Justified Shooting or Fair Game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt Makes Shocking Admission

Ashli Babbitt (Twitter)

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.

318 thoughts on “Justified Shooting or Fair Game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt Makes Shocking Admission”

  1. I am retired from public safety and a Combat veteran of the Iraq War. I know the law regarding the use of deadly force. What we witnessed on camera was the murder of Ashli Babbit. When our own DOJ does not apply the law equally and the citizens of this Country see it, this Republic will eventually fall. If there is no accountability in this incident and the deaths of 13 service members we just witnessed, Americans will revolt.

    1. “Americans will revolt.”

      Or we will live under a fascist oligarchy that seems to have taken control of our government. Elections don’t necessarily mean freedom. Transfers of power within an oligarchy doesn’t lead to freedom either.

  2. Seriously?
    He used excessive force.
    The Capitol Police, DoJ and the officer will all be sued under a wrongful death lawsuit because he used excessive force.

    We all know there is a double standard of justice. Leftist are never even investigated, or the investigation is a shame, like this one.
    Conservatives persecuted, See, Speaker Tom Delay, Governor Palin, Senator Ted Stevens.

    The left used to al least pretend, but with the media and big tech censoring all questions that might be raised, they don’t even pretend to present evidence to a Grand Jury. A system put in place for exactly this kind of potential government conflict of interest.
    I cant remember the event but it was put before a grand jury and they refused to move the case to forward. The lefty media spent a week smearing the grand jury system and how easy it was to corrupt. But not a peep since. its all blind justice if it goes the preferred way, until it doesn’t, then its corrupt.

  3. I have nothing to do with the legal fraternity but when I saw the Lester Holt interview with Byrd my immediate reaction was that the police weren’t normally allowed to gun down unarmed people without just cause and this cop admitted he couldn’t see any weapons, any direct threats and then he justified killing her by claiming he felt under threat. It’s gratifying to see Jonathan Turley to confirm exactly my view here and tonight on Fox. Hopefully, this will help the civil action Ashli Babbitt’s husband is pursuing for justice.

    1. @equal justice…
      C’mon man!
      He was triggered because he was black and she was white.

      He felt threatened and triggered because he had just taken the CRT training which told him that the white man was out to get him.

      He used excessive force.
      The Capitol Police, DoJ and the officer will all be sued under a wrongful death lawsuit because he used excessive force.

      This is more of a clear cut case of murder than Chauvin faced.
      Had this officer been white and Ashley black… he would have been arrested for murder.


      1. Chauvin was at best guilty of negligence. Floyd suffered from a fentanyl and stress-induced progressive condition that preceded, and, in fact, prompted exit from the police vehicle and subsequent restraint. The assembled mob prevented ready access by authorized medical personnel, thus sealing his fate. Chauvin was presumed guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly, Babbitt was presumed a threat until proven otherwise, was judged, labeled, and summarily executed (unarmed, outmatched in weight, training, experience, and position). A legal precedent for a novel standard of self-defense.

      2. “This is more of a clear cut case of murder than Chauvin faced.
        Had this officer been white and Ashley black… he would have been arrested for murder.”

        A Black person would have assumed they would be immediately be shot and never would have entered through the broken window in the first place. I don’t doubt she would have been followed by others, do you?

    2. Not seeing any weapons is immaterial when she was at the front of a violent mob breaking into the Capitol chanting that they were going to lynch the Vice President.

      1. It actually is material, shinobi – there are no special exceptions for “looking menacing while wearing a Trump flag as a cape”. Hope this helps.

        1. Not material at all. There is no rule saying police shootings are ONLY justified if the suspect is visibly armed. If the suspect is behaving aggressively enough to be a threat, even if they’re KNOWN to be unarmed (which is not the case with Ashli Babbitt, the cops had no way of knowing whether she had a concealed weapon) it can still be justified to use lethal force if it’s not possible to subdue them with non-lethal force. And that IS the case with Babbitt. Subduing her non-lethally wasn’t an option because she wasn’t alone. She was at the front of a violent mob who outnumbered the police. Any attempt to simply subdue and cuff her would’ve resulted in the rest of the mob swarming the officers.

