You are demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea. You do not shoot anything that you are not prepared to kill. This is not your Hollywood movie. No one has ever been trained to shoot a gun otherwise than to kill. Please explain your reasoning, in your own time please.
Law enforcement are trained to shoot, reassess, then shoot again only if necessary. This is not the military, where they shoot to kill.
ICE told to get the eff out
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
No it does not. Please show us your case law.
In the military, your aim is to kill the enemy.
In law enforcement, your aim is to neutralise a threat. So, whilst that threat is extant, you are shooting to kill. But as soon as that threat has passed, you stop shooting.
Look back through the thread. We have discussed four important Supreme Court cases. And they all say exactly the same thing i.e. as soon as the threat has passed, the officer must stop shooting.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 25,709
- Reaction score
- 5,739
- Country
Make the legal argument or stop going round in circles.
700 milliseconds.
Law enforcement are trained to shoot, reassess, then shoot again only if necessary. This is not the military, where they shoot to kill.
The third shot shown above came 700 milliseconds after the first shot shown below. During that time, the officer managed to stumble, regain his footing, change his body position and stance, and reacquire the target. He obviously had plenty of time to decide not to shoot.
of course it doesn't. So far its established.
1) force is lawful even for a fleeing suspect If there is probable cause to believe there is a threat to life/serious harm
2) number bullets fired is irrelevant. force is lawful all the time the suspect is at large and a threat.
3) there is no requirement to believe they have committed a crime.
4) there is no perfect standard to be applied, no 20/20 hindsight - broad allowances are based on a reasonable officer in the same situation.
0.7s from shot 1 to last shot.
Find the case law that establishes that he had sufficient time to reassess after the first shot 0.2 seconds before the next and 0.6 before the final one
He did, he got 3 - 4 shots off and he stopped within 0.7 seconds.
I would have shot her in the leg or maybe the finger, it's possible as I used to play duck hunt.
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
- 25,709
- Reaction score
- 5,739
- 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
- 25,709
- Reaction score
- 5,739
- Country
Defendant says he did. He stopped firing in 0.7 seconds
