Instigator / Pro
1926
rating
108
debates
98.15%
won
Topic

The JAN 6th KILLING of ASHLI BABBITT was LAWFUL and APPROPRIATE to CIRCUMSTANCE

Status
Debating

Waiting for the contender's fourth argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
History
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Required rating
1500
Contender / Con
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
~ 2,621 / 5,000

The JAN 6th KILLING of ASHLI BABBITT was LAWFUL and APPROPRIATE to CIRCUMSTANCE

DEFINITIONS:

The JAN 6th KILLING is "On January 6, 2021, Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot during the 2021 United States Capitol attack. She was part of a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump who breached the United States Capitol building seeking to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. Babbitt attempted to climb through a shattered window of a barricaded door, which led to her being shot in the shoulder/neck by a United States Capitol Police (USCP) officer. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt

ASHLI BABBITT was "an Air Force veteran from San Diego who was shot and killed by police as people rushed the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021. Babbitt’s husband told KUSI-TV in San Diego that she was a “strong supporter of President Trump, and was a great patriot to all who knew her,” in the words of the station. Her Twitter page contained references to QAnon, which is a fringe extremist right wing conspiracy theory movement that believes pedophiles are embedded in high-ranking governmental positions. “Nothing will stop us….they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours….dark to light!” she wrote. She had retweeted QAnon accounts and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn."

BURDEN of PROOF

Wikipedia advises:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.

PRO must support the findings of the subsequent Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and the United States Department of Justice investigation.
CON must prove that the shooting of Ashli Babbitt was unlawful or inappropriate beyond a reasonable standard.

PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.
No trolls or kritiks, please.

- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. No new arguments in the final round, please
4. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate

Round 1
Pro
Thx, BDPTheGreat, for accepting this debate

The JAN 6th KILLING of ASHLI BABBITT was LAWFUL and APPROPRIATE to CIRCUMSTANCE

I.   US DEPT. of JUSTICE FINDINGS

  • On Apr 14th, 2021, the Dept. of Justice [DoJ] announced that they would not pursue any criminal charges against Capitol Police [USCP] Lieutenant Michael Byrd.
    • "Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. "
    • "The investigation further determined that Ms. Babbitt was among a mob of people that entered the Capitol building and gained access to a hallway outside “Speaker’s Lobby,” which leads to the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.  At the time, the USCP was evacuating Members from the Chamber, which the mob was trying to enter from multiple doorways.  USCP officers used furniture to barricade a set of glass doors separating the hallway and Speaker’s Lobby to try and stop the mob from entering the Speaker’s Lobby and the Chamber, and three officers positioned themselves between the doors and the mob.  Members of the mob attempted to break through the doors by striking them and breaking the glass with their hands, flagpoles, helmets, and other objects.  Eventually, the three USCP officers positioned outside the doors were forced to evacuate.  As members of the mob continued to strike the glass doors, Ms. Babbitt attempted to climb through one of the doors where glass was broken out.  An officer inside the Speaker’s Lobby fired one round from his service pistol, striking Ms. Babbitt in the left shoulder, causing her to fall back from the doorway and onto the floor.  A USCP emergency response team, which had begun making its way into the hallway to try and subdue the mob, administered aid to Ms. Babbitt, who was transported to Washington Hospital Center, where she succumbed to her injuries."
II. USCP FINDINGS

  • On Aug 23rd, 2021, the USCP's Office of Professional Responsibility announced their determination that:
    • "The officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."
    • "The actions of the officer in this case potentially saved Members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and to the House Chamber where Members and staff were steps away. USCP Officers had barricaded the Speaker’s Lobby with furniture before a rioter shattered the glass door. If the doors were breached, the rioters would have immediate access to the House Chambers. The officer’s actions were consistent with the officer’s training and USCP policies and procedures."
III.  OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS

  • Strip away political considerations and objectives and try to look at Lt. Byrd's position as objectively as possible.
  • Byrd had no choice but to fire.

