Another Shooting

[NorthDakota]

A car right before the masked men jumped out went around her so blocked isn't true. Either way, the conflicting orders from the masked men plus the shots through her side window and, you know the murder video, make it pretty clear what happened.

If your car dies on the road, you are blocking traffic whether or not others can go around or not. I refuse to believe you are this stupid. Here, she is perpendicular to the lane of travel.

Lol "conflicting orders from masked men" doesnt matter in the slightest, if that even occurred. Forgive me for not taking you seriously there.The cop is in front of her car when she hits the gas. She hits the cop with her car. I

The cop shoots 3 times in rather quick succession. Whether the second and third shot are through the driver's side window doesnt seem particularly relevant. It's an immediate series of events.

 

[dublinirish]

 

[dublinirish]

If your car dies on the road, you are blocking traffic whether or not others can go around or not. I refuse to believe you are this stupid. Here, she is perpendicular to the lane of travel.

Lol "conflicting orders from masked men" doesnt matter in the slightest, if that even occurred. Forgive me for not taking you seriously there.The cop is in front of her car when she hits the gas. She hits the cop with her car. I

The cop shoots 3 times in rather quick succession. Whether the second and third shot are through the driver's side window doesnt seem particularly relevant. It's an immediate series of events.

this isnt true though

 

[drayer54]

A car right before the masked men jumped out went around her so blocked isn't true. Either way, the conflicting orders from the masked men plus the shots through her side window and, you know the murder video, make it pretty clear what happened.

Not clear enough that some people still don’t get that it was self-defense.

We saw this in Rittenhouse. Libs lost their minds, lied, called it murder, and then when grownups looked at, it was obvious self-defense. It was all on tape and obvious the day off the event that it was self-defense but liberals told blatant and baseless lies about it. Here we are again.

 

[NorthDakota]

this isnt true though

It is true though

 

[drayer54]

It is true though

It’s irrelevant though.

Facts- please let me know which ones the looney tunes on this board disagree with.

1- to constitute assault, there need not be battery
2- She clearly committed assault with her right foot pressed down to accelerate. We can debate aim and intent, but she made the decision to accelerate with the officer in a position where he could be harmed
3- The car is a deadly weapon and her operation of the vehicle was reckless and without regard for the officer.
4- The agent had clear and obvious reasonable fear of imminent harm.

All she had to do was listen, but she rolled the dice.

Even if we accept that she was trying to flee federal agents and not harm them
5- a police officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if he has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
6- In the blink of an eye moment decision- it’s entirely reasonable to assume that this woman who was clearly nuts and accelerating her car in the face of an armed officer has intent to harm.

Be specific. Where am I wrong? Zero chance the feds cooperate with sham local investigations and will kick it to feds who will never charge here. 100% justified. 0% murder.

The Dems who keep pushing for unrest and disruptions to ICE are 100% responsible for this loss of life.

 

[Bishop2b5]

A car right before the masked men jumped out went around her so blocked isn't true. Either way, the conflicting orders from the masked men plus the shots through her side window and, you know the murder video, make it pretty clear what happened.

You're really trying to take Toronto's crown as the king of IE's useful idiots, aren't you?

 

[NorthDakota]

I have no idea whether she was intending to use her vehicle as a weapon. It's also not very relevant. The analysis here doesnt hinge on her thought process really at all.

I get there is going to be efforts to turn this lady into a saint or villain or whatever... but it doesn't matter.

 

[ozzman]

 

[NorthDakota]

It’s irrelevant though.

Facts- please let me know which ones the looney tunes on this board disagree with.

1- to constitute assault, there need not be battery
2- She clearly committed assault with her right foot pressed down to accelerate. We can debate aim and intent, but she made the decision to accelerate with the officer in a position where he could be harmed
3- The car is a deadly weapon and her operation of the vehicle was reckless and without regard for the officer.
4- The agent had clear and obvious reasonable fear of imminent harm.

All she had to do was listen, but she rolled the dice.

Even if we accept that she was trying to flee federal agents and not harm them
5- a police officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if he has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
6- In the blink of an eye moment decision- it’s entirely reasonable to assume that this woman who was clearly nuts and accelerating her car in the face of an armed officer has intent to harm.

