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

1468

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Description

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

07.29.2022 06:01AM

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 understood that at least thousands of rioters had surrounded the Capitol and had initiated waves of assaults against police barricades and in defiance of repeated police orders.
Byrd had been advised that at least hundred of rioters had breached the Capitol at various points.

USCP were warned that pipe bombs had been discovered and that many of the invaders were carrying concealed weapons.

Byrd knew that an evacuation of all civilians from the Capitol was underway but incomplete and that the stairway he was guarding was the only escape route- if rioters penetrated the furniture barricade of the door, then he was the last line of defense to prevent some Congress members and staff from being cut off and surrounded.
Babbitt could see that a loaded weapon was trained directly on her before two rioters lifted her through the window. Congressman Markwayne Mullin can be seen fleeing the attack just twenty feet away from Babbitt's charge.
Byrd shot Babbitt one time in the shoulder and fell back from the barricade. No other rioters attempted to breach and so no further shots were fired.

Byrd had no choice but to fire.

SOURCES

08.01.2022 05:14AM

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.

USCP were warned that pipe bombs had been discovered and that many of the invaders were carrying concealed weapons.

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

08.03.2022 07:25AM

Pro

Thx, BDP!

I. BoP / Framework

CON concedes LAWFUL

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

08.06.2022 06:51AM

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

08.09.2022 05:10AM

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

But an untested, reformist policy from another state should apply where 33 years of unanimous Supreme Court precedent should not?

Camden's policy was only written last December, after Jan 6.

seems like now is a good time to define APPROPRIATE, which is "suitable or proper in the circumstances"

How can we allow a standard that didn't even exist at the time of Lt. Byrd's decision supersede 33 years of unanimous Supreme Court precedent?

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?

08.12.2022 05:09AM

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.

According to a unanimous bi-partisan Supreme Court, Lt. Byrd's individual circumstances are the only circumstances by which we could fairly judge .. appropriate

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."

How can we allow a standard that didn't even exist at the time of Lt. Byrd's decision supersede 33 years of unanimous Supreme Court precedent

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"

False. Byrd correctly assessed the situation as an ongoing terrorist attack, FBI and Congressional investigations later concurred

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

08.15.2022 02:27AM

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.

That's quite false. At the top of R2 PRO offered the 1989 unanimous SCOTUS decision as "the single explicit determiner of LAWFUL and APPROPRIATE here"

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

08.18.2022 02:27AM

Con

Forfeited

Round 5

08.18.2022 07:07AM

Pro

Regrettably BDPTheGreat forfeited ROUND4 but I'll thank him for it since his forfeit improves my chances here

NOTE: VOTERS will please notice that RULE#1 of this debate is "forfeit=auto loss"

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

BURDENS of PROOF:

VOTERS will recall that the BURDENS of PROOF were defined thus:

PRO must support the findings of the subsequent Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and the United States Department of Justice investigation. [That Lt. Byrd's shooting of Ashli Babbitt was lawful and appropriate.]
CON must prove that the shooting of Ashli Babbitt was unlawful or inappropriate beyond a reasonable standard.

SUMMARY

CON concedes LAWFUL and half the argument up front.
CON tried to apply a USE of FORCE standard implemented in Camden, NJ at the beginning of this year, 2022- a year after the event and a jurisdiction 140 miles distant.

PRO asks VOTERS to disregard this standard.
PRO asks VOTERS to rely on the standard established by a unanimous Supreme Court precedent set 33 years ago- that The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and without resort to hindsight or other perspectives. It is not fair to judge a policeman's split second decision with the reasoning of the safe and comfortable or with the improved perspective that comes from hindsight.
PRO asks VOTERS to agree that in the context of an officer defending legislators in the US Capitol during an attack trying to subvert a defined function of the US Constitution, application of relevant Supreme Court precedent is the best and wisest possible authority on the subject of appropriate use-of-force.
In spite of CON's critiques, we many not judge Byrd's use-of-force using any other policy than the policy Byrd was sworn and trained to employ:

to defend human life, including the officer’s own life, or in defense of any person in imminent danger of serious physical injury; or
to apprehend or prevent the escape of a fleeing subject under certain conditions (e.g., the officer reasonably believes that the person to be apprehended poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others if apprehension is delayed).

