ICE told to get the eff out

[motorbiking]

What was the threat of serious harm once she was fleeing i.e. once the agent was no longer in any danger.

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.

 

[Scof]

I've tried very hard to get my head around all of this but I still don't understand what F.A.F.O. means???

 

[MNW67]

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.

 

[MNW67]

I've tried very hard to get my head around all of this but I still don't understand what F.A.F.O. means???

It means Fck About and Find Out. Basically, it is the motto of police states and authoritarian regimes the world over.

 

[motorbiking]

But say he did have time to reassess after the first shot. The research shows 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 danger. Do you believe, in those circumstances he would have had a good reason to keep shooting. If so, why.

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)

 

[MNW67]

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.

 

[motorbiking]

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.

I'm not 100% sure - I'd actually have to go over the main case law again. At a high level, it appears once deadly force is justified it can continue until the suspect is "Seized", incapacitated or no longer a threat.

Justifiable use of deadly force under US case law stops when the objectively reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others ends, as established in
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989). Force must stop once the suspect is incapacitated or no longer poses a danger.

So in the circumstances - lets assume he fired a few seconds later - no he has no justification. or lets assume he fired once she had stopped - again no justification.

Plumhoff vs Rickard was such a different case that comparisons are meaningles. 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.

Not when they open fire

At the time they open fired, he had crashed with another vehicle and was attempting to reverse to get away. 3 shots were fired, followed by another 12 moments later.

 

[MNW67]

Not when they open fire

At the time they open fired, he had crashed with another vehicle and was attempting to reverse to get away. 3 shots were fired, followed by another 12 moments later.

I know. But the whole point of that case is about whether they could use his prior behaviour to justify the shooting. They had just chased him for more than ten miles, in the course of which he had almost killed dozens of people. Therefore, when he sped away again, they were permitted to take all that information into account when assessing whether he was a serious danger to the public, and whether it was correct to shoot him. However, if instead they had been confronted with a sweet, friendly soccer mom, the calculus would have been very different.

 

[motorbiking]

I know. But the whole point of that case is about whether they could use his prior behaviour to justify the shooting. They had just chased him for more than ten miles, in the course of which he had almost killed dozens of people. Therefore, when he sped away again, they were permitted to take all that information into account when assessing whether he was a serious danger to the public, and whether it was correct to shoot him. However, if instead they had been confronted with a sweet, friendly soccer mom, the calculus would have been very different.

The case was brought on the bases that 15 shots was excessive force. The ruling said - number of shots doesn't matter if its justified.

 

[motorbiking]

Why don't you see if you can find some case law, that matches the Good shooting that supports your idea that the very moment, the officer is no-longer in danger he must stop shooting, even if that is less than a second.

You've got a challenge.

 

[Scof]

I know. But the whole point of that case is about whether they could use his prior behaviour to justify the shooting. They had just chased him for more than ten miles, in the course of which he had almost killed dozens of people. Therefore, when he sped away again, they were permitted to take all that information into account when assessing whether he was a serious danger to the public, and whether it was correct to shoot him. However, if instead they had been confronted with a sweet, friendly soccer mom, the calculus would have been very different.

Nail hit firmly on the head.

Does Motorbiking think that this is some kind of Keystone Cops or Benny Hill scenario?

 

[MNW67]

The case was brought on the bases that 15 shots was excessive force. The ruling said - number of shots doesn't matter if its justified.

The Supreme Court actually decided two issues in this case:

1) The police can take into account the offender's immediate prior actions when deciding to use deadly force. That is the bit I have covered above.

2) The court also decided that the police can continue shooting until the threat is neutralised. However many shots that takes.

So, applying this to Renee's killing.

1) The agent had no prior knowledge which would have led him to believe that Renee was a danger to other road users. That means the only potential danger was to the agent himself.

2) Therefore, he should have stopped shooting as soon as he knew the danger to himself was over.

 

[motorbiking]

The Supreme Court actually decided two issues in this case:

1) The police can take into account the offender's immediate prior actions when deciding to use deadly force. .

Plumhoff argued that a fleeing unarmed motorist was a threat to others. Giving grounds to use deadly force. at the time the force was used, Rickard had been brought to a stop and was once again attempting to flee.

2) The court also decided that the police can continue shooting until the threat is neutralised. However many shots that takes.

yep the vehicle crashing in to a wall because the driver was dead/dying.

So, applying this to Renee's killing.

1) The agent had no prior knowledge which would have led him to believe that Renee was a danger to other road users. That means the only potential danger was to the agent himself.

She was fleeing the scene and put his life in danger

2) Therefore, he should have stopped shooting as soon as he knew the danger to himself was over.

which he did. All done and dusted in under a second.

Why don't you see if you can find some case law, that matches the Good shooting that supports your idea that the very moment, the officer is no-longer in danger he must stop shooting, even if that is less than a second.

You've got a challenge.

 

[Scof]

The Supreme Court actually decided two issues in this case:

1) The police can take into account the offender's immediate prior actions when deciding to use deadly force. That is the bit I have covered above.

2) The court also decided that the police can continue shooting until the threat is neutralised. However many shots that takes.

As a very experienced FAC holder I will give you my thoughts on this . . .

1. Your immediate past actions are a very important deciding factor in me calculating your immediate future actions.

2. I have 2 cartridges in 2 barrels, I am prepared to use them both.

She wasn't shot because she was belligerent & she wasn't shot because the agent was trigger happy. She was shot because she was a threat to life & she needed to be stopped.

I must say that I am very impressed with the officers reaction times. Of all the NON POLITICAL analysis I have seen of the event I would not wish to attempt to 'outdraw' him.

 

[MNW67]

I must say that I am very impressed with the officers reaction times. Of all the NON POLITICAL analysis I have seen of the event I would not wish to attempt to 'outdraw' him.

I posted something similar the other day.

The agent seems to have extremely good reactions. Which is one of the reasons why I believe he had time to stop before the second shot. Even an untrained civilian only need 350 milliseconds.