Law prof Jonathan Turley weighs in on the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. This follows the exoneration of the Capitol police lieutenant who shot her and his subsequent interview. The point that Turley makes that is most remarkable is that Byrd, in his interview, demolished the rationale that had been advanced to exonerate him. One wonders--at least I do; Turley doesn't mention this--was he not represented by counsel? How could his lawyers have possibly allowed him to say the things he said--in public, on TV? What does this say about America?
Here's Turley's Twitter advert for his article at The Hill. I reviewed some of the comments and the majority of them were ... pretty wild, from the perspective of this lawyer and retired LE guy. Who knew Lefties were such hard assed--not to say, bloodthirsty--law and order types?
Turley's article today goes into the specifics of the case from the standpoint of legal principles that have long been "settled". In a way, DoJ's handling of the shooting seems similar to FDA's recent "authorization" of Pfizer's vaccine--or whatever actually happened.