Ohio police shoot pregnant woman

correct

this cop had to make a split second decision...for not only his life but the life's of the other people in parking lot that would have been in danger of being hit by a 4000 pound car with a deranged nut behind the wheel



people say Ashli could have killed someone if not shot

this deranged nut could have killed someone if not shot.... a 5 year old in the parking...as far as I know their were no 5 yo children in danger because of Ashil!
I police officer made a dumb decision to use his body as a barricade that is VERY dangerous. After he shot her the car traveled 50 feet and hit the store . How did that protect that 5 y,o, in the parking lot? And what would have happened if she reflexively nailed the accelerator? She also made a very stupid decision to ram the cop. He was well within his right to shoot her after she rammed him and threatened his life. It's no different than if she had shot at him. But he should be fired for placing his life unnecessarily at risk. This could have turned out much better if both parties had made better decisions.
 
not a capitol offence ...did she have a rope in hand LINK


assault is not a capitol offence
The violent mob was the weapon, vols. How long have you had problems with your memory?

Assault with intent to kill is a reason to use lethal force.

The fact you spell "offence" like a cocksucking monarchist is interesting, vols. Are you a Canuck? A Thai? An Aussie?
 
What was the capital offense here, refusing to leave the vehicle? Unlike Dylann Roof she wasn't armed to the teeth and looking to kill someone.
The capital offense was threatening to tun over a cop by ramming him with a car. Not refusing to leave a car. Had she not chosen to use her car as a weapon she would still be alive.
 
threating congressmen and women


not a capitol offence

Maybe in Monarchist Cocksucking countries, but in America, it is when done within deadly force use law.

Let me educate you my little monarchist:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7
§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

https://www.police1.com/officer-sho...ne-breaching-the-us-capitol-QEBVADUcf50fXkuV/
Should you shoot someone breaching the U.S. Capitol?
 
What was the capital offense here, refusing to leave the vehicle? Unlike Dylann Roof she wasn't armed to the teeth and looking to kill someone.

what was Ashil capitol offence?

Since guns should not be pulled with no capitol offence



was there a chance of this nut hitting and killing a child in the parking lot while fleeing?

the chance of that happening were way higher than Ashil getting a rope around the neck of Pence





This woman could have killed a child that had no protection...u don't give a fuck so what let her go take the chance etc etc


Unarmed Ashil could have assaulted Pence who has SS protection around him ...she must be killed
 
Last edited:
I police officer made a dumb decision to use his body as a barricade that is VERY dangerous. After he shot her the car traveled 50 feet and hit the store . How did that protect that 5 y,o, in the parking lot? And what would have happened if she reflexively nailed the accelerator? She also made a very stupid decision to ram the cop. He was well within his right to shoot her after she rammed him and threatened his life. It's no different than if she had shot at him. But he should be fired for placing his life unnecessarily at risk. This could have turned out much better if both parties had made better decisions.

She didn't "ram" him. You don't have to exaggerate to make a point.
 
Neither should ramming her car into a cop. She had her weapon drawn (her foot on the accelerator.) Like wise the cop had his weapon drawn.

Please, she didn't "ram" him, he never fell down. The video shows he was tapped, not rammed. And he was doubly stupid for shooting her in the head when her foot was on the accelerator, did he think the car would just magically stop running?
 
Please, she didn't "ram" him, he never fell down. The video shows he was tapped, not rammed. And he was doubly stupid for shooting her in the head when her foot was on the accelerator, did he think the car would just magically stop running?
:laugh: you don't have to knock someone down when you ram them. I don't disagreed that he was dumb to place his body in front of the car but he was with his rights to shoot her when she threatened his life by ramming her lethal weapon into him.
 
Look at the video again. As soon as the car starts inching forward the dumb cop puts his hand on it as if to stop it. He not only wasn't "rammed," he didn't have the common sense to step out of the way.
His feet were knocked off the ground by the impact. He was within his rights to shoot her.
 
:laugh: you don't have to knock someone down when you ram them. I don't disagreed that he was dumb to place his body in front of the car but he was with his rights to shoot her when she threatened his life by ramming her lethal weapon into him.

Since you're going off on a tangent, "ramming" indicates strong force, and it was missing in this case.

verb (used with object),rammed, ram·ming.

  1. to drive or force by heavy blows.
  2. to strike with great force; dash violently against
 
Back
Top