SOURCES


Con
Thanks Oromagi, for the debate and putting time into a good opening argument

The JAN 6th KILLING of ASHLI BABBITT was LAWFUL and APPROPRIATE to CIRCUMSTANCE

I.   Burden of Proof / Framework

Pro established that the burden of proof for CON in this debate is that "CON must prove that the shooting of Ashli Babbitt was unlawful or inappropriate beyond a reasonable standard." CON agrees to this burden of proof, but puts forth some notes for voters to consider.
  • CON only has to prove that the killing was unlawful OR inappropriate for the circumstances. I'm not going to contest that the killing was lawful, only that it was appropriate. 
  • CON proposes that in order for the killing to be considered "inappropriate beyond a reasonable standard", CON has to prove that Byrd had no superior courses of action at the time he fired against Ashley Babbitt. 
  • The wording of the resolution states that the killing of Ashli Babbitt was appropriate to circumstance, and makes no reference to whether it was appropriate to Officer Byrd's circumstance or the knowledge he had about the situation, so CON argues that the debate should be evaluated based on whether the killing of Ashli Babbitt was appropriate given all information that we have in hindsight, not just the information that was available to officer Byrd at the time. 
II. Use of Lethal Force

Use of lethal force by police should always be seen as a last resort. When considering use of police force in the US, CON proposes going off Camden New Jersey's use of force policy, one of the most detailed use of force policies in America. The policy outlines 3 requirements before an officer may use lethal force:
  • "officers shall not use deadly force if a reasonably available alternative willavert or eliminate an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury andachieve the law enforcement purpose safely;"
  • "when feasible, prior to using deadly force the officer shall identifythemselves as a law enforcement officer and give a clear verbal warning tothe suspect that the officer will use deadly force;"
  • "officers shall not use deadly force when the use of deadly force creates asubstantial risk of injury to innocent persons
III. Michael Byrd did not Exhaust Reasonably Available Alternatives Before Shooting Ashley Babbitt

An article from roll call including an interview of Michael Byrd finds:
  • At the time of the shooting Ashley Babbitt was the only one climbing the window to breach. Had she made it in, she would have been outnumbered by officers, who could have apprehended her via non-lethal means.
  • "The Capitol Police officer who fatally shot rioter Ashli Babbitt . . . said in a television interview Thursday he was yelling at the mob to "get back" and "stop" and fired when those commands were not followed."
  • Despite having enough time to yell at the mob to get back and stop, Officer Byrd issued no verbal warning saying that he would shoot, and his commands to "get back" and "stop" should not count as a verbal warning.
  • By Byrd's own admission he did not know whether Ashley Babbitt was armed, it was later found out she was unarmed. While clearly not innocent of all crimes, Ashley was innocent of being an active assailant, and Byrd should not have shot before finding out whether Ashley was armed. 
  • The shooting of Ashley Babbitt fails all 3 requirements to use lethal force as outlined by Camden's use of force policy.
IV. Pro's Case

CON does not dispute any of the findings that PRO cites from the DOJ or USCP,  as it relates to the lawfulness of shooting Ashley Babbitt's shooting. However, the evidence is not enough to prove that the shooting of Ashley Babbitt was appropriate

  • Strip away political considerations and objectives and try to look at Lt. Byrd's position as objectively as possible.
I find it important to note at this point that my political considerations and objectives are likely the same as my opponents. I fall strongly on the left side of US politics, and I am deeply opposed to the January 6th insurrection, both in it's objectives and it's methods. However, I also recognize that the shooting of Ashley Babbitt was inappropriate.

While true, it would be inappropriate for Byrd to generalize this information to Babbitt. 

"Babbitt could see that a loaded weapon was trained directly on her before two rioters lifted her through the window.
I expect PRO to dispute me here, but this does not constitute sufficient warning before a shot. It would be reasonable for Ashley to assume that the officer was simply aiming the weapon in case he had to shoot, and that he would give a verbal warning before taking a shot.

Byrd had no choice but to fire. 
PRO has not shown how Byrd's alternative options would have failed here, which is the crux of CON's argument. 

Round 2
Pro
Thx, BDP!

I.   BoP / Framework

in order for the killing to be considered "inappropriate beyond a reasonable standard", CON has to prove that Byrd had no superior courses of action at the time he fired against Ashley Babbitt. 
  • PRO agrees with CON that Byrd had no superior course of action
The wording of the resolution... makes no reference to whether it was appropriate to Officer Byrd's circumstance or the knowledge he had about the situation,  so CON argues that the debate should be evaluated based on whether the killing of Ashli Babbitt was appropriate given all information that we have in hindsight, not just the information that was available to officer Byrd at the time. 
  • Nonsense.  As Rehnquist wrote for SCOTUS' unanimous 1989 decision, Graham v Connor, 
    • "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.  The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested, nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises, With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."
  • The decision to kill was Lt. Michael Byrd's alone. The standard which authorizes Byrd's use of deadly force exclusively considers Byrd's reasonable belief  "that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.
  • Not only is Byrd's immediate circumstance the single explicit determiner of LAWFUL and APPROPRIATE here, CON's suggestion that we bias our evaluation of Byrd's belief with hindsight information or indeed,  any other CIRCUMSTANCE is inconsistent with constitutional precedent as well as American criminal justice generally.
II. Use of Lethal Force