Be specific. Where am I wrong? Zero chance the feds cooperate with sham local investigations and will kick it to feds who will never charge here. 100% justified. 0% murder.

The Dems who keep pushing for unrest and disruptions to ICE are 100% responsible for this loss of life.

My only disagreement is the last sentence. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions. But the rhetoric and such coming from leftists and dem partisans on this is very irresponsible

 

[NorthDakota]

Some legal people i follow (former federal prosecutors) reached the opposite conclusion.

1) Federal - this would be handled in Federal Court. The Feds aren't going to prosecute this.

2) even if the Feds tried to prosecute, the bar to prosecute cops for shootings is very high.

 

[Blazers46]

eh, because unnamed sources doesn’t change my mind.

 

[ozzman]

Also pretty sure you shouldn't be on your phone before you decide to shoot someone in the head.

 

[drayer54]

eh, because unnamed sources doesn’t change my mind.

You can name them. The analysis is still hollow. Just what they think should happen. It’s silly.

Also pretty sure you shouldn't be on your phone before you decide to shoot someone in the head.

Should he have known this crazy woman was about to try and ram him? I’d document it too. Hopefully got some good footage to make everyone arguing this look dumber.

Also interesting-
This agent knows about violent vehicle assaults-

 

[NorthDakota]

Also pretty sure you shouldn't be on your phone before you decide to shoot someone in the head.

Pretty sure you shouldn't drive into cops whether they are on their phone or not.

 

[ozzman]

Pretty sure you shouldn't drive into cops whether they are on their phone or not.

Except the video shows she didn't drive into cops

 

[NorthDakota]

Except the video shows she didn't drive into cops

Yes it does?

I am guessing you have only seen one angle.

 

[ozzman]

Yes it does?

I am guessing you have only seen one angle.

Tell me you haven't watched the video I posted without telling me. It goes over all of the angles and syncs them

 

[Blazers46]

Damn, we got video and still disagree. Pretty sure this convo will go nowhere… where it currently is and will remain.

 

[NorthDakota]

Tell me you haven't watched the video I posted without telling me. It goes over all of the angles and syncs them

The cop gets hit. Its not complicated. I've seen the video.

 

[ulukinatme]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Irish#1]

A car right before the masked men jumped out went around her so blocked isn't true. Either way, the conflicting orders from the masked men plus the shots through her side window and, you know the murder video, make it pretty clear what happened.

Unfortunate incident. If only she hadn't interjected herself into something that was none of her business.

 

[drayer54]

Except the video shows she didn't drive into cops

Take your phone on this video and slide it in slow motion. She clearly hits him and you see him move back and then to the side. It’s fast, but it’s there.

 

[drayer54]

Solid work

 

[Irish#1]

I have no idea whether she was intending to use her vehicle as a weapon. It's also not very relevant. The analysis here doesnt hinge on her thought process really at all.

I get there is going to be efforts to turn this lady into a saint or villain or whatever... but it doesn't matter.

Why not. They did that with a criminal named George.

 

[TorontoGold]

Why not. They did that with a criminal named George.

Nelson Mandela was a criminal.

 

[jerseyborn1971]

My question is if she was trying to run him over then why were the front tires pointing in a direction taking her in the opposite direction of the officer. He was on her left and her car and tires are pointed and moving toward the right? When the shots are fired, he is clear of the car and out of danger of being hit.

 

[NorthDakota]

My question is if she was trying to run him over then why were the front tires pointing in a direction taking her in the opposite direction of the officer. He was on her left and her car and tires are pointed and moving toward the right? When the shots are fired, he is clear of the car and out of danger of being hit.

I don't think she was trying to run him over. I think she panicked and didn't want to get in trouble (ended up getting in the biggest trouble)

 

[drayer54]

My question is if she was trying to run him over then why were the front tires pointing in a direction taking her in the opposite direction of the officer. He was on her left and her car and tires are pointed and moving toward the right? When the shots are fired, he is clear of the car and out of danger of being hit.

Tires are straight when she initially accelerates.

 

[drayer54]