ICE told to get the eff out

[Highway Man]

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 could see the car was moving away. It was too late to stop the first shot. But he only continued shooting to make sure of the kill.

Never heard such nonsense, you have obviously never shot at anyone

 

[Highway Man]

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 could see the car was moving away. It was too late to stop the first shot. But he only continued shooting to make sure of the kill.

You are talking about firing on a range or simulation, totally different to firing at someone.
An officer can generally stop shooting within approximately 0.3 to 0.6 seconds after perceiving that a threat has been mitigated, although "extra" shots are often fired due to biological, mechanical, and psychological factors. While the decision to stop may be instantaneous, the physical action of releasing the trigger involves a time-lag, often resulting in 1–4 extra rounds being fired.

 

[Highway Man]

• Shooting to Stop: Officers are trained to fire until the threat is neutralized, not necessarily to a specific number of shots.
• Continuous Fire: During a rapid, high-stress shooting, breaking the shooting rhythm to assess the situation can take longer than the threat itself, making it difficult to stop mid-sequence.

 

[Highway Man]

Your comment is based on a range and in a controlled environment. It doesn't reflect anything like what happened in Minnesota, no stop fire command and no start fire command. Just pure and simple shoot to kill, exactly what the agent did. Read the report you are quoting and you will see. it has no bearing on an operational job.

https://www.forcescience.com/2025/07/new-study-time-to-stop-why-even-the-most-disciplined-officers-cant-stop-faster-than-humanly-possible/

 

[MNW67]

Your comment is based on a range and in a controlled environment. It doesn't reflect anything like what happened in Minnesota, no stop fire command and no start fire command. Just pure and simple shoot to kill, exactly what the agent did. Read the report you are quoting and you will see. it has no bearing on an operational job.

We need to properly break down the sequence in this case. The agent leans forward and puts his hand on the bonnet of the car to steady himself, and then he fires the first shot. The car was moving, so he gets shoved backwards. He slips, regains his footing, twists his body and reacquires the target. That is why there is a longer than normal delay between the first and second shots. The second and third shots have less of a gap between them and are what is known in law enforcement as a 'controlled pair'. Law enforcement do not use 'continuous fire'. The decision to reacquire the target and fire the controlled pair was a new and separate decision from firing the first shot. That is why they are unlawful. Because the agent made the conscious decision to reacquire the target and fire the controlled pair only after he knew the danger had passed.

AI Overview

In law enforcement and firearms training, a "controlled pair" is a shooting technique involving two rapid, but individually aimed, shots at a target, emphasizing distinct sight pictures and trigger pulls for better accuracy than a single, uncontrolled burst (like a "double tap"). It's a fundamental drill to build consistency by focusing on proper sight alignment and trigger control for each shot, helping officers ensure hits in the vital zone under pressure.

 

[MNW67]

According to all the training and research, the agent had plenty of time to re-evaluate the threat and make an informed decision before firing the controlled pair. I know it seems very quick, but the human brain is amazing.

Key Takeaways on Timing:

Gap Between Pairs (Transition): When engaging multiple targets or re-engaging the same target, a gap of 0.35 to 0.50 seconds is typical for, allowing for necessary re-evaluation of the threat.

 

[ellal]

Well at least we know you don't agree with the right to protest

I've read them...

And you are twisting the words of a woman in grief who has just lost her partner!

If you say her death was 'self inflicted', then you are suggesting she shouldn't have been there whether she was persuaded by her partner or not...

So as such you would deny the right of protest...

Of course if you do believe in the right to protest you would have no problem in saying she had a right to be there in the first place!

And have you ever gone somewhere you didn't fully want to go because someone close to you persuaded you?
Or the opposite?

 

[Odds]

“you don’t want this smoke,” Rochelle Bilal, Philadelphia’s sheriff, warned ICE agents during an 8 January press conference. “We stand here today with all those who stand against the made-up, fake, what you can call ICE, professional law enforcement,” she said at the conference. “I don’t call them none of that. I call them made-up, fake, wannabe law enforcement. Because what they do is against not only legal law, but the moral law.”

