[semimojo]

“In order for lethal force to be authorized, the officer has to be able to articulate that he or she was in fear of losing his life, was about to be killed, or grievously injured,”

This guy's an idiot.

Someone tasked with protecting an official looks at potential harm to the person he's protecting, not himself.

I'm not defending Byrd's action but this "expert" brings nothing to the conversation.

[arthurus]

The shooter did not look to be protecting anyone from anything. At best he was “protecting” someone who might have been further inside the building and who might possibly have been in danger of being spoken to offensively.

[FreeReign]

“In order for lethal force to be authorized, the officer has to be able to articulate that he or she was in fear of losing his life, was about to be killed, or grievously injured,”

This guy's an idiot. Someone tasked with protecting an official looks at potential harm to the person he's protecting, not himself.

The guy only applies the standard to Bryd's life because, there was nobody else near Bryd! The hallway that Bryd was defending, was empty. Nobody else was about to be killed or injured.

No, the guy is not an idiot.

[TigersEye]

Someone tasked with protecting an official looks at potential harm to the person he's protecting, not himself.

There was no one with him to be under his protection at the time.

You have brought nothing to this conversation.

[freeandfreezing]

Someone tasked with protecting an official looks at potential harm to the person he's protecting, not himself.

I suspect that the expert is a little more of an expert than you are. At the moment of the shooting there is no one but police officers and protestors at the scene. Two other heavily armed officers standing with the crowd are not concerned enough to even raise their weapons, or push the crowd back.

There is no evidence that there was anyone, let alone an "official" at risk of immediate harm. The use of deadly force, even by a security guard protecting an "official" is only justified in the event of imminent danger to the person they are protecting.

If, as you suggest, the test was potential harm, then people tasked with protecting "officials" would have to be out daily shooting somebody who made a threat, or seemed like a danger, or who might decide to do something in the future. That's not the test under the law.

[Pontiac]

Someone tasked with protecting an official looks at potential harm to the person he's protecting, not himself.

I’ll have to agree with FreeReign, there was no one there to protect.

Byrd executed Babbit.

He articulated no warning, he made no attempt to arrest, she had no weapon, she posed no threat.

Consider John Hinkley Jr’s attempt to assonate Ronald Reagan.

The Secret Service did not shoot him even though Hinkley had already fired multiple shots. They shielded Reagan with their bodies and tackled Hinkley to the ground.

Being a Capitol Hill cop does not give him the power to take a woman’s life without just cause. He has to obey the same laws as anyone else.

This case is a gross miscarriage of justice