge’ until it wasn’t.”
Nope. Don’t pretend to read my mind. You’re terrible at it, and it’s counterproductive.
Not your mind…wouldn’t touch it. Ptolemy was settled science for almost 2,000 years. It was accepted truth that could be supported by observation and common sense.
If you can’t understand your own standards for true knowledge versus faith knowledge or explain how they apply in this case you sulk and try to fall back on empty insults.
Are you the same Anonymous who argued that there was no evidence that the Pfizer vaccine could cause heart problems? Seems like. Same belligerently wrong approach usually found in an adolescent. Eat the rest of your dinner, including the peas, and go to bed kid.
“It was accepted truth”
But that doesn’t mean it WAS truth. Your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between “accepted as true” and “is true” is your problem, not mine.
“If you can’t understand your own standards for true knowledge versus faith knowledge”
That condition is false.
“try to fall back on empty insults.”
LOL, given your last paragraph. Look in the mirror.
Still haven’t said if you are the Anonymous who argued there was no evidence the Pfizer shot could cause heart problems.
I also noticed you didn’t get the Kuhn point.
Mostly you evade when you are wrong.
“Still haven’t said if you are the Anonymous who argued there was no evidence the Pfizer shot could cause heart problems.”
No, I was the Anonymous who asked you to provide evidence that the Pfizer shot could cause heart problems because you were the one who claimed it could cause heart problems, and I was the Anonymous who then accepted the evidence after you provided it.
“I also noticed you didn’t get the Kuhn point.”
On the contrary, you mistakenly believe that I didn’t get the Kuhn point. Once again: just because you believe something, that doesn’t make it true. Over and over, you falsely assume things about my beliefs. If you were a better learner, you’d have stopped by now.
“Mostly you evade when you are wrong.”
I don’t. I’m quite up front about my mistakes (see, for example, my response to Karen last night after she corrected me about how many Afghan civilians had been killed by Americans: I told her “Thanks for the correction. I was wrong”). You and your pals are the ones who evade when you’re wrong, as you’ve amply demonstrated in this exchange.
There are only two (2) words to describe those who don’t know the answers to the questions posed. Ignorant, or stupid. Based on your response, which are you?
A sad day for “blind Justice,” in America.
I am concerned with what comes next?
Under this reasoning, all the protestors who stormed the Capitol and the Senate Office Buildings during the Kavanaugh hearing could have been shot.
All the protestors in their genitalia hats who trespassed could have been shot.
Most of the BLM rioters could have been shot.
If you applied this rule equally, it would have created a noticeable population decrease.
It’s obviously not truthful to claim that shooting an unarmed woman who was trespassing “saved countless lives”, because she wasn’t trying to harm anyone. She wasn’t grappling with a police officer for his gun. She wasn’t a WWE Diva pile driving him, or a 5th degree blackbelt, her own body a lethal weapon. She didn’t have a knife, or a bomb, or even make threats.
While I can understand that they didn’t know if she might have been carrying any weapons in her backpack, once the truth came out, he should have stopped claiming to have saved “countless lives”. From what? A scolding from Babbitt? I can understand law enforcement wanting to prevent being physically over run by sheer numbers. But Turley has pointed out real issues with this case.
The law should be applied fairly. The charges for trespassing and illegally parading are lawful. Throwing them in solitary confinement for months is not.
The law should be applied equally, regardless of creed. Yet Democrats have rioted for over a year, while most are not charged, the charges are dropped, or they are diverted to counseling programs for their understandable rage that led them to burn down a police precinct, minority-owned convenience store, or an apartment with people inside.
“Under this reasoning, all the protestors who stormed the Capitol and the Senate Office Buildings during the Kavanaugh hearing could have been shot.”
Nope. Not one of the Kavanaugh protesters attempted to break into the Speaker’s Lobby or illegally gain access to the floor of the Senate.
“While I can understand that they didn’t know if she might have been carrying any weapons in her backpack, once the truth came out, he should have stopped claiming to have saved “countless lives”. From what? ”
From her opening the door to let the rest of the protesters — some of whom had already been viollent — onto the House floor while non-LE were still there.
“The charges for trespassing and illegally parading are lawful.”
So are the other charges: justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Zachary Alam, for example, the guy who bashed the window glass in with a helmet, has been charged with “Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers; Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon; Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting; Destruction of Government Property Exceeding $1,000; Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting; Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon; Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon; Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in Capitol”
Which of those charges do you think is unjust and why?
“Throwing them in solitary confinement for months is not.”
Glad we can agree on something.
Most BLM protesters, like most 1/6 protesters, did not break the law and should not be arrested. Those who did break laws should be charged.
“Those who did break laws should be charged”
BUT THEY WERE NOT! CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY WEREN’T THEY?
jUST ASKING FOR A FRIEND.
Do you have any other straw arguments/idiotic comments you’d like to make?
Here is a video of protestors yelling and screaming at the actual Kavanaugh hearing. I remembered protestors getting inside and getting dragged out, and found videos. Here is one. Granted, they got inside without breaking a window. Also, the hearing took place at Hart Senate Office Building, I think it was. https://youtu.be/lH1VWpGszSM
Here is a video of protestors screaming in the Senate gallery. I think the Sargent at Arms was able to contain them in the gallery, so you are right that they didn’t reach the floor itself. https://youtu.be/SKNiSIPKGns
I agree with you that a great many BLM protestors didn’t loot and riot, and that those who did break laws should be charged.
