By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Justice has settled a wrongful death lawsuit filed on behalf of Ashli Babbitt’s estate for nearly $5 million. The suit alleged negligence by U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, who shot and killed Babbitt during the January 6th Capitol riot. While the Capitol Police cleared Byrd of misconduct, the settlement concludes the civil case. This decision has drawn criticism from U.S. Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger, who expressed his disappointment with the settlement. The incident surrounding Babbitt’s death has become a focal point for supporters of former President Trump.
Read the original article here
The Trump administration’s decision to pay $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbitt, a rioter who was shot and killed during the January 6th Capitol attack, has sparked widespread outrage and bewilderment. The sheer amount of taxpayer money involved is staggering, leaving many questioning the justification for such a significant payout. This isn’t simply about a monetary figure; it’s about the principle of rewarding those who actively participated in an attempt to overthrow the government.
The underlying sentiment expressed by many is that this payment feels like a betrayal of the American people. It appears to send a dangerous message, potentially incentivizing future acts of violence and insurrection. The idea that someone who actively participated in an attempt to violently disrupt democratic processes should be financially compensated, rather than held accountable, is deeply unsettling. This decision feels like a slap in the face to those who uphold the law and believe in peaceful transitions of power.
The outrage extends beyond the financial implications. There’s a palpable sense of injustice, fueled by the comparison to the lack of compensation or recognition for law enforcement officers who were injured or killed during the same attack. The argument that Officer Brian Sicknick, and other injured officers, deserve far greater compensation than the family of a rioter is a potent one, highlighting the perceived imbalance and lack of accountability.
The argument that Babbitt was a domestic terrorist is repeated frequently, emphasizing that her actions were not a mere act of civil disobedience but an attempt to subvert the democratic process through violence. The fact that she was warned before she was shot reinforces this point, suggesting that her death was a direct consequence of her own choices and actions. The perception that she was attempting to access areas where lawmakers were sheltering adds to the gravity of her actions, painting her as a direct threat.
Many express profound disappointment in what they perceive as a complete lack of accountability for those involved in the January 6th attack. The feeling is amplified by the contrast between the hefty payment to Babbitt’s family and the lack of adequate support for those who were defending the Capitol and upholding the law. There’s a strong sense that this payout is a deeply flawed and potentially harmful precedent.
The issue is further complicated by the perceived lack of consistency in the government’s response. The act of compensating the family of someone who engaged in seditious acts clashes with the general understanding of justice and accountability. The perceived disparity in treatment between Babbitt and other participants in the riot further fuels the public’s anger and frustration. Many see this as an attempt to appease a specific segment of the population, potentially emboldening future extremist actions.
Beyond the immediate anger and frustration, there is also a significant concern about the long-term implications of this decision. The fact that taxpayer money is being used to compensate the family of someone who actively participated in an attempt to overthrow the government sends a chilling message. It raises profound questions about the government’s priorities and its commitment to upholding the rule of law.
The consensus view appears to be one of deep disappointment and cynicism. The decision is widely viewed as a misallocation of resources, a potential incentive for future violence, and a profound insult to those who defended the Capitol on January 6th. The payment to Babbitt’s family is seen as a profound failure of leadership and a disturbing example of government priorities. The overall sentiment is one of profound disillusionment with the political climate and a fear that this decision will have dangerous ramifications.