ICE told to get the eff out

Highway Man · 2026-01-18T11:15:21+0000

Odds said:
Accelerating my eye - Brigadier posted a video last week that showed the agent was reaching for his gun before the vehicle rolled towards him.

There is no disputing that he made a conscious decision to shoot her. The question is whether or not it was legal.

Vinty · 2026-01-18T11:18:24+0000

Highway Man said:
He had to take his pistol out of his holster, take of his safety catch, raise his weapon to an aim position, then fire his weapon all within a half length of the car whilst it was accelerating towards him.

When he fired the first shot he wasn't standing directly in front of the car.
He fired his first shot as she passed him

From Reuters.

The videos reviewed by Reuters show Ross - identified in the scenes below as ICE agent 1 - standing in front of the moving vehicle when he initially draws his firearm.

He opens fire one second later, firing three shots. The first pierces the windshield of Good’s car as the vehicle moves past him. The second and third shots were fired into the driver’s side of the vehicle as it continues moving past him.

MNW67 · 2026-01-18T11:19:56+0000

Highway Man said:
He had to take his pistol out of his holster, take of his safety catch, raise his weapon to an aim position, then fire his weapon all within a half length of the car whilst it was accelerating towards him.

I actually agree that his shooting skills were very good. And he used them very effectively to make sure Renee was shot dead. As the car went past him, he managed to slip on the ice, regain his footing, adjust his stance, reacquire the target, and shoot a controlled pair through the side window. Despite managing all that, the only thing he didn't seem able to do was stop himself from actually pulling the trigger.

Vinty · 2026-01-18T11:26:33+0000

Highway Man said:
There is no disputing that he made a conscious decision to shoot her. The question is whether or not it was legal.

Probably was legal as she refused to stop her car when ordered to do so by law enforcement, after all,Trump said she was a "domestic terrorist engaged in an act of terrorism" .

MNW67 · 2026-01-18T11:29:31+0000

Vinty said:
When he fired the first shot he wasn't standing directly in front of the car.
He fired his first shot as she passed him

From Reuters.

The videos reviewed by Reuters show Ross - identified in the scenes below as ICE agent 1 - standing in front of the moving vehicle when he initially draws his firearm.

He opens fire one second later, firing three shots. The first pierces the windshield of Good’s car as the vehicle moves past him. The second and third shots were fired into the driver’s side of the vehicle as it continues moving past him.

The argument that some are making in his favour is that, when the car initially starts moving forward, he did not realise the car was turning right or how slowly it would go. They say that, for all he knew, Renee was going to floor the throttle and drive straight at him. So, they argue that the first shot was unavoidable, because by the time he realised he was not in any danger, he was already committed to firing.

The counter argument is that he had watched Renee put on full right hand lock and had seen the wheels turn accordingly, so he knew where the car was going.

Highway Man · 2026-01-18T11:36:36+0000

MNW67 said:
The argument that some are making in his favour is that, when the car initially starts moving forward, he did not realise the car was turning right or how slowly it would go. They say that, for all he knew, Renee was going to floor the throttle and drive straight at him. So, they argue that the first shot was unavoidable, because by the time he realised he was in on danger, he was already committed to firing.

The counter argument is that he had watched Renee put on full right hand lock and had seen the wheels turn accordingly, so he knew where the car was going.

He had made the decision to shoot her, he did it with precise accuracy and none else was injured. This is also evident that he wasn't just randomly firing at the car willy nilly as the dog was sat directly behind her and totally unharmed. He did a great job at what his aim was to achieve, now the questions of morality and excessive have no bearing on it, just simply was it legal? I think it was and he was justified in his actions, all of the rest of the points raised are more incidental and emotion driven.

Highway Man · 2026-01-18T11:43:53+0000

In the days of hanging or public executions and even to this day in the United States in some states where they still execute prisoners, the morality of it is irrelevant. Protestors will gather outside holding vigil's and are against it. That in itself does not have any bearings on whether or not the execution is legal. Feelings do not enter the equation as in this case, was the ICE agent justified in using lethal force? Yes he was. Separate yourself from the morality and your personal feelings and come to a different conclusion. it's what solicitors do to justify some of their cases and defence.

motorbiking · 2026-01-18T12:05:02+0000

MNW67 said:
The law is clear on separating the first shot from the others. However many times you try to deny it.

Case law says, if lethal force was justified, it was justified. The number of bullets is irrelevant.

MNW67 said:
The law says that when the danger is over, you must stop firing.

The danger was over when the vehicle was halted. A person who has been shot and is "in charge" of a moving vehicle poses a danger to everyone, that is obvious.

MNW67 said:
So far you have misunderstood almost every legal point we have discussed, including the ruling in Barnes vs Felix.

take your blinkers off you are ignoring the obvious fact, that if he was justified to make the first shot, he was justified to make shot 2-4. There was no time to reassess the situation to see if the circumstances had changed. In fact they hadn't the vehicle was still moving. In Barnes vs Felix, the risk to the officer opening fire was similar or less and that claim went nowhere. He fired 2 rounds in a similar time frame.

