Too much ice

#2,376
#2,376
NashVol11 said:
I understand where you are coming from. I just think she panicked and was driving away (and was also potentially told by at least one officer to "MOVE") rather than trying to attack or provoke them to kill her
Click to expand...
Your key word I Think. You have no clue what her intent was. Neither did the officer so he reacted accordingly
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#2,379
#2,379
luthervol said:
lol....Going from a stop to 1mph is acceleration. He was standing near her path of exit, so moving "toward" him was to be expected.
Click to expand...
Her freakin tires spun dude. She floored it. 😅

Let's be honest here. Just go ahead and admit that you are ok with cops killing people for whatever reason as long as you oppose their political views and there is no justification for shooting the folks you align with politically no matter what crimes they are committing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Good Ol' Charlie Brown, whodeycin85 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,380
#2,380
luthervol said:
Trying to run over an officer???????? Get serious. That's insane and everyone knows it.
Click to expand...

From his perspective and in the time he had to assess and react, he could reasonably perceive that to be the case.

I'll add to my earlier comments on this that we often have expert witnesses who study reaction times. The officer must assess the situation, decide to fire, then physically fire. Then, as circumstances change, he must reassess the situation, decide to stop firing, and then physically stop. Each direction takes in most studies a tad over 2 seconds.

In this case, that allowance for his reaction time is well within reason.

While I agree with criticism of ICE being there at all, and am critical of the administration for doing this, and while I agree that Trump, Noem's, and Vance's attacks on this lady are reprehensible and stupid, as to the actions of the officer -- completely lawful. Unfortunate, but not unlawful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1, InVOLuntary, luthervol and 2 others
#2,381
#2,381
luthervol said:
If she knowingly committed a crime, which I believe she did, then I'm certain she realized something bad might happen.

John Lewis was arrested over 40 times.....but luckily he was never shot in the face......just beaten. He called it "good trouble".
Click to expand...
Did he assault a LEO with a vehicle?

And "good trouble" is just another leftist euphemism for excusing violence.

Just like TN Rep Justin Jones called it when he was just an "activist" and assaulted two people including throwing coffee at a state politician in an elevator.

I'm sure you support political violence like that though right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Good Ol' Charlie Brown
#2,382
#2,382
LouderVol said:
the cops bad decisions, standing in front of a vehicle he wanted moved, made it legal. he justified his shooting by putting himself in danger. which is arsebackwards as anything. self defense doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, the cop shouldn't have been standing in front of her car, he is a dumbazz for doing so. I've also said he didn't have to shoot her, it was a POS move on his part but that doesn't negate the fact that she was also a dumbazz. The difference between the two other than she's dead is that the cop has the law on his side, she didn't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Good Ol' Charlie Brown and InVOLuntary
#2,384
#2,384
lukeneyland said:
I think the first shot was probably legal. Once he side stepped the vehicle the 3 or 4 he dumped through the passenger window is obscene and clearly an illegal use of force . I’m no lefty but I’m disgusted with the lack of objectivity coming from the Federal position.
Click to expand...
Well there is one problem he never shot in the passenger window. Pretty sure most of the shots are in the windshield
 
#2,385
#2,385
lawgator1 said:
From his perspective and in the time he had to assess and react, he could reasonably perceive that to be the case.

I'll add to my earlier comments on this that we often have expert witnesses who study reaction times. The officer must assess the situation, decide to fire, then physically fire. Then, as circumstances change, he must reassess the situation, decide to stop firing, and then physically stop. Each direction takes in most studies a tad over 2 seconds.

In this case, that allowance for his reaction time is well within reason.

While I agree with criticism of ICE being there at all, and am critical of the administration for doing this, and while I agree that Trump, Noem's, and Vance's attacks on this lady are reprehensible and stupid, as to the actions of the officer -- completely lawful. Unfortunate, but not unlawful.
Click to expand...
Well said in all respects. Thank you.
 
#2,390
#2,390
lukeneyland said:
I don’t think so because the first shot was taken from a position of potentially grave danger while the following shots weren’t.
Click to expand...
He's right it's immaterial.

The shooting follows both constitutional law and standard LEO firearms training.

It only would be an issue if he fired two shots, she wrecked and he ran up to shoot a third shot a minute later in her head.

He shot exactly how and where you are supposed to, whether he missed or how long doesn't come into play with the shooting being over in less than 2 seconds
 
#2,391
#2,391
lukeneyland said:
I don’t think so because the first shot was taken from a position of potentially grave danger while the following shots weren’t.
Click to expand...

I'm not up on ICE firearm training but I'm guessing they are trained to fire in rapid succession until the threat is neutralized so no, which shot killed her doesn't matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Good Ol' Charlie Brown and Rickyvol77
#2,396
#2,396
GVF said:
So, you have info that he woke up yesterday morning wanting to plug someone? Is that LE mantra? Slap the rock on the way out of the ops room and yell have we killed someone today!!
Click to expand...
Some people wake up every morning wanting to hurt or kill someone. Unfortunately for the rest of us, such people are over represented in law enforcement.
 
#2,398
#2,398
EasternVol said:
You might as well say she got shot because she was in America, or because she was born. She got shot because she had the bad fortune to encounter a trigger happy ICE agent in circumstances conducive to him using his gun.
Click to expand...
No not really! If the Biden Administration hadn’t let so many illegals in ICE wouldn’t be out cleaning it up. She got shot for using her vehicle as a weapon
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,400
#2,400
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and DuckInAPen
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top