  4. The question remains, if the Capitol Police were terrified for the lose of their lives why weren’t more protesters shot? When you think you are going to die restraint is no longer an option. This was simply a guy who lost his cool. There has been no report of overdose levels of meth in Ashli Babbit’s blood.

    1. A fentanyl-induced progressive condition, a Covid-19 case, and history of violence. And a mob filming and preventing authorized medical access.

      Yes, an unarmed woman, out-classed in weight, experience, and training, by a man armed with the intent to kill.

      50 shades of Whitmer-closet with embedded “civil rights” agitators from Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter and other organized insurrectionists from the past 16… 19 trimesters.

      1. This “unarmed woman” was not alone. That’s why subduing her non-lethally was not an option. It doesn’t matter that Michael Byrd could have easily overpowered her if it were a 1-on-1 fight. He could not do the same when it’s a 50-on-1 fight, and he’s the one. You’re willfully ignoring how heavily the police were outnumbered on January 6th.

    2. Professor, if you are reading comments on your own site, I have a question for you:

      Do you believe that the US is disappearing as the Constitutional Republic we were intended to be?

    3. “if the Capitol Police were terrified for the lose of their lives why weren’t more protesters shot?”

      You should have listened to some officers’ testimony under oath.

      For example, Officer Hodges, who works for the DC Metropolitan Police and arrived as backup, explained “Once we got to the Capitol and we were fighting, I was wondering, how many more bombs are there? [presumably referring to the IEDs left in front of the RNC and DNC buildings] What’s the trigger? Is it going to be a cell phone? Is it on timer? How many guns are there in this crowd? If we start firing, is that the signal to them to set off the explosives, however many there are in the city? Is that the signal for them to break out their firearms and shoot back? So that’s the reason why I didn’t shoot anyone, and I imagine many others didn’t. Because like I said before, there were over 9,000 of the terrorists out there with an unknown number of firearms and a couple hundred of us, maybe. So we could not -, if that turned into a firefight, we would’ve lost, and this was a fight we couldn’t afford to lose.”

      Do you care what their answers are to your question? Do you think you know their reasoning better than he does?

      1. Anonymous – are you referring to the IED discovered at RNC and DNC headquarters, both? Did they ever find out who that maniac was, or is he still at large?

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall the FBI blew both of them up, so they weren’t able to ascertain if these were working bombs or not.

        1. I think Hodges is referring to both, and yes, the person is still at large: fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc

      2. He didn’t shoot anyone because he was afraid they’d shoot back and only by not shooting did he prevent them from shooting?

        And you believe this person?

        Thousands of terrorists, bombs everywhere, everybody armed… This is a joke, right? This cop just makes up a fantasy world based on zero evidence or intel and you believe it. Sucker. You want to believe what you’re told to believe, that is the only way you could believe this nonsense, because the evidence you present is clearly BS.

        1. I presented testimony given under oath about his personal reasoning. Your “paraphrase” is not what he said, and you then say “This cop just makes up a fantasy world based on zero evidence or intel,” for which YOU present zero evidence, but somehow you believe that’s a good rebuttal.

      3. How many people did Officer Hodges shoot or kill?

        How does that justify Officer Byrd shooting someone?

        1. Who said that it justified Byrd’s shooting? Maybe you should avoid asking loaded questions.

      4. “You should have listened to some officers’ testimony under oath.”
        It was all scrpted. Written by the Democrats, to read at a show trial. None of the cops could sit down and write something so edited, if they had to.

        1. You have an active imagination, and you clearly think poorly of all cops if you assume all are so incapable.

    4. There were no “protesters” and it was at best a severe tactical error for the Capitol Police to NOT shoot more of them.

    5. Because when Babbitt was shot, that stopped the mob in their tracks. The rest of the rioters fell back and thus were no longer an immediate enough threat to justify further shooting.

      1. Shin, you know this how? Who showed that to be true. Ashli has been reported trying to defuse the heated actions and rhetoric. She was MP in the military. Take note of the other police in the room.