further informed by Byrd's active threat policy

as any incident or situation that poses significant and immediate risk to individuals or buildings within the Capitol complex (e.g., active shooter, suicide bomber, chemical or biological release, and vehicle-ramming

Because of Byrd senior rank and long experience, Byrd was made the last line of defense in the event of any terrorist attack or active shooter. His instructions were to do what was necessary to hold that line until the special tactics team arrived. Ashli Babbitt was an unarmed woman wearing an American flag for a cape but she was also the vanguard of very violent terrorist mob in full riot. Byrd could only know that much and could only treat Babbitt as he did: the first and thankfully only terrorist to break through that last line of defense.
PRO askes VOTERS to only hold Byrd accountable to his established policies, which Byrd followed to the letter.

CON's argument against APPROPRIATE largely depends on two assertions:

Byrd should not have shot without giving specific warning of lethal force but Babbitt's tactic never allowed for such an opportunity. Before she crashed the barricade, Byrd could not shoot into the mob. Once she crashed the barricade, Byrd could not afford to give the terrorist time to act. Byrd knew bomb and chemical weapons had been deployed and could not afford to assume that a charging terrorist did not have such weapons hidden in her backpack or under her cape.
Byrd should have attempted to subdue and arrest Babbitt but this would also have violated Byrd's training. As the last line of defense, Byrd was required to defend from cover and not expose himself to enemy fire in the clear. Byrd had no information about what weapons were available to the mob beyond the barricade and an attempt to arrest would have made him prone to attack.
PRO asks VOTERS to disregard both of these speculative plans as reckless and contrary to Byrd's established training.

PRO asks VOTERS to agree with his standards and evaluation of Lt. Byrd's use of lethal force against Ashli Babbitt, and so concur with the findings of both the Dept. of Justice and USCP investigations, that the shooting of Ashli Babbitt was sad, even regrettable, but an entirely lawful and appropriate response to Babbitt's determined, unpredictable, unlawful aggression at the final breach into the hallowed precincts of the House of Representatives.
PRO asks VOTERS to further consider points for forfeit.
Thanks, BDPGreat, for your clarity of argument.
Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.
Please VOTE PRO!

08.21.2022 07:07AM

Con

#10

Forfeited

09.02.2022 12:38AM

#35

-->

@Barney

thanks for voting!

08.31.2022 08:06PM

#34

3 days left

08.30.2022 05:14AM

#33

5 days left

08.28.2022 04:52AM

#32

1 week left to vote!

08.25.2022 08:46PM

#31

zero votes so far

08.24.2022 06:49PM

#30

Thanks for voting!

08.23.2022 08:33PM

#29

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

Thanks for reading!

08.21.2022 11:19PM

#28

Well I am not voting unless the debate goes unvoted or you are losing because of bad votes. It looks like you won from my speed reading.

The following article kinda changed my mind on this

https://lawofselfdefense.com/sad-but-true-jan-6-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-was-legally-justified/

And only because it does explain that you don't have to treat each part of the mob as individuals and do individual threat assessments, but you are apparently allowed to judge them as a single entity. The example in the article points out 2 people pinning a person down while another stabs them, the 2 pinning the person down are allowed to be seen as imminent threats. So it looks like the shooting was legal.

I can tell you, in his position I probably wouldn't have done it. I just don't perceive those people as threats. I would need to see some evidence that foreign agents were using the crowd as shields or actually assassin's were using the crowd, but it looks like he made a legal decision that cost a life while saving zero lives.

08.21.2022 11:10PM

#27

-->

@oromagi

Correct I have not read the debate yet other than the first half of round one. I want to make sure I can disregard my bias before reading it. The best arguments for the imminent threats belief Ii found have been people claiming the mob are acting as a single entity and ashli should be treated as part of that mob. I think we all know what happens if those protestors do breach the barricade though. They merely yell at the politicians. I assure you republicans aren't trying to kill politicians even when they get upset and protest.

