Family of Jan. 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt and Government Agree on Settlement Terms

In a decision that has once more opened up fresh controversies surrounding the January 6, 2021, events, the United States government has settled a payment with the Ashli Babbitt family. This female Trump supporter was killed by a Capitol Police officer when the mob invaded the U.S. Capitol. The wrongful death suit, originally filed for $30 million in damages, alleged that Babbitt’s death was unnecessary and avoidable. Although settlement terms are confidential and not on paper, the Justice Department and lawyers representing Babbitt’s estate both said they have an agreement “in principle.”

Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old San Diego native who was a military veteran, was among the pro-Trump mob of people who stormed the Capitol in an effort to prevent certification of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Babbitt tried to force through the broken glass door that had been blocked straight into the Speaker’s Lobby – bare feet away from where lawmakers were being led safely. A Capitol Police lieutenant, prepared to protect those inside, then fired once. Armed Babbitt was struck and killed a few seconds later.

The shooting was one of the most disputed incidents of the day. The District of Columbia U.S. Attorney’s Office deemed the actions of the officer legal under the defense of lawmakers and doctrine of self-defense. However, Babbitt’s supporters and family challenged that characterization vigorously. According to her estate in its lawsuit, it is charged by the off-duty officer charged with never giving an order or warning before firing a shot. The lawsuit also accused the Capitol Police of negligence in failing to stop one of their own officers, whom they claimed to know had a tendency to behave “incompetently” or “dangerously,” from using deadly force.

“Ashli was not a threat to the safety of others,” the lawsuit claimed, calling her killing avoidable and unnecessary. Her family insists that the officer could have de-escalated the situation and calm things down without using lethal force.

Following the encounter, the officer explained his conduct in public that he had shot his gun in desperation. He insisted he was not sure whether Babbitt, or whoever else was trying to force past the area, was armed. His interview left the impression of a high-tension, dynamic situation in which he felt that lives were endangered, including his own.

Independent of that accounting, Babbitt’s death has been utilized as a clarion call to anger, loudest among Trump voters. She was mythologized as quickly as possible by some on the far right as a martyr and her death symbolized in political terms opposite of what the January 6 events symbolize and the way in which one is expected to commemorate them. Former President Donald Trump has asked her many times, sometimes venting outrage at her murder and demanding “justice” for Babbitt.

The case at hand is significant as much from a legal perspective as also one of timing and the implications of that. No publicly released figure has been made available on the behalf of either side on what government would pay, but the mere fact that consideration is being made at all to settle has, to some, been akin to admitting that whatever had happened was indeed worth a reconsideration.

All of that aside, however, the officer’s legal justification and official findings from a series of investigations remain. The Justice Department and the U.S. Capitol Police have uniformly reaffirmed the conclusion that the officer was within his rights, reacting to a legitimate threat, in a hostile and historic context.

Adding to the wider political fallout, this judicial action is itself timely because debate over the post-January 6 consequences remains far from closed. Some of the defendants charged with taking part in the Capitol siege have already tried to run for public office, and more and more now, former national security officials and former prosecutors alike fear that only such political manipulation can accelerate violence. Ex-President Trump, in his final act in office, granted pardons, commuted sentences, or resolved cases for over 1,500 individuals, among them being a few who were involved in the Capitol insurrection.

While there will be some closure for Babbitt’s family from this result, the broader national debate of January 6 remains the question. To some, Babbitt’s death is the preventable victim of misinformation, political polarization, and the violent translation of words into actions. To others, her case raises profound questions about police brutality and accountability – yes even in worst-case scenarios like the storming of the Capitol.

Since the final terms of the agreement are still in negotiation, only time will determine how both sides will present this solution to the public. The agreement is, however, a reminder that the legal, political, and emotional aftershocks of that day in January continue more than four years later.