        All the questions that need to be answered are not forthcoming because Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat leaders had a lot to do with a lack of protection and how the Capitol police acted.

        Try reading the two articles from Revolver. They provide you with videos of the events and audios you don’t see in your usual news feed. Some of the films have arrows pointing to specific things. The Ashli Babbitt recordings that demonstrate an opposite opinion from what the MSM said, are also on the net elsewhere with close caption and audio.


        1. Why exactly do you want me to read nonsense conspiracy theories from a fake news site?

          1. Shin, I don’t want you to read the text or what you consider conspiracy theory. I want you to watch the videos and listen to the audio. Then you can determine for yourself what you believe to be true. Why does the left consider all alternative thoughts to be conspiracy theories rather than alternative ways of looking at things and getting to the truth? Does the left have to be herded like sheep?

  5. Turley concludes:

    “Reasonable people could disagree on the shooting. I fail to see the justified basis under controlling legal standards but I may have the bias of a criminal defense attorney. What I object to is the absence of specificity in the facts and answers to satisfy the standards under cases like Tennessee v. Garner. Instead there is a conspicuous use of conclusory analysis to dismiss the allegations. There is also the general lack of interest in the media and in academia on the implications of these decisions to clear the unnamed officer.”

    This is fair commentary:

    1. Unlike what the Trumpists here I asserting, reasonable people- both LEFT and RIGHT- can disagree;

    2. Turley concedes that his interpretation is BIASED;

    3. It is not unreasonable to insist upon more specificity and less conclusory analysis which is hardly an uncommon trait of governmental agencies be they Democratic or Republican.

    4. Turley claims that there is a lack of interest in the “media” on the implications of this decision. He does not point his finger at the mainstream media specifically, but rather the media generally. It is noteworthy that he does NOT exclude the Rightwing media from his criticism.

    1. Turley concluded that Byrd’s actions didn’t follow the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. That makes the shooting unlawful.

      Where are the supporting arguments for the leftists who are quiet about this?

      1. Greg,

        Turley raises some good questions, but I am not persuaded by his arguments. I would need to know more of the facts in order to make a judgement. I think it is premature to conclude that Byrd acted unlawfully. He may have, but it seems to me that had he allowed Babbitt to climb through that window, more rioters would have surely followed. If he did not have any immediate police backup, he would not have been able to contain the influx of rioters alone, and they would have had access to the inner sanctums of the Capitol.

        At some point ostensibly, the rioters would have posed *imminent* physical harm to the Congressmen, and Byrd would have had legal cause to protect them with lethal force. I just don’t know how much of a threat these rioters would have posed to the Congressmen had they breached that broken door, and Byrd was the only one standing between them and their potential victims. Given the level of violence of the rioters up to that point, I am not sure Byrd would have had to see a gun or knife on Babbitt in order to be justified to use lethal force because it stood to reason that they would have attacked the Congressmen with their hands and fists. If Babbitt and anyone who followed her were within a few seconds or even a minute from accosting a Congressmen, must Byrd wait for the blows to land before he starts shooting?

        These are the questions that Turley avoids raising.

    2. @Jeffery…

      Reasonable people can agree that Ashley was prone crawling through the broken window, clearly unarmed. She was in no position to cause anyone harm and multiple less than lethal options existed. Not only that, they could have backed away from the situation so that anyone who wasn’t a LEO could have exited.

      This is a clear cut case of excessive use of force. There were armed officers in position, clearly visible along with other officers on his side of the blocked door. She could have been apprehended or told to go back.

      Learn the law and reread what Turley said.


      1. Gumby,

        If you don’t mind, I would like to hear more of the facts given under oath with Byrd represented by a defense lawyer. It’s called Due Process.

        1. Due process?

          There was no due process in the investigation of Ashley’s death.

            1. You like to say things without being able to say why or treat situations without your leftist spin.

              That is your right, but it shows you up for what you are.

  6. Was that good intel that led to our air strike against that vehicle in Afghanistan? We’ve rolled up our intelligence network, so where are we getting information? The Taliban has made statements that this was an ISIS-K vehicle bomb (Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Device/VBIED).