08.21.2022 10:35PM

#26

-->

@Wylted

Your posts make it clear you haven't read the debate, where all your claims here are entirely disproved.

08.21.2022 10:17PM

#25

"Byrd knew that an evacuation of all civilians from the Capitol was underway but incomplete and that the stairway he was guarding was the only escape route- if rioters penetrated the furniture barricade of the door, then he was the last line of defense to Byrd knew that an evacuation of all civilians from the Capitol was underway but incomplete and that the stairway he was guarding was the only escape route- if rioters penetrated the furniture barricade of the door, then he was the last line of defense to prevent some Congress members and staff from being cut off and surrounded. some Congress members and staff from being cut off and surrounded."

This is not allowed to be a consideration in use of force. Police are only allowed to consider the possibility of an immediate threat to their life

08.21.2022 09:53PM

#24

I hope this is devil's advocate. Police can only shoot to kill if they are a specific target of an imminent threats or they perceive themselves to be. They can also shoot if they are defending an immediate and imminent threats to another person.

Just imagine there were no politicians there and this was black people breaking into a police station during a riot. Everyone would agree this was unjustifiable when they remove the elements that effect their bias

08.21.2022 09:41PM

#23

-->

@BDPTheGreat

"I am never taking a debate with a 5k wordcount again lmao"

The theory is to try to make debates a little more interesting by increasing the clash back and forth. Most object to the length of even 3x10kc so a 1/6th reduction to 5x5kc with improved capacity to reply more directly seemed supportable.

3RU7AL

08.15.2022 05:57PM

#22

-->

@BDPTheGreat

rule #1 - never agree to 100% burden-of-proof

08.15.2022 02:30AM

#21

PRO's ROUND4 SOURCES

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_of_appropriateness

08.12.2022 05:12AM

#20

I am never taking a debate with a 5k wordcount again lmao

08.12.2022 05:10AM

#19

CON's R3 SOURCES:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/proper

In addition to CON's R1 sources, and PRO's sources

08.09.2022 05:13AM

#18

PRO's ROUND3 SOURCES

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
https://camdencountypd.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/USE-OF-FORCE-123121.pdf
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/appropriate
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kei5CxR2VG0&ab_channel=TODAY
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-fbi-chief-chris-wray-to-face-questions-about-extremism-capitol-riot
https://www.congress.gov/event/117th-congress/house-event/LC65965/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22capitol+attack%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=7
https://twitter.com/javmanjarres/status/1346906535344164865

08.08.2022 09:12PM

#17

-->

@oromagi

False equivalency fallacy.

DART is NOT a jury in any courtroom in America.

Epic fail on your part.

08.08.2022 06:29PM

#16

-->

@TWS1405

Such an argument alone would disqualify you from any jury in America.

08.08.2022 06:18PM

#15

-->

@oromagi

No, it is not. It was not formed "beforehand," nor is it without knowledge of the facts.
I read enough to see through your BS, and that's all it took.

08.08.2022 05:47PM

#14

-->

@TWS1405

"I don't have to read all of the debate."

That's PREJUDICE by definition: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts

08.08.2022 05:30PM

#13

-->

@oromagi

I don't have to read all of the debate. Novice_II outdebated you with facts and not your fiction.

Your debating style notwithstanding, it was the red herring (among others) material and how you tried to spin it as fact when it was so clearly fictional (i.e., off base). That's why I stopped reading it. Novice_II was always on point, you were not.

08.08.2022 03:48AM

#12

-->

@TWS1405

"I read some of that debate...etc"

I would definitely encourage you to read ALL of any debate before evaluating a winner.

Also please take note that your personal disposition on any topic (e.g. false beliefs and liberal lies) is irrelevant to the criteria used to evaluate any debater's performance in any debate.

Thanks for the feedback!

