ICE told to get the eff out

[motorbiking]

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!

no doubt people will await the facts.

 

[fillyboy]

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!

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".

 

[MNW67]

Defendant says he did. He stopped firing in 0.7 seconds

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.

 

[motorbiking]

My expert witness tells the court that all the research shows that a well trained office 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.

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.

 

[ellal]

no doubt people will await the facts.

And some will distort said facts if it doesn't suit their anti immigrant ideology

 

[MNW67]

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.

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.

 

[motorbiking]

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.

yes - and I know a thing or two about reaction time, hazard perception and the human brain. There is oodles of research on it, relating to driving. It is established that the time taken to assess a developing situation is 0.5s - 1.5s. Your witness is confused

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.

in 0.7s. less than the time it takes to click your fingers.

 

[MNW67]

yes - and I know a thing or two about reaction time, hazard perception and the human brain. There is oodles of research on it, relating to driving. It is established that the time taken to assess a developing situation is 0.5s - 1.5s. Your witness is confused

in 0.7s. less than the time it takes to click your fingers.

Some people think that driving and shooting are different. If it takes you 1.5 seconds to react to a threat, don't take up boxing!

Anyway, I've had a look at the second research again. It states clearly that the study was designed to assess the combined Perception-Reaction time for the shooting a handgun. And the results show that, for untrained civilians, the average is 0.36 seconds. It couldn't be clearer. My own results show the same.

 

[Odds]

no doubt people will await the facts.

The Trump administration were quick to label her as a 'domestic terrorist' and claim immunity from prosecution before the full facts were known.

 

[SPLINE]

There is a certain type of left-wing loony woman who goes around antagonising the police...

 

[Highway Man]

I posted something similar the other day.

The agent seems to have extremely good reactions. Which is one of the reasons why I believe he had time to stop before the second shot. Even an untrained civilian only need 350 milliseconds.

Your obsessed with your ridiculous findings which bare no meaning or have any legal standing whatsoever, you are sounding more and more insane by the post. If you think the court has missed your silly findings and made a mistake, think on...

 

[SPLINE]

Your obsessed with your ridiculous findings which bare no meaning or have any legal standing whatsoever, you are sounding more and more insane by the post. If you think the court has missed your silly findings and made a mistake, think on...

By the looks of it, MNW knows more about this case than anyone. Star witness!

 

[Highway Man]

I know. But the whole point of that case is about whether they could use his prior behaviour to justify the shooting. They had just chased him for more than ten miles, in the course of which he had almost killed dozens of people. Therefore, when he sped away again, they were permitted to take all that information into account when assessing whether he was a serious danger to the public, and whether it was correct to shoot him. However, if instead they had been confronted with a sweet, friendly soccer mom, the calculus would have been very different.

You are wrong and it has been proven that you are wrong, get over yourself and do a bit of learning on the law. You do not know anything about human behavior or stressful situations. You think everything is black and white. Accept you are wrong and move on. Jeeez.

 

[Highway Man]

Would you have felt that you were still in danger when this shot was fired.

View attachment 405686

Irrelevant and proven in court, do you think you are more aware of the situation than a Supreme Court judge.. OMG

 

[Highway Man]

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.

You are not applying the law at all. The law has passed this as a lawful killing