CON proposes going off Camden New Jersey's use of force policy
  • No way.  By no definition of LAWFUL or APPROPRIATE would it be acceptable for us to apply any use of force standard except that standard to which Lt. Byrd had been trained for 28 years and on which he relied on Jan 6.
    • That use of force standard is defined by the Oct. 26, 2016 Capitol Police Training Services Bureau Directive 1020.004
      • This policy employs five escalating levels of force usage: 
        • cooperative
        • contact
        • compliance
        • defensive
        • lethal
          •  lethal force can only be used under the following two circumstances:
            •  to defend human life, including the officer’s own life, or in defense ofany person in imminent danger of serious physical injury; or
            • to apprehend or prevent the escape of a fleeing subject under certainconditions (e.g., the officer reasonably believes that the person to beapprehended poses an imminent threat of death or serious physicalinjury to the officer or others if apprehension is delayed).
              • Let's understand that once Lt. Byrd had intel that the Capitol had been breached quickly followed by  reports of officers down, chemical agents deployed, [inaccurate] reports of shots fired on the House Main Floor,  Byrd's training required him to follow "active threat" policy, defined "as any incident or situationthat poses significant and immediate risk to individuals or buildings withinthe Capitol complex (e.g., active shooter, suicide bomber, chemical orbiological release, and vehicle-ramming)."  Byrd was required by well-established policy to warn the Sergeant-at-Arms that Congress was under attack, secure the Congressional Lobby, bar the doors, take cover, have his gun drawn, and  treat anybody who came through those doors as a suicide bomber or mass shooter until the CERT [Containment and Emergency Response]  team arrived.
                • As Lt.  Byrd explains it, "all of the training ends the same way: if the [CERT] don't make it there to stop the threat, you're the last line of defense and its up to you to take the APPROPRIATE action."
                • For any perpetrator breaching that last line of defense, non-lethal options were strictly off the table
Use of lethal force by police should always be seen as a last resort.
  • LESTER HOLT:  "What made you pull the trigger?"
  • LT. BYRD:  "Last resort.  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 APPRORIATE action."
Much more to say about Byrd's perspective and understanding of events in the moment in R3.

SOURCES in COMMENTS





Con
I. BOP / Framework

PRO agrees with CON that Byrd had no superior course of action
PRO either misunderstood what I said or mistyped here, to be clear, what I was saying is that in order for the killing to be considered inappropriate beyond a reasonable standard, PRO has to demonstrate that Byrd had no better course of action. Because CON has not contested this, we should use this standard for what is considered appropriate throughout the debate. 

  • Not only is Byrd's immediate circumstance the single explicit determiner of LAWFUL and APPROPRIATE here, CON's suggestion that we bias our evaluation of Byrd's belief with hindsight information or indeed,  any other CIRCUMSTANCE is inconsistent with constitutional precedent as well as American criminal justice generally
Reference to Supreme court precedent about our legal system has no bearing on the question of what is appropriate, drop this argument. Again, PRO made the claim that Byrd's actions were appropriate to circumstance, which is a bolder claim than saying that Byrd's actions were appropriate to his own individual circumstances and information. Voters should hold PRO to the bolder claim that they made, but even if they don't, CON still wins the argument because Byrd's actions were still inappropriate without considering hindsight. (Primarily, because Byrd should not have been acting on information that he did not have)

II. Use of Lethal Force
  • By no definition of LAWFUL or APPROPRIATE would it be acceptable for us to apply any use of force standard except that standard to which Lt. Byrd had been trained for 28 years and on which he relied on Jan 6.
This is another instance in which what is lawful does not determine what is appropriate. Especially because the capital police use of lethal force policy is incredibly unclear
  • "One officer said Capitol Police trainers were “‘were extremely vague to us about use of force and when it is proper and when it is not.’”
  • The use of force policy does not define what is considered an "imminent threat"
Byrd's training required him to follow "active threat" policy, defined "as any incident or situation that poses significant and immediate risk to individuals or buildings within Capitol complex (e.g., active shooter, suicide bomber, chemical or biological release, and vehicle-ramming)."
Perfect example of the lack of clarity in the use of force policy, because under this definition of an "active threat", it seems absurd to me to consider Ashley Babbitt an active threat, though PRO clearly disagrees. The examples of an active threat provided are "active shooter, suicide bomber, chemical or biological release, and vehicle ramming". None of these descriptions applied to Ashley Babbitt. Instead, Ashley Babbitt could have been considered a potential active shooter, potential suicide bomber, or potential chemical or biological weapon releaser, none of which is indicated by the use of lethal force policy as to whether it is considered an "imminent threat" or "immediate risk". 

