Ashli Babbitt's family sues for wrongful death

I’ve linked that multiple times on this board too. It’s really good.

I don’t see anything about an accomplice dying.

Moving on…

‘Check it out, girl. We ganked all that cash Joey was gonna use for his big buy. We stashed it in the storeroom of the bodega where Mikey works until it all blows over. I’m tellin’ ya, babe. Two hundred grand? We’re gonna be livin’ easy!’

[Meanwhile a guy’s chilling on the couch, surreptitiously listening to them.]

Did you just read that one page? The example is shown over the course of several pages.

Click on the arrows to see the next page.

I read the explanation in the first link, but the second link doesn’t seem to relate and I don’t see anywhere to go to another page.

EDIT: OK, I see that you can move by clicking arrows on the keyboard. I’ve never encountered that before.

Accomplice liability for the death of an accomplice at the hands of an innocent actor, such as a police officer acting in self-defense or defense of others, may vary by jurisdiction. As far as whether there is something new or novel about the idea that police can and will, with impunity, gun down people engaged in violent and unlawful activity while advancing towards police (bare-handed or not), all the while failing to heed warnings (even if only non-verbal warnings, like barricades and a gun thrust towards them)… there isn’t.

If someone engaged in a violent crime is advancing towards an armed police officer, contrary to warnings, the only difference between an armed violent criminal and an unarmed violent criminal may very well be whether the officer shoots them before they can lay hands on the officer’s gun and pry it away from them. That’s true whether it is a lone individual or a mob of insurrectionists (although a mob of insurrecitonists certainly does enhance the severity of the danger to the officer).

She was the leader.
I think I’ve read that there is a standard tactic for crowd control which is taught at all police academies : stop the leader.
You can’t arrest 15 people at once, so you focus on the one most likely to influence the others.

In this case, the tactic was successful.
After only one shot, the crowd backed off, and… (begin soundtrack with dramatic music…), democracy was saved.

Imagine what would have happened if the cop had hesitated. Babbitt woiuld have run into the room,followed by another 10 or 20 rioters.

My take from the video I saw was that Babbitt was shot simply because she was the first to attempt to crawl through the door. If someone else had been first they would have been the person shot.

I’m not convinced there was a designated leader in that mob - it was a bunch of people egging each other onward (until some of them spotted the cop with the gun and tried to alert the others). There wasn’t much, if anything, organized there that I could see.

All the fellas were just being gentlemen by allowing the woman to go first.

Actually, all joking aside, I wonder if she was one of the few in that mob who would fit through the opening. I haven’t ever seen clear enough video to determine if she was coaxed to the window by others.

“You go, this is going to be funny!”

Just noticed this thread hasn’t been updated in a while, so here’s the latest: the case was moved out of California and will now be handled in DC. That reflects a decision a couple months ago and has been administratively finalized as of mid June.

Thanks for the update.

I wonder why this hasn’t been dismissed altogether.

They want that decision to be made in DC, not Sothern California. A motion to dismiss is probably coming soon. You’ll notice that the USA hasn’t filed an Answer to the Complaint yet.

They’re probably having trouble figuring out what the legal equivalent of the ‘jerking off’ sign is.

I think that would be some variation of a pro se legal action, where you are representing yourself.

FYI … that worked :wink:


Love the historical reference!

It happens that one of my legal bloggers has a new article today titled

The case he discusses does not involve Ashli Babbit, but it does involve idiots trying to misuse the Court for stupid purposes and being roundly slapped down for it.