Personally, I don't think so. Why would he assume that a sweet, friendly woman would suddenly go on a murderous rampage.
ICE told to get the eff out
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
Personally, I don't think so. Why would he assume that a sweet, friendly woman would suddenly go on a murderous rampage.
We are just looking at different angles.
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 19,296
- Reaction score
- 12,040
- Country
Because she did maybe?
I dont know, I just watched it again it's all a bit weird.....Reene seemed pleasant enough the other woman seemed to have a bit of attitude
I thought the wife was very annoying.
In your opinion.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,563
- Reaction score
- 6,681
- Country
the opinion of the Supreme Court.
"Dude, i'm not mad at you."
Apparently, some folk think that's her way of saying, "watch out mofo's i'm a-gonna rip it up."
What was the threat of serious harm once she was fleeing i.e. once the agent was no longer in any danger.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,563
- Reaction score
- 6,681
- Country
feel free to find some case law that supports this angle you are trying to explore.
1 - agent was in danger
2 - agent could use deadly force to prevent escape
3 - agent fired all rounds in under 1s
4 - good was killed and agent stopped shooting.
But say he did have time to reassess after the first shot. The research shows that he had plenty of time, but I know you disagree. So, just looking at it hypothetically. By that time he would have known that he himself was no longer in any danger. Do you believe, in those hypothetical circumstances, he would have had a good reason to keep shooting. If so, why.
Last edited:
It means Fck About and Find Out. Basically, it is the motto of police states and authoritarian regimes the world over.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,563
- Reaction score
- 6,681
- Country
A mafia style execution you mean. First shot wounds, Good crashes, he calmly walks up and pops one in the brain to finish her off moments later. Murder obviously.
Or perhaps less obvious 2 shots, then follows up with a couple through the rear window a few seconds later. Yeah its closer but you have to overcome Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014)
No. The same exact situation as Renee's killing. Buy with you accepting, just for the sake of the discussion, that Ross had time time to reassess the situation after the first shot. What I am asking is, once he had ruled out danger to himself, do you believe he would still have had grounds for killing Renee to prevent danger to others. If so, why.
Plumhoff vs Rickard was such a different case that comparisons are meaningless. In that case there had already been a ten minute, 100 mph car chase where 29 cars had been damaged. So, the cops knew for sure that he was a danger to other cars and pedestrians.
