ICE told to get the eff out

[MNW67]

It’s beyond a stretch to even begin to argue which shot was the deadly shot or that no single shot would have been deadly in the absence of the others. Assuming you can make a convincing argument that shot one hit the arm, you are still left with the argument that it was as single cognitive act to open fire or that the valid threat for shot one was somehow no longer there under a second later.

I can see this argument if he opened fire and the calmly walked up to the crashed car for a double tap execution style.

But in this context it’s beyond nonsense.

Courts look at this stuff all the time.

The law says once the danger is passed, you have to stop shooting.

The research says he had time to stop.

The photos show he changed his body position and stance to shoot at the car as it drove away from him.

There is no such thing, in self defence, as a single cognitive act which covers all three shots. There would be if the intention was to kill.

 

[motorbiking]

Courts look at this stuff all the time.

The law says once the danger is passed, you have to stop shooting.

The research says he had time to stop.

The photos show he changed his body position and stance to shoot at the car as it drove away from him.

There is no such thing, in self defence, as a single cognitive act which covers all three shots. There would be if the intention was to kill.

1. Yep. Look at the case law. It’s pretty grim, the bar is set very high and the threat level very low.
2. Research that refers to reaction time not hazard / threat analysis. Again you’ve amplified something that isn’t very relevant.
3 a still photo a fraction of a second apart is not going to help when we know how close all the shots were
4 a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what was said to argue a point that is irrelevant.

It’s all beyond weak.

 

[Vinty]

She gave the permission by accelerating towards the agent.

Didn't she first reverse in order to drive around the agent.

 

[motorbiking]

Didn't she first reverse in order to drive around the agent.

She didn’t manage it.

 

[MNW67]

a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what was said to argue a point that is irrelevant.

That's not true. You need to learn to write clearly. What did you actually mean then.

 

[MNW67]

a still photo a fraction of a second apart is not going to help when we know how close all the shots were

How does somebody process that a car has passed them, move their body to track it and shoot at it, but not realise it is no longer a danger. Honest question.

 

[motorbiking]

He either deliberately positioned himself to block the car knowing he would have grounds to shoot if she moved forward and put him at risk.

Or.

He made a genuine decision to shoot because he thought he was going to get run over.

In either case all rounds were fired so close together that this was a single cognitive process in response to a manufactured or genuine threat.

 

[Highway Man]

Didn't she first reverse in order to drive around the agent.

No she went straight at him, she only turned her wheels to get through the gap in front of her. She wasn't interested that she might run into the agent but she did.

 

[MNW67]

In either case all rounds were fired so close together that this was a single cognitive process in response to a manufactured or genuine threat.

I can't see that.

If he manufactured the situation and his intention was to shoot to kill, that is very different to a shoot to stop in self defence. The whole mindset is completely different.

 

[motorbiking]

I can't see that.

If he manufactured the situation and his intention was to shoot to kill, that is very different to a shoot to stop in self defence. The whole mindset is completely different.

Well of course it is.

good luck proving it unless someone finds a chat group where they discuss escalation tactics.

It’s not shoot to stop. It’s lawful deadly force.

 

[Highway Man]

I can't see that.

If he manufactured the situation and his intention was to shoot to kill, that is very different to a shoot to stop in self defence. The whole mindset is completely different.

Nobody on this earth could shoot one shot and then stop in a split second. The shots were fired in a manner that was most certainly a shoot to kill scenario.

 

[Highway Man]

Rebecca Good’s account after ICE shooting incident​

Rebecca Good, 40, later appeared on video crying and blaming herself. She said, “it’s my fault,” and explained she encouraged Renee to go to the scene. In a written statement given to Minnesota Public Radio, she said, “We had whistles. They had guns.”

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Well at least she recognises who is to blame, all self inflicted

 

[MNW67]

Nobody on this earth could shoot one shot and then stop in a split second. The shots were fired in a manner that was most certainly a shoot to kill scenario.

Research shows that they can stop. Average for a police officer is 0.35 seconds to stop once threat has ended. This guy was very highly trained so would have been quicker. I would say that, before the first shot had even been fired, he realised he was no longer in any danger, because by then he could see the car was moving away. It was too late to stop the first shot. But he only continued shooting to make sure of the kill.

 

[ellal]

Well at least she recognises who is to blame, all self inflicted

Well at least we know you don't agree with the right to protest

 

[Highway Man]

Well at least we know you don't agree with the right to protest

Not sure how you have arrived at that, read my comments