Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd gives an interview outing himself as Ashli Babbitt’s killer
Seems like it was only yesterday that we were being told that authorities could not reveal any details at all about the killing of Ashli Babbitt except that it was justified, and that the identity of the Capitol Police officer who shot her must remain secret in order to protect him from terrible death threats from the right.
Now they are pulling an Emily Litella:
The police officer who fatally shot Ashli Babbitt, who took part in the pro-Trump invasion of the U.S. Capitol, will reveal his identity for the first time in a televised interview set to air Thursday evening.
And that’s exactly what happened. His identity was revealed to be what everyone on the right has known it to be for many months: Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd. And we already knew about this history regarding Byrd:
In 2019, Byrd left his Glock 22 pistol inside a bathroom at the Capitol Visitor’s Center and was later found during a routine security sweep of the premises. The Capitol police said an investigation would occur and “the appropriate actions will be taken in accordance with the Department’s official policies and procedures.” Byrd was back on the job a few days after the incident and allegedly told colleagues he would “be treated differently” because of his rank.
Why is it okay to tell us now? He was not charged criminally and he was exonerated by an internal investigation – although somehow we’re not allowed to see the report describing why – and yet Ashli’s family’s lawsuit against him is proceeding apace and his identity was to be revealed anyway. So it stands to reason that this was his way of trying to get ahead of the story. It also helps to get the left’s narrative out there, so for the MSM and the Democrats it’s very useful.
He not only feels he did nothing wrong, but he is very proud of his actions that day. I have no way to judge whether I agree with his exoneration unless I were to read a report detailing the reasoning behind it, and also see a variety of surveillance videos from many angles and hear an analysis. So I can’t say that I know either way. But I do know that if the races had been reversed in this incident (Byrd is actually black and Babbitt was white), the story told in the media of his shooting and killing of “an unarmed woman” would be very very different.
In the interview Byrd said:
“I know that day I saved countless lives,” Byrd said. “I know members of Congress, as well as my fellow officers and staff, were in jeopardy and in serious danger. And that’s my job.”
He would be within his rights saying he believes he saved “countless lives.” But he knows he “saved countless lives”? Is he aware there were no firearms in the Capitol except those carried by the police, and that the FBI has made it clear that there was no plan on the part of the rioters to kill people or to stage an insurrection?
Byrd can think or believe he saved countless lives, but he doesn’t “know” it. Nor do we. I’ve seen no actual evidence that indicates it is the case.
Byrd also said: “I think I showed the utmost courage on January 6, and it’s time to do that now.” Wow – the utmost courage. I have actually never heard a hero say something like that of himself or herself; it’s rather odd and uncharacteristic and unheroic. Heroes are almost always humble and downplaying their actions, saying they are being overpraised and either were just doing their jobs or just doing what anyone else would have done, even though that’s not necessarily true.
Looking at the transcript, I have these further observations:
Byrd begins (at least, the interview as edited and shown begins) by talking at length about the death threats he has received. He characterizes them as racist (which I’m sure some of them were). Clearly this first part of the interview is designed to feed into the “white supremacist” narrative about the “insurrectionists,” and also about how incredibly brave Byrd is to even give this interview.
Interviewer Lester Holt says to Byrd that there were “reports of shots fired” by the demonstrators that day, and Byrd says he had heard such reports. Of course, we know that there were no shots fired by demonstrators. But although it is almost certainly true that there were reports of such, that is another way the interviewer has of influencing the viewer to think there were shots fired, without actually lying and saying so.
Holt does mention that there were other officers there in the same circumstances (even at the same moment) who did not use their weapons. Byrd can’t explain that, and Holt doesn’t press him on it.
The transcript ends with this paragraph (written by NBC):
More than 570 people face criminal charges related to the attack, which resulted in at least five deaths and temporarily sent lawmakers into hiding as they sought to formalize Joe Biden’s presidential victory.
Typical MSM “facts” expressed in their typical manner. There’s nothing that is exactly a flat out boldfaced lie there, but the sentence is very misleading. NBC is almost undoubtedly aware that the criminal charges the demonstrators face almost entirely consist of variations on the “trespassing” theme, and that a significant number of those may be tossed in court because there is video evidence that many demonstrators were let in by the Capitol Police. But CBS doesn’t point that out and it is virtually certain that they are counting on the reader to assume something more in line with the narrative they’re pushing, that the riot was extremely violent and dangerous.
Worst of all is the statement that the attack “resulted in at least five deaths.” That may or may not be technically true, although since four of those five deaths were of completely natural causes we don’t know whether they would have occurred anyway. But the statement is carefully framed to nevertheless suggest to readers the truth of the previous false story the MSM has been pushing right from the start – that the rioters caused the deaths in a more direct manner. And what on earth does “at least” mean? I believe they are implying that the Capitol Police suicides that occurred in the weeks and months since the riots were also caused by the attacks. But we have no idea whether there is any connection, and we haven’t heard much if anything about the lives of these people and what may have actually motivated their suicides.
At this late date, what we now do know (and what the right suspected much earlier) is that four of the non-suicide deaths were all from natural causes and unrelated to any direct actions of the rioters themselves. We also know that the only death that was not of natural causes that day was that of Ashli Babbitt, who was killed by none other than Officer Byrd. And yet she is included by NBC in that five-count.
For a long time NBC and the rest of the MSM lied outright and blatantly – not with subtlety – about one of those naturally-caused deaths, that of Officer Sicknick. They said the rioters had hit him on the head with a fire extinguisher and he died a few hours later of his injuries. None of that is true; not the fire extinguisher, not the injuries, not the cause of death, and not even the time of death. The MSM is well aware that he died of natural causes, and if they’re not aware they’re negligent. But they also know that many of their readers don’t know, so they can get away with repeating the implication that the rioters may indeed have killed five people, something the media knows is utterly untrue.
But as I said, this is typical of the MSM’s approach, and it’s a very useful one in terms of propaganda. I’d love to see a poll on how many Americans continue to think that the rioters killed Officer Sicknick. I bet the numbers would still be high.
SCUM!
“When the legend becomes fact,
Print the legend.”
Lester Dolt is another Dan Rather.
Not sure if that’s an insult to Rather or Holt.
An unarmed woman who was 5’2″ and 125 lbs was shot dead by a big strong black guy with a gun. She was absolutely no threat. And there were heavily armed and uniformed police right behind her. They did nothing.
If she would have gotten through that broken window, he could have easily have cuffed her or something.
Deadly force was not necessary.
Another example of two movies on one screen. One form of justice for Dems and another form of justice for Republicans. Republican trespassers have been held without bond for months in the DC jail.
And that crazy woman Joy Reid on MSNBC kept referring to Ashli Babbitt (say her name!) as a Q Anon follower. WTF? But it just shows that, for the Dems, it’s okay to murder Trump supporters if that get just a little out of line.
This is a total and complete outrage especially compared to the overdose death of the drugged up felon St. George Floyd.
And trust me on this, the Congress will fight the wrongful death case to the bitter end. No pretrial settlement.
No other Capitol police officer felt compelled to discharge his weapon that day.
Not. One.
Heard a couple of Very Nice Church Ladies express drooling, ghoulish approval of the shooting. From a faith tradition which does not believe in capital punishment for first degree murder.]
They ought to see the prequel to the rumination about seeing ourselves as others see us.
Mary Steyn picks up on the “utmost courage” line:
https://www.steynonline.com/11648/performance-art-with-no-performers
He’s black. Must be a hero.
She’s white. Must be a villain.
Facts & truth don’t matter. Case closed.
In my world, he & Sirhan Sirhan don’t walk free they reap what they sow.
Neo, you wrote:
“There’s nothing that is exactly a flat out boldfaced lie there, but the sentence is very misleading.”
This IS a boldfaced lie: “… the attack, which resulted in at least 5 deaths”
Most of the 5 deaths were NOT a result of the “attack”. No!
That’s like the crazies counting a person’s death as due to COVID-19 just because he died near a hospital!
IIRC, only 2 of the dead had anything to do with the protest: the police officer who had a stroke later, & Ashli Babbitt.
One was a drug overdose. Can’t make that a result of a protest. Not even “technically”.
Well trained and disciplined in firearm use.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/08/05/lawyer_capitol_cop_who_shot_ashli_babbitt_ambushed_her_on_jan_6_without_warning_788569.html
I would not be surprised if Byrd had his finger on the trigger at the time, and got bumped or he flinched in response to something. In light of the political hysteria and propaganda, which explanation would be more palatable? No firearm discipline in the bathroom, and no trigger discipline either?
I guess, re -reading, this is the bit you wrote that I question:
“That may or may not be technically true.”
Claiming that “the attack resulted in at least 5 deaths” is quite technically FALSE.
I’ve written & edited many technical papers, & being precise is important. (Many MSM people don’t believe that much, anymore, sadly. )
Marv:
They are far more careful than you think, and far more clever and subtle in their choice of words. This is why nothing they say was a flat-out LIE:
They are not saying the attack caused the deaths. By their choice of the words “resulted in,” they are merely saying (in the literal sense) that the attack led to the deaths – in other words, that “but for” the attack, the deaths would not have occurred. The deaths were mostly cardiovascular or some combination of cardiovascular and other (I think one had to do with asthma medication or some other drug). There is no way to prove that these deaths were bound to happen anyway and that the demonstration and its attendant stresses and/or excitement didn’t have at least some influence on the timing of their deaths. Therefore, they are not lying, because the deaths may have had the stress of the demonstration as having some effect on their health and therefore their deaths.
Obviously, though, that’s not what they are trying to make the reader think. They want the reader to think the deaths were caused by the demonstrators, whether directly or indirectly. But they want to get the reader to think that without the writers directly and unequivocally saying that.
TommyJay, good points!
Neo, got it. Thanks for explaining more, rather than just barfing on me. I got excited.
Marv on August 27, 2021 at 4:27 pm said:
Neo, you wrote:
“There’s nothing that is exactly a flat out boldfaced lie there, but the sentence is very misleading.”
This IS a boldfaced lie: “… the attack, which resulted in at least 5 deaths”
Even calling what went on an “attack” is a lie.
Great article geoffb. Byrd should have been highly trained from his Glynco training.
From geoffb’s article,
He violates 2 of the 4 rules for firearm safety.
1) All guns are always loaded. The purpose of this rule is to develop safe habits. …
2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. …
3) Keep your fingers off the trigger until your sights are on the target. …
4) Be sure of your target and what is beyond it. The first part is to positively identify your target. …
Yes – of course his “utmost” adjective is a hoot – but why were the lives that he saved “countless” ?
His magnificence is beyond all comprehension.
His modesty unquestionable.
Sickening, disgusting, vile.
My only hope is that Ashlie Babbitt’s family can make the individual, and everyone associated, pay very dearly. If the suit is brought in DC, that is no doubt a vain hope. About the same odds that Officer Chauvin would get a fair trial in Minneapolis.
Unrepentant murderer interviewed by practitioner of false witness.
dargon:
Also not a lie. Just a carefully chosen word designed to imply something that isn’t true. But not a lie.
The reason I say that is that some of the demonstrators were violent. It was very much a minority, but they absolutely exist, and they did physically harm some officers. So that’s why the word “attack” is not a lie – but it’s meant to indicate that hundreds and hundreds of people were attacking the police and were planning to attack the members of Congress. And there is no evidence for that.
Neo:
That’s still debatable. Did these demonstrators enter the Capitol with violence in mind or were they intent on causing mayhem and expressing their anger and only got violent when confronted/engaged by the police? Unlike antifa/blm protestors who do actively seek out violence against the police, no one was armed, and it was only through the supposed finding of some zip ties that the media concluded that the demonstrators’ ultimate goal was to attack and kidnap congresspeople.
The problem is that outside of some home videos on the internet, the people who have all the evidence of what precisely happened are the same people who are intent on framing this as a coordinated “attack”. Thus we will probably never know the truth.
Fort Sumter. This one’s got legs.
dargon:
I think there is video evidence that at least some of the demonstrators started and/or escalated violence.
Of course, those may have been the FBI’s entrappers.
Not a lie in the legal sense, as far as could be proven.
