It Seems to Me: The Ashli Babbitt killing cover-up

This piece is the opinion of the author.

By Joe LaFiandra

We are in the midst of a massive government sponsored cover-up over the killing of Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt. As most of you know, she was shot and killed by a Capital Police lieutenant (identified as Michael Byrd) as she tried to pass through a broken window into the House Chambers on January 6, 2021. 

As of this date the government has not released any video or audio of the incident, even though the halls of Congress are saturated with cameras. 

She who was 5’2,” 125 lbs,. and unarmed, did not pose any immediate threat to the lieutenant or anybody else. Amateur video shows that the Capital Police officer gave no warning before he shot her. He was the same officer that had previously left his loaded hand gun without a safety on it, in a congressional bathroom. 

Documents show that the cover-up started immediately when the Government took possession of her body and cremated it two days later without approval from her family. 

Two investigations were done – the first by the Department of Justice and the second by the Capital Police. Both concluded that there was no evidence that the officer acted inappropriately.

The Department of Justice investigation concluded that “Based on that investigation, officials determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution”. 

For us to understand how the DOJ came to this conclusion we need to “get into the weeds” of the statement of why the investigation was closed. I am reproducing it below so you can draw your own conclusions. See my underlines;

“The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. 

“In order to establish a violation of this statute, prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer acted willfully to deprive Ms. Babbitt of a right protected by the Constitution or other law, here the Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure.  

“Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law.  

“As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.

“The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.  Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.”

Using the DOJ’s logic, a Capital Police officer can shoot you because of a mistake, panic, negligence or poor judgement because it doesn’t prove intent according to some unknown Supreme Court ruling. 

The video clearly shows the officer with gun drawn waiting for Ms. Babbitt to go through the window and then pulling the trigger. If that isn’t “willful” intent, I’m dreaming. 

The cover-up continued with the conclusion of a separate internal investigation on Aug. 23, 2021 by the Capital Police that said:

“USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says 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.”

Notice that a different standard that applies to the use of deadly force, “out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment” doesn’t apply. The report then uses the following justification in direct contradiction to the above stated Department Policy:

“The actions of the officer in this case potentially saved Members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and to the House Chamber where Members and staff were steps away. 

“USCP Officers had barricaded the Speaker’s Lobby with furniture before a rioter shattered the glass door. If the doors were breached, the rioters would have immediate access to the House Chambers. The officer’s actions were consistent with the officer’s training and USCP policies and procedures.”

The contradiction is obvious, the officer or anybody else in the area was not in immediate danger of their life or serious physical injury from Ashli Babbitt. His action was by definition, unjustified, since he was not defending human life. She was unarmed and physically didn’t pose a threat to anybody.  

Both of these investigations were flawed and are a cover-up attempt to justify a killing for essentially trespassing on government property.