The long-awaited tort action from the family of Ashli Babbitt has now been filed in Southern California. Babbitt was shot and killed on Jan. 6th and her family is seeking $30 million in a wrongful death action. Equally important, the lawsuit could force additional answers to why Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd shot and killed the unarmed protester as she attempted to climb through a window near the House Chamber. I have previously raised concerns over the shooting as conflicting with governing standards on the use of lethal force. I also noted contradictions in Byrds own statements and the governments conclusion that this was a justified killing. The complaint below adds some troubling facts to these prior concerns.
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and Trump supporter who participated in the riot three years ago. She was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage, and other offenses. However, the question is whether an officer is justified in shooting a protester when he admits that he did not see any weapon before discharging his weapon.
Just to recap what we previously discussed in the earlier column:
When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the chambers doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken window. That is when Byrd killed her.
At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJs bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.
The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it stressed that prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so willfully. It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove a bad purpose to disregard the law and that evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.
While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider the facts and circumstances of each particular case, it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and
is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing imminent harm recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.
Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William Ben Darby was convicted for killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his own head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.
Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared no further action will be taken in the case. He proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him.
Byrd described how he was trapped with other officers as the chants got louder with what sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door. He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.
Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.
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. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, I know that day I saved countless lives. He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) 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.
The complaint below has some interesting additional facts. For example, it alleges that Babbitts hands were in plain sight and empty.
Click for Full Text!