    Please tell me we’re not getting intel on acquiring targets from the Taliban.

    Reports are coming in that there were civilian casualties. Reporting changed from zero civilians lost, to 7, 4 of them children. So were they collateral damage, nearby on the street? Riding along on a suicide mission?

    Was it the gas tank exploding after a Hellfire strike, or IEDs inside?

    Considering the clown show that has been the Afghanistan withdrawal, we need to verify what we’re being told.

    1. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed by the US during this 20 year war.

      The Watson Institute at Brown University: “As of April 2021, more than 71,000 Afghan and Pakistani civilians are estimated to have died as a direct result of the war. The United States military in 2017 relaxed its rules of engagement for airstrikes in Afghanistan, which resulted in a massive increase in civilian casualties.”

      Civilians will be killed by the US in this war as long as we continue the war.

      1. With citations from the same sources that lied and spread handmade tales about the wars in Libya, Ukraine, global warming, domestic “insurrections”, too. Are there any independent sources for their claims?

      2. Anonymous, you do know that “died as a direct result of the war” includes dying at the hands of the various terrorist organizations, including the Taliban, who terrorized the country? It was the military holding them back. They swarmed back in, and immediately got to work adding to that body count. A woman was shot and killed almost as soon as the Taliban swept to the fore. Her crime was leaving the house without a burka.

        Expect massive civilian casualties to resume.

        1. Thanks for the correction. I was wrong. It’s not tens of thousands. But it also isn’t a small number. Estimates from 2019 alone are ~900 from US airstrikes.

      3. I think we should dress anonymous the stupid up as a woman and let him loose on the streets of Kabul.

          1. You alone, Anonymous the Stupid, will do. I see you are making a fool of yourself all over the blog.

            1. Oh, I could never measure up to your stupidity or foolishness! If anyone deserves the moniker Anonymous the Stupid, it’s you!

              1. Your replies Anonymous the Stupid tell us who and what you are. That you try and hide under an anonymous name so you do not have to take responsibility for what you say is proof enough. You even tried engaging under another anonymous name and failed because you weren’t honest. That anonymous icon has disappeared with others of yours.

                When I write I make sure you know who I am by what I say and by my inclusion of the name Anonymous the Stupid. When I write to those who have some semblance of intelligence or are intelligent I use my alias or my initials. Anyone can judge that alias for themselves.

    2. Karen–

      It’s very like the be-ribboned clowns in the Pentagon to send a Hellfire missile down into a family car and kill 6 children.

      Meanwhile, the Taliban are using Blackhawk helicopters we abandoned to hang Afghan interpreters we promised safety.

      They are flying around town with their bodies dangling from ropes attached to the copters.

      We have never had an Administration this incompetent, shameful and disgraceful. The entire world looks on with mockery and horror.

      The generals are careful to use the ‘right’ pronouns. But they missed an important one reserved for Pentagon and Administration officials: A**hole.

      1. Young – horrific. There is some really twisted things going on right now.

        What I want to know if the Taliban itself fed us false intel in order to blow up people they wanted dead, such as Afghanis who collaborated with us. It would have had the added benefit of making the US look even worse than it already does, and that’s difficult to do. The other alternative is that we somehow still have our own intelligence network on the ground, who are cutting it a bit fine.

        How are we going to cover the retreat of our final aircraft if we pack up our men and weapons, like the C-RAM?

        Where is that marine with two Moms to save our people?

        1. Young, they left the C-RAM behind. Actually had to leave it behind, although they rendered it inoperable. It can go on the pile of planes, armored vehicles, weapons, and other equipment left behind.

          1. Leaving the C-RAM behind in anything but dispersed atoms is beyond understanding. There is a risk that even a damaged unit can be investigated or reverse engineered. I imagine China will enjoy looking at it.

        2. Karen-

          It does look as if the Taliban are completely outsmarting our ‘intelligence’ services. Either that or it’s a race between the Taliban and our people to do as much damage as they can and to ruin the reputation of this country throughout the world. How could anyone or any government ever trust us again? All they need to do is pull up pictures of our Afghani interpreters hanging by their necks under our abandoned helicopters.

