ICE told to get the eff out

[motorbiking]

According to all the training and research, the agent had plenty of time to re-evaluate the threat and make an informed decision before firing the controlled pair. I know it seems very quick, but the human brain is amazing.

Key Takeaways on Timing:

Gap Between Pairs (Transition): When engaging multiple targets or re-engaging the same target, a gap of 0.35 to 0.50 seconds is typical for, allowing for necessary re-evaluation of the threat.

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.

 

[motorbiking]

Actually I was about to say I am talking about military weapons training, I would have thought the police training would be the same. In my defence to this though the ICE agent may well have been ex forces as a lot of them are.

he was / is

 

[Highway Man]

he was / is

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.

 

[MNW67]

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.

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.

 

[Brigadier]

In my defence to this though the ICE agent may well have been ex forces as a lot of them are

How would you know?

ICE don't.

Post from NowThis Impact

What this reveals is that ICE is not being very picky, or at least doing its research, on who it's hiring.

youtube.com

 

[MNW67]

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.

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.

 

[Highway Man]

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.

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.

 

[Highway Man]

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.

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.

 

[MNW67]

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.

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!

 

[Highway Man]

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!

and insane, lets not forget the insane part

 

[motorbiking]

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.

I am much happier discussing the law than the mechanics of a shooting.

It was a dead argument given the case law

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.

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.

 

[Highway Man]

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!

Can you think of any reason why she would or should have ignored those simple instructions to just get out of her car?

 

[Vinty]

No she went straight at him

If she went straight at him.
How come she was shot through the side window.

 

[Highway Man]

If she went straight at him.
How come she was shot through the side window.

She was shot through the windscreen on the first shot

 

[motorbiking]

If she went straight at him.
How come she was shot through the side window.

how come there was a bullet hole in the windscreen?