This kills your shot 1 may be lawful but 2-4 weren't argument. All shots were lawful or no shots were lawful.
In the Good, case applying similar logic, the threat doesn't end until the vehicle stops moving.
You are applying a completely different test based on completely different facts. Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014) was about a high speed car chase.
To date you have been arguing that the agent shot Renee in self defence.
You are now swerving to the argument that it was about protecting the general public.
Last edited:
