Prof Turley explains the fatal flaw in the exoneration of Ashli Babbitt’s killer

The Capitol Hill Police lieutenant who killed Ashli Babbitt has been hiding and nameless since the onset of the investigation into the death. We heard the DoJ cleared him and the Capitol Hill Police exonerated him. There were leaks such as he was afraid, saw she had a backpack, told her to stop, and so on, but all the proceedings were kept secret from the public.

What were they hiding?

We finally got his name officially when he agreed to a soft interview with Lester Holt. Lt. Michael Byrd sounded rehearsed.

It took prominent constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley to succinctly describe the terminal flaw in the thinking that led to his exoneration.

Here’s a snapshot of the interview:

The fatal flaw in the exoneration logic as explained by Professor Turley:

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 …It’s now okay to kill an unarmed female Trump supporter.

“…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. Under Byrd’s interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6.

“…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…”

[It’s absurd that this man was exonerated. You can’t use deadly force without cause.]

PowerInbox