Starkiller Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 3 minutes ago, Titandan said: The cowardly ICE Gestapo just assassinated her from behind the bushes about 100 feet away. Actually the ICE Gestapo agent shot her in the head 3 times from point blank range… reo, and IsntLifeFunny 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 Just now, Titandan said: No he was a safe distance away from moving vehicle. Yes, standing beside the drivers side door close enough to shoot the driver through the window is a safe distance… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctm Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 From what I can see, the shooting agent is originally standing about in line with the drivers headlight of the car. Can't determine the original exact distance from shooter to car. Then the car starts to drive away veering away from him to the right. News reports also indicate that two of the shooter's shots were fired at the car as it has already departed. One other factor I can't determine. Did the shooter already have his gun drawn before the car started to move? It so, that speaks to his original intent....not to protect himself from an oncoming vehicle. Titandan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post MadMax Posted January 11 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 11 OILERMAN, reo, pat, and 2 others 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 (edited) 2 minutes ago, MadMax said: Edited January 11 by reo MadMax, and Starkiller 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeFan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 33 minutes ago, reo said: None of that matters. The ICE officer still used excessive force. He was not justified in what he did. That's your opinion. I would bet the law differs with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, LongTimeFan said: That's your opinion. I would bet the law differs with you. “Deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” — Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) “An officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person.” — U.S. Department of Justice, Use of Force Policy That is the law. Not whether the person disobeyed, fled, or what the officer later claimed he believed — but whether an imminent, unavoidable lethal threat actually existed at the moment force was used. MadMax, Starkiller, and IsntLifeFunny 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMax Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, reo said: “Deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” — Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) “An officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person.” — U.S. Department of Justice, Use of Force Policy That is the law. Not whether the person disobeyed, fled, or what the officer later claimed he believed — but whether an imminent, unavoidable lethal threat actually existed at the moment force was used. Well whaddya know. This should end the argument. We know it won't. More bullshit incoming. reo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeFan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, reo said: “Deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” — Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) “An officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person.” — U.S. Department of Justice, Use of Force Policy That is the law. Not whether the person disobeyed, fled, or what the officer later claimed he believed — but whether an imminent, unavoidable lethal threat actually existed at the moment force was used. "when the OFFICER reasonably believes" Thanks for making a post that dismantled your own opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 4 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said: "when the OFFICER reasonably believes" Thanks for making a post that dismantled your own opinion. “Reasonable belief” is an objective standard, not a personal one. When the officer was no longer in the car’s path and fired anyway, the legal justification for lethal force no longer existed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 8 minutes ago, reo said: “Deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” — Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) “An officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person.” — U.S. Department of Justice, Use of Force Policy That is the law. Not whether the person disobeyed, fled, or what the officer later claimed he believed — but whether an imminent, unavoidable lethal threat actually existed at the moment force was used. What they don't seem to get, or want to get, is that even if the first bullet can be argued to be justified that isn't the entire act. The intent and circumstances of the second and third bullets still deeply matter in regards to how the law views the act. That is an inescapable fact. reo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 6 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said: "when the OFFICER reasonably believes" Thanks for making a post that dismantled your own opinion. Refer to the above. The intent behind the second and third bullet are categorically different than the initial discharge. By the time he pulled the trigger a 3rd time he was no longer in any danger whatsoever and was shooting a fleeing suspect. reo, and Titandan 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, Titandan said: Notice how conservatives or people with the capability to think independently aren't totally excusing the officer of any wrong doing? But most of you on the left can't escape binary thinking. Officer bad Lesbian good. Me smart. This isn’t about politics or teams. It’s about whether lethal force met the legal standard. Applying that standard consistently isn’t “binary thinking” — it’s accountability. IsntLifeFunny 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, Titandan said: Notice how conservatives or people with the capability to think independently aren't totally excusing the officer of any wrong doing? But most of you on the left can't escape binary thinking. Officer bad Lesbian good. Me smart. You mean like your leaders who said he had total immunity while lying that he was injured, and then calling the lady a domestic terrorists? Yeah, sure dummy. reo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctm Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 Look at the alignment of the two bullet holes. Where does it appear that the agent may have been standing? Passenger side of the vehicle? Center of the vehicle? Or straight in front of the drivers headlight? Starkiller 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.