Contrast this with Camden's use of force policy, which includes definitions for the terms imminent danger and active assailant. 

Active Assailant. A person who is using or imminently threatening the use of force, with or withouta weapon, in an aggressive manner that poses a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to an officeror another person. A threatening assailant becomes an active assailant when the threat becomesimminent.

Imminent Danger. Threatened actions or outcomes that are immediately likely to occur during anencounter absent action by the officer. The period of time involved is dependent on thecircumstances and facts evident in each situation and is not the same in all situations. Thethreatened harm does not have to be instantaneous, for example, imminent danger may be presenteven if a subject is not at that instant pointing a weapon at the officer but is carrying a weapon andrunning for cover to gain a tactical advantage.
The use of force policy makes it pretty clear that someone has to be threatening or using force in order for lethal force to be used, neither of which standards apply to Ashley Babbitt. 

The lack of clarity in the capitol's use of force policy shows that we should not consider it when deciding what actions are appropriate, which is why CON wants to supplement it with the standards of the Camden, New Jersey policy. If PRO has issues with specific standards in the Camden policy, PRO needs to demonstrate why it would be inappropriate for Michael Byrd to follow these standards.

  • LT. BYRD:  "Last resort.  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 APPRORIATE action."
Byrd saying that he acted as a last resort does not mean that his actions were a last resort. 


Round 3
Pro
I. BOP / Framework

  • In R1, CON proposed:
"CON has to prove that Byrd had no superior courses of action at the time he fired against Ashley Babbitt."
  • PRO agreed; but now CON argues:
PRO has to demonstrate that Byrd had no better course of action.
  • and now suggests that CON's muddle should be interpreted as PRO's consent. 
    • Obviously, PRO objects and reminds VOTERS that  CON agreed to the burden to prove "inappropriate beyond a reasonable standard" by acceptance of this debate's terms
II. Lethal Force

PRO made the claim that Byrd's actions were appropriate to circumstance, which is a bolder claim than saying that Byrd's actions were appropriate to his own individual circumstances and information.
  • No-  we are not evaluating Jan 6th, we are evaluating the appropriateness of one man's action.  According to a unanimous bi-partisan Supreme Court,  Lt. Byrd's individual circumstances are the only circumstances by which we could fairly judge reasonable, lawful, or appropriate
Reference to Supreme court precedent about our legal system has no bearing on the question of what is appropriate, drop this argument
Byrd saying that he acted as a last resort does not mean that his actions were a last resort. 
  • Nobody was better trained or positioned to make that call
the capital police use of lethal force [and active threat] policy is....unclear. 
  • Byrd was not at liberty to use some other police org.'s policies
  • By any reasonable standard, any assailant was an imminent and an active threat
The examples of an active threat provided are "active shooter, suicide bomber, chemical or biological release, and vehicle ramming". None of these descriptions applied.....
  • False.  Byrd correctly assessed the situation as an ongoing terrorist attack, FBI and Congressional investigations later concurred
    • Babbitt was an active, voluntary participant at the vanguard of that terrorist attack.
    • In hindsight,  we allow the visuals to color our assessment of the mob. 
      • We see the grey hair and paunches
      • the ten percent of women mixed in
      • the degree of mental illness and intoxication in evidence
      • the apparent haphazardness of much of the mob. 
    • Byrd had none of that information to guide his evaluation.
      • He had no access to news coverage. 
      • Byrd had no visual on the invading mob. 
      • He received some limited info via walkie-talkie and text but no characterization of the mob's nature or intent.
      • We know Byrd's perspective from his instruction to the House and testimony:
        •  Armed assailants had breached the Capitol in multiple places,
          • attacked USCP
        • Multiple reports of officers down (Byrd could not know whether those were injured or dead)
        • Pipe bombs found
          • one USCP's hand " blown off"
        • Chemical weapons had been used on USCP (Byrd advised Representative and staff to don gas masks)
        • Shots had been fired into the House Chamber( This later proved false but multiple contemporaneous tweets confirm everybody thought shots had just been fired)
        • Byrd advised everybody to get away from any window or doors, to take cover under seat.
          • Byrd advised Representatives to remove their pins and try to disguise themselves as staff members or reporters
        • The 100+ people under his protection were readying themselves for bombs, gas, and guns.
        • Byrd  could only estimate of the size of the threat based on the screams of USCP and the ever increasing cheers and chants of the mob approaching the final barrier to the House which was his duty to defend.
 it would be inappropriate for Byrd to generalize this information to Babbitt. 
  • Byrd could not see past the barrier, could not see Babbitt's face or hands or gender. 
  • Byrd had no information that might distinguish her from any other terrorist.
 Officer Byrd issued no verbal warning saying that he would shoot, 
  • Which demands a pause for compliance, a pause that might have allowed  for a suicide bomb or chemical attack, leaving no USCP to defend the House.
she would have been outnumbered by officers, who could have apprehended her via non-lethal means.
  • If they had left cover, they might have gunned down, neither officer could know what weapons might be trained them from the other side of the barrier.
someone has to be threatening or using force in order for lethal force to be used, neither of which standards apply to Ashley Babbitt. 
  • How many beatings and chemical attacks, how many barriers breached, ignored lawful orders and reports of officers down an are needed to justify lethal force from the next line of defense? the last line of defense?