I never said charges were unlawful. I said they were lawful. I have only heard two arguments against any of the charges. One was that someone who moved aside a police barricade was charged with “assaulting, resisting, or impeding” officers, and another was that the only firearms that were discovered were found in vehicles, not in the Capitol itself. I don’t have any legal information on either, and just stick to the position that unlawful behavior should be charged. What I objected to was the solitary confinement, and the unequal application of the law, in which BLM rioters and looters were either not charged, or diverted to counseling, while the Jan 6 rioters were charged with everything possible.
Absolutely, anyone who broke the law should be charged accordingly, regardless of creed.
Turley has brought up some very troubling points on the shooting of Babbitt. While I understand the defense of not wanting to be physically overpowered by sheer number of people, regardless of a lack of arms, this standard has not been applied in examples Turley gave above. One also wonders why she wasn’t simply shoved back.
I recall going to a protest years ago. I wanted to see what it was all about. The crowd quickly became agitated, and kept trying to surge forward in an enormous body. I couldn’t get out and was in danger of going down and being trampled. Sheer numbers of humans really can be hazardous. A line of cops used these large plastic shields to shove the crowd back. I was getting pushed hard from behind, unable to prevent myself from getting shoved against the front, which then got shoved back by the cops. When I was shoved into a cop, I said I didn’t want to be there, and just wanted to leave. He grabbed me, pulled me behind him, and then handed me off from one cop to the other, down the line, until I reached the edge and could leave. Each cop kept a hold of me, probably to ensure it wasn’t some ploy to get beyond the line, and make sure I didn’t get crushed. They used their riot shields to shove the tide back, not their guns, and they didn’t have the benefit of the bottleneck of the doors and windows that they did in the Capitol.
Perhaps I will always wonder why they didn’t shove Ashli Babbbitt back instead of shooting her. Based on that experience, I also understand the unbelievable strength of a crowd gone mob, and why it would have made cops feel threatened.
The Climate Changer riots entered Nancy’s office and had a sit in (2018) They all should have been shot. Including bug eyed AOC who led them in!!! RIGHT?? These are the new rules right??
The Link…. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/416411-youth-protestors-fill-nancy-pelosis-office-demanding-climate-change
Yes, Laws bind all or there no laws at all.
I wish Professor Turley would appropriately stop referring to the crisis actors, FBI, and Antifa as rioters and MGA supporters and rather as appropriate “state actors.” I am sure in 50 years the truth will be unsealed just like the JFK files.
The truth is that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy from the 6th floor of the school book depository. He also shot policeman J.D. Tippit in front of, oh I don’t know, maybe 20 people? Thats the way it was and that’s the way its always going to be. So no, no “truths” about the assassination have ever been “unsealed.”
The Barney Fife (Byrd), whose range record is the worst of any one the force, of the the Capitol Clown Police (CCP) becomes Chis Kyle and in one shot hits Babbit with a kill shot in the neck… I mean stomach… I mean shoulder… I mean stomach. Sure – These things don’t happen in the real world. Anyone who understands guns and police procedure knows this. Weird it happens in Pelosi stairwell. Please think.
Oh my God, give me a break. You don’t need extensive “training” to shoot someone in the neck from 7 ft away. Blacks do it every single day with zero training.
Try putting lead on a target in a high-stress situation, Rambo.
It’s very simple – Byrd is black and Babbitt, though a woman, was white. Had Byrd been white and Babbitt a black woman, he would be in jail. This whole thing is political and racist. I do with Turley would stop referring to the protestors as “rioters” and their violence. Bear in mind that most, if not all, of those who were there that day are gun owners and they could have been heavily armed, but they weren’t. Nor were they “trespassers” in a building that belongs to the public where Congress was conducting public business. Furthermore, it’s obvious from video that Capitol police, many of whom SUPPORTED the protestors, opened the doors and let them in. Nor was there more than the bear minimum of “desecration.” As for disrupting a Constitutional process, just what, exactly, is the purpose of the First Amendment? It was written for legal scholars and historians to debate, it was written to protect the American public against Federal prosecution for speaking out against government actions.
Since Babbitt was a Trump supporter it did not matter what her race was. If she had been black it wouldn’t have mattered. She was a “deplorable”. Remember “Larry Elder is the black face of white supremacy. You’ve been warned.”
“Nor were they “trespassers” in a building that belongs to the public where Congress was conducting public business.”
Those who broke in were trespassers. You did see a bunch of the protesters breaking the windows of the Capitol and entering through those windows, right?
Those who went were the public is not allowed were also trespassers, even if they didn’t break in.
Do you seriously believe that the public can go wherever they want on public property, evade security, enter violently, …?
“Nor was there more than the bear minimum of “desecration.””
Sure there was. There was a lot of physical damage done to the Capitol.
“As for disrupting a Constitutional process, just what, exactly, is the purpose of the First Amendment?”
Nothing prevented people from speaking peacefully in places where it was legal for them to do so. But breaking windows isn’t speech, spraying cops with bear spray isn’t speech, hitting cops with batons isn’t speech, stealing property isn’t speech, …