08.07.2022 10:01PM

#11

-->

@oromagi

I read some of that debate, and Novice_II should have prevailed. Your retorts were less than impressive and most way off base with one too many false equivalence fallacies and false beliefs in the liberal lies. Case in point is that you actually believe Floyd was murdered by Chauvin vs. the cut n dry overdose on a lethal level of fetanyl and meth mix, among the other crap in his system juxtaposed to his existing health issues. And it is because of those liberal lies that spawned the riots that ensued.

Same goes for ANTIFA. They are all about destruction. Between them both they caused billions in damages and the loss of nearly two dozen lives during the summer rioting of 2020.

Capital riot (NOT an insurrection), no one died and barely 1.5M in damages.

Yeah, no comparison. The damages and loss of life from the BLM/ANTIFA riots far outweigh Jan 6th and continues to do so present day whereas there is no further fallout from Jan/6.

08.07.2022 06:57PM

#10

-->

@TWS1405

none of the BLM and/or ANTIFA rioters who did far worse

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3450-which-were-worse-the-blm-protests-riots-or-the-january-6th-capitol-protests-riots-atoromagi

08.07.2022 03:28PM

Byrd understood... yeah right.
Byrd was told... what those in charge wanted him to know.
Ashley wasn't alone. She had people beside her from all angles. She presented no weapons. She presented no immediate threat of harm or injury to Byrd.
He was a coward who panicked. He is the only Capital Officer to have discharged his service weapon among several other officers present who did no such thing. In fact, some officers even opened the barricades and doors to the building to grant access to those who showed up to protest the certification of the election results.
In the chaos of the entirety of the event, there is no way Byrd understood anything other than what he was told (manufactured) to believe without evidence to back it up.
And the FACT that the so-called rioters (not insurrectionists) have been hunted down and prosecuted whereas none of the BLM and/or ANTIFA rioters who did far worse over the prior summer demonstrates the left's hardon for those on the right while giving carte blanche to those on the left.

08.06.2022 06:52AM

CON's R2 CITATIONS
https://rollcall.com/2022/03/07/report-on-capitol-police-preparedness-for-jan-6-shows-lack-of-clarity-on-use-of-force/

Just one source for this round, everything else was building off oromagi's sources or my previous sources.

08.03.2022 07:47AM

PRO's ROUND2 SOURCES:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/uscp-completes-internal-investigation-january-6-officer-involved
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
{page 15, footnote]
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
{page 17}
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
{page 18}
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736
[7:20}
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736
{15:52}
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736
{20:28}

08.01.2022 05:20AM

-->

@BDPTheGreat

Looks good.

and btw- Welcome to the site!

08.01.2022 05:20AM

-->

@oromagi

Thanks for the kind comments, and sorry for the late post. Was making sure that I put enough time into the argument, (I am against the rank 1 debater on this site after all)

08.01.2022 05:19AM

CITATIONS
Camden's use of force policy: (Let me know if this link is broken I'm worried it might be)
http://camdencountypd.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/USE-OF-FORCE-123121.pdf
Slight info about Camden's use of force policy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGQEtHBMP08&t=466s
Interview with Byrd and circumstances of the shooting:
https://rollcall.com/2021/08/26/officer-who-fired-fatal-shot-says-ashli-babbitt-posed-a-threat-to-house-members/
Media Bias Check on Roll Call:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/roll-call/
Footage of shooting:
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capitol-shooting-that-led-to-ashli-babbitt-s-death-captured-on-video-99180613572

08.01.2022 04:07AM

-->

@BDPTheGreat

Even if you're not complete when the timer runs out post whatever you got. Even an incomplete argument is way better than forfeit.

08.01.2022 04:03AM

-->

@BDPTheGreat

"Writing my argument right now and bumping up against the word count, by "Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments", do you mean that I can just hyperlink and then post full links in the comments?"

Yep- feel at liberty to just hyperlink args (no numbers references or other needed) and then you list those sources in COMMENTS after.

Feel free to abbreviate or whatever you need to complete your thought.