Ivor Windybottom · 2026-01-18T12:05:35+0000

SPLINE said:
Like the Labour Party cancelling elections.

...and the rest. Removing jury trials, censoring the internet and mandating traceability for all comments, compulsory location and activity tracking app, banning visas to foreigners who (justifiably and factually) criticise the PM, etc, etc.

MNW67 · 2026-01-18T12:14:01+0000

Ivor Windybottom said:
...and the rest. Removing jury trials, censoring the internet and mandating traceability for all comments, compulsory location and activity tracking app, banning visas to foreigners who (justifiably and factually) criticise the PM, etc, etc.

Dutch far-right activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek appears to lose right to UK visa-free travel

Influencer, who promotes conspiracy theories and anti-immigration rhetoric, posts notification that her ETA has been cancelled

www.theguardian.com

'It is not the first time that figures deemed as extremists have been banned from entering the UK. Earlier this month, an Islamist preacher was banned from the UK after he defended the terrorist group Hamas after the 7 October terror attack on Israel. And Martin Sellner, a prominent anti-Islamic extremist whose organisation was investigated in Austria over links to the Christchurch shooting suspect, was permanently barred from entering the UK in 2019.'

motorbiking · 2026-01-18T12:16:58+0000

MNW67 said:
You are applying a completely different test based on completely different facts. Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014) was about a high speed car chase.

Nope, Rickard was pulled over for having a headlight out, the officer saw a "head shaped" impact in the windscreen and asked him to step out. Rickard drove off at high speed. His car was brought to a halt when he crashed into a cruiser. At that point the high speed chase was over. Officers then fired 3 shots, when he started to reverse after the crash and they fired another 12 shots causing him to crash again.

The comparison between firing 12 shots at a vehicle attempting to flee and 4 shots at a vehicle attempting to flee is clear. The case was brought arguing the number of shots amounted to excessive force. Guess how far it got.

MNW67 · 2026-01-18T12:23:23+0000

motorbiking said:
Case law says, if lethal force was justified, it was justified. The number of bullets is irrelevant.

And lethal force is only justified whilst there is still a danger. Every leading case on this matter in the US says that. By the time the first shot had been fired, it was clear that the agent was not in any danger. Hence, even a child could follow the logic that any further shots were not justified. I believe you have actually accepted this point now, because you are making a big swerve in your argument. You went on to write:

motorbiking said:
The danger was over when the vehicle was halted. A person who has been shot and is "in charge" of a moving vehicle poses a danger to everyone, that is obvious.

So, you now seem to be admitting that the agent was no longer in danger after the first shot. Instead, you seem to be arguing that it was about protecting the general public. Your argument seems to be that the agent knew the first bullet had hit Renee. And having an injured person driving a car is dangerous. Therefore, he needed to finish the job off and actually kill her.

motorbiking · 2026-01-18T12:35:55+0000

MNW67 said:
And lethal force is only justified whilst there is still a danger. Every leading case in the US says that. By the time the first shot had been fired, it was clear that the agent was not in any danger. Hence, even a child could follow the logic that any further shots were not justified. I believe you have actually accepted this point now, because you are making a big swerve in your argument. You went on to write:

You're not looking at it though the lens the supreme court applies. They appear to not care much for the fine details, perhaps because they grant broad consideration to the moment the officer was in and avoid 20/20 hindsight analysis like you've tried for the last 20+ pages.

MNW67 said:
So, you now seem to be admitting that the agent wasn't in danger. Instead, you seem to be arguing that it was about protecting the general public. Your argument seems to be that the agent knew the first bullet had hit Renee. And having an injured person driving a car is dangerous. Therefore, he needed to finish the job off and actually kill her.

Good posed a similar level of danger to the officers. The argument that Ross was in no danger applies equally to barnes vs Felix.

Using the measure applied via other cases - Deadly force was justified and the number of bullets is irrelevant.

I personally think he could have stepped out of the way, just as I think in Barnes vs Felix, he could have stepped away. US courts say nope.

noseall · 2026-01-18T12:37:51+0000

MNW67 said:
And lethal force is only justified whilst there is still a danger. Every leading case on this matter in the US says that. By the time the first shot had been fired, it was clear that the agent was not in any danger. Hence, even a child could follow the logic that any further shots were not justified. I believe you have actually accepted this point now, because you are making a big swerve in your argument. You went on to write:

So, you now seem to be admitting that the agent was no longer in danger after the first shot. Instead, you seem to be arguing that it was about protecting the general public. Your argument seems to be that the agent knew the first bullet had hit Renee. And having an injured person driving a car is dangerous. Therefore, he needed to finish the job off and actually kill her.

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.

motorbiking · 2026-01-18T12:40:05+0000

noseall said:
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?

ICE told to get the eff out

Similar threads