Michael Byrd
In a photo taken Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd helps to direct the evacuation as the House chamber comes under attack by a violent mob during the congressional certification of the presidential election, at the Capitol in Washington. Minutes later, Lt. Byrd fatally shot a Trump protester, Ashli Babbitt, as she and other rioters were breaking into the Speaker's Lobby where members of Congress were retreating. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Previous Post
Next Post

We may understand [Capitol Hill Police Lieutenant Michael] Byrd’s fears and not know exactly what was in his mind at the moment he fired. But if police had applied to the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots the same standard that was applied to Byrd’s shooting of Babbitt, then hundreds—if not thousands—of rioters around the country, including those who broke into government buildings, could have been legally gunned down, even if they were unarmed. Does anyone think that such shootings would have been justified by those who now laud Byrd, or that the cops involved would not have been dismissed and put on trial?

The point here isn’t so much the hypocrisy of those applauding Babbitt’s death. It’s that, by deeming the shooting justified despite the facts of the case and the law, the federal government sets a standard that appears to rest on the victim’s politics and race rather than an objective judgment about a legal question. Treating rioters, even those who break the law, as undeserving of civil rights and legal protection is unsupportable no matter their cause. Such treatment is a greater threat to democracy and communal peace than even the actions of the Capitol rioters.

— Jonathin Tobin in The Ashli Babbitt Standard

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Shooting an unarmed protester should be meet with jail time. But the majority here love the police and they can do no wrong. Also like how they toss words around like insurrection that word does not mean what they think it means.

    • If he/she is just “protesting”. But if the protesters start looting, overturning cars, keeping others hostage(blocking a freeway or access to the hospital), they are then doing something that can and should get them shot.

      • “But if the protesters start looting, overturning cars…”

        Do I understand correctly that if the mob is turning over cars in a parking lot, police, armed security, armed private citizens observing the action are in imminent danger of deadly threat, and can start shooting? From any distance? A legally armed individual could jump out of a car, and justifiably start shooting into a mass of people? The people in the mob simply observing? The people closest to the overturned cars? The people actually in contact with the cars? The people who just turned over a car, and begin walking away?

        • So if that parking lot is a fire department and emergency vehicles can enter or leave or a hospital yeah skippy start shooting because the rrioters are endangering lives.

          Two in center mass and one in the head.

          The same goes for highways, airports or vital facilities..

        • So if that parking lot is a fire department and emergency vehicles can enter or leave or a hospital yeah skippy start shooting because the rrioters are endangering lives.

          Two in center mass and one in the head.

          The same goes for highways, airports or vital facilities..

    • While you are right that in general, we support the police, we don’t always support the police if the police officer is clearly in the wrong. I certainly did not support the police officer who killed George Floyd (though at the same time, I also don’t believe that George should be lifted to the status of Martin Luther King jr or Rosa Parks either). Just like with that incident, this officer was clearly in the wrong and should have at least been relieved of duty for not following police procedure (such as not firing on someone if you don’t know that they are armed, which he established that he did not know in his statement. He also did not use firearm safety during the riot by having his finger on the trigger even when not engaged with anybody [which they have on video], something that is a standard safety protocol not just for cops, but for all firearms operators in general.) Since there was a death involved with an unarmed person (whether or not they were committing a crime), this police officer should also have been indicted. But that is the point of this article. By setting this president, we now have the makings of legally purging people due to their beliefs, color of their skin, or political leanings. Because they have prosecuted white police for shooting a black person, even in cases where there was an obvious need for the police officer to engage. But if the perp is white or conservative, then it is ok for the police officer to shoot, even without any evidence of the person being armed. Where this is beyond concerning is that stuff like this is how we start heading towards an authoritarian dictatorship as once this becomes the norm, some people will accept it as normal and those that don’t are the ones being killed. The democrats have started us on that path. We need to remove the hypocritical democrats from office.

        • CWT, while I agree that he had issues, also hence the comment about not elevating George, Chauvin was on his neck probably longer then he should have been. But your right, it isn’t exactly an apples to apples comparison. So I’ll use the Walter Scott incident instead. Again, my point is that justice must be impartial or there is no justice.

