Truth should be measured by evidence, not by political allegiance.
Can’t we all agree on that?
With that in mind, a useful question for citizens and journalists to ask at times like this is simple: “Help me understand …”
The phrasing invites the person being questioned to explain his or her views on some matter of interest without the questioner coming across as accusatory.
Had I been in the White House press briefing room last week for one of Karoline Leavitt’s Q&A’s, I would have framed a question like this about the Minneapolis woman’s shooting death by a federal agent:
“Help me understand why the president and his top allies have called Renee Good an agitator and domestic terrorist, whereas they have portrayed Ashli Babbitt as a really good person and said the U.S. Capitol Police officer who shot her got away with murder?”
Had I attended one of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s press gathering last week, I would have put this question to her:
“Help me understand the $5 million settlement your lawyers reached with Ms. Babbitt’s family. The government’s official investigation concluded the officer acted appropriately when he shot her as she and rioters broke into the House speaker’s offices at the Capitol. Does the settlement mean Renee Good’s family deserves a similar settlement?”
Were I in the swarm of reporters at Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s media availability last week when she announced that Good’s actions were domestic terrorism and that Good deliberately “weaponized” her vehicle against one of Noem’s officers, I would have asked the secretary:
“Help me understand how the government’s investigation of this shooting can be trusted when you have already stated your official conclusion without equivocation only an hour or so after her death.”
As America comes to grips with another controversial shooting by law enforcement officers, an uncomfortable fact of life these days: Who gets sympathy depends on politics.
Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran and supporter of President Trump, joined a mob of hundreds of protesters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol as members of Congress were certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. The mob’s goal was to block the tabulation.
Babbitt was shot and killed by a U.S. Capitol Police officer as she tried to climb through a broken window into the locked door leading to the House speaker’s offices while members of Congress were fleeing for their safety.
President Trump later praised Babbitt and called her “a really good person.” His supporters called her a patriot and termed her death an execution.
After returning to office in 2025, Trump pardoned all Capitol rioters and questioned why the Capitol Police officer was allowed to “get away with murder.”
Babbitt has taken on martyr status in the past five years. The president’s allies point to her death as evidence the government overreacted to events on January 6, 2021 at the Capitol.
Contrast that with reaction last week from the president and administration officials after the shooting of Renee Good, 37, a military veteran’s widow and mother of three. She had no criminal record and was protesting on January 7 what she and her neighbors believe was an overreach by federal law enforcement officers in Minneapolis.
In the first hours after three gunshots rang out in the neighborhood, our nation’s top leaders did not take what has been the customary approach by past leaders — expressing concern and empathy, urging people to remain calm and reserve judgment, and asking the public to wait for a thorough investigation to separate fact from conjecture.
Instead, the president, vice president and secretary of the Department of Homeland Security immediately reached identical conclusions: Good was engaged in domestic terrorism and weaponized her Honda Pilot against an ICE officer. The officer acted in self-defense when he shot her. Case closed.
Many of the same people who praised Babbitt portrayed Good as an agitator and violent threat to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.
The disconnect between the reactions to two tragic deaths illustrates a disturbing pattern in our country. When a shooting aligns ideologically or politically with a narrative that fits in with a group’s views, the need for a thorough, unfettered investigation gives way to allegiance to group think.
If Ashli Babbitt’s supporters are opposed to what they see as unjust government violence, then they should be equally outraged by Renee Good’s death, too. If they truly believe every shooting by law officers must be thoroughly and independently examined, they should demand that Minnesota state investigators be allowed to work alongside the FBI and not be excluded from the Good case.
Instead, we see selective outrage, with empathy being apportioned according to political usefulness.
# # #
