ICE told to get the eff out

[noseall]

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.

Why are you watching irrelevant vids and stating irrelevant case law?

 

[motorbiking]

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

I'm suggesting consistently that the decision to fire 1 shot or 4 was the same. He decided to use deadly force. He cannot know at the time of firing, if his first bullet will kill or the last, or a combination. The case against Ross would hinge on whether he was justified to use deadly force. The rounds were fired so close together that you cannot argue any separate assessment was made of the risk. The car was moving he kept firing, shot 1-4 complete in under 1 second.

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.

I'm not defending the US laws/Supreme Court's willingness to allow deadly force against people who are obstructing justice, fleeing a traffic stop or might not have paid a toll fee.

 

[motorbiking]

Why are you watching irrelevant vids and stating irrelevant case law?

don't be shy - what do you think about the circumstances?

He was suspected of failing to pay a toll fee.

 

[MNW67]

I'm suggesting consistently that the decision to fire 1 shot or 4 was the same. He decided to use deadly force. He cannot know at the time of firing, if his first bullet will kill or the last, or a combination. The case against Ross would hinge on whether he was justified to use deadly force. The rounds were fired so close together that you cannot argue any separate assessment was made of the risk. The car was moving he kept firing, shot 1-4 complete in under 1 second.

All the research shows the opposite. It shows that even untrained civilians would have had enough time to reassess and stop firing.

 

[noseall]

don't be shy - what do you think about the circumstances?

Irrelevant. Like these, read and weep.

 

[MNW67]

don't be shy - what do you think about the circumstances?

He was suspected of failing to pay a toll fee.

I've been trying to work out the point you are raising. Is this about law enforcement putting themselves in danger. And whether it is still legal to use deadly force.

 

[Highway Man]

All the research shows the opposite. It shows that even untrained civilians would have had enough time to reassess and stop firing.

It also says that these findings are irrelevant away from a non threatening training ground. No stresses or heightened alert adrenaline etc are in play.

 

[noseall]

All the research shows the opposite. It shows that even untrained civilians would have had enough time to reassess and stop firing.

There was no justification for the masked murderers to surround her car.

 

[Highway Man]

There was no justification for the masked murderers to surround her car.

No reason for him to put himself in front of the car. Surrounding it is fine

 

[Highway Man]

No reason she should not step out of her car when told to either.

 

[MNW67]

It also says that these findings are irrelevant away from a non threatening training ground. No stresses or heightened alert adrenaline etc are in play.

I did find that funny. Basically the people who commissioned the research didn't like the findings. So, they decided to try to trash it.

 

[noseall]

No reason she should not step out of her car when told to either.

Why should she?

 

[motorbiking]

All the research shows the opposite. It shows that even untrained civilians would have had enough time to reassess and stop firing.

All the research.. come on, surely that sounds daft when you read it back.

I know you like a bit of AI. why not ask "how long does an officer take to decide to shoot"

HWM has already posted information that shows you are wrong.

In critical, high-stress situations, police officers often make the decision to use deadly force in
less than one second to two seconds. Research suggests that the average decision time to shoot in complex scenarios is roughly 0.5 to 0.9 seconds, while the total time from perceiving a threat to reacting and shooting can be under 1.5 seconds.

• Physical Limitations: Even after the brain decides to stop shooting, it takes an average of 0.29 to 0.36 seconds for the body to physically stop pulling the trigger, often resulting in additional rounds being fired.

I did find that funny. Basically the people who commissioned the research didn't like the findings. So, they decided to try to trash it.

This is not an objective assessment.

 

[Highway Man]

I did find that funny. Basically the people who commissioned the research didn't like the findings. So, they decided to try to trash it.

It is ridiculous. Some of these research projects are bizzare. There was one done on whether or not foxes suffer stress being hunted.

 

[MNW67]

There was no justification for the masked murderers to surround her car.

I agree. There are so many elements to unpack.