Con
I. Framework
and now suggests that CON's muddle should be interpreted as PRO's consent
A muddle that I didn't notice until now :) 

While true that this muddle shouldn't be interpreted as consent, it also doesn't invalidate the claim that in order for something to be "inappropriate beyond a reasonable standard", the actor should have no superior course of action.

PRO finally provides their definition for what should be considered appropriate
suitable or proper in the circumstances
I find it worth noting that from the source for the definition they linked, suitable is defined as: 
  • Right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation.
and proper is defined as: 
  • "Of the required type; suitable or appropriate."
Most of the definitions of these words will just link back to more synonyms, hence the need for a "reasonable standard" for evaluating what is appropriate. CON provides the reasonable standard of "no superior course of action", or phrased differently "if placed in the same circumstances, the same action should be taken again". 

PRO, in R3 has still provided no standard for what should be considered appropriate or not. On the other hand, CON has posted their standard (albeit with a muddle), restated the standard in R2 (this time with no muddle), and is posting it again in R3. A standard which PRO has not provided any reason to reject, aside from procedural theory, procedural theory that PRO has no right to be referencing given that in 3 rounds, and an instigation, they have still not provided a standard for what is appropriate

If at any point in this debate PRO had established a "reasonable standard" for what is appropriate, they would have some ground to stand on in framework arguments, but instead they spent their wordcount trying to attack CON's reasonable standard, solely by relying on calling out a muddle. Voters, please accept CON's definition of reasonable standard established within this debate, and don't allow PRO to suddenly define what is considered a "reasonable standard" in R4. 

Huh, noone gave me the memo that the Supreme Court determines what is and is not appropriate, rather than what is or is not legal. 

Regardless, whether or not we include hindsight or not, Byrd's actions were inappropriate beyond a reasonable standard, as Byrd should not have been acting on information that he does not have. 

II. Use of Lethal Force

But an untested, reformist policy from another state should apply where 33 years of unanimous Supreme Court precedent should not?  
Yes. 
The source of the standards doesn't matter, the law does not deem what is and is not appropriate, the important thing is that CON posits that Camden's lethal force policy are a reasonable standard for an appropriate use of force. PRO doesn't attack any of these standards, instead attacking the source, despite having 2 rounds to do so, and being directly urged to do so in CON's R2, stating: "If PRO has issues with specific standards in the Camden policy, PRO needs to demonstrate why it would be inappropriate for Michael Byrd to follow these standards."

Because the Supreme Court determines what is lawful, not what is appropriate, a point that CON made repeatedly in R2, that CON has still neglected to address.

  • Nobody was better trained or positioned to make that call
This is begging the question, by assuming that Byrd's training places him in a good position to make that call. CON posits that it did not. 

  • Byrd was not at liberty to use some other police org.'s policies
What Byrd is at liberty of doing doesn't determine his appropriate course of action. 

