Insurrectionist's family suing for ten million

[woodworker]

Ashli Babbitt's family is suing the Capitol Police for $10 million because the insurrectionist was killed during the January 6 insurrection. More details at: https://www.newsweek.com/us-capitol-pol ... er-1587449.

Note the headline describes her as unarmed rioter.

My prediction: they lose. Badly.

[LM K]

Is it in bad taste if I ?

I wish there had been no deaths due to the insurrection. That said, the shooting of Babbitt was one of the most justifiable law enforcement shootings I've ever seen.

[p0rtia]

I thought when I read this that the family was suing the former guy. Since he is the one responsible for her death.

No former guy, no insurrection; no insurrection, Ashli is still alive.

[neeneko]

Why do I suspect 'because black people sue for police shootings!' is a big part of the logic behind this....

[Frater I*I]

Is it in bad taste if I ?

I wish there had been no deaths due to the insurrection. That said, the shooting of Babbitt was one of the most justifiable law enforcement shootings I've ever seen.

Nope, because I am

[bob]

Why do I suspect 'because black people sue for police shootings!' is a big part of the logic behind this....

Likely so: that comparison often is made on social media. (And the retort usually is, "She should have complied.")

I understand the argument that shooting her was unnecessary, less-lethal options were possible, etc. But between the legal standard and qualified immunity, this is mostly for show.

[AndyinPA]

I'm not wishing for more deaths, but maybe if there had been more, it might have been more of a wake-up call.

[northland10]

Why do I suspect 'because black people sue for police shootings!' is a big part of the logic behind this....

Likely so: that comparison often is made on social media. (And the retort usually is, "She should have complied.")

I understand the argument that shooting her was unnecessary, less-lethal options were possible, etc. But between the legal standard and qualified immunity, this is mostly for show.

RWNJ sue for shootings because of entitlement and privilege. Example, the Finicum family.

[noblepa]

I understand the argument that shooting her was unnecessary, less-lethal options were possible, etc. But between the legal standard and qualified immunity, this is mostly for show.

I'm not sure that there really were any less lethal options that were practical. The mob was attacking the officer and, IIRC, pushing against a heavy door, while shouting death threats.

If the officer who shot her was NOT afraid for his life, he was a fool.

In that situation, I might have done the same thing.

[AndyinPA]

I remember that well. That was an enraged mob that was about to break through that door and those windows. And she was at the front of it.

[pipistrelle]

I remember that well. That was an enraged mob that was about to break through that door and those windows. And she was at the front of it.

They would have reached members of Congress, which is why the shooting. She was aggressive and ignoring the officers as well. She chose to get shot.

[Frater I*I]

They would have reached members of Congress, which is why the shooting. She was aggressive and ignoring the officers as well. She chose to get shot.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

[LM K]

I understand the argument that shooting her was unnecessary, less-lethal options were possible, etc. But between the legal standard and qualified immunity, this is mostly for show.

I'm not sure that there really were any less lethal options that were practical. The mob was attacking the officer and, IIRC, pushing against a heavy door, while shouting death threats.

If the officer who shot her was NOT afraid for his life, he was a fool.

In that situation, I might have done the same thing.

Agreed. The idea that the officer could have arrested her is absurd. There were other insurrectionists trying to break more glass. Insurrectionists were swarming just behind Babbitt. Babbitt wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was there to physically stop the certification of a fair election.

Babbitt was one of the first to enter the capital building. Insurrectionists were beating police. Insurrectionists were using weapons.

The only reason other insurrectionists weren't shot was because capital police were swarmed and grossly outnumbered.

The lawyer's argument that the police officer had no reason to believe Babbitt was armed is ridiculous. His argument that there were a lot of other cops on the way is ridiculous. The argument that Babbitt's actions were only misdemeanor crimes is ridiculous.

This case will fail.

[noblepa]

Agreed. The idea that the officer could have arrested her is absurd. There were other insurrectionists trying to break more glass. Insurrectionists were swarming just behind Babbitt. Babbitt wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was there to physically stop the certification of a fair election.

Babbitt was one of the first to enter the capital building. Insurrectionists were beating police. Insurrectionists were using weapons.

The only reason other insurrectionists weren't shot was because capital police were swarmed and grossly outnumbered.

The lawyer's argument that the police officer had no reason to believe Babbitt was armed is ridiculous. His argument that there were a lot of other cops on the way is ridiculous. The argument that Babbitt's actions were only misdemeanor crimes is ridiculous.

This case will fail.

Whether or not she was armed, she and the other insurrectionists could have done a lot of harm to the officer(s) and damage to the building.

Even if other cops were on the way, there is no way that the officer in danger could know that. If they were delayed for only a couple seconds, he could have been dead.

The level of charges that might have been brought against her, had she lived, is irrelevant. At the moment she was shot, the officer had good reason to believe that his life was in danger.

I certainly hope that this case will fail. I believe it will. I hope that the Capitol Police are awarded costs.

[Chilidog]

who is funding this lawsuit?