Is Trump doing a better job of dealing with illegal immigrants than Obama?

Not really, no.

 

[Highway Man]

According to all the training and research, the agent had plenty of time to re-evaluate the threat and make an informed decision before firing the controlled pair. I know it seems very quick, but the human brain is amazing.

Key Takeaways on Timing:

Gap Between Pairs (Transition): When engaging multiple targets or re-engaging the same target, a gap of 0.35 to 0.50 seconds is typical for, allowing for necessary re-evaluation of the threat.

You are barking up the wrong tree with this silly nonsense. A training range is nothing like a real life situation with a model turning red and green to stop and start. You could very easily empty a pistol magazine by the time you have heard a stop command, this was not a training exercise and has no bearing in the field. There is no law against firing 3 or 4 rapid shots in succession in actual fact it is part of your weapons training. You do not fire one single shot and then hope to god you hit the target or made the kill. The training and I have actually done this too, is to fire 3 shots to the chest area to take someone down and not fire at the head which is too small a target to hit, the way the ICE agent took the shots was exactly this way, had he waited a few seconds between shots then yes there could be a case to answer.

 

[Highway Man]

Of course if you do believe in the right to protest you would have no problem in saying she had a right to be there in the first place!

And have you ever gone somewhere you didn't fully want to go because someone close to you persuaded you?
Or the opposite?

So you believe it was her right in being parked in the middle of the road in an attempt to block these ICE agents and you believe she had the right to accelerate towards the armed agent as a right to protest ? You have a strange way of protesting.

 

[MNW67]

You are barking up the wrong tree with this silly nonsense. A training range is nothing like a real life situation with a model turning red and green to stop and start. You could very easily empty a pistol magazine by the time you have heard a stop command, this was not a training exercise and has no bearing in the field. There is no law against firing 3 or 4 rapid shots in succession in actual fact it is part of your weapons training. You do not fire one single shot and then hope to god you hit the target or made the kill. The training and I have actually done this too, is to fire 3 shots to the chest area to take someone down and not fire at the head which is too small a target to hit, the way the ICE agent took the shots was exactly this way, had he waited a few seconds between shots then yes there could be a case to answer.

You are conflating military training, where the intention is to kill using rapid bursts, with law enforcement training, where the aim is to fire a controlled pair, reassess, and then fire another controlled pair if necessary. All the research shows that he had time and that the human brain can actually do this. You seem to be admitting that his intention was to kill.

 

[Highway Man]

You are conflating military training, where the intention is to kill using rapid bursts, with law enforcement training, where the aim is to fire a controlled pair, reassess, and then fire another controlled pair if necessary. All the research shows that he had time and that the human brain can actually do this. You seem to be admitting that his intention was to kill.

Actually I was about to say I am talking about military weapons training, I would have thought the police training would be the same. In my defence to this though the ICE agent may well have been ex forces as a lot of them are.

 

[noseall]

You seem to be admitting that his intention was to kill.

I think anyone watching the "effing be-ach" being executed, realised that was his sole aim.

 

[motorbiking]

According to all the training and research, the agent had plenty of time to re-evaluate the threat and make an informed decision before firing the controlled pair. I know it seems very quick, but the human brain is amazing.

Key Takeaways on Timing:

Gap Between Pairs (Transition): When engaging multiple targets or re-engaging the same target, a gap of 0.35 to 0.50 seconds is typical for, allowing for necessary re-evaluation of the threat.

Setting aside the fact that you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting whatever you’ve read. You are attempting to make an argument that his right to shoot, is limited to "the moment of threat". A path that has be explored already in the US see. Barnes v. Felix (2025): The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the "moment of threat" doctrine (which limited analysis to the split second of shooting) in favor of a "totality of the circumstances" test. This means courts must evaluate the entire incident, including leading actions, when determining if multiple shots were excessive.

 

[motorbiking]

Actually I was about to say I am talking about military weapons training, I would have thought the police training would be the same. In my defence to this though the ICE agent may well have been ex forces as a lot of them are.

he was / is