ICE told to get the eff out

MNW67 · 18 Jan 2026

motorbiking said:
Eminem has lost the argument and you don't even understand it.

You are so clueless. You have quoted, I think, four Supreme Court cases in this thread. And, with three of them, you have completely misunderstood the issue on which the Justices were actually ruling.

Let's take Barnes vs Felix;

The only issue the Supreme Court looked at was the timescale and whether courts should just look at the 'moment of threat' or all the preceding circumstances. What it means is that if, for example, a police officer pulls over somebody who he knows has a history of extreme violence against the police, he has more latitude to use force than if he pulls over a soccer mom who is an all round model citizen. You interpreted the case as giving the police stronger protection. It actually does exactly the opposite, by giving the potential offender greater protection.

In essence, Barnes v. Felix shifts focus from a narrow, officer-centric view of danger to a broader, context-aware analysis, offering greater protection and justice for civilians in encounters with law enforcement.

MNW67 · 18 Jan 2026

motorbiking said:
You still haven't explained how shot 1 can be justified and 2-4 not, given the timing and the case law.

All the leading US case law says that when the danger has passed the officer has to stop shooting.

By the time the first shot had been fired, the agent knew that he was no longer in any danger. Therefore, because he was no longer in any danger, any further shots were not justified.

You are now introducing a new argument. You are saying that after the first shot was fired, and he was out of danger, he had to keep on shooting to protect the public. I don't think anyone else actually accepts that.

motorbiking · 18 Jan 2026

MNW67 said:
Let's take Barnes vs Felix;

The only issue the Supreme Court looked at was the timescale and whether courts should just look at the 'moment of threat' or all the preceding circumstances. What it means is that if, for example, a police officer pulls over somebody who he knows has a history of extreme violence against the police, he has more latitude to use force than if he pulls over a soccer mom who is an all round model citizen. You interpreted the case as giving the police stronger protection. It actually does exactly the opposite, by giving the potential offender greater protection.

He was pulled over in a hire car that was flagged as not paying a toll. Hardly, grounds to assume a dangerous criminal on the run. the reason that it applies, is while broadening the potential for more circumstances to be assessed, this applies both ways. You cannot treat shots 2-4 in isolation from the grounds that led to shot 1 being fired.

MNW67 said:
By the time the first shot had been fired, the agent knew that he was no longer in any danger. Therefore, because he was no longer in any danger, any further shots were not justified.

This is not a reasonable assessment. You are completely ignoring the so called Graham factors.

noseall · 18 Jan 2026

motorbiking said:
more irrelevance

Those straws are well and truly strangled now.

noseall · 18 Jan 2026

MNW67 said:
I agree

Expect more irrelevant case law. He thinks it makes him look smart, lol.

motorbiking · 18 Jan 2026

noseall said:
Those straws are well and truly strangled now.

Assume there is no right or wrong answer - why not share your opinion?

Should he have jumped out of the way or shot the man to death?

noseall · 18 Jan 2026

motorbiking said:
Assume there is no right or wrong answer - why not share your opinion?

Should he have jumped out of the way or shot the man to death?

He had no business being in front of her car.

motorbiking · 18 Jan 2026

noseall said:
He had no business being in front of her car.

and in this case - he had no business jumping on to the car when he could have stepped out of the way?

Brigadier · 18 Jan 2026

motorbiking said:
Should he have jumped out of the way or shot the man to death?

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

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.

noseall · 18 Jan 2026

motorbiking said:
and in this case - he had no business jumping on to the car when he could have stepped out of the way?

The passport checker jumped onto her car?

motorbiking · 18 Jan 2026

noseall said:
The passport checker jumped onto her car?

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.

noseall · 18 Jan 2026

motorbiking said:
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 · 18 Jan 2026

Brigadier said:
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.

Brigadier said:
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 · 18 Jan 2026

noseall said:
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 · 18 Jan 2026

motorbiking said:
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.

ICE told to get the eff out

Similar threads