ICE told to get the eff out

  • Thread starter Thread starter JP_
  • Start date Start date
motorbiking said:
he was / is
Click to expand...
Then he was fully justified to shoot the way he was trained, he has aimed the multiple shots at the chest area and took her down in a classic text book manner. This is not murder it is stopping someone who has presented danger to him and others around him. No court is going to convict him based on his training and experience.
 
Highway Man said:
Then he was fully justified to shoot the way he was trained, he has aimed the multiple shots at the chest area and took her down in a classic text book manner. This is not murder it is stopping someone who has presented danger to him and others around him. No court is going to convict him based on his training and experience.
Click to expand...

He hasn't been in the military for almost twenty years. He has spent most of two decades since in law enforcement. I think we can assume he has had masses of weapons training since and that he can understand the difference between self defence and intention to kill.

Interestingly, when you read that full research, which was produced for a law enforcement group, it was clear the people who organised it didn't like the outcome. So, they tried to trash the research. That is because it showed that even untrained civilians can assess the situation and manage to cease firing within the timescale that the agent had available.
 
motorbiking said:
Setting aside the fact that you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting whatever you’ve read. You are attempting to make an argument that his right to shoot, is limited to "the moment of threat". A path that has be explored already in the US see. Barnes v. Felix (2025): The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the "moment of threat" doctrine (which limited analysis to the split second of shooting) in favor of a "totality of the circumstances" test. This means courts must evaluate the entire incident, including leading actions, when determining if multiple shots were excessive.
Click to expand...

I am much happier discussing the law than the mechanics of a shooting. So, I have had a look now. That case actually negates your argument. It says the courts have to look at the events preceding the shooting when assessing the risk. Are you saying that a smiling soccer mom, who tells the agent that she has nothing against him, made him so fearful that he had to make extra sure that she was actually dead.
 
MNW67 said:
He hasn't been in the military for almost twenty years. He has spent most of two decades since in law enforcement. I think we can assume he has had masses of weapons training since and that he can understand the difference between self defence and intention to kill.

Interestingly, when you read that full research, which was produced for a law enforcement group, it was clear the people who organised it didn't like the outcome. So, they tried to trash the research. That is because it showed that even untrained civilians can assess the situation and manage to cease firing within the timescale that the agent had available.
Click to expand...
His military training would be burned into his memory and his brain would have difficulty going between the two I would have thought. It is why ex forces are always called up in favour of new recruits by the way of national service etc. The UK government has just announced they have put up the age from 55 to 65yrs now for call up duties. The training is etched into your brain.
 
MNW67 said:
I am much happier discussing the law than the mechanics of a shooting. So, I have had a look now. That case actually negates your argument. It says the courts have to look at the events preceding the shooting when assessing the risk. Are you saying that a smiling soccer mom, who tells the agent that she has nothing against him, made him so fearful that he had to make extra sure that she was actually dead.
Click to expand...
No not in the least, I am saying her ignoring the commands which was shouted clearly at her to get out of her car and even through her open window and door so no defence of she didn't hear the instructions, she ignored them, mistake number 2. She then accelerated towards an armed agent who right or wrong had placed himself in front of the vehicle and she collided with him. Mistake No3. Her smiling soccer mom has no bearing on it. She could have been pig ugly or looked like a super model. No bearing on her being shot.
 
Highway Man said:
No not in the least, I am saying her ignoring the commands which was shouted clearly at her to get out of her car and even through her open window and door so no defence of she didn't hear the instructions, she ignored them, mistake number 2. She then accelerated towards an armed agent who right or wrong had placed himself in front of the vehicle and she collided with him. Mistake No3.
Click to expand...

I have said all along that she made a mistake in not getting out of the car. Because, throughout this discussion, I have been objective and forensic!
 
MNW67 said:
He hasn't been in the military for almost twenty years. He has spent most of two decades since in law enforcement. I think we can assume he has had masses of weapons training since and that he can understand the difference between self defence and intention to kill.

Interestingly, when you read that full research, which was produced for a law enforcement group, it was clear the people who organised it didn't like the outcome. So, they tried to trash the research. That is because it showed that even untrained civilians can assess the situation and manage to cease firing within the timescale that the agent had available.
Click to expand...
MNW67 said:
I am much happier discussing the law than the mechanics of a shooting.
Click to expand...
It was a dead argument given the case law
MNW67 said:
So, I have had a look now. That case actually negates your argument. It says the courts have to look at the events preceding the shooting when assessing the risk. Are you saying that a smiling soccer mom, who tells the agent that she has nothing against him, made him so fearful that he had to make extra sure that she was actually dead.
Click to expand...
Barnes v. Felix (2025)
Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014)

Both are grim and bizarre reading. In the first, there is a hint of officer created jeopardy (similar to this story) and in the second 15 shots killing both driver and passenger were deemed lawful.

In P v R, The Court also found that the number of shots fired was also reasonable, writing that "if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended". Finally, the Court found that even if the officers' conduct did violate the Fourth Amendment, they would still be entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law at the time of the incident.

This kills your shot 1 may be lawful but 2-4 weren't argument. All shots were lawful or no shots were lawful.

In the Good, case applying similar logic, the threat doesn't end until the vehicle stops moving.
 
MNW67 said:
I have said all along that she made a mistake in not getting out of the car. Because, throughout this discussion, I have been objective and forensic!
Click to expand...
Can you think of any reason why she would or should have ignored those simple instructions to just get out of her car?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Agile
A mature (over 40) lady gets pulled over for speeding...
2
Replies
17
Views
4K
John506
J
T
Personallity transplant?
Replies
9
Views
1K
TexMex
T
B
Useless Police..No wonder they can't catch Criminals!!
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
pete01
pete01
HOGGY952
Brave Man Jokes
Replies
5
Views
2K
HOGGY952
HOGGY952
empip
Oldsters
Replies
2
Views
697
JohnD
JohnD
Back
Top