In a move that has reignited discussions about the events of January 6, 2021, a significant wrongful death lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. government. The estate of Ashli Babbitt, the protester who was fatally shot during the Capitol breach, is seeking justice and accountability to the tune of $30 million. This case not only brings to light the circumstances of Babbitt’s death but also casts a spotlight on the shooter, Lt. Michael Byrd, whose competence with firearms has been called into question.
The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court Southern District of California, paints a picture of Babbitt as a patriot who went to Washington D.C. to peacefully exercise her rights. It alleges that she posed no threat to lawmakers when she was shot by Lt. Byrd, who was serving as the incident commander for the House on that fateful day. The complaint details how Babbitt was unarmed and had her hands visible when she was killed without warning or proper assessment of the threat by Lt. Byrd.
This is the last video recorded by Airman Ashli Babbitt.
January 6th, 2021, Ashli was needlessly murdered at the U.S. capitol by Lt. Michael Byrd.
She was a veteran and a peaceful protester, posed zero threat as she had a few police officers within arms length of her when Byrd… pic.twitter.com/o35ZmFt8Z1
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) January 6, 2024
The narrative of the lawsuit is one of negligence and incompetence, highlighting several past incidents involving Lt. Byrd that raise concerns about his suitability for the role he occupied. Notably, it mentions an occasion where Byrd left his loaded service weapon in a public restroom and another instance where he fired at a stolen vehicle, resulting in stray bullets hitting nearby homes. These incidents, according to the suit, should have served as red flags regarding Byrd’s ability to handle firearms responsibly.
Moreover, the suit claims that Lt. Byrd’s police powers were previously revoked due to his failure to meet semiannual firearms qualification requirements. His peers reportedly did not regard him as a proficient marksman, further questioning his capacity to make split-second decisions involving lethal force. The lawsuit suggests that the Capitol Police, the Capitol Police Board, and Congress, as Byrd’s employers, should have been aware of these shortcomings and taken action to prevent such a tragedy.
Gun control Protesters invade the Tennessee Capitol on March 30, 2023.
Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed under far less egregious circumstances.pic.twitter.com/TzT1szUAQk
— Eric Matheny 🎙️ (@ericmmatheny) January 6, 2024
The filing also touches upon the broader implications of the shooting, suggesting a double standard in how similar cases are treated depending on the political affiliations of those involved. It questions why there hasn’t been the same level of outrage or demand for accountability as seen in other high-profile police shootings. The comparison to the treatment of Derek Chauvin, the officer convicted in the death of George Floyd, is made to underscore this perceived inconsistency.
Adding to the controversy, the lawsuit alleges that instead of facing consequences, Lt. Byrd was provided accommodations in a “distinguished visitor suite” at taxpayer expense and later promoted within the Capitol Police Department. This has fueled further discontent among those who see this as a miscarriage of justice and a failure to hold Byrd accountable for his actions.
Judicial Watch, representing Babbitt’s estate, has expressed its commitment to seeking justice for Ashli Babbitt and holding the government responsible for what they describe as an “awful and unjustified shooting death.” They argue that Babbitt’s killing was unlawful and that her family deserves answers and compensation for their loss.
As the legal process unfolds, the $30 million wrongful death suit over Ashli Babbitt’s death will undoubtedly continue to be a focal point of discussion. It challenges not only the specifics of the January 6 incident but also the broader issues of law enforcement accountability and the political polarization that can influence the public’s perception of justice.
