Glassnoser
7mo ago
The US has already implemented this ideal. It's illegal to shoot suspects to stop them from fleeing. Police, including ICE, are told not to stand in front of moving vehicles and not to shoot at their drivers.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
I don't think it matters, but if you want to persuade people who do, you need to at least attempt the basics of understanding what motivates them.
I think that's what my comment was doing.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
Do we actually know that? What specifically was she accused of doing?
Glassnoser
7mo ago
The car was going like 5 km/h and already turned mostly away from him when he started shooting. That isn't a threat of bodily harm. He wasn't really hit so much as brushed against because he chose to lean towards the car to keep his gun in front of the windshield so that he could get a shot.
Even if there was some risk to him, you're ignore several crucial elements. First of all, it's not like pulling a gun because it was clear that she wasn't trying to hit him. He also caused the dangerous situation by walking out into the middle of the street in front of a moving car and then suddenly stopping the moment she was about to drive away. He was clearly trying to position himself between her and her escape route.
Finally, shooting her had no chance of protecting him from getting hit. So it was an entirely gratuitious killing. Standing there and pulling out his gun instead moving out of the way increased the risk to himself. It didn't decrease it.
Even she were threatening him, killing someone in a way that increases rather than decreases the threat is not self-defence. Self-defence actually requires defence, not just gratuitous killing.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
If they are in the country legally, they're legal immigrants. What are you talking about?
Glassnoser
7mo ago
No, the car was already well into its turn and he had to lean over to his left to maintain his line of sight. His right leg and hips were clear of the car. If you look at where the bullet hole is, you can see he shot from way off to the side.
I understand why you think he couldn't have know that he was shooting through the side window he fired his two shots. How slow would his reaction time have to be for that? He can see what's in front of him at the very instant he pulls the trigger.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
Then they shouldn't do a car chase. They have many options. I think this is absurd trade off to make. The probability of someone getting hurt if they just arrest in a her a normal way is absolutely miniscule compared to the guaranteed harm of shooting her to death. Sure, if you put a sufficiently low value on the lives of people who are committing minor crimes, you can justify any level of police brutality, but that's not a reasonable basis on which to make an argument.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
It's not attempted murder. This is hyperbole. Murder requires intent. It's very unlikely she knew he was there when she started driving and then she immediately turned to her right. She did not deliberately drive into him. Her car brushed by him.
It absolutely matters for his legal defence if he recklessly put himself into a dangerous situation by walking in front of a moving vehicle.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
What federal offence was she committing?
Glassnoser
7mo ago
He could have probably jumped out of the way, but it'd be risky if she was trying to hit him. I don't think it's reasonable to expect cops to engage in that kind of self-risk to avoid shooting people, but I think cops should aspire to as a matter of personal virtue.
The car was already moving when decided to walk in front of it, stop and then pull out his gun. His decision to shoot her not only had no chance of actually protecting himself from being run over, it made increased the risk to himself because he could have just kept walking been out of the way. She almost certainly either didn't know he was there when she started driving forward or expected him to keep walking to her left and not suddenly stop in front of her just as she was about to take off.
DHS says she was attacking agents/their vehicles beforehand, idk if true but i'd bet it is; it's vanishingly unlikely this happens without her deliberately engaging against the agents.
This makes it all the more absurd that he decided to stand in front her car to try to stop her from leaving.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
I don't think anyone is disputing that she did something wrong. The problem is that the police officer a) created the dangerous situation by walking in front of her car while she was backing up then stopping right as she was about to start driving forward and b) pointlessly stood there and pulled out his gun, shooting her instead of getting out of the way. Self-defence has to at least be plausibly necessary to protect your life. And you can't claim self-defence if you're unnecessarily walking in front of moving vehicles in the middle of the road.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jbq98aqF794
I think this video makes it pretty clear she was not trying to run him over.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jbq98aqF794
This video is very helpful. He walked in front of the car while she was backing up and then stopped in front of the car just as she was backing up. She didn't line up with him. He suddenly stopped in front of her car. She probably didn't even know she was there because she would have been looking behind her, and then when she started to move forward, probably noticed him for the first time in a spot that was clear less than a second before. She then made a quick turn after initially starting off in her direction.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jbq98aqF794
This video makes it clear that she almost certainly had no idea he was there until she started moving. He started off inside the white car. Then he leaves and quickly marches over to her car. While he's walking over, she starts backing up. So he wasn't there when she started backing up. She was almost certainly looking backwards or looking at her back-up camera and had no idea he had stopped in front of her car just as she was finishing backing up.