        • cwtwit…You must be deaf, dumb and blind. Was Floyd so overcome by drugs he could not say he could not breath multiple times before he passed? Yes or No. Perhaps a pathetic pos like you needs to go submerge your head in a toilet to get a feeling for what it is not to breath.

        • George Floyd was caught committing a crime. (Passing counterfeit money).
          The store called the PD and arrested him. He fought with the cops and had enough meth and fentanyl in his system where if found dead the tox screen would have come back as an overdose of either one. He also had severe blockage of his coronary arteries.
          75%-90% blockage, enlarged heart and high blood pressure to be exact.

          After fighting with the police he was handcuffed and put into a Ford Explorer. He started hyperventilating and claimed he was having a panic attack.
          He was taken out of the Explorer and put on the ground. The LEOs on the scene noted that he was intoxicated on something and called for an ambulance.

          While it appears there was pressure applied to George Floyds neck, this did not happen. There was no trauma to his neck and no petechiae present to support any kind of choking. He had a heart attack brought on by severe heart disease, freaking out that he was going back to prison and lethal amounts of street drugs.

          To put this simply if George Floyd was around today he would be dead. He had severe heart disease and was a heavy drug user. Being that after his death Minneapolis sustained days of rioting and hundreds of millions of dollars of damage someone had to go down. That person was Derek Chauvin. George Floyd died of a heart attack brought on by lethal amounts of two drugs in his system but people like you want to believe that Derek Chauvin was kneeling on his neck which is not true.

          Derek Chauvin HAD to be found guilty to avoid another riot.

      • Police are where government collides with the public. They are the most tangible version of the maxim: “Government, like fire, is a good servant, but a bad master.”
        I.e. I like good cops not bad cops….. I like good fire not bad fire. Therefore, because I thoroughly and vociferously enjoy barbecue, does not mean I like forest fires. Simple enough?

      • I can’t understand people who support a career violent felon like Ffloyd. I don’t understand how they expect the police to restrain violent felons who resist when they are under the influence of drugs.

        Must be a large number of faculty lounge lizards out there.

    • Shooting an unarmed protestor should merit the death penalty. Those who wield the authority of the government must use that power with care. Such recklessness and lack of judgement must be punished in accordance with the same degree of the disregard of his responsibilities.

    • “But the majority here love the police and they can do no wrong.”

      Until they violate their Fourth Amendment rights with a no-knock raid, steal their money through Civil Forfeiture, tear their car apart based on a dog’s testimony, shoot them during a traffic stop ‘cuz they were scared’ and get off thanks to Qualified Immunity, or confiscate their guns when they’re red flagged.

      Or maybe they’ll just shrug it off as the work of “a few bad apples.”

    • There is no evidence this continuum was used if you look at the video. This was a setup plain and simple.

  2. I’m so happy to see people in the comments not falling for this partisan bull anymore. Republicans decry this and celebrate BLM or Antifa getting smoked. Democrats celebrate this and decry BLM or Antifa getting smoked. Republicans love all the police officers except this ones: Democrats hate all the police officers except this one.

    It’s all theater. We should hold to a consistent moral principles (for example, believing that rioters, regardless of what they believe, take their lives into their own hands when they choose mob violence) rather than partisan idiocy.

  3. Ms. Babbitt simply suffered from one underlying condition as it pertains to the event in question. She had the wrong skin color.

    • She was gunned down without accountability because she did not support leftists grabbing power. Any relationship that had to her skin color was purely incidental. As black conservatives beaten by ANTIFA without consequences for the attackers can tell you.

  4. My big issue is that this guy would have been strung right up at the capital had that been a BLM rioter being 93% peaceful, especially a black one. Lets be real here, Pelosi and Maxine Waters would have been leading the way. It’s not that he shot her, it’s the way that he was perceived in the law and that from what I understand about it the lack of transparency in the determination of the shooting as justified.

    Then again, if this had been a black man in an urban city there’s an above average chance it would be plastered on MSNBC and CNN until there were riots. We’ve seen cities burn for much cleaner shoots than this.

  5. We need Dacian and Possum to jump in on this and explain to us the double standard, and are they okay with us pulling down their statues. Can we pull down the Unauthorized Marsha P. Johnson monument in Christopher Park, and replace it with a giant Christopher Columbus?

    Maybe they can explain to us when a DGU is valid against a giant angry unarmed mob?

