Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner
1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Cop Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Was Never Interviewed by Police Before Being Cleared of Wrongdoing: Report

If a new report from Real Clear Investigations turns out to be true, serious questions may be raised regarding the professional ethics of the investigation into the shooting of Ashli Babbitt.

Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was among the crowd that illegally stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Babbitt was killed when a Capitol Police officer fired into the approaching mob.

The new report, released by RCI on Tuesday, claims that Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd — the officer who shot Babbitt — was cleared of all wrongdoing without ever having been interviewed by investigators.

The outlet cited “several sources and documents” it said it had reviewed.

An attorney for the Babbitt family, Terry Roberts, also confirmed the findings.

“He didn’t provide any statement to investigators and they didn’t push him to make a statement,” Roberts said.

“It’s astonishing how skimpy his investigative file is.”

Among the documents reviewed by RCI was a January 2021 internal affairs report that showed Byrd “declined to provide a statement.”

A Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman confirmed the story as well, noting that Byrd had refused to cooperate with both the department’s internal affairs unit and the FBI.

“MPD did not formally interview Lt. Byrd,” said Kristen Metzger, deputy communications director for the MPD.

“He didn’t give a statement while under the U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation.”

Cop Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Was Never Interviewed by Police Before Being Cleared of Wrongdoing: Report
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
Police have special rules. The fifth amendment says they can't be compelled to give a statement, same as the rest of us.

But then special laws kick in. They can't be fired for not giving a statement. They have a right to a "cooling off" period before talking, and then they can have union reps and lawyers present.

Police have more rights than we do.

Nobody questioned this until the Capitol police availed themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,038 Posts
Police have special rules. The fifth amendment says they can't be compelled to give a statement, same as the rest of us.

But then special laws kick in. They can't be fired for not giving a statement. They have a right to a "cooling off" period before talking, and then they can have union reps and lawyers present.

Police have more rights than we do.

Nobody questioned this until the Capitol police availed themselves.
You don't know what you're talking about.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,804 Posts
Police have special rules. The fifth amendment says they can't be compelled to give a statement, same as the rest of us.

But then special laws kick in. They can't be fired for not giving a statement. They have a right to a "cooling off" period before talking, and then they can have union reps and lawyers present.

Police have more rights than we do.

Nobody questioned this until the Capitol police availed themselves.
This is absolutely incorrect. They have the “right to remain silent” just like everyone else, however, the courts have held that their refusal to provide a statement could lead to a charge of insubordination and or termination. Thus, they can be compelled to provide a statement under threat of insubordination or termination. Not sure where you came up with your information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,786 Posts
This is absolutely incorrect. They have the “right to remain silent” just like everyone else, however, the courts have held that their refusal to provide a statement could lead to a charge of insubordination and or termination. Thus, they can be compelled to provide a statement under threat of insubordination or termination. Not sure where you came up with your information.
I would think that would and could lead to a lawsuit...either give up your 5th amendment rights or get fired?!?!?!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,545 Posts
I would think that would and could lead to a lawsuit...either give up your 5th amendment rights or get fired?!?!?!?
It is absolutely case law. It came about because of a court case.

The nuance is the court said it was absolutely a coerced statement so it can only be used as impeachment if an officer takes the stand. The DA can't introduce it in their main case although they would likely use it in their decision to charge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,650 Posts
I would think that would and could lead to a lawsuit...either give up your 5th amendment rights or get fired?!?!?!?
It cant be used in the criminal case, only the internal affairs case.

Officers MUST provide a statement to IA or face disciplinary action.

They do not have to provide a statement in the criminal investigation, same as everyone else.

If they cleared him internally with no statement then WTF are they doing? Clearly a horrible investigation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,545 Posts
It cant be used in the criminal case, only the internal affairs case.

Officers MUST provide a statement to IA or face disciplinary action.

They do not have to provide a statement in the criminal investigation, same as everyone else.

If they cleared him internally with no statement then WTF are they doing? Clearly a horrible investigation.
I'm wondering if the area is considered a deadly force zone like at nuke sites and they don't want to admit it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,004 Posts
Could the USCP officer be administratively ordered by the MPD to make a statement in an IA done by the MPD?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CAcop

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,763 Posts
I'm wondering if the area is considered a deadly force zone like at nuke sites and they don't want to admit it.
I'm quite familiar with USCP, grew up around the department as my dad is retired from there.

That being said, you are most likely correct. Those things are not public information, they will never be public. There is not much in the investigation file because the situation was very cut and dry.

Normal use of force standards and the rules that govern them were not applicable.

It was not in the governments best interest to compel a statement. Not that they couldn't, but it was better to keep the record as small as possible in order to not release sensitive information.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,763 Posts
Could the USCP officer be administratively ordered by the MPD to make a statement in an IA done by the MPD?
No. No more than a CHP officer could be compelled by an LAPD officer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,106 Posts
I'm wondering if the area is considered a deadly force zone like at nuke sites and they don't want to admit it.
Bingo….. which goes to my comments in the numerous other threads concerning this rehash of dead horse beatings because we are unaware of what, where, or if any drop zones are concerning final lines. Yet continuously people want to spout misinformation or declare guilty til openly proven innocent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
69,810 Posts
"Real Clear Investigations" knows what went on in a Capitol Police IA investigation?

Nope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,650 Posts
I'm wondering if the area is considered a deadly force zone like at nuke sites and they don't want to admit it.
Ive wondered that since this happened as well. But if thats the case why would they allow him to go on national TV and lie (give false info about why he shot) about it?
 

·
Massive Member
Joined
·
26,371 Posts
I'm wondering if the area is considered a deadly force zone like at nuke sites and they don't want to admit it.
Agreed. Really, how can it NOT be? I’m amazed people not only aren’t getting it, but arguing it’s not.

You see some Congresscritters in the background early in the video, whom it would certainly justify deadly force to protect from an angry mob, 3 cops trying to prevent entry of an angry mob of “patriots” () to this particular barricaded room, reserved for senators no less (lounge) and they just sent a bunch of guys with AR15s to reinforce the line, who arrived just as Babbitt got shot breaching the barricade.

I didn’t see any other LE else sporting an AR in any other videos, they all stuck to less lethal weapons.

One of these things is not like the others.

Nobody’s disputing what happened, if all they need to know is on video, don’t need a statement from him saying he shot her.

Really doesn’t matter if it’s explicitly a deadly force zone on paper even, it’s pretty obvious from the scenario it would qualify.

If it was declared so ahead of time I’m guessing he doesn’t need to articulate why he thought deadly force was appropriate. It’s a given anyone breaching that doorway is fair game.

All the other pertinent facts are clear from the video.

Randy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top