Then she immediately starts to go forward. She would have seen him for the first time when she was first putting her foot on the gas, probably in a bit of panic, with the other officer at her window grabbing the car.
That's why she starts off moving in his direction. A second ago, she thought that was a safe escape route. Given how she was rushing, she could only turn hard to the right. One second later and she's shot three times.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
It was extremely uncharitable. Obviously, hardly anyone who opposes the deportation of illegal immigrants thinks it will lead to "a dirtier, poorer, more squalid, more corrupt, more unequal, more violent country, forever."
She's arguing that it doesn't matter what happens to anyone who supports illegal immigrants based on a totally fabricated assessment of their beliefs. It's needlessly inflammatory and false. It's untrue, unkind, and unnecessary.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
I don't get what the problem with letting transgender women compete in Miss America pageants is. Isn't that like letting women compete in men's sports?
Glassnoser
7mo ago
You're not supposed to make it easier for someone to escape in case they decide to use lethal force.
I think you are, actually. For good reason. You're putting your life in the driver's hands in the hopes he doesn't call your bluff and just run you over. If the priority is officer safety, how is this a good move?
Glassnoser
7mo ago
Let's say he thought she was going to hit him. Why does that mean he should have shot her? It didn't prevent him from being hit. It couldn't have unless he did it before she started moving, but surely you're not saying he can pre-emptively shoot her in case she starts driving towards him. The argument seems to be that, once she started driving towards him, then he was sufficiently threatened that he was justified in shooting her. But at that point, it is not at all reasonable to think shooting her can prevent her from shooting him.
So that just leaves the possibility that she has a weapon. But at no point did he have any reason to suspect that she did have a weapon. He only thought she might because anyone might. And doesn't it become much less likely that she is going to shoot him once she's driving? Now he's a moving target and she is a vehicle to operate while shooting him. It seems very unlikely. If he can shoot her in this scenario, he can shoot anyone disobeying police orders.
And why the time constraint apply here? He has one second until what, exactly? Until the car reaches him. But that is how much time he has to decide whether to shoot her to prevent her from hitting him with the car. It doesn't apply to the weapon concern. You don't just immediately shoot every non-cooperative person because you have time to determine whether he's armed.
For either concern, why is he standing in front of the car? Why is he standing in front of a moving car if he's worried she'll him? Why is he standing front of someone who might have a gun?
If standing in front of a vehicle is helpful in determining whether a driver is reaching for a weapon, then this would be a complicated determination.
So the police officer solves this by creating a situation where he's likely to have to kill her because he isn't going to immediately find out whether she's armed. You said he drew his weapon because she wasn't co-operative. If she isn't co-operative, why not expect that she'll drive away? Why isn't this far more likely than that she's armed?
The trade off here just doesn't make any sense. The police officer is deciding to do something that will probably result in him killing her to gain the slightest bit of information about the probability of her having gun.
Even if we're only concerned about the police officer's safety, why is the supposedly substantial risk he gets run over by the car worth the tiny risk that she's going to shoot him and he's going to prevent that by getting in front of her and getting a better look at her?
The shot appears to be fired just as the officer is hit by the side of the vehicle, though the officer probably had no idea that the driver intended to swerve out of the way in the last milliseconds so that it would simply brush against him
I think he probably did know, because he made no attempt to get out of the way. It's possible he just had bad judgment and thought the right move to being run over by a large SUV was to shoot the driver when it was already in motion, but I think it's more likely he noticed it turning and understood he had time to get out of the way. He's actually leaning to his left and the moment he fires his first shot, seemingly to maintain his line of sight so that he could shoot her.
