Markass
11hr ago
ICE agents can't be prosecuted by the state for things that happened in the course of their duties, but they can still be prosecuted at the federal level.
Markass
11hr ago
The first is that shooting her could not have reasonably been expected to stop the car.
Doesn't matter. It may be a bad idea tactically, but it does not lose him his legal or moral right to self-defense. You can draw your gun when a bad guy has his gun trained on you, and I would consider that unlikely to stop the threat, but that doesn't mean you're not defending yourself.
And if I understand the law correctly, each shot has to be justified on its own.
Each shot is justified by the same reasons as the first one is justified because humans do not make decisions that quickly. We are talking about a time frame of 1 second. See my other reply here.
Markass
11hr ago
