ICE told to get the eff out

[motorbiking]

Chicken biker is all over the place with this one. The funniest back peddle for me was the ‘obstruction’ black peddle, to reasonable grounds to suspect she might obstruct, lol.

and you were doing so well with trying to behave.

Eminem has lost the argument and you don't even understand it.

Do you think this officer was justified to shoot when the car pulled away?

 

[MNW67]

Chicken biker is all over the place with this one. The funniest back peddle for me was the ‘obstruction’ black peddle, to reasonable grounds to suspect she might obstruct, lol.

I don't like the 'chicken biker' bit. But I agree with the rest.

 

[motorbiking]

You still haven't explained how shot 1 can be justified and 2-4 not, given the timing and the case law.

 

[MNW67]

Eminem has lost the argument and you don't even understand it.

You are so clueless. You have quoted, I think, four Supreme Court cases in this thread. And, with three of them, you have completely misunderstood the issue on which the Justices were actually ruling.

Let's take Barnes vs Felix;

The only issue the Supreme Court looked at was the timescale and whether courts should just look at the 'moment of threat' or all the preceding circumstances. What it means is that if, for example, a police officer pulls over somebody who he knows has a history of extreme violence against the police, he has more latitude to use force than if he pulls over a soccer mom who is an all round model citizen. You interpreted the case as giving the police stronger protection. It actually does exactly the opposite, by giving the potential offender greater protection.

In essence, Barnes v. Felix shifts focus from a narrow, officer-centric view of danger to a broader, context-aware analysis, offering greater protection and justice for civilians in encounters with law enforcement.

 

[MNW67]

You still haven't explained how shot 1 can be justified and 2-4 not, given the timing and the case law.

All the leading US case law says that when the danger has passed the officer has to stop shooting.

By the time the first shot had been fired, the agent knew that he was no longer in any danger. Therefore, because he was no longer in any danger, any further shots were not justified.

You are now introducing a new argument. You are saying that after the first shot was fired, and he was out of danger, he had to keep on shooting to protect the public. I don't think anyone else actually accepts that.

 

[motorbiking]

Let's take Barnes vs Felix;

The only issue the Supreme Court looked at was the timescale and whether courts should just look at the 'moment of threat' or all the preceding circumstances. What it means is that if, for example, a police officer pulls over somebody who he knows has a history of extreme violence against the police, he has more latitude to use force than if he pulls over a soccer mom who is an all round model citizen. You interpreted the case as giving the police stronger protection. It actually does exactly the opposite, by giving the potential offender greater protection.

He was pulled over in a hire car that was flagged as not paying a toll. Hardly, grounds to assume a dangerous criminal on the run. the reason that it applies, is while broadening the potential for more circumstances to be assessed, this applies both ways. You cannot treat shots 2-4 in isolation from the grounds that led to shot 1 being fired.

By the time the first shot had been fired, the agent knew that he was no longer in any danger. Therefore, because he was no longer in any danger, any further shots were not justified.

This is not a reasonable assessment. You are completely ignoring the so called Graham factors.

 

[noseall]

more irrelevance

Those straws are well and truly strangled now.

 

[noseall]

I agree

Expect more irrelevant case law. He thinks it makes him look smart, lol.

 

[motorbiking]

Those straws are well and truly strangled now.

Assume there is no right or wrong answer - why not share your opinion?

Should he have jumped out of the way or shot the man to death?

 

[noseall]

Assume there is no right or wrong answer - why not share your opinion?

Should he have jumped out of the way or shot the man to death?

He had no business being in front of her car.

 

[motorbiking]

He had no business being in front of her car.

and in this case - he had no business jumping on to the car when he could have stepped out of the way?

 

[Brigadier]

Should he have jumped out of the way or shot the man to death?

You've earlier posted that later shots were to "protect the public".
Ergo, the first shot wasn't enough.

Therefore, your post - quoted above - makes no sense as, even killing someone isn't in your mind enough to see off the risk of being hit by the vehicle.

 

[noseall]

and in this case - he had no business jumping on to the car when he could have stepped out of the way?

The passport checker jumped onto her car?

 

[noseall]

You've earlier posted that later shots were to "protect the public".
Ergo, the first shot wasn't enough.

Therefore, your post - quoted above - makes no sense as, even killing someone isn't in your mind enough to see off the risk of being hit by the vehicle.

Honestly, have you read anything quite so daft? They also had the right to shoot her to death just in case she was thinking about obstructing the officers according to Chicken biker.

 

[motorbiking]

The passport checker jumped onto her car?

you actually need to watch the video to form an opinion.
Police officer was at the side of the car with the door open when the driver decided to flee. Instead of jumping out of the way, he jumped on to the foot plate of the car, placing himself in danger. He then shot the man twice - killing him.

The man was stopped because his hire car was flagged as having an unpaid toll.

There are clearly similarities. what is your opinion:

A) justified to use deadly force because he was in danger
B) he should have jumped out of the way.