Replies

Oh, I like “economy of explanation”. I just understand it doesn’t always work in your favor.

Video evidence showing the shooter could be used in a murder prosecution, but the defense would then play the second and third videos, both of which debunk the claim that the shot was fired without any warning at all. If a parade of protesters and cops from that room all say under oath that audible warnings were very clear and Babbit simply ignored them, then where’s that going to leave your righteous indignation?

Relying on “Economy of explanation” is a good way of winning the “it was murder” argument on Twitter or FR where you’re probably preaching to the already converted. It just isn’t good enough for to secure a conviction in a murder trial, where you need to win over an audience of sceptics.

You want economy of explanation? At the moment the evidence is pointing very clearly toward a “not even a conservative jury would convict” conclusion. And that’s before we even know who the shooter is.

If that shooter turns out to be a guard, a bodyguard, a police officer, who was protecting a VIP (i.e. it was explicitly their job to guard that doorway), given that the shooter made every effort to ensure anybody at the doors could CLEARLY see the gun, Babbitt won’t be recorded as a martyr, she’ll be recorded at best as an accident casualty.

If the evidence even from other protestors confirms that Babbit was the only person who ignored the warnings, and any serving police or military officer listening to defense testimony concedes that it was a very well-signposted kill box, then the only thing Babbit’s family will be getting out of it is a Darwin Award.

Sorry to be that blunt, but it’s the thinking of people like you that keeps us having the feeling Charlie Brown gets every time Lucy whips the ball away. You are going to get another dose of that feeling if you keep ignoring reality because reality’s too complicated for you.