Column: Ashli Babbitt was not a peaceful protester. It's clear why the cop who shot her was exonerated
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Column: Ashli Babbitt was not a peaceful protester. It's clear why the cop who shot her was exonerated
Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot by a police officer in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. (Maryland MVA/Courtesy of the Calvert County Sheriff's Office via AP)
On the day the police officer who shot her was exonerated, I went back and watched the terrifying footage of Ashli Babbitt’s death during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
It had been months since I’d seen it, and I had forgotten how frightening it was, the kind of scene we see all the time in the movies — transformed suddenly into a shocking, violent reality.
In the seven months since she was killed, Babbitt has become a martyr to the far right. In the twisted revisionist narrative being pushed by former President Trump and his supporters, she was a peaceful demonstrator — an “innocent, wonderful, incredible woman” — who was unjustifiably murdered by the police even though she posed no danger.
But that’s not what the video shows . Her death was a tragedy, to be sure — but it was hardly an unjustified murder.
The crowd is surging. It’s at the doors. “F— the blue!” can be heard. People are bashing at the glass panels on the doors with sticks and flagpoles. Several police officers are doing their best to hold back an entire crowd, but it seems like a losing battle. “Break it down,” yells the crowd.
Members of Congress can be seen on the other side of the door. Also on the other side of the door is a police lieutenant holding a gun, pointing it at the mob, an unmistakable warning to stay back.
But Babbit decides instead — although it’s a little hard to see on the video — to climb through the shattered glass window into the Speaker’s Lobby, past the police barricade, toward the pointed gun. If she is allowed through, it seems inevitable that the mob will follow.
As she climbs through, a single shot is fired and she drops to the floor.
On Monday, the U.S. Capitol Police declared the shooting lawful , and said it would not pursue disciplinary charges against the lieutenant who killed Babbitt. That follows April’s decision by the Department of Justice not to bring criminal charges against the officer. Neither agency named the lieutenant, for his own safety.
“An officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury,” wrote the Capitol Police’s Office of Professional Responsibility.
“The actions of the officer in this case potentially saved members [of Congress] and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters.”
I’m not a forensics expert, nor am I a cop. I haven’t interviewed the witnesses or seen any more evidence than what I’ve described. But my normal human reaction to the video tells me that the Capitol Police and the Justice Department are absolutely right.
I watched it repeatedly. Babbitt crossed a line that had been clearly delineated. The police obviously felt it was a last stand. The potential danger was obvious. Babbitt’s shooting appears to have stopped the forward movement of the crowd. All this happened on a day when the vice president’s life had been threatened, and when police were being savagely beaten elsewhere in the building.
Could the mob possibly have been stopped without Babbitt’s death? Maybe. Perhaps there was a way to have avoided deadly force. But it’s not clear to me what that way would have been — and it is clear that if Babbitt had gone through that doorway, an out-of-control situation would have deteriorated further.
From the moment the trigger was pulled by the anonymous police officer it was inevitable that Babbitt would become a martyr to the right. She was a 35-year-old Air Force veteran from San Diego, a vehement supporter of the former president and an adherent of the conspiracy theories of Q-Anon.
No one should be surprised by the signs at rallies that call her a “protester murdered by the Capitol Police.” Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) described the shooting as “an execution.”
But it is the involvement of Trump himself that really threatens to turn the narrative on its head. Trump has asked why the Capitol Police officer is “getting away with murder.” He asked repeatedly: “Who Shot Ashli Babbitt?” This month, escalating his rhetoric, he said, more chillingly : “We know who he is.”
On Fox News with Trump, host Maria Bartiromo described Babbitt as a woman who went to a “peaceful protest.” And Trump put it in the context of us versus them. “If this happened to the ‘other side,’” he said in a statement, “there would be riots all over America… The Radical Left haters cannot be allowed to get away with this. There must be justice.”
"There was no reason for it," Trump said of her shooting.
But there was a reason.
Americans need to remember that, and not be fooled. In these days when the truth has been devalued, when everything can be spun, where facts are malleable and can be dismantled and reassembled to tell an entirely different story — remember at least the clearcut images on the video.
These weren’t peaceful demonstrators. These weren’t protesters exercising their constitutionally protected right to calmly express differences of opinion with their elected representatives.
They were bashing down the doors.
This was a riot, Ashli Babbitt was at its vanguard and, based on what I’ve seen, the police officer who shot her was doing his job.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
172 visitors
"She had it coming. She had it coming. She only had herself to blame. If you'd a been there. If you'd a seen it. I tell ya you would have done the same"...
According to the video she was not an immediate threat, and unarmed.
Her killer should be outed
So, hundreds of people breaking into the Capitol building, chanting to hang Pelosi and Pence, AND attempting to physically break into the room they suspected the lawmakers to be hiding in, is not an immediate threat to the people on the other side of the door they were trying to break through?
As for unarmed, THAT claim has been debunked so many times I am not going to even include a link for yet another debunking of it.
What was she armed with? I did miss it. Thanks in advance.
Wait, let me look....... Nope, nowhere did I say that she, specifically, was armed. So what the fuck are you talking about???
Ummmm here............
"As for unarmed, THAT claim has been debunked so many times I am not going to even include a link for yet another debunking of it."
in answer to this...............
"According to the video she was not an immediate threat, and unarmed."
So what the fuck are YOU talking about?
Some just don't get that armed does not always involve a firearm. It is any object that can be used as a weapon to maim and possibly kill.
Okay so what was it she was armed with? And I'm not one of your "some" that don't get that.
Or that when you are part of an "armed" group of people, it doesn't matter if you have shown that you specifically are armed. Everyone in the "armed" group is treated the same.
Which could literally be almost anything. ( A line from John Wick concerning a pencil comes to mind)
The whole describing things other than firearms as 'arms' came from the left in order to further the insurrection and coup angle. For Pelosi's purposes, the depressingly few actual firearms known to be in the possession of the rioters played little to no significant part on the 6th, which didn't help the coup or insurrection narrative her 'investigation' is trying to impose on events. So, since the 'insurrectionists' and perpetrators of the 'coup' were so unhelpful as to not attempt those things with actual arms normally used in those endeavors she broadened 'arms' to it's widest possible meaning and continued with the narrative her 'investigation' wishes to impose.
I dunno...if someone's coming at me with a flag pole and I have a gun...you tell me who's going to lose that argument
If they didnt have guns does that mean they were "tourists"?
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what "stop the steal" meant to the Trump supporters inside the Capitol that day.
Grab a beer, John. Better make that a case. You may be waiting a while
That may be the funniest definition of "armed" I have ever heard, please site the case where this premise is used. Where does the "arming" stop 1' 2' 3' 20yrd 100yrds, were the people standing outside the capital armed because they were part of a so called group.
What are you going to do if someone is 2 feet from you with a clubbing weapon and you have a gun?
Shoot....but that wasn't the case.
Wow talk about denying the facts....
bye!
Did she have a clubbing weapon???
People around her did
[Deleted] Maybe you can site that legal precedent. So let's expand on your logic, everyone in that hallway should have been killed since a few people had flag poles, is that what you're saying. .
impasse
[Deleted]
Not intending to demean your comment but I'm not sure how it relates to mine. Mine doesn't address who is likely to come out the victor between unevenly armed individuals. One of the arguments put forth against the 6th being a coup or insurrection effort is that nobody attempts those things without being armed, as in armed with guns. In order to overcome that objection they turned to saying they were armed, just with other things. That some were armed with various things that could be used as weapons is undeniable, however, it is again silly to think someone is going to plan a coup or insurrection based on the notion that a relatively few people armed with flag poles, baseball bats and whatever else is going to prevail over armed police officers. Yet this is all Pelosi and her "investigation" had to work with so she went with it anyway. This was my point.