    • “Their statues ” ? Double standards?
      What because the reality is the Whitehouse, Capitol Building, is not “Ours” it’s the governments. If it was ours the government would be paying taxes to Us instead of the other way around. We the People dont own any real estate, not even your own home. You rent it from the government ,the contracts good as long as you pay taxes.
      It’s not my double standard its “theirs”. Law enforcement should have protected the streets just as they protected the Capitol. They should have no more rights then We do, but since “they” hold the power they’re more important then you or I, it ain’t right but it is what it is.

      • “We the People dont own any real estate, not even your own home. You rent it from the government ,the contracts good as long as you pay taxes.”

        Move to Florida.

        The first $75,000 of your burrow’s value is tax-free thanks to Florida’s ‘Homestead Exemption’…

    • If there’s a Possum in the same boat as (little d)acian, he’s a fake.

      As for me, I’ve got my eye on that big-ass statue of Lenin in Seattle. Would love to pull that thing down. (Not really…I have no plans to vandalize anything…but I’d laugh if someone actually did it. The outrage would be so ironically delicious.)

  6. Rules of engagement for all law enforcement is suppose to be a hierachy of force from non lethal to lethal as the situation arrises. If these officers were properly prepared and equipped they would have had non lethal or less than lethal equipment on hand. Pulling or pointing a firearm is a last resort not a first resort. We know this entire event was a setup by Democrats because they had inadequate security, FBI agents were in the crown agitating them, and apparently there is no record or video of any less than lethal items like pepper spray, tasers, etc being deployed. If you watch the video of the Ashli Babbit shooting she never made it through the window and could have been sprayed or tasered without shoot her. I know what I am talking about because I have 5 family members in law enforcement and I was a volunteer for 4 years for our local police department. This was a setup and this guy Byrd is a murderer who had been preped to say what he said.

  7. If this psycho was trying to break into MY house, I would have clapped her in the face. The law permits me to do so as soon as she crosses the curtilage of my property without my permission; regardless of skin color or whether or not she is armed.

    Clean shoot despite what the racists on here want to think.

    He was cleared of any wrongdoing. People who understand the law a lot better than the cast of Duck Dynasty that likes to comment on here examined the situation and came to that conclusion.

    • It has been interesting to see the mask come off some of the commenters here. They’re not even pretending, they’re just straight up saying “this was a bad shoot because she’s white and he wasn’t.” Pretty interesting!

      • Sean, can you provide a link to someone saying that? I have not seen anyone saying that.

        What I have seen pointed out is that the media and the left, including leftists in law enforcement and politics, treat police shooting or killings differently based on politics and skin color. That is true, and patently obvious to anyone paying attention.

      • He was an incompetent affirmative action quota baby who murdered a citizen who was posing no threat to anyone. That ok Mr triggered?

    • Except that this isn’t a private residence, that building belongs to US (the people of the United States). She was there for redress of a perceived wrong and maybe got carried away/duped into the building by the cops who opened the doors for her.

      Definitely NOT worthy of summary execution.

    • Actually, if you did that, most states do require that the other person must have been armed. This is from a law website: In general, property owners cannot use deadly force to protect property. But property owners may be able to shoot at trespassers in self-defense if they fear great bodily harm or death.

      The law gives property owners the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. That means any force used against a trespasser must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived.

      And an unarmed woman coming at a man would definitely not constitute a reasonably perceived threat. You would be held and tried for murder. And that’s even in a state that follows the castle doctrine. If you live in a state that requires you to retreat until you can’t retreat anymore (California for example), you can’t even stand your ground. So again, you have wrong information there.

      Furthermore, a police officer is supposed to have even more training along with less then lethal weapons, so this police officer was in the wrong.

    • “People who understand the law a lot better than the cast of Duck Dynasty that likes to comment on here examined the situation and came to that conclusion.”

      And you have complete faith in those “smart” people who have shown time and again that they care more about power and self-preservation than law and ethics? Have you been in a coma for the past five years? Has that report been released? Why did they protect the cop’s identity this time? There’s a reason for all things.

      • Yeah. I seem to recall the FBI clearing Clinton for something that any other government employee would have at minimum lost their security clearance and more likely cost them their job. The FBI even stated that just because they cleared Clinton didn’t mean that others could do this as well.

    • Oh and busybeef, before you cast aspersions about anybodies ability to discuss law on here, maybe you should look at your own inability to discuss law as a simple google search would have told you that your claim is bogus, such as my other comment I made towards you. Furthermore, based on your assertion, I’m sure I understand law better then you do as my father-in-law was a practicing attorney before he retired and I loved talking law with him. Also, I take that as a compliment that you called all of us duck dynasty. Certainly way better then other famous families (ex: Obama’s, Clinton’s, Cuomo, etc). So thank you kindly for that praise.

      • Mike. I’m a lawyer and I practiced constitutional law in Washington DC. I sued the Federal and State governments over 2A issues several times.

        What are your credentials beyond Google Fu; which we all know is such a valid source of credible information?

    • For me it’s not as much about whether the shoot was lawful. It’s about selective application of the law, the hallmark of a banana republic. And the standards were not different here because the cop was black and the person he shot was white. It’s different because the person who was shot opposed a leftist power grab. Any correlation that might have with skin color is incidental.

  8. Stupid people going where they shouldn’t. Nuff said. Don’t be deranged.Leftard or right. “Mostly peaceful” BlackLootersMurder,antifool or Yahoo’s making Trump look bad. Tough…

  9. TTAG, this is the first article I’ve read from you in a couple months. I used to be an avid reader. It is disgusting that the very first article has not one, but two comments by Jimbo Lang above stating that “it was worth her getting shot so we could get a view of her tits.”

    I hope to see these comments removed that made it through your first “moderation” process. You can guarantee there won’t be a second article viewed by me if crap like this is allowed to stand. Disgusting.

    • Dan does a reasonable job of scanning comments as he’s able. I imagine he already took down such words from a “Jimbo Lang”, as I’m not seeing anything on my screen from that username.

      • Yes I notice that too. I dont know about that either, seems kinda censorshipery to me. However theres been a few times my post were taken down, and I kinda appreciated that. What bugs me is how does ttag know when I’m drunk and talking sht? I tell yah these computer blogs really have some scary spyware.

        • “I tell yah these computer blogs really have some scary spyware.”

          I control 91% of the screen names (this week), and it isn’t always possible to determine I have been circumlocutionated.

      • An actual patriot that refuses to say what he’s done to be a patriot. Smells like a bloomberg troll to me.

      • They got removed yeah, pretty quickly too which is commendable. I usually don’t ever bother to call anything out or even comment for that matter. But after a horrible workday on the mill and the ambulance, those comments really set me off.

    • Both comments have been taken down now, thank you. I’ve seen the various trolls come and go on here and the regulars, as ridiculous as some of their viewpoints are, don’t need to be removed. I disagree with them, absolutely, but opposing viewpoints are necessary for any rational discussion.

      The two comments that I called out were plain disrespectful and disgusting. Good riddance to the poster.

  10. A single, unarmed rioter, especially one physically inferior to the target of their anger, does not justify defense with deadly force. Replace the single rioter with a mob and the equation gets reversed. The mob, even if every member is unarmed, does constitute a deadly threat to the life and health of its target so that defense with deadly force is justified. One on one is a fist fight. Two or more on one is murder.

    • “The mob, even if every member is unarmed, does constitute a deadly threat to the life and health of its target so that defense with deadly force is justified.”

      This applies at all times? All places? Regardless of race, creed, color, politics?

      Even if the shooter missed, and killed a fellow officer?

      How ’bout if the shooter was standing across the street, and decided to “protect” the occupants of a building being attacked and damaged?

      If you are in the produce aisle at the grocer, concealed carry, and a mob crashes the store front, your declaration applies? Observed vandalism is classified as “imminent threat” of death/grievous bodily harm?

      • Does it apply at all times and places regardless of who’s in the mob or who’s being mobbed?

        It should, yes. (Although “should be” and “is” are very different things.)

        Smash the storefront with a few dozen of your buddies? Get shot by the people inside, and good riddance. If someone outside decides to start picking off your good-time friends one by one pour encourager les autres, good on ’em. Join the mob in chasing down a lone target? Same.

        Those who smash, loot, and burn are destroying not just property, but the lives and livelihoods of real people, and therefore deserve to be shot and killed.

        If I’m ever stupid enough to participate in something like that, I’d expect nothing less from anyone who might be defending the place. I also know what the current reality is, so I expect that I’d be punished and probably vilified anyway, whether I was in the right or not.

        • “…so I expect that I’d be punished and probably vilified anyway, whether I was in the right or not.”

          Think that depends entirely on the mindset of the influencers of culture of the moment.

      • The owner of a property is entitled to use less-than-deadly force to defend it against looters and vandals. In a riot, do you think the looters and vandals will not attack the owner for getting in their way? As soon as one does using deadly force, or more than one does using any level of force, they are guilty of an attack with deadly force and the owner is entitled to defend himself (not the property) with deadly force. The apologists and enables who invent excuses for riots won’t like this and will demand the owner’s head. Unless he is lucky enough to have a prosecutor who goes by the law instead of mob sentiment, the owner will face an expensive, uphill battle to stay out of prison.

        • “…or more than one does using any level of force, they are guilty of an attack with deadly force.”

          An interesting conclusion; not familiar with that. Any references I should consult?

          It remains a curiosity that there was only one CapCop who believed imminent deadly threat existed.

    • You’re legally allowed to kill a non-threat in order to prevent an actual threat that may or may not be lurking behind the non-threat? Is that in the report? I believe he said she was the threat in his interview, no?

    • If that was the case, why weren’t the police shooting live ammunition into the “mostly peaceful” crowds looting and rioting in all those liberal cities? I seem to recall Molotov cocktails being used (which are considered incendiary bombs). Again, for justice to be justice, it must be applied evenly. Again, that is the main idea of this article, that justice is not equal.

  11. I am amazed more have not commented on Byrd’s lack of safety with his finger on the trigger prior to even aiming, other LEOs behind Babbit.

    And could he have missed? I mean, the pics I have seen, it looked more like he was aiming for her head, flinched when he pulled the trigger (yes, I said pulled not squeezed) and shot her in the neck.

    And Jimbo Lang’s comments are an example of everything wrong with this country.

    • There were a bunch of cops in riot gear directly behind her.
      Had he missed Babbit, best case he hits a bulletproof vest.
      They had no problem with her and could of easily grabbed her.
      Byrd was trigger happy and shot her.
      It doesn’t matter what race he or she was.
      He is a hopped up cop who shot an unarmed person.
      It was a bad shoot by a nervous cop, plain and simple.

  12. When I was in the Police Academy in the 1970s there was an instructor by the name of Dr. Greg Conner who came up with a use of force continuum that was gaining support throughout the country. Eventually most of it became embedded in State and Federal Law. I can say unequivocally that if that standard were applied to this case Lt. Byrd would be involved in a plea bargain agreement right now to reduce his prison time.

  13. Amazing how many are okay with harming/shooting an unarmed American citizen for protesting…but not the corrupt, elitist politicians who created the reasons for the protest…Fucking Shameful…”Why trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away.”- The Patriot

    • A mob is never “unarmed”, that is not a thing that exists. A mob is always in deadly earnest, dangerous and threatening.

      And Mel Gibson was not in the American Revolution and his movie made a mockery of it. Hell, he’s not even from this country.

      • My statement stands…I never mentioned Mel Gibson…they were protesters protesting a corrupt government…and if you are okay with treating our corrupt government “officials” as royalty then their brainwashing has corrupted you as well and you are part of the problem…gtfoh with your bullshit insurrection garbage…

        • It is written that a man cannot serve three masters…

          “Because of his mother, Gibson retains dual Irish and American citizenship. Gibson is also an Australian permanent resident.”

      • “Hell, he’s not even from this country.”

        Straight people shouldn’t be playing the part of a gay person in a movie. It shouldn’t really be all an act. /s

      • Mel Gibson is actually from Peekskill New York. His family moved to Australia when he was around 12 years old.

  14. If she had broke into my house I’d have shot her more than once, and everybody with her.
    Bunch of boneheads handed the country to “The Democratic Party” on a silver platter. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time, doing the wrong thing. Even the savages in the street get killed on occasion. Should have stayed home along with the rest of them. Doing stupid stuff with stupid people can get you killed. An “unarmed mob” is a deadly weapon. No matter what politics.