However a lie is where you know what the truth is but craft your words to convey, into the minds of those listening, an image that conflicts with the truth as you know it. The lie isn’t in what is said but in the message that the words, intonation, facial expressions, are intended to convey.
Speech always involves an intent to create an image in the mind of another. The words might be defensible as not technically a lie, but the intent behind them was to pass a lie into another’s mind.
“I know that day I saved countless lives, Byrd said.”
Yes, because he stopped shooting unarmed, innocent people after just one.
TommyJay —
In the video I saw, Byrd extended his arm pointing the gun at Babbitt, took a short step forward, and fired. No jostling, no bumping. Not an accident.
“Wow – the utmost courage. I have actually never heard a hero say something like that of himself or herself; it’s rather odd and uncharacteristic and unheroic. Heroes are almost always humble and downplaying their actions…”
MOH winner, Maynard “Snuffy” Smith (a real eight ball) comes to mind. He was a “hero” and everyone should wait on him and be grateful that they could just be around him.
Bryan Lovely,
I looked at an NBC video several times. I’d say you are correct. Although, the real time video shows the gun jerk a little about 1/2 second before the firing. The slo-mo clip starts just after the jerk. Not sure what to make of it, though it looks to be a minor detail.
Erasmus, 7:33pm: not sure if you intended it to be or not but that is very grimly funny. Or grimly very funny.
Sick consequence of affirmative action: I see that he’s black and can’t help wondering if he was qualified for and/or capable in that job. Especially considering that gun-in-the-bathroom incident.
Having read the link posted by geoffb, it looks to me like Byrd is repeating his lawyer’s narrative, which is what obedient clients do.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/08/05/lawyer_capitol_cop_who_shot_ashli_babbitt_ambushed_her_on_jan_6_without_warning_788569.html
The first thought I had reading Byrd’s assertions was that he sounded exactly like LTC Vindman of Impeachment 1.0 fame, who was also a Hero in his own estimation.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-lt-col-vindman-returns
“The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”
–Ralph Waldo Emerson
As far as saving ‘Countless Lives’, well…..I guess that’s a range from zero to infinity, with my emphasis on the former. Who can listen to a man describing himself as heroic and offering this rationalization without describing who it is he thinks he actually saved? The chamber was already mostly evacuated, and they knew exactly how many people were in it.
With the help of the Establishment, which has provided the identity-cloaking services up till now, Byrd is able to front-run the inevitable release of his identity in the Civil case that is in process, and to establish his story as the first one out there, hopefully to dominate – again, with the help of the Establishment. This is merely cynical self-interest in the manner to which we have become familiar. It will convince nobody of his innocence, and harden the beliefs of those who think otherwise. They need a change of venue to West Virginia.
“Better to remain silent and leave your intelligence in doubt, than to speak, and to remove all doubt.”
Sick consequence of affirmative action: I see that he’s black and can’t help wondering if he was qualified for and/or capable in that job. Especially considering that gun-in-the-bathroom incident.
He’s probably fine on a routine day. Doesn’t cut it. The man’s a security guard at heart and should be patrolling the Smithsonian answering patron questions and armed with a billy club or collapsable baton.
AA does this in every stratum of the public sector and in segments of the private sector addled by diversity discourse (the education sector especially). Also, because our odious federal judiciary has insisted civil service examinations be gutted so dopey black applicants can pass them, their screening function is vitiated for all segments of the workforce. We have public bureaucracies chock-a-block with the chronically underperforming because that’s what the judges and the legislators and the public employee unions want. Our elites are horrid.
Lon Horiuchi is still out there and wandering around on a government pension, so Byrd probably thinks he’s home free, too. Both federal officers, both minorities, both shot an unarmed woman who was committing a non-capital federal crime.
From his interview, I distinguish a few differences, mainly in native intelligence. Horiuchi was a West Point graduate, before they woke themselves down. Byrd has a high school diploma.
Unless the FBI puts him in the witness protection program, as was effectively done for Horiuchi, he may not be as home free as he thinks.
For this smurf climbing through the window, a punch in the mouth would have been excessive.
If she’d actually attacked someone, I imagine a passerby would tell the victim about it. Courteous thing to do.