ICE told to get the eff out
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,563
- Reaction score
- 6,681
- Country
shot 1,2 and 3 possibly 4 all fired in 0.7 seconds.
You keep applying 20/20 hindsight.
Have you noticed the bias in the model. That officer's arms would make him a chimpanzee
How many milliseconds into it is this specific event?
Do you claim that he should not have fired this shot?
I would have fired this shot simply because my first shot was justified . . . And you are just about to experience everything I have at my disposal.
Hindsight means something that couldn't be known at the time in the moment. What relevant factors do you believe the agent might not have been aware of.
Do you want an intelligent discussion on this subject . . . Or do you just want to reduce it to the level of left V right politicals???
700 milliseconds.
Law enforcement are trained to shoot, reassess, then shoot again only if necessary. This is not the military, where they shoot to kill.
The third shot shown above came 700 milliseconds after the first shot shown below. During that time, the officer managed to stumble, regain his footing, change his body position and stance, and reacquire the target. He obviously had plenty of time to decide not to shoot.
'Cos if it just down to left V right then no side can ever win & intelligent discussion has been tossed out of the window.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,563
- Reaction score
- 6,681
- Country
Perhaps stop trying to lecture me and spend your effort finding case law that backs up your position.
All the leading case law we have looked at backs up my position. It all says that as soon the threat is over, the officer has to stop shooting.
You are demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea. You do not shoot anything that you are not prepared to kill. This is not your Hollywood movie. No one has ever been trained to shoot a gun otherwise than to kill. Please explain your reasoning, in your own time please.
Law enforcement are trained to shoot, reassess, then shoot again only if necessary. This is not the military, where they shoot to kill.
No it does not. Please show us your case law.
In the military, your aim is to kill the enemy.
In law enforcement, your aim is to neutralise a threat. So, whilst that threat is extant, you are shooting to kill. But as soon as that threat has passed, you stop shooting.
Look back through the thread. We have discussed four important Supreme Court cases. And they all say exactly the same thing i.e. as soon as the threat has passed, the officer must stop shooting.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,563
- Reaction score
- 6,681
- Country
Make the legal argument or stop going round in circles.
700 milliseconds.
Law enforcement are trained to shoot, reassess, then shoot again only if necessary. This is not the military, where they shoot to kill.
The third shot shown above came 700 milliseconds after the first shot shown below. During that time, the officer managed to stumble, regain his footing, change his body position and stance, and reacquire the target. He obviously had plenty of time to decide not to shoot.
of course it doesn't. So far its established.
1) force is lawful even for a fleeing suspect If there is probable cause to believe there is a threat to life/serious harm
2) number bullets fired is irrelevant. force is lawful all the time the suspect is at large and a threat.
3) there is no requirement to believe they have committed a crime.
4) there is no perfect standard to be applied, no 20/20 hindsight - broad allowances are based on a reasonable officer in the same situation.
0.7s from shot 1 to last shot.
Find the case law that establishes that he had sufficient time to reassess after the first shot 0.2 seconds before the next and 0.6 before the final one
He did, he got 3 - 4 shots off and he stopped within 0.7 seconds.
I would have shot her in the leg or maybe the finger, it's possible as I used to play duck hunt.
