I think you are right about everything you posted except for the last paragraph. Yes, I believe that Trump is trying to create a system in which his supporters are rewarded for breaking the law for him. The payment to Babbit's family and the January 6th pardons make that clear, IMO. He's a fascist wannabe dictator and our only halfway saving grace is that he is old and likely unhealthy. I've never defended Trump on here and don't think I ever will. I've made it clear how I feel about him.
The reason I brought up Brown is not because I'm arguing against the points you have made above. That wasn't the argument I was trying to make. My argument was much more superficial. There was a lot of outrage not because of what you said but because Babbit was a criminal who was justifiably shot and killed while committing a crime. This brought out the question, "how is her family getting paid when she was the one in the wrong?" That's what brought me to the Brown situation. The motivations may be different, but the results are nearly identical.
You are right that I have brought up that case several times on here. I guess I still feel some type of way towards that whole event because my asking people to hold up on their rush to judgement in that situation is what got me relentlessly harassed and eventually driven away from the ZZL. But that's another subject entirely.
Regardless, in this particular situation we don't appear to disagree. We're not arguing against each other. We just have different arguments.
1. I think people are focusing on the "justifiably shot because she's a criminal" because it shows that her case is incredibly weak. I don't know anything about Brown's lawsuit but I'm extremely confident that Babbitt would lose in court. The factual situation with Mike Brown is more contested because there were eyewitnesses supporting part of his estate's story and would at a minimum testify that Brown was shot at while fleeing (though those bullets apparently missed). Babbit's encounter was caught on video. She was literally in the process of invading the Capitol.
Legally speaking the cases are different. Suing the federal government in a situation like this has its own challenges. There's no way she would have won a jury verdict in DC. The venue is different. That's why people are so furious, and let's not forget that the background fascism is very much at issue.
2. I can't comment on the ZZL. It's true that on this board, you tend to be reasonable when pressed. However, you might consider whether your initial postings contribute to negative perceptions of you. Maybe don't start with a maximalist position. Advance the most uncontroversial aspects of your thoughts first. Only then, having established bona fides of reasonableness, should you push further. Also, include caveats. Those are very helpful, in my view. You've probably noticed that I caveat my comments as much as anyone, despite being one of the most knowledgeable posters here.
If you had posted something like: "the fascism here from Trump is intolerable. On the narrow issue of whether she's being rewarded for her crimes, it seems to me -- not being a lawyer -- that our system often works that way for better or worse," the reception would have been very different, I think. It's really important to control your first impression, right? Let's say that you think there was a cover-up re: one of the space shuttle explosions and you have a good point to make there. The way to start that dialogue is to refer narrowly to that claim. If you start with "NASA has been covering things up since the fake moon landing and also these shuttle coverups" people are going to dismiss you as a crank without considering your opinion.
Also, it's relatively important to understand that MAGAs always whatabout with black people when possible. It's part of their public displays of racism. When you do that, you're aligning yourself -- intentionally or not -- with that mentality. You could have made the same point without bringing up Mike Brown. Or make the point generally before mentioning him, so as to cast his case as a mere illustration as opposed to being the main point.
3. In general, I think most of the complaining about "intolerance" and "groupthink" on this board simply reflects our collective expectation that people express themselves clearly. A lot of lawyers here, and lawyers tend to frown instinctively on "right for bad reasons" because "right" often collapses to those bad reasons at later stages of litigation. Apart from that, it's always better to be clear in your positions, and don't muddle them. If you have to think for a couple of minutes to gather and organize your thoughts before posting, I would suggest it. I usually spend as much time laying out the organization of a post in my head as I do typing it. I recognize that I'm a bit of an outlier in this respect, as I've been writing argumentative prose for my job for a quarter century and I'm also very good at it (judging by awards and recognition). So the distribution of time between those tasks might be non-standard. I still think it couldn't hurt to at least take a small cue from it.