          I read that our contract dogs have been abandoned to the Taliban as well. I can’t imagine leaving those loyal, innocent creatures behind.

          1. “It does look as if the Taliban are completely outsmarting our ‘intelligence’ services. “

            Young, I don’t think our intelligence services pay much attention to what they write, say and eventually do. It is all very clearly written out

    3. At this point it is not clear whether anyone was killed other than the civilians. What evidence is there that there was a suicide bomber at all?

  7. Turley’s whataboutism aside – there is really not another instance of an insurrection in the US Capitol building. We do not know what would have happened to Black Lives Matters protesters if they had overwhelmed police and made it to the last line of defense before members of Congress could be killed.

    My guess is that some BLM protesters would have been shot before they even entered the building. There is no way only one of them would have been shot under similar circumstances. The police treated the MAGA insurrectionists with kid gloves. This was an example of white privilege on display.

    1. Not sure if you listened to the testimony of 4 of the officers before the House Select Committee on 1/6, but they were under oath, and Officer Hodges, who works for the DC Metropolitan Police and arrived as backup explained “Once we got to the Capitol and we were fighting, I was wondering, how many more bombs are there? What’s the trigger? Is it going to be a cell phone? Is it on timer? How many guns are there in this crowd? If we start firing, is that the signal to them to set off the explosives, however many there are in the city? Is that the signal for them to break out their firearms and shoot back? So that’s the reason why I didn’t shoot anyone, and I imagine many others didn’t. Because like I said before, there were over 9,000 of the terrorists out there with an unknown number of firearms and a couple hundred of us, maybe. So we could not -, if that turned into a firefight, we would’ve lost, and this was a fight we couldn’t afford to lose.”

      I’m guessing that “more bombs” was a reference to the 2 IEDs that had been found next to the RNC and DNC buildings.

    2. My guess is that some BLM protesters would have been shot before they even entered the building

      Guesses are…well, guesses

      Analysis however, informed by history, would tell us BLM would never had met any resistance. Vandalism would have been extensive, Capital police would have folded faster than the Afghan army. No charges would have ever been contemplated and Democrats would have passed a resolution honoring the mostly peaceful protest.

      1. Your “analysis” is not informed by history. It’s disinformed by fake news. If a “BLM protest” had been storming the Capitol there would’ve been thousands of cops with riot gear and assault rifles manning the stairs.

    3. Hahaha. Get off that bong! BLM burned down city blocks and the cuckholded cops did nothing. The BLM communists would have been welcomed home by the Capitol Police because they were home.

      1. That never happened. No city blocks were “burned down” and BLM protesters were met with police brutality all year.

    4. The same treatment given to Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter, Antifa, Occupy, and inauguration day insurrectionists in transnational demonstrations over more than 16 trimesters in progress. Including Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter invading a private neighborhood to intimidate families and residents. Neither White nor Black nor Brown nor Jew privilege.

    5. Amazing seeing the fantasy narratives created to describe white privilege. You’d think something so prevalent wouldn’t need lies and deceit to prove.

      But of course the real truth is that the demand for racism (at least by whites in the US) far far outstrips the supply of it. So, the fantasy narratives will continue.

      Nice job turning a white chick getting shot by a black cop into a white privilege fantasy, btw.

    6. Last summer a mob of BLM and ANTIFA approached the gates of the White House. They stopped when the secret service pulled out their guns.

      1. If by “mob” you mean a peaceful protest that Bunker Baby Trump panicked over because they were black people, yes.

        1. Hi Shinobi, I recommend performing a DuckDuckGo search for “fiery but mostly peaceful cnn” and let us all know how many buildings are ablaze in-frame. Hope this helps.

  8. Reading Turley’s account of the situation, you would think Ashli was alone, broke through the window with her bare hands, there had not been actual bombs planted as part of the insurrection, hundreds of police officers were not injured in the riots and several died as a result, and members of Congress were not just a few feet away from the terrorist Babbitt and seeking shelter from the masses.

