ICE told to get the eff out

[Highway Man]

At last the loonies have admitted the killing was lawful. That was easy wasn't it.

 

[motorbiking]

If the order isn't lawful is the use of force?

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

And here. S38 offences against the person act.

Don’t forget we have a lower bar for lawful arrest.

 

[noseall]

Yes we have, but they are just that. Nigel will put a system in place like ICE who will check them more thoroughly and get them removed in a similar fashion.

Nigel is a Trump sycophant, but he's not that stupid.

 

[morqthana]

I was talking about use of force, not in self-defence, by an arresting officer.

If the arrest he's carrying out is unlawful, is his use of force?

 

[Highway Man]

Nigel is a Trump sycophant, but he's not that stupid.

I think he is,

 

[noseall]

check them more thoroughly

How do you check a passport more thoroughly?

 

[MNW67]

At last, so you accept the first shot was legal, the timing of the other two shots were consistent with the first and it is obvious that she wasn't shot 3 times in the face as some others had suggested. So that's that then. Let us now have the thread locked and left at the point this was all above board.

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 the first shot would be legal. The argument being made in his defence is that, when the car set off, he couldn't tell which way it would go or how fast it would travel. For all he knew, Renee could have floored the throttle and driven straight at him.

But he would very quickly have realised that the car was driving away from him and that it was only going slowly. Therefore, the second and third shots were unlawful. This is just applying a bit of common sense and logic. The shot timings show he had sufficient time to stop firing.

 

[MNW67]

At last the loonies have admitted the killing was lawful. That was easy wasn't it.

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.

 

[Highway Man]

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 the first shot would be legal. The argument being made in his defence is that, when the car set off, he couldn't tell which way it would go or how fast it would travel. For all he knew, Renee could have floored the throttle and driven straight at him.

But he would very quickly have realised that the car was driving away from him and that it was only going slowly. Therefore, the second and third shots were unlawful. This is just applying a bit of common sense and logic. The shot timings show he had sufficient time to stop firing.

Too late to stop shooting, his adrenalin had kicked in and that is the timing of the 3 shots, one shot then 3 maybe 4 consecutive shots after whilst aiming his pistol at her regardless of her moving away. The vehicle was moving and that is why the shots were fired.

 

[Highway Man]

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.

No you are right, the other loonies are a special kind of loony. You are a loony that is trying at least to understand.

 

[motorbiking]

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 the first shot would be legal. The argument being made in his defence is that, when the car set off, he couldn't tell which way it would go or how fast it would travel. For all he knew, Renee could have floored the throttle and driven straight at him.

But he would very quickly have realised that the car was driving away from him and that it was only going slowly. Therefore, the second and third shots were unlawful. This is just applying a bit of common sense and logic. The shot timings show he had sufficient time to stop firing.

The first part makes sense. Split second decision having been hit with a car seemingly intent on fleeing despite you being in the car’s path. If all the ifs and buts are ticked - we all agree lawful force.

Breaking shot 1 and 2-4 into two separate cognitive acts? Yeah good luck with that. Particularly given shot one probably caused her to floor it and 2-4 were rattled off in under a second.

 

[MNW67]

I was talking about use of force, not in self-defence, by an arresting officer.

If the arrest he's carrying out is unlawful, is his use of force?

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.

 

[motorbiking]

There is no constitutional right to resist an unlawful arrest.

 

[Highway Man]

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.

Just say "Not now" to him, you will find it easier.

 

[motorbiking]

But your right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest differs from state to state.