ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
In this case it takes two to choose.
No, it doesn't He wasn't putting himself as a roadblock. You can argue he should have been more careful and thought about all the things that can go wrong, but the argument is pretty dubious. Arresting people is inherently dangerous, and they can fuck you up whether you're in front of the car or approaching it from the side. But setting it aside for the sake of argument, a tactical error does not negate your right to self defense.
She on the other hand had the actual choice of simply not putting anyone's life in danger.
Unless you're really aiming the car at the police intentionally
Whether you're doing it intentionally or not is irrelevant, thr police can't read your mind.
Even if they did, and in her mind she would pull off some badass maneuver to escape without hitting anyone, there's still the issue of thr car's actual trajectory which did hit the guy, and would hit him harder and sooner were it not for the ice on the road.
They can shoot you if you drive at them, but they can't shoot you if you are just fleeing.
Right, which is the scenario relevant to the discussed case.
If not, don't have policies whose effect is that it's hard to distinguish between fleeing and driving at them
There's nothing to distinguish. It doesn't matter if you were "just" fleeing, if you do so by means of driving your car at the police. If you choose to do that, you are putting their life in danger, and they have a right to defend themselves.
The police are not permitted to shoot you if you floor your car to get away.
Yes they are, if you floor it at them. We've been sharing this video that shows what happens when they're not fast enough. Another poster mentioned they were watching police cam videos in thr wake of BLM and seen plenty of cases of policemen shooting cars driving at them, all of which were ruled justified.
The difference is that in that case the officer would be shooting people who are intentionally violent, not nonviolent people who looked violent because the officer set up the situation in a way that made it hard to tell.
The police arrests people for non-violent offenses all the time, you still don't get to floor it to get away from them, and flooring your car at them is violent in itself.
The officer was not in front of the car when she began backing up. Her reverse maneuver is what put him (barely) there.
Eh... the way I see it, it's kinda both, he was walking from the right to the left side of the car. Though funnily enough this also means he was putting himself out of harm's way, by doing exactly what everyone here is screaming at him about.
negate or at least seriously make harder whether the agent can claim fear for his life, even if he did.
That's absurd. Even if you claim he should have seen it coming (which creates an interesting tension between the claims of how she was just a totally harmless mom, but should have been treated as a complete sociopath at all times), him not seeing the danger when he walked around the car does not negate the fear for his life once she decided to floor it.
The video has to have the "with a car you can go anywhere you want" guy as the main character.
It's my understanding that absent actually aiding a specific crime, it's perfectly legal albeit obnoxious to whistle and make people aware of police/ICE presence (lookout for a robbery no but generally warning people about ICE or a speed trap is fine) and is not sabotaging an arrest.
Blocking the road for ICE vehicles, on the other hand, absolutely is.
As a big fan of technical correctness, I can only tip my hat to you, sir. However, that sentence doesn't read like he's expressing surprise at not being alone in the world, especially in the light of the rest of his post.
- Prev
- Next

He was in the way of the car, but not with the goal to block it.
Every arrest is an excuse for using lethal force, if the suspect insists on acting dangerously.
More options
Context Copy link