Here’s the problem with that comparison: it’s built on half-truths, loaded language, and outright omissions designed to force a conclusion instead of earn one.
Let’s clean it up.
Ashley Babbitt
Yes, she was unarmed.
She was also actively breaching a barricaded doorway leading directly to members of Congress during an ongoing evacuation.
She ignored repeated commands to stop and was climbing through a smashed window into a secured space.
The officer who shot her was cleared after investigation because the shooting met the legal standard for use of force under those specific circumstances.
That’s not “celebrated by Democrats.” It was investigated, ruled lawful, and largely treated as tragic but legally justified. Many Democrats explicitly said her death was tragic while still condemning the insurrection she was participating in.
Now the other case (the Minneapolis shooting you’re referencing):
The claim that he was “resisting arrest” is disputed by video evidence.
Multiple videos show him filming, being pepper-sprayed, subdued, and on the ground.
The firearm was holstered, legally carried under a concealed-carry permit, and never drawn or pointed in the footage.
He was shot after being subdued, with officers backing away and firing multiple rounds.
There has not yet been a completed independent investigation, and even federal officials are contradicting one another on basic facts.
Calling someone “armed” because they lawfully possess a holstered weapon while restrained is doing a lot of dishonest work for you. By that standard, millions of Americans are “armed” every day, including many of the people cheering this shooting.
So here’s the part you don’t want to confront:
In the Babbitt case, process happened: investigation first, conclusions after.
In this case, people rushed to justify the killing before an investigation, dismissed video evidence, and argued it “doesn’t even matter whether it was justified.”
That’s the difference. Not party. Process.
And one more thing you’re quietly smuggling in:
“Guess which one Democrats celebrated”
That’s a lie by implication. What actually happened is that some people refused to martyrize an insurrectionist, while others are now demanding blind loyalty to federal agents even if the shooting was unlawful.
If your position is:
“Unarmed people can be shot if they’re breaking the law” and
“People with guns should be able to carry them legally without fear of execution”
Then congratulations, you’ve just exposed your own contradiction.
You don’t get to scream Second Amendment on Monday and summary execution on Tuesday.
This isn’t about Democrats vs Republicans. It’s about whether the state has to justify killing someone.
If you think the answer is “no,” just say that. But don’t pretend this meme is anything other than propaganda dressed up as morality.