ICE told to get the eff out

motorbiking · Sunday at 1:51 PM

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 · Sunday at 1:52 PM

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 · Sunday at 1:55 PM

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.

noseall · Sunday at 2:05 PM

motorbiking said:
don't be shy - what do you think about the circumstances?

Irrelevant. Like these, read and weep.

MNW67 · Sunday at 2:07 PM

motorbiking said:
don't be shy - what do you think about the circumstances?

He was suspected of failing to pay a toll fee.

I've been trying to work out the point you are raising. Is this about law enforcement putting themselves in danger. And whether it is still legal to use deadly force.

Highway Man · Sunday at 2:08 PM

MNW67 said:
All the research shows the opposite. It shows that even untrained civilians would have had enough time to reassess and stop firing.

It also says that these findings are irrelevant away from a non threatening training ground. No stresses or heightened alert adrenaline etc are in play.

noseall · Sunday at 2:08 PM

MNW67 said:
All the research shows the opposite. It shows that even untrained civilians would have had enough time to reassess and stop firing.

There was no justification for the masked murderers to surround her car.

Highway Man · Sunday at 2:10 PM

noseall said:
There was no justification for the masked murderers to surround her car.

No reason for him to put himself in front of the car. Surrounding it is fine

Highway Man · Sunday at 2:11 PM

No reason she should not step out of her car when told to either.

MNW67 · Sunday at 2:11 PM

Highway Man said:
It also says that these findings are irrelevant away from a non threatening training ground. No stresses or heightened alert adrenaline etc are in play.

I did find that funny. Basically the people who commissioned the research didn't like the findings. So, they decided to try to trash it.

noseall · Sunday at 2:12 PM

Highway Man said:
No reason she should not step out of her car when told to either.

Why should she?

motorbiking · Sunday at 2:13 PM

MNW67 said:
All the research shows the opposite. It shows that even untrained civilians would have had enough time to reassess and stop firing.

All the research.. come on, surely that sounds daft when you read it back.

I know you like a bit of AI. why not ask "how long does an officer take to decide to shoot"

HWM has already posted information that shows you are wrong.

In critical, high-stress situations, police officers often make the decision to use deadly force in
less than one second to two seconds. Research suggests that the average decision time to shoot in complex scenarios is roughly 0.5 to 0.9 seconds, while the total time from perceiving a threat to reacting and shooting can be under 1.5 seconds.

Physical Limitations: Even after the brain decides to stop shooting, it takes an average of 0.29 to 0.36 seconds for the body to physically stop pulling the trigger, often resulting in additional rounds being fired.

MNW67 said:
I did find that funny. Basically the people who commissioned the research didn't like the findings. So, they decided to try to trash it.

This is not an objective assessment.

Highway Man · Sunday at 2:13 PM

MNW67 said:
I did find that funny. Basically the people who commissioned the research didn't like the findings. So, they decided to try to trash it.

It is ridiculous. Some of these research projects are bizzare. There was one done on whether or not foxes suffer stress being hunted.

MNW67 · Sunday at 2:13 PM

noseall said:
There was no justification for the masked murderers to surround her car.

I agree. There are so many elements to unpack.

Highway Man · Sunday at 2:14 PM

noseall said:
Why should she?

For god sake. She was ordered to and the ICE agents can do that and have the authority to give these orders.

ICE told to get the eff out

Similar threads