Search results

Research shows that they can stop. Average for a police officer is 0.35 seconds to stop once threat has ended. This guy was very highly trained so would have been quicker. I would say that, before the first shot had even been fired, he realised he was no longer in any danger, because by then he...

I can't see that. If he manufactured the situation and his intention was to shoot to kill, that is very different to a shoot to stop in self defence. The whole mindset is completely different.

Do any of the Trumpists on here support what he is doing.

How does somebody process that a car has passed them, move their body to track it and shoot at it, but not realise it is no longer a danger. Honest question.

That's not true. You need to learn to write clearly. What did you actually mean then.

Courts look at this stuff all the time. The law says once the danger is passed, you have to stop shooting. The research says he had time to stop. The photos show he changed his body position and stance to shoot at the car as it drove away from him. There is no such thing, in self defence, as...

Are you referring to the agent who was trying to drag her out of the car. And your question is, if that attempted arrest was illegal, was the use of force to involved also illegal. If that is the question, then I don't yet know the answer.

No. I have said that the first shot might have been lawful. None of the other 'loonies' have admitted that. But if the second or third shots killed her, that would definitely be unlawful.

I can't fully understand what you've written there! So, I will summarise what I have said consistently and objectively throughout. If it can be shown that a reasonable officer in the exact same situation as the agent, and without the benefit of hindsight, would have feared for his life, then...

It is in the US, at least in self-defence.

I would accept that he might have suffered some minor bruising. I don't accept that he nearly died.

I have already said, many times, that the first shot might have been lawful. But to break down what is actually happening in that video. The NY Times have synced all the available videos and this is what they have worked out: That thud we hear isn't the car hitting the agent. Basically, the...

Are you talking about the bit where there is a thud and it looks like the agent might have been hit.

I saw that video days ago! It's already been posted three times on here. Which bit do you want an opinion on.

The argument being put by those defending the agent is that when Renee first moved forward, he couldn't tell whether she was trying to run him over. Others say it should have been obvious that she wasn't trying to run him over, because he had seen her put on full opposite lock and had seen the...

If Keir Starmer tried to imprison Nigel Farage for criticising the policing of the asylum hotel protests, would you object. That is what Trump is doing. It is an absolutely massive story. There are many different strands to the ICE story. I realise it is difficult to keep a track of them all...

I was commenting on the massive story going on in America about Trump trying to lock up his political opponents, simply for criticising his policies. That is a classic sign of an authoritarian. You brought Renee, Becca and the dog into it, not me.

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Desperate.

We went through all this yesterday. You are just repeating yourself yet again. I had looked into all this days before you even joined the discussion. So, to clarify yet again. You are saying that there is no evidence so far of Renee causing any actual obstruction. But you believe the arrest...

I am the only person who has actually looked at all the evidence, broken it down and applied the law. Show me one instance where you don't think I have been objective. Everybody else is in one camp or the other, pushing one extreme or the other. I am the only person saying that the shooting...