[fierceredpanda]

who is funding this lawsuit?

Ordinarily, these types of plaintiff's suits are brought by attorney's who are retained on a contingency basis. In other words, if the plaintiff wins, the lawyer gets 30% of the judgment. That's how personal injury/wrongful death suits happen. (And it's why those kinds of attorneys advertise that you don't pay anything "unless you win" or similar language.) And yeah, the attorneys who bring those can end up getting nothing for a lot of work, which is why real PI firms tend to prefer lots of surefire (if small) settlement cases over a small number of dicey but potentially lucrative cases.

I have no idea if this is being brought on a contingency agreement, but I'm sure there are enough self-deluded right-wing lawyers who are convinced that this family is about to get millions, so jump in now to get your piece of the pie.

[bob]

I have no idea if this is being brought on a contingency agreement, but I'm sure there are enough self-deluded right-wing lawyers who are convinced that this family is about to get millions, so jump in now to get your piece of the pie.

Too also: Lin signed onto Rittenhouse's defense essentially for the grift. And Klayman's raison d'etre (allegedly) is outrage filings for the grift.

In other words, winning in court might not be the primary goal.

[northland10]

who is funding this lawsuit?

Ordinarily, these types of plaintiff's suits are brought by attorney's who are retained on a contingency basis. In other words, if the plaintiff wins, the lawyer gets 30% of the judgment. That's how personal injury/wrongful death suits happen. (And it's why those kinds of attorneys advertise that you don't pay anything "unless you win" or similar language.) And yeah, the attorneys who bring those can end up getting nothing for a lot of work, which is why real PI firms tend to prefer lots of surefire (if small) settlement cases over a small number of dicey but potentially lucrative cases.

I have no idea if this is being brought on a contingency agreement, but I'm sure there are enough self-deluded right-wing lawyers who are convinced that this family is about to get millions, so jump in now to get your piece of the pie.

This attorney appears to have a fair amount of experience with police brutality lawsuits and has been successful (I assume not all of the time).

http://robertsandwood.com/our-lawyers/

It does not appear to be a RWNJ grift job or a low lever PI attorney.

[woodworker]

I have no idea if this is being brought on a contingency agreement, but I'm sure there are enough self-deluded right-wing lawyers who are convinced that this family is about to get millions, so jump in now to get your piece of the pie.

Too also: Lin signed onto Rittenhouse's defense essentially for the grift. And Klayman's raison d'etre (allegedly) is outrage filings for the grift.

In other words, whining winning in court might not be is the primary goal.

FIFY

[realist]

who is funding this lawsuit?

Ordinarily, these types of plaintiff's suits are brought by attorney's who are retained on a contingency basis. In other words, if the plaintiff wins, the lawyer gets 30% of the judgment. That's how personal injury/wrongful death suits happen. (And it's why those kinds of attorneys advertise that you don't pay anything "unless you win" or similar language.) And yeah, the attorneys who bring those can end up getting nothing for a lot of work, which is why real PI firms tend to prefer lots of surefire (if small) settlement cases over a small number of dicey but potentially lucrative cases.

I have no idea if this is being brought on a contingency agreement, but I'm sure there are enough self-deluded right-wing lawyers who are convinced that this family is about to get millions, so jump in now to get your piece of the pie.

This attorney appears to have a fair amount of experience with police brutality lawsuits and has been successful (I assume not all of the time).

http://robertsandwood.com/our-lawyers/

It does not appear to be a RWNJ grift job or a low lever PI attorney.

http://www.injurylawyerdatabase.com/md/ ... ii/156515/

[June bug]

They would have reached members of Congress, which is why the shooting. She was aggressive and ignoring the officers as well. She chose to get shot.

This. in. spades.

[pipistrelle]

Roberts said Congress owes the public an explanation. "What it looks like is this guy shot this lady for no legitimate law enforcement purpose. And you know, they ought to be pretty ashamed of that," he said. "I mean, [it's] pretty, pretty bad, that you don't hear any member of Congress speaking out about this thing. In a free country like ours, it's very strange and odd that they wouldn't identify the officer, or even provide some details, explaining why he had to kill her.

"You would probably expect this kind of thing to happen in Russia," he said, "where people get bumped off and you don't know why they get bumped off," he said.

No, it looks to this member of the public like she was trying her dangdest to get to members of Congress, which many in the mob were promising to kill. She wasn’t “bumped off,” idiot. Do you even know what “bumped off” means?

Let’s hear from a Republican who was there.

Rep Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said Jan. 7 that he witnessed the shooting. He told ABC News that "when they broke the glass in the back [of the House chamber], the lieutenant that was there ... didn't have a choice at that time."

"The mob was going to come through the door," Rep. Mullin said less than 24 hours after Babbitt's death. "There was a lot of members and staff that were in danger at the time. ... His actions I believe saved people's lives even more. Unfortunately it took one, though."

[neonzx]

Dance!

[sterngard friegen]

WTF is that?

[sugar magnolia]

WTF is that?

Apparently something related to the Jan 6 insurrection.