  • By any reasonable standard, any assailant was an imminent and an active threat
A lovely claim to make, a claim that I can't address because PRO has still not said what they believe to be a "reasonable standard"

Sure, but the capital policy only referred to individual attackers, not group situations, another way in which the policy was flawed. Ashley Babbitt was not a terrorist for any reason other than association. 

CON goes on to talk about Byrd's circumstances, stating that he had no information on Ashley Babbitt other than generalized information from the mob. 

Why then was it appropriate for Byrd to shoot? 

Round 4
Pro
While true that this muddle shouldn't be interpreted as consent, it also doesn't invalidate the claim that in order for something to be "inappropriate beyond a reasonable standard", the actor should have no superior course of action.
  • Which is CON's burden in this debate.
    • CON has so far argued that Byrd should have issued verbal warnings that he intended to use lethal force before shooting, but 
      • Byrd's use-of-force standard had no such pre-requisite.
      • Byrd did not intend to use lethal force so long as the attacker stayed on the other side of the barrier
      • Once Babbitt crashed the final barrier, ignoring many repeated lawful orders issued by many police for hours, Byrd did not have the luxury of offering Babbitt a verbal warning of lethal force since any such warning requires that officers then allow enough time for compliance, time in which a terrorist could deploy an explosive vest or chemical agent, tactics that Byrd was force to assume were likely given Byrd's available intelligence in that moment.
      • .A verbal warning before shooting was never a course of action available to Byrd because of Babbitt's consistent failure to comply with many, repeated police warnings.
    • CON has also argued that Byrd should have attempted to physically restrain or arrest Babbitt but
      • Again, the necessity to treat Babbitt as a potential suicide bomber precluded non-lethal restraint. 
      • Byrd was required to be in a defensive posture.  He had to assume that there were guns trained on him on the other side of the barrier and that to step out from behind cover to restrain or arrest Babbitt would get him and/or his backup shot, leaving no police to defend Congress against an assault by hundreds.
    • Both of CON's suggested "superior" courses of action have been shown to be reckless and unwarranted by the circumstances of terrorist attack.
CON provides the reasonable standard of "no superior course of action", or phrased differently "if placed in the same circumstances, the same action should be taken again". 
  • In fact, the GAO report not only found no fault with Byrd's response or any other of the 293 uses of force by police that day but expressed the view that police hesitancy contributed to increased harms.  That is, in future,  under the same circumstances,  Govt oversight and USCP  consensus seems to be that increased use of lethal force would be the superior course of action/
PRO, in R3 has still provided no standard for what should be considered appropriate or not.
Voters, please accept CON's definition of reasonable standard established within this debate, and don't allow PRO to suddenly define what is considered a "reasonable standard" in R4. 
  • Huh?  CON argued against  PRO's standard for APPROPRIATE in R2 and again 2 sentences from now?
noone gave me the memo that the Supreme Court determines what is and is not appropriate, rather than what is or is not legal. 
  • Obviously, CON can't argue against PRO's standard in one breath and then try to trick READERS into thinking no such standard exists in the next breath.
  • The Logic of Appropriateness is March and Olsen's 1996 theoretical perspective on decision-making, proposing that "decisions and behavior follow from rules of appropriate behavior for a given role or identity."  These rules are how we define  appropriate action
    • These rules contain information about
      • practices and norms,
      • offer an array of appropriate action by circumstance and
      • tell actors  where to look for authorities and precedents regarding each role's rules. 
    • In the circumstance of Federal policing of the US Legislature in the performance of a Constitutionally mandated duty, PRO asserts that Supreme Court precedent is the finest possible source of of those rules that define appropriateness.  
    • CON's argument that SCOTUS can't define what's appropriate is unsupported by any argument but
      • also lacks any merit.
... the law does not deem what is and is not appropriate
  • So false.  Appropriateness is determined by a set of social rules, many of those rules are codified into law.  There are only a very small set of circumstances in which it might be appropriate to break the law.  The law is perhaps the single most important source of rules for appropriate behavior.
This is begging the question, by assuming Byrd's... good position to make that call
  • That is Rehnquist's rule for  how Americans should evaluate reasonable and appropriate in  use-of-force questions as  applied to US police.
What Byrd is at liberty of doing doesn't determine his appropriate course of action. 
  • False. Byrd's training and  immed. circumstance are paramount to "appropriate."
PRO has still not said what they believe to be a "reasonable standard"
  • CON can't make up his mind.
SOURCES in COMMENTS


Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet