Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University, raised questions about the Ashli Babbitt shooting and asked some of the same questions My point of view After I saw Lt. Michael Bird’s interview with NBC’s Leicester Holt on Thursday.
The media largely ignored questions about whether the shootings were justified because they run counter to Babbitt’s political beliefs. However, no matter who is shot-whether it is a Trump supporter or a BLM person, the same standard should be used to measure whether an officer is justified when shooting.
By the way, I don’t even remember that a BLM/Antifa man was shot by the police in response to all the terrible violence they did in the past year. As Terry pointed out, During the Capitol riots, none of the other police officers present fired at any other mob, although in other cases some people were actually attacked by the mob.
The question should be: Does this person pose a threat of the use of lethal force? During a riot, you cannot shoot someone because of an unarmed intruder. In Babbitt’s case, as far as we know, she was unarmed, did not attack anyone, and stood outside the door with many other police officers. She did not attack or hurt them. When she was shot, she was climbing the window and did not threaten Bird or others.
Terry pointed out that the review by the Department of Justice did not say that Byrd was clearly justified. On the contrary, it is saying that there is no “bad purpose” behind his actions.
For a long time, I have been skeptical about the Babbitt shooting, which directly violates the standards of law enforcement agencies for the use of lethal force. However, what is shocking about Bird’s interview is that he confirmed the most serious suspicion of the shooting and raised serious questions about the review of the incident by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the recent Congressional Police. [….]
At the time, some of us who were familiar with the police’s rules on the use of force expressed concern about the shooting. These concerns were exacerbated by strange reviews and reports by the Department of Justice, which stated management standards, but then seemed to put them aside to clear Bird.
The Department of Justice report does not read like any post-shooting comments I have read as a criminal defense lawyer or law professor. The statement of the Ministry of Justice apparently did not say that the shooting was justified. Instead, it emphasized that “not only must the prosecutor prove that the official’s use of force is constitutionally unreasonable, but that the official’s use of force was “intentional”.” It seemed to just shrug, saying that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “ignoring the law.” Evidence that officials acted out of fear, error, panic, misunderstanding, negligence, and even poor judgment cannot establish a high degree of intention.”
Translation: Even fear and poor judgment are too bad; they won’t chase him.
After an internal review showed that no one would charge him, Bird talked to Holt.
In an exclusive interview @LesterHoltNBC, Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Bird described why he chose to identify himself. Bird shared his description of the riots on January 6, when the police blocked the door and he fired a shot that killed Ashley Babbitt. pic.twitter.com/5E7KPtxNc2
-NBC Evening News and Lester Holt (@NBCNightlyNews) August 26, 2021
Terry continued:
Bird described how he was “trapped” by other police officers because “the whistle was getting louder” and “there seemed to be hundreds of people outside the door.” He said he yelled all the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as possible. I hope and pray that no one tries to enter through these doors. But they did not comply with the request that I take appropriate action to save the MPs, myself and myself. The lives of my colleagues.”
Bird could also hit the police officer behind Babbitt, who was hit while trying to squeeze through the window.
Among all Bird’s lines, this one stands out: “I can’t fully see her hand or the contents or intentions in her backpack.” Therefore, Bird admits that he didn’t watch except for Babbitt’s attempt to enter through the window. To weapons or direct threats from Babbitt. Nevertheless, Bird boasted: “I know that I saved countless lives that day.” He ignored that Babbitt was a person killed in the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes, and one-third died of an amphetamine overdose; one policeman died of natural causes the next day, and four policemen committed suicide thereafter.) No other police facing similar threats shot anyone anywhere else. people. The Capitol, even those who were attacked by mobs armed with sticks or other objects.
also, As I reported earlier, Byrd admitted that he didn’t know whether she was armed, and that being unarmed would not change his behavior. This is a very amazing comment. Therefore, he did not even argue that he shot her because he thought she was armed, or could have been armed. In addition, as I said before, there are tactical personnel behind Babbitt who just came upstairs, and they are likely to replace the congressional police standing in front of the door.
So no, Bird doesn’t even have to shoot her, because the police officers will be there to defend the floor within a second. He didn’t really “save lives” because she didn’t seem to threaten anyone, but he did take one away. As a 28-year-old police officer, he learned how to stop a short, unarmed female intruder-is there any other way besides shooting her?
This interview did not bring him any benefit, even if he believed that he had not been prosecuted in any way.
This is also an officer with a bit of history: he left his service gun in the bathroom of the Capitol Visitor Center. Later, it was discovered during a security check at night because Politico Report.
Byrd said at the time that by virtue of the rank of lieutenant and the role of commander of the Chamber of Deputies, he told his colleagues that he wanted to “be treated differently” in terms of consequences. In the days after his weapon was discovered, Bird did continue to work.
Terry made another very important point, not only for this matter, but as a general point of view for the future.
If the Department of Justice and Congressional Police say that he was justified in shooting an unarmed intruder, do they say that all other unarmed intruders present can also be shot, even if they do not pose a physical threat to the police officer? This is a logical extension of the conclusion-which is very disturbing.
