I am applying the law and using first principles. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. You need to find a leading case which says that officers can keep shooting once the threat has actually passed.
ICE told to get the eff out
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
I am applying the law and using first principles. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. You need to find a leading case which says that officers can keep shooting once the threat has actually passed.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,427
- Reaction score
- 6,612
- Country
No - you are wanting to play the role of claimant/plaintiff in a civil liability 4th amendment case. The burden is all yours.
Ross argues, qualified immunity. The shooting was lawful because Good drove her car at him while attempting to flee, placing him in serious danger. Ross accepts he fired 3 or 4 shots, and stopped shooting immediately the threat was over. All in under 0.7 seconds.
the floor is yours
No, I think you are misunderstanding the burden of proof. All the leading cases say that an officer must stop shooting as soon as the threat has passed. That is all I need. It is up to the defendant to explain why he kept shooting after the threat had passed.
Actually. in the military your aim is to hurt the enemy & cause it to look after it's wounded. This ties up most of its resources. You're making this up aren't you, you really don't have the mental capacity to think things through do you?
In law enforcement your aim is to STOP the threat to life. When you are faced with a threat to life then you STOP that threat to life.
And as soon as that threat to life no longer exists, you STOP shooting.
Another one shot dead in Minneapolis...
Link
"Minnesota Governor Tim Walz says he has spoken to the White House after "another horrific shooting by federal agents", and is demanding President Donald Trump "pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota"
No doubt the apologists on here will already be planning their justifications regardless of the facts that we await to unfold!
Link
"Minnesota Governor Tim Walz says he has spoken to the White House after "another horrific shooting by federal agents", and is demanding President Donald Trump "pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota"
No doubt the apologists on here will already be planning their justifications regardless of the facts that we await to unfold!
Subjective/objective. A point for debate, sometimes by a jury of our peers.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,427
- Reaction score
- 6,612
- Country
Defendant says he did. He stopped firing in 0.7 seconds
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,427
- Reaction score
- 6,612
- Country
no doubt people will await the facts.
The US Department of Homeland Security has confirmed to the BBC that a federal officer shot and killed a man in Minneapolis at 09:05 local time (15:05GMT) this morning.
Spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin says Border Patrol officers were carrying out a "targeted operation" on an "illegal alien wanted for violent assault" when someone approached with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun.
"The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted," McLaughlin says.
"Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots. Medics on scene immediately delivered medical aid to the subject but was pronounced dead at the scene."
McLaughlin adds the suspect had two magazines and no identification, and that protestors arrived on the scene afterwards "to obstruct and assault law enforcement".
My expert witness tells the court that all the research shows that a well trained officer can stop in less than 0.3 seconds. How does the defendant explain why he kept on shooting for more than twice that amount of time.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,427
- Reaction score
- 6,612
- Country
Your expert witness is cross examined.
He concedes that this was in lab conditions and focused heavily on reaction times, not thinking time, further he states that shots are often fired after the decision to stop and the time to assess a threat in a more complex scenario is typically 0.5 - 1.5s.
The court is reminded of case law regarding the number of shots being irrelevant.
And some will distort said facts if it doesn't suit their anti immigrant ideology
My expert would concede the lab conditions point.
But the rest is nonsense. There is no difference between reaction time and thinking time in this research. And the 0.3 seconds already includes the shots fired after the decision to stop. Have you actually read the two research papers.
Also, can you explain how somebody has the time to stumble, regain their footing, adjust their stance and body position and reacquire the target, but can't simply manage to not pull the trigger.