    Indeed, to hear Turley’s account, you would understand that there were not several of the other terrorists who had broken into Pelosi’s office and her staff hid in a back room under a table fearing for their lives. To go by Turley’s view, the police were not outnumbered by the terrorists that day.

    In Turley’s mind, this was a single unarmed protester entering an empty building who clearly had nothing in her backpack that could blow up the Congresspeople nearby.

    And yes, terrorist is an appropriate term and insurrectionist is a euphemism designed to minimize the crime.

  9. Turley Depends On Lack Of Visuals

    To make the cynical case that Lt. Byrd essentially committed ‘murder’, Professor Turley trusts you haven’t seen this 40 minute film.

    Below The New York Times explains how they went about the monumental task of editing over 3,000 clips of video tape from the January 6th insurrection. The resulting film is deeply disturbing to anyone who has ever worked in law enforcement; scene after scene of cops being brutally assaulted by Trump supporters.

    Blue Lives mean NOTHING to these hateful tubs of lard. One need only watch 10 minutes to ascertain that Ashli Babbit wantonly took advantage of the chaos, betting that no cop would have the guts to shoot her. ..How wrong she was..!!

    On Jan 6., as rioters were attacking the U.S. Capitol, Times journalists on the Visual Investigations team were downloading as many recordings of the violence as they could find.

    Over the next six months, the team, which combines traditional reporting techniques with forensic visual analysis, gathered over 3,000 videos, equaling hundreds of hours. The journalists analyzed, verified and pinpointed the location of each one, then distilled the footage into a 40-minute documentary that captured the fury and destruction moment by moment. The video, the longest the team has ever produced, provides a comprehensive picture of “a violent assault encouraged by the president on a seat of democracy that he vowed to protect,” as a reporter says in the piece.

    The visual investigation, “Day of Rage,” which was published digitally on June 30 and which is part of a print special section in Sunday’s paper, comes as conservative lawmakers continue to minimize or deny the violence, even going as far as recasting the riot as a “normal tourist visit.” The video, in contrast, shows up-close a mob breaking through windows, the gruesome deaths of two women and a police officer crushed between doors.

    “In providing the definitive account of what happened that day, the piece serves to combat efforts to downplay it or to rewrite that history,” said Malachy Browne, a senior producer on the Visual Investigations team who worked on the documentary.

    Edited from: “Clip By Clip, Showing Democracy Under Siege”

    The New York Times, 8/14/21



    You have been repeating the propaganda that Ivermectin is for animals and that humans shouldn’t take it.

    First, it was designed and used–and is still used–as a medicine for humans. Veterinary uses came later.

    Second, have a look at these charts of Covid and Ivermectin in Africa and you can see why Japan and others are starting to use it.


    1. Our FDA is the world-leader in vetting drugs and devices. They make clear that Ivermectin is not effective for COVID and can be toxic–in fact, they issued a warning that people stop trying to use this to prevent or treat COVID.. There is a rash of accidental poisonings over people using Ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated.

      1. FDA/NIH/HHS/CDC, among other orgs like that are Liars & Evil!

        Japan’s heath ministry & many other nations have or are moving to Ivermectin as they know it’s been shown to Safe, Effective, with a High Efficacy Rate.

        But hey, you people just talk to your docs & can just keep on taking their/your Death Jabs every 5 months.

        1. No they aren’t Japan’s health ministry has specifically rejected Ivermectin, because its efficacy rate as a COVID-19 treatment is zero.

      2. The FDA has delayed the use of many drugs for years that have been used in other western nations. That caused many deaths that you don’t know about. The FDA also authorized many drugs that weren’t necessary that have likewise caused death. I would greatly question your faith.

    2. None of that is true. In particular the claim of Japan using Ivermectin is a bald-faced lie.

      1. “Fri Aug 27, 2021 – 2:48 pm EDT
        TOKYO (LifeSiteNews) – The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, held a press conference this week announcing that the anti-parasite medicine Ivermectin seems to be effective at stopping COVID-19 and publicly recommending that all doctors in Japan immediately begin using Ivermectin to treat COVID.”

