POV footage from the ICE agent who was RAMMED by anti-ICE activist Renee Good in Minneapolis has been released

volsrocks said:
If it's a cop telling u to stop and u ignore and hit him ...yes


AI Overview




intentionally hitting a police officer with a car is considered an attack and is treated as a serious felony offense, often leading to charges such as attempted murder, aggravated assault, or assault on a law enforcement officer.
Click to expand...
So a car is only a deadly weapon if it's a cop?
Thanks for proving it was murder since a federal officer is NOT a cop.

You people are so deep in the cult you can't even make sense when you contradict yourselves and lie about facts.
 
Damocles said:
Um... that's not true. A vehicle is a deadly weapon, if the officer thought his life, or the life of others, was in danger at that moment in time it will be a justified shooting. Even if objectively it was not.

Imagine a teen aiming a fake gun that looks real at a cop. Objectively the cop is in no danger, subjectively the cop can absolutely believe his life is in danger. If the cop shoots the teen he will not face charges, it will be justified. This is the same. Did the cop believe he was in danger of great bodily harm or death? If he did, this was justified.
Click to expand...
You forget several things in your analysis of the situation. Did the officer follow training? Would a reasonable person (officer) have reached the same conclusion. The officer can't simply declare they felt they were in danger.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You forget several things in your analysis of the situation. Did the officer follow training? Would a reasonable person (officer) have reached the same conclusion. The officer can't simply declare they felt they were in danger.
Click to expand...
First I "forgot" nothing. Here is the conversation. volsrocks said:
volsrocks said:
In those moments before being shot, Renee committed these crimes.

1. Impeding traffic.
2. Resisting and obstructing.
3. Fleeing and eluding.
4. Hitting Police with a car
Click to expand...
To which you responded:
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Congratulations. You have just made the case for the officer committing murder since none of those allow for lethal force.
Click to expand...
Which I noted is incorrect because a vehicle is a deadly weapon, then gave you a description of how subjective the actual judgement will be. Here:
Damocles said:
Um... that's not true. A vehicle is a deadly weapon, if the officer thought his life, or the life of others, was in danger at that moment in time it will be a justified shooting. Even if objectively it was not.

Imagine a teen aiming a fake gun that looks real at a cop. Objectively the cop is in no danger, subjectively the cop can absolutely believe his life is in danger. If the cop shoots the teen he will not face charges, it will be justified. This is the same. Did the cop believe he was in danger of great bodily harm or death? If he did, this was justified.
Click to expand...
This is the reality. He will be judged on that subjective thing. If he truly believed his life was in danger the shooting will be justified. Other questions like "should he have been there in front of the vehicle" notwithstanding. (BTW that corner of the vehicle is where you will see cops standing regularly because they can see if the driver reaches for things inside the car, changes gears, etc. they can see it better from there than standing next to the window and/or speaking from behind.)
 
Damocles said:
I hear that. But I do see that with the one guy reaching into the vehicle in an attempt to open the door after he found it locked the first time, the guy may also have been worried about his coworker and whether that coworker might be dragged. Split second later things change... I also wonder if the gun went off because he was hit, not because he meant to pull the trigger.

It is clear that she knew they were law enforcement, you can hear him give a lawful order, in a way that didn't seem to be an attempt to deescalate.

I'd like to see the first reaction be towards less than lethal weapons, but if we are going with "what did the officer think"... It seems that he thought there were lives in danger and that we would have a very difficult time proving he did not, and if we use the same standard we always use for law enforcement... I think they'll find this justified.
Click to expand...
Three times? Aimed at her face? What in the actual fuck.
 
Damocles said:
Um... that's not true. A vehicle is a deadly weapon, if the officer thought his life, or the life of others, was in danger at that moment in time it will be a justified shooting. Even if objectively it was not.

Imagine a teen aiming a fake gun that looks real at a cop. Objectively the cop is in no danger, subjectively the cop can absolutely believe his life is in danger. If the cop shoots the teen he will not face charges, it will be justified. This is the same. Did the cop believe he was in danger of great bodily harm or death? If he did, this was justified.
Click to expand...
That's a relatively amateurish interpretation of the law. Tennessee v. Garner said that, "[d]eadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Then, Graham v. Connor held that it is not enough that the officer personally believed they were in danger. "Would a reasonable officer in the same situation, with the same information, have believed deadly force was necessary?"

That is an objective standard, not a subjective one. It is not enough that Ross (might have) thought he was in danger of death or serious physical injury. Would a reasonable officer in the same situation have held his cell phone in one hand and then unholstered and shot Good in the face three times with his other hand? Or would they have taken one step backward and then traced the license plate number to Good's home? We're going to find out.
 
We have plenty of footage at this point - we have all the angles.

I still think it's wild that many on the right tried to use his cell phone footage as some sort of revelation that he was doing the right thing.

Watching it so many times at this point - it's clear that he didn't take appropriate action. And if he thought his life was in danger, he wasn't judging the situation correctly. It wasn't. He didn't even lose his footing, even though - instead of stepping back further - he chose to take out his firearm, aim and shoot.
 
Damocles said:
First I "forgot" nothing. Here is the conversation. volsrocks said:

To which you responded:

Which I noted is incorrect because a vehicle is a deadly weapon, then gave you a description of how subjective the actual judgement will be. Here:

This is the reality. He will be judged on that subjective thing. If he truly believed his life was in danger the shooting will be justified. Other questions like "should he have been there in front of the vehicle" notwithstanding. (BTW that corner of the vehicle is where you will see cops standing regularly because they can see if the driver reaches for things inside the car, changes gears, etc. they can see it better from there than standing next to the window and/or speaking from behind.)
Click to expand...
You're wrong, and you don't understand the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top