I disagree with one thing you said. We DO know that Ashli Babbit was murdered without any justification. In fact, in this situation the State owes us a very detailed and precise justification and until there is one provided we can rationally assume that it was NOT justified given all we do know plus the video. Maybe this sounds like I'm assuming guilt without due process. But I'm accusing the State. Think about it, does the State get due process? What happens when the State simply declares it is justified and declines due process (like a stolen election)? ... What I'm getting at is - there is NO presumption of innocence given to the State. - So the appropriate action of the State is to charge the officer of murder and then give that officer due process. They don't want to do this because that will expose the murderer in the shooter's ear.

If this was justified then they would be able to show the documented rules of use of lethal force, then show how the victim's actions justified pulling the trigger.

Edit: I posted before asking for a debate with the "Ashli is Fake" crowd. If that's you and you want to debate please use that post. The point of this post is a little advanced for you.