  15. Byrd was scared $hitless. Look at his face in the pictures. There was no need to shoot her at that point in time. 200lb+ man vs 110 lb woman when he could plainly see her hands. He could have cuffed her right then or simply pushed her back out.
    This was either a ND or murder. Either way he is a coward and deserves prosecution.

  16. No one is celebrating her death, it’s a horrible thing. But she placed herself in the middle of a violent attempt to overthrow the government of the USA. She was the first to climb through the window of barricaded doors that police had to flee from in front of because they were overwhelmed. The officers behind the doors and the barricade had their guns pointed at the insurrectionists.

    The result is hardly surprising. Tragic, but tragedy happens when foolish people go along with a mob and attack the seat of government.

    Byrd was correct. If anything those officers showed enormous restraint. There were many, many more instances where officers would have been justified in firing upon the insurrectionists.

    • Yet Byrd was the only one who felt threatened enough to discharge his weapon toward and unarmed woman with fatal consequences.

      The only one.

  17. I have already made a long comment that there was fault on both sides and unlike the vicious Far Right I deplore the loss of all human life no matter what political viewpoint they have or what race they may be but let us now look at the extreme hypocrisy of the Far Right. Yes I have sympathy for Ashely Babbitt.

    Not so long ago a group of kids (students) at Kent State were sitting on the ground in the middle of an old unused football field. And yes I was there as an eye witness not a participant. Yes they were liberal because they were young. They were not rioting , they were chanting while sitting down. This is not illegal but due to a technicality of being under Marshal Law they were not supposed to gather in a group.

    The National Guard was there and as usual the man in charge was a power mad sadistic and totally untrained and incompetent moron. He was no more skilled in crowd control or psychology than an retarded piss ant. Rather than just observe what was going on he had to start a confrontation which soon escalated. Why? Because the bastard hated the students which he considered all draft dodgers. Again he was a complete hypocrite because the young men under his command were mostly all in the National Guard because they were draft dodgers themselves just as another Guardsman, a man called Bush was, and decades later became president. And no, Bush was not at Kent State.

    Unlike the Capital riots where there were older mature people (many armed to the teeth) the students had no weapons so the act of committing mass murder was much less justified that the Ashly Babbitt killing.

    The Far Right laughed when the students were slaughtered and said they wished that the guard had slaughtered at least 400 but now in the Babbitt shooting they are all howling from the rooftops about the Government suddenly taking away a persons rights. Yes they believe only the Far Right have any constitutional rights but liberal people should have none. Again what utter hypocrites.

    Again as I have previously stated there was fault on both sides in the Babbitt killing. The Cop was previously exposed as being incompetent and he could have fired a warning shot but on the other hand the crowd was screaming they were there to kill Congress people and being armed they sure as hell meant it along with a bomb that was later found.

    The moral of the story is that the people in power never prosecute their own henchmen who are given free rein to kill at will and kill they do because they know their masters will not punish the people that protect them. It is just that simple. If any American is naïve enough to think you have any more rights than a person in a 3rd world country than just try to defy the jack booted storm troopers when they tell you to leave an area. They will gun you down and then the Far Right will dance in your blood if you are liberal and if you are Conservative scream from the rooftops how unjustified it all was.

    • “They were not rioting , they were chanting while sitting down.“

      In the glory days of president Nixon and the Republican control of America, sitting in a circle and chanting against the war was a capital crime.

      • However, I must state that sitting a circle and chanting is something I do all the time.

        Me and my antifa buddies spend our Friday and Saturday nights just sitting in a circle chanting and jerking.

        Chanting and jerking.

        We call them glory days.

  18. All American conservatives and gun owners should take this as the canary in the coal mine. The tolerance extended to violent criminals and rioters in no way extends to you. If you are a white American conservative, the current regime considers your life to be forfeit. You can be killed at any time, for any reason, without consequence. Be ready.

  19. Interesting.
    Based off the comments here, if I am a conservative, and protest, I can be expected to be shot, the shot justified as “play stupid games win stupid prizes.”

    • Incorrect. If you are part of a violent mob trying to overthrow the USA, actively chanting to find and kill specific elected legislators, you may expect to be at high risk of getting shot. If you watch enough of those videos you will spot a few of the protection detail were carrying submachine guns at low ready position as they tried to guide the VP and senior leaders of Congress to secure locations.