I think the solution to this is simple. No, don't stand in front of vehicles, especially if you think they might try to run you over, and definitely don't try to shoot someone if they do try to drive towards you. Just get out of the way.
Someone might say, “were I the officer I would have used my split second reaction time to get out of the way”. But for you, this event would put you in a hyper-vigilant and high adrenaline state of heightened attention. For the officer, this is simply one of the 40 hours of monotonous work that he must do every day. You can’t compare your state to his; you should compare his state to the periods of low or moderate attention that you sustain in your own occupational hours.
OK, but he needs to be trained for this. If his instinct is to draw his gun and he doesn't have sufficient training to know what to do once his gun is drawn, that's a serious problem. The two key decisions he made which he should have consciously avoided if he didn't think he was mentally prepared for this situation were positioning himself in front of the vehicle of a non-cooperating suspect and drawing his gun. Maybe the split second decision once in that situation is tough, but then don't put yourself in that situation.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
Why would you base your acceptance of an argument based on who made it rather than on its correctness?
It's not legally permissible to respond to an assault with a deadly weapon with lethal force if there is no threat to bodily harm. Nor is it necessarily permissible if you provoked the situation. I can't run onto the tarmac of an airport and start shooting down landing aircraft with artillery because of my, at that point, reasonable fear that a plane landing on top of me is a danger to my life. It doesn't matter if I don't have time to get out of the way by the time the plane is about to land. It's my fault for putting myself in that situation. There are limits to what I can do to create a dangerous situation for myself that leave lethal force as the only option to save my life.
He knew or should have known that, if a car was driving towards him, he would shoot and kill the driver, yet chose to stand in front of a moving car. Then when the car did appear to be driving towards him, he failed to take the opportunity to get out of the way and instead stood his ground, drew his weapon, and then leaned towards the car as it turned away and fired at the moment the car brushed past him. Then he fired two more shots as the car drove away from him.
Even if we grant that the car was a deadly threat, how does that excuse firing twice after it was no longer a threat? How can even the first shot be justified when he knew or should have known that the killing not have stopped the car?
You have a right to kill someone if it is necessary to protect yourself. If shooting her didn't help him, then he had no right to do it.
I am not allowed to respond to assault with a deadly weapon with lethal force if I can avoid the danger without doing so.
but if you agree that he had good reason to fear for his life, then this is a legal act of self defense.
I don't agree that he had good reason to fear for his life, nor do I think that if had, that it would justify self-defence. If I program a drone to hover above my head and blow me up any time someone walks down the street in front of my house, that doesn't give me the right to sit in front of my house, gunning down anyone who approaches in order to stay alive.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
There have been many cases of illegal immigrants deported without a hearing to CECOT. They were not just deported to El Salvador and then once out of U.S. jurisdiction, imprisoned by the El Salvador government. The U.S. government arranged for them to be imprisoned there, in many cases without them even being citizens or residents of El Salvador.
It's hard to see how that does not violate the due process they are afforded by U.S. law. I don't think U.S. law allows people to be imprisoned without being charged and to be sentenced without
There have also been cases of legal immigrants held in detention camps for weeks without charge, without being given the opportunity to contact anyone, and without their families being told what happened to them. This has happened to tourists from Western countries.
This is a violation of habeas corpus and it violates the 14th amendment's due process clause.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
The first one had a court order preventing his deportation. The second one was invited into the country to attend an immigration hearing.
Glassnoser
7mo ago
Presumably they salt them so that they are not normally covered in ice.
Shooting her didn't minimize the risk to themselves and to the public. It increased it dramatically (evidenced by the fact that it resulted in someone's death). Police, including ICE, are specifically trained not to do this.
I didn't know there was any protest going on. I didn't see that in any of the videos. But that just strengthens my point which is that she was not really blocking traffic, making her offence less serious.
More options
Context Copy link