ICE told to get the eff out

[freddiemercurystwin]

Your wording is already implying guilt --Does everyone agree that the second and third shots were definitely illegal. -- So no I dont because I dont know

Even if the first shot could somehow be justified the second and third cannot, seems there's a fair bit of case law being banded about saying as such eg

Orn vs. City of Tacoma:

an officer lacks an objectively reasonable basis for believing that his own safety is at risk when firing into the side or rear of a vehicle moving away from him

 

[SPLINE]

I'd be interested to see if we can all reach some common ground:

I'm not interested in that! I just want Trump and the ICE people to continue the deportations. Have another extreme, far-right video for your superciliousness...

 

[Brigadier]

You can obviously work out what I was saying just stop being so boring and pretending to be thick - or are you not pretending

You have form - repeated form - for posting drivel then, when called out for it, claiming you meant something different.

Not that anyone takes you seriously anyway

 

[noseall]

You have form - repeated form

He enjoys trolling.

- for posting drivel then, when called out for it, claiming you meant something different

And been banned for it too.

Not that anyone takes you seriously anyway

It's poor, low intelligence stuff.

 

[MNW67]

I'm not interested in that! I just want Trump and the ICE people to continue the deportations. Have another extreme, far-right video for your superciliousness...

Another yawnathon showing a sad little man displaying the right wing holy trinity of fake outrage, false equivalency and the egregious use of straw men.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Another yawnathon showing a sad little man displaying the right wing holy trinity of fake outrage, false equivalency and the egregious use of straw men.

That spline laps up

 

[motorbiking]

That's rather gobbledegooky. I think the rule is whether a reasonable officer would have perceived there was a threat of death or serious injury in the same circumstances.

Search for the Graham Factors. It's not as simple as you pretend. Also read Tennessee v. Garner
The Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) established that the apprehension of a suspect by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. The case involved a suspect whom the police had probable cause to arrest for burglarizing a home. On leaving the house, the suspect fled from a police officer who shot and killed the suspect although the suspect was unarmed and did not appear to be dangerous.

The Court found that the Fourth Amendment was implicated because the “intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched” and probable cause to seize a suspect is not enough to justify killing him (471 U.S., at 9). The reasonableness of a seizure is determined by balancing “the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion” . The government's interests in apprehending suspects include public safety, discouraging crime, and discouraging attempts to flee from officers. The Court finds these interests to be important but decides that the use of deadly force isn't a “sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects” (471 U.S., at 10).

Deadly force may be used to prevent escape of a suspect when “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others…” (471 U.S., at 11). This means that deadly force is justified to prevent escape if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime involving or threatening serious physical harm. A warning should be given if possible. The Court considered burglary a serious crime but not so dangerous that it automatically justifies the use of deadly force against suspects.

 

[MNW67]

Search for the Graham Factors. It's not as simple as you pretend. Also read Tennessee v. Garner

I looked all this up the other day. And I am honest enough to admit that. Because I am certainly not going to pretend that I am an expert on US criminal law. Even after watching hundreds of episodes of Law & Order! But the principles of the law are clear and straightforward, and what I wrote was legally perfect. The test which is applied is one of objective reasonableness, similar to what is sometimes called the Man on the Clapham Omnibus in UK law. In the US, they look at whether a reasonable officer would have acted the same way in exactly the same circumstances.

 

[motorbiking]

I looked all this up the other day. And I am honest enough to admit that. Because I am certainly not going to pretend that I am an expert on US criminal law. Even after watching hundreds of episodes of Law & Order! But the principles of the law are clear and straightforward, and what I wrote was legally perfect. The test which is applied is one of objective reasonableness, similar to what is sometimes called the Man on the Clapham Omnibus in UK law. In the US, they look at whether a reasonable officer would have acted the same way in exactly the same circumstances.

and yet you appear to have concluded his actions were unlawful? yes?

 

[MNW67]

and yet you appear to have concluded his actions were unlawful? yes?

I have concluded that the second and third gunshots were unlawful. We don't have enough information yet about the first gunshot.

 

[motorbiking]

I have concluded that the second and third gunshots were unlawful. We don't have enough information yet about the first gunshot.

what was the timing between 1st, 2nd and 3rd, there seem to be so many videos out there. The first was the fatal shot I assume?

 

[MNW67]

what was the timing between 1st, 2nd and 3rd, there seem to be so many videos out there. The first was the fatal shot I assume?

We don't know yet which shot killed her. In a legal sense, that is the crucial factor, as I have previously written several times above. If she was killed by the first shot, then we still don't know enough about the circumstances. But it is clear from the photos that for the second and third shots the killer was in control and that he intentionally fired through the side window. So, if either of these two shots killed her, it is a slam dunk. Whether it will ever get prosecuted is an entirely different matter!

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

We don't know yet which shot killed her. In a legal sense, that is the crucial factor, as I have previously written several times above. If she was killed by the first shot, then we still don't know enough about the circumstances. But it is clear from the photos that for the second and third shots the killer was in control and that he intentionally fired through the side window. So, if either of these two shots killed her, it is a slam dunk. Whether it will ever get prosecuted is an entirely different matter!

You're getting bogged down in irrelevant detail. You can't have a legal 1st shot then illegal 2nd and 3rd. If he felt that killing her was justified at the start then you really can't expect him to pause, have a sit-down chat with her, ponder then write a report before continuing his no doubt highly trained procedure to ensure that the perp ends up dead and no threat to anyone's safety.

From firing probably thousands of rounds in a firing range, those 2nd and 3rd shots are probably as automatic as pressing the clutch when you change gear, just muscle memory.

 

[MNW67]

You can't have a legal 1st shot then illegal 2nd and 3rd

Yes you can.

 

[noseall]

You're getting bogged down in irrelevant detail. You can't have a legal 1st shot then illegal 2nd and 3rd.

"...Continuing to shoot an attacker after they are clearly no longer a threat can transform a potentially justifiable act of self-defense into a crime, such as assault, manslaughter, or murder..."

And that applies to innocent women attempting to flee armed masked attackers, too.