      Had the mob caught up with those guys it would have been a bloodbath.

      I remain surprised and thankful that officers showed as much restraint as they did.

      • Yes , shooting Babbit may have saved a lot of lives. I doubt the ones breaking through the doors had any killing on their minds, however had they succeeded to gain entrance it indeed would have been a one way bloodbath with the police as the victors.

        • And before I get called out on they were chanting, they also said a lot of things that never happened. I may be wrong however I seriously doubt the crowds frenzy was elevated to the point of actually killing.

        • “I doubt the ones breaking through the doors had any killing on their minds“

          When hundreds of members of a violent knob chanting an organized death threat against the number two in the presidential line of succession, as they violently smash and enter the United States capital during a joint session of Congress, they can expect little patience on the part of the protective detail.

          I’ve always understood that if someone says out loud they want to kill you, you should take the threat seriously… Perhaps it’s different in Kansas.

        • “Perhaps it’s different in Kansas.”

          Yeah, we left “Kansas” (i.e., “normal, middle of the road”) a long time ago…

        • “you should take the threat seriously”

          Sincere question here. My other comment where I posed this question is being moderated. Do we have specific evidence of Ashli giving that type of verbal threat? If we don’t, is it okay to shoot her because someone else said that? Is it okay to shoot her because she said that?

          I’ve personally been the recipient of such a specific threat. My family was threatened as well. It was given by someone that I know is prohibited from owning firearms due to previous violent encounters. I also know this person possesses multiple firearms. This is a true story BTW. When that person approaches me with his posse in a public space, do I get to shoot him based on his violent past and his previous verbal threat? I mean, he could have a gun in his backpack. What if there are some mean looking dudes walking with him. Should I send them a message by shooting the guy in front even if it isn’t the one that threatened me?

      • “actively chanting to find and kill specific elected legislators”

        I don’t know the answer, so this is a sincere question: Is there specific evidence showing Ashli saying that? If not, is it okay to kill her because someone else, who may or may not have been behind her, said that?

      • If anyone really believes that buffalo tattoo guy was going to overthrow the government, they are likely afraid of their own shadow.
        Per the FBI, they did not find any credible evidence of a wide scale conspiracy to stage an insurrection.
        In order to overthrow a government, you might need a few key things, like a plan, people organized to carry out that plan, C3, and most importantly, weapons.
        For an example of what an insurrection looks like, check out the current situation in Afghanistan.

    • “Based off the comments here, if I am a conservative, and protest, I can be expected to be shot,…”

      That’s a bit harsh. If you are a conservative, and mostly peacefully protest, you are probably ok.


      Or not.

  20. If we can rationalize this, then we can rationalize picking off 93% peaceful protesters from a distance before things really get out of hand. I mean, they could have guns in their backpacks.

    • “I mean, they could have guns in their backpacks.”

      Worse yet, they could know someone who has a firearm in their backpack.

  21. This new case law works for me. Next time I’m harassed by “antifa” I can open fire whether they are armed or not. “I felt they were a danger to me and those with me”. Do you think I would get away with it?

    • Based on what we are seeing, if it fits the democrat narrative, probably. But since the democRATS support Antifa, most likely not. Heck, bet Antifa members could come to your door with guns and Molotov cocktails and if you even dropped one of them, democRATS would be calling to have you tarred and feathered. They’d say you shot up a “mostly peaceful” protest.

      • They take you down just for pointing a gun at them. We’ve seen that on more than one occasion. I’m not saying it was always okay to point a gun at them, but let’s be consistent here. The same folks praising this murderer were highly offended when other protesters merely had a gun pointed at them.

        • “They take you down just for pointing a gun at them. We’ve seen that on more than one occasion”


          Dude, you can bet if you point a gun at me I’ll be thinking about how to take you down… Double time.

          If some stranger points a gun at me or my loved ones in a public place, I will kill them.

          Like they say in the movies:
          “You’re a man ain’t ya?”

        • Miner,
          I didn’t mean that in the literal sense. I meant that in the legal sense. I can think of at least two high profile cases in the past year discussed on this site. In both cases, the homeowner came out of their house and pointed a gun at the protesters.

  22. cwtwit…You must be deaf, dumb and blind. Was Floyd so overcome by drugs he could not say he could not breath multiple times before he passed? Yes or No. Perhaps a pathetic pos like you needs to go submerge your head in a toilet to get a feeling for what it is not to breath.