Further, if such weapons are justification for the shooting of Babbitt, whether she personally was armed or not, as some here seem to be claiming, then it must extend to all such situations everywhere. That means, police at any other riot must be considered to be justified if they shoot someone in a violent riot for the same reasons, whether the person was armed or not.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the intent of your comment, though. If so, I'd like to understand what you meant.
Do you ever make an effort to understand what people actually say? Seriously, if I commented on the proper way to make a ham and swiss sandwich you would work in something about it being in support of the 'Turd Reich.' You don't actually read what people say. You just look for keywords and, based on your assumptions about the person who wrote the comment, respond to those key words regardless of context. And, stupid me, I'm uselessly trying to explain this to you.
Sorry, this is an effort to shift the playing field. That is, it in no way addresses my comment.
[Deleted]
According to your politically biased interpretation of the video she was not an immediate threat, and unarmed.
(There...fixed it for ya!
)
And here he is:
Oh you must be so proud. lol.
The guy is going to be interviewed on national television in a couple days, so the big "out" falls flat.
Is that self loathing Mr. Russell (I didn't forget to use both "LL" if you notice.)
I wonder if they'll also expose his previous firearms discretions as well, like leaving a fully loaded firearm in a restroom. The man is a disaster and should not be on the force of any law enforcement agency.
Who are you to say she was not an immediate threat? Were you there? She, and those around her were repeatedly ordered to desist, and they kept at it. She got shot.
The OFFICER, not killer, unless you are ANTIFA, was completely justified in my eyes.
Show me where officers acted inappropriately.
Why we have to go through this ten times is beyond me.
The Speakers Lobby and some adjacent rooms on one side of the hall are directly connected to the floor of the House of Representatives . If Babbitt and her mob had made it through the door where she was shot they would have been inside the House chamber within seconds (unless security guards inside the House Chamber shot them first. )
This was not a "tourism" thing. The door she climbed through had been locked and barricaded (in a makeshift way) . It was totally "off limits" .
The guard showed his gun to the mob before he shot, for 7 SECONDS. So much so that one of the mob members yelled "he's got a gun" many seconds before Babbitt was shot. She would have to have been deaf not to hear the guy.
Its over . Its sad but the cop did nothing wrong other than that maybe he meant to wound her but not kill her and the bullet went in a bad spot.
Martyr envy.
It's said, "A dead martyr's worth ten posturing leaders."
It's also said that inertia dampeners work just fine.
If we only had some.
Tell me what Ashli Babbitt told the officer at the :49 mark, then we can talk about who's deaf.
i dont even know what I'm supposed to be looking at
Well for starters you aren't "looking" for anything, its what she "told" the officer.
"you're going to order a lot more thin mints this year"
I was a little more sympathetic to this woman before I saw the video she made of herself driving around ranting about conspiracies like a meth head. The human species is better off that this thing doesn’t reproduce. She killed herself, thankfully.
[deleted]
When will you and yours stop posting false equivalencies?
I’m bummed that I missed your (probably incoherent) rant before it was removed. Speaking of incoherent rants … (good riddance Ashley)
She was probably one step away from strapping on a suicide vest and waltzing into a Starbucks.
It irks me to no end that the same people that are here defending this woman will be the first ones to say a rape victim has to take some responsibility for her rape (what she was wearing, where she was, if she was drinking, if she was walking alone, if she has a vagina)... BUT this paragon of virtue in the middle of a riot deserved to be treated with kid gloves when she was in the midst of an armed mob.
It's amusing that the same people defending the officer for shooting an unarmed woman will justify rioting and demand murder charges when an officer shoots a 300 pound man who'd already tried to take his gun once and was coming back for more when the officer opened fire, or when a cop returns fire in an apartment when someone opens fires on the police. Those cops apparently had no reason to fear for their lives, but this unarmed woman is a menace.
Halfway through the Police Academy here, there is a lot of discretion.
Fuck her and I would have shot her sooner. She had violated multiple laws and the final orders to stand down.