Enough said.unlawful arrest.
Enough said.unlawful arrest.

It’s beyond a stretch to even begin to argue which shot was the deadly shot or that no single shot would have been deadly in the absence of the others. Assuming you can make a convincing argument that shot one hit the arm, you are still left with the argument that it was as single cognitive act to open fire or that the valid threat for shot one was somehow no longer there under a second later.No you are right, the other loonies are a special kind of loony. You are a loony that is trying at least to understand.
It’s beyond a stretch to even begin to argue which shot was the deadly shot or that no single shot would have been deadly in the absence of the others. Assuming you can make a convincing argument that shot one hit the arm, you are still left with the argument that it was as single cognitive act to open fire or that the valid threat for shot one was somehow no longer there under a second later.
I can see this argument if he opened fire and the calmly walked up to the crashed car for a double tap execution style.
But in this context it’s beyond nonsense.

1. Yep. Look at the case law. It’s pretty grim, the bar is set very high and the threat level very low.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 a single cognitive act which covers all three shots. There would be if the intention was to kill.
Didn't she first reverse in order to drive around the agent.She gave the permission by accelerating towards the agent.

She didn’t manage it.Didn't she first reverse in order to drive around the agent.
a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what was said to argue a point that is irrelevant.
a still photo a fraction of a second apart is not going to help when we know how close all the shots were


No she went straight at him, she only turned her wheels to get through the gap in front of her. She wasn't interested that she might run into the agent but she did.Didn't she first reverse in order to drive around the agent.
In either case all rounds were fired so close together that this was a single cognitive process in response to a manufactured or genuine threat.

Well of course it is.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.

Nobody on this earth could shoot one shot and then stop in a split second. The shots were fired in a manner that was most certainly a shoot to kill scenario.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.

Nobody on this earth could shoot one shot and then stop in a split second. The shots were fired in a manner that was most certainly a shoot to kill scenario.