  23. @Robert S
    “…if George Floyd was around today he would be dead.”

    Neat trick, that.

    Schrödinger’s cat proposition?

    • The cat in the microwave argument.

      I like to look at it as simple entropy.
      Given Floyds health and habits he likely would have had:
      A: A massive heart attack
      B: A massive drug overdose.
      C: Both.
      IF he were still alive, his time was short.
      Instead he one or the other on May 25, 2020.

      • “I like to look at it as simple entropy.”

        Kinda fond of the conundrum: “…if George Floyd was around today he would be dead.” Georgie is dead (vernacular: “not around”), but if he were around (vernacular: alive) he would be dead (vernacular: “not around”).

  24. “On the bright side, he’s been drug and crime free for over a year”

    It’s good to find the positive in everything.

  25. I must disagree with Jonathan Tobin (and by inference, with Dan Zimmerman, who seems to endorse Tobin’s viewpoint) on one point and agree with him on another:
    Point of Agreement: Had this been a left-wing riot and had Babbitt been black and Lt. Byrd been white, there is a significant likelihood that Lt. Byrd would have been subjected to a political inquest, a politically-motivated but unfounded prosecution.
    Point of Disagreement: I disagree with the assertion that Lt. Byrd acted inappropriately. He reasonably thought he was about to overwhelmed by a mob who could take his gun, kill him and do harm to those under his protection. While it is possible that the mob would not have harmed him or others, he could no know that. He lawfully told them NOT to enter the barricaded door. But Ashli Babbitt ignored that warning, smashed her way (this is violence) into an “off limits” place, and did so at the head of an angry mob. It doesn’t matter whether she was armed or not, the mob creates such a disparity of force against a single officer that lethal force is justified. If an angry mob broke down your front door, you would be justified in shooting the first one in, in the hopes of dissuading the rest.
    It is a shame Ashli Babbitt was killed. But, Lt. Byrd was justified.
    We need to insist on a color-blind and political party-blind application of justice.
    I am glad that fellow conservatives have NOT done as their leftist counterparts have done in the reverse scenarios over the past couple of years: riot in demand of a political persecution of the officer. Jonathan Tobin displays a lack of understanding of the laws and requirements for the use of lethal force. If Dan Zimmerman meant to express agreement with Tobin, then he, too, needs a refresher on the law. What they are advocating is the same flawed reasoning that the left employs. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
    Those angry that the Capitol invaders were not given the same excessively lenient and permissive treatment that rioters of the left received last summer should re-examine their logic. Is it unfair? Probably so. But, is it now their position that Seattle and Portland politicians were correct in showing such deference to rioters? The political prosecutions of the shooters of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were wrong; we should not now ask for the same wrong to be inflicted upon Lt. Byrd just because the skin colors and political allegiances of the perpetrators are reversed.
    I am relieved that conservatives are not rioting like the progressives would do in the reverse situation. But we conservatives need to go even further and avoid intemperate, emotional rants that might lead others to violence. Some of the posts in this column cross that line.
    You can have your opinion–but words can drive behavior and if angry, misinformed rhetoric pushes another to violent action, then our conservative cause is ill-served.

  26. America was created with the concept of Christian morality. The Founders quoted the Bible many times in their search for the words of the Constitution.
    America is increasingly ‘out of control’…
    Great civilizations go through 3 stages.
    Rise, Apogee, and Decline, so says Edward Gibbon in his work, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.
    America is living up to his observations….

  27. Coupla prob here.

    One, “conservatives” are not endorsing the failure of authorities to protect their cities during the 2020 insurrections; “conservatives” are pointing out the inconsistency, that’s all. Or, if you like, “conservatives” are declaring that if shooting Babbit is just, then shooting all the mob and looters in the “summer of love” is also just. (And yes, that means people who were not directly threatened would be justified in shooting as a means to protect the lives of people being overrun, or about to be overrun, by armed rioters)

    Two, the shooter wasn’t the only CapCop in sight. None of the other present CapCops saw a need to shoot rioters/invaders. Most of the other Cap Cops were already physically engaging the mob, before Mr. “I am a hero” lost his nerve.

Comments are closed.