        1. Whatever you do, don’t ask Shinobi to perform a DuckDuckGo search for “ivermectin india” – it might ruin his weekend.

          1. I’m well aware of the false claims that Ivermectin has been successful in Uttar Pradesh.

        2. I assume you’re unaware that the Tokyo Medical Association is not a government agency. It’s a private company that gave itself a grandiose, official-sounding name. The Tokyo Medical Association chairman’s recommendation is meaningless.

          1. Shin, the drug is being studied, and there are various reports on its efficacy. Such a drug does not replace other medical interventions of all types. The drug is one of the safer drugs. Off-label use of drugs is common in the US with appropriate consent. This happens all the time, but this drug is being withheld from use because of politics. That is not how medical care is supposed to be provided. The government fast-tracked many pharmaceuticals. Contrary to legitimate science, the government is forcing people to take a vaccine that has yet to be approved, though its sister drug is. (recently, there was another approval). There are many questions regarding the safety of the new vaccines and their efficacy. Seniors and people with illnesses should avail themselves of the vaccines, but should a healthy 30-year-old female be forced to take the vaccine? Absolutely not.

            Take note of how much money is pouring into Big Pharma. Take note that Merck & Co.’s patent on ivermectin has expired. Inexpensive generic ivermectin is available all over the world.

            I would think about this situation a lot more. I am not anti-vax or anything like that since I have had the vaccine twice and the booster once, but I based my decision on what I thought was best for me. You should have the same right.

            1. The COVID-19 vaccines have in fact been approved. Your denial of this fact is absurd.

              The reason there’s so much opposition to using Ivermectin as a COVID treatment is that the evidence shows it doesn’t work.

              1. Shin, I was very clear on recent approvals and elsewhere with someone who you seem to mimic or be. Comirnaty is approved, but it is the BioNTech version that is being given at present. BioNTech has remained under the Emergency Use provision of the law.

                Play nice whoever you are. Don’t adopt the wrong actions of others on this blog, for that only results in worthless disputes and discussions.

                “The reason there’s so much opposition to using Ivermectin as a COVID treatment is that the evidence shows it doesn’t work.”

                If Ivermectin were proven not to work, there wouldn’t be so many studies on the drug worldwide. It wouldn’t be logical.

                It may or may not work, and there are specific scientific reasons that some feel it could work. There is no rationale that Ivermectin should not be permitted off-label use. That is done by physicians all the time with other drugs. Let the patient and the doctor decide. It is a lot less dangerous than other drugs used off-label.

  11. 😅 Above all else, Turley is going to protect his job, and the last thing he will risk is being blackballed. So, he refuses to simply call what Michael Byrd did to Ashli Babbitt, what it was, murder. If he did, he could have shortened his article to one sentence, correct? Notice Turley’s earnest expression in his website photograph. He’s a serious guy, right?!! 🤣

  12. JT, how much police “use-of-force” doctrine and legal case-history do we even have that applies specifically to a case like Jan 6th, where a rebellious mob has invaded the seat of government, and the police are grossly outnumbered while attempting to secure the safe passage of MoCs?

    Do know for a fact that Byrd intended to kill Babbitt? Any of us in his place, and saddled with his duty, would have had the overriding motive to deter the mob from pushing through the door / window. His job was to hold that line, and he did his job.

    Those still hoping to get away with governing by mob action — do you need another dose of strong medicine? Be thankful for the amount of restraint showed by the other cops that day.

    1. Byrd executed an unarmed woman in a prone position and was acquitted under a novel apology for self-defense. This sets precedent for future self-defense cases,including property crimes, including: Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter invading neighborhoods to intimidate families and residents, and Antifa mobbing people in cars and on crosswalks, etc. Pelosi et al are responsible for denying executive aid to carry out civil crowd control and capitol police forcing a progression through inducements (e.g. murder of an unarmed woman) to riot.

    2. Hi PBS Incan. It sure sounds like you’re for indiscriminate shooting of unarmed civilians who, by statute, pose no immediate threat of harm or death. Did we misunderstand you? I sure hope police never come knocking on your door. Hope this helps.

  13. OT

    The article below reveals yet another communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) wack-job academic and public employee bound and determined to reveal that republican and conservative politics and politicians lead to environmental catastrophes and dystopia even if he has to light the fires and cause the environmental catastrophe himself.

    Actual Americans must now take the bull by the horns, neutralize the anti-American, anti-constitutional, and treasonous communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs), and re-implement the restricted-vote, constitutional American republic, under severely limited government, of the Founders.


    August 11, 2021 / 7:46 AM / CBS News

    A man who taught criminal justice at Sonoma State University is accused of setting fires around the massive Dixie Fire and in Shasta County, California. CBS Sacramento reports Gary Maynard, 47, was arrested on Saturday and is charged with setting fire to public land.

    He is accused of setting the Ranch Fire in Lassen County, as well.

    The Dixie Fire has grown roughly 5000 acres since Monday night, and has burned more than 490,000 acres. It is 27 percent contained.

    A federal criminal complaint shows that U.S. Forest Agents started investigating Maynard on July 20, the same day as the Cascade Fire. Investigators eventually placed a tracking device on his car after a witness at the fire claims they saw Maynard come from the area where the fire sparked.

    “Witness 1 believed the man was mentally unstable, describing the man as, ‘mumbling a lot and having bipolar-like behavior,'” the court documents detailed.

    During the investigation into the Cascade Fire, authorities found evidence of additional fires.

    “The two small ground fires were each determined to be acts of arson and, indeed, classified as two additional arson fires,” wrote one investigator.
    Gary Maynard Sonoma State University

    Tracking equipment showed Maynard in the area where the Ranch Fire was ignited. Tire tracks also matched his car.

    Investigators claim Maynard set the fire but are unaware of what he used to start it.

    According to court records, Maynard was living out of his car and traveling alone across a large section of Northern California. Investigators claim at one point, Maynard worked at Santa Clara University. Sonoma State confirms he also taught at their university during the Fall of 2020 as a part-time lecturer in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Maynard was contracted as a fill-in for faculty members on leave.

    1. RZ: “finger on trigger, pointing forward.”
      Who trained this idiot? Another affirmative action hire? Even actors know better than to do this these days.

      Probably the entire department needs intensive retraining.

      1. Young,

        I seen some pictures of the Taliban last night in our brand new US uniforms , our brand new M4 & even they have been trained in trigger control.

        Welcome to Clown World.

        Next I guess Biden/Pelosi/McConnell etc., will be using all those damn Taliban Fighters they recently flew in for things like Capital Police & FBI…….

        1. Oky1– Darn good point. Even the Taliban savages have been trained in trigger control.

          Remember when an FBI agent at a dance did a back flip and his Glock went off when it flew out of his holster and hit the floor? I think someone was wounded.

          I was bothered by the Glock going off that way. They are supposed to have an internal safety that would prevent that.

          But the idea of one of our ‘highly trained and armed’ agents doing a back flip and having his gun fly loose wasn’t that surprising, unfortunately. They should be armed with squirt guns for the safety of the public. Byrd shouldn’t even be trusted with that.


    1. Some officers certainly (e.g. Whitmer-closet), but we should be wary of exercising liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), and pursuing social justice in lieu of justice and civil rights. There is no need to follow the left’s precedents for witch hunts, warlock trials, and politics of cancellation.

  15. Anyone who has been in law enforcement for any length of time should be able to immediately recognize that what occurred in the Ashley Babbitt shooting was not right.
    Not right with the law and certainly not right with departmental regulations.

    Have you been in law enforcement for more than 25 years.. in command positions….and part of special response teams… The video taken of the actual shooting demonstrated a complete breakdown and disregard of the law and police procedure by Lt. Byrd

    I thought there was no way that Lieutenant Byrd was not going to face disciplinary charges and criminal charges. But low and behold! The whitewash ensued and Byrd walks free after, IMO, murdering a young woman. He is a disgrace to Law Enforcement and should be stripped of his office and certainly his weapon. As long as this idiot is armed he is a danger to the public.

    Thank you Professor Turley for your enlightening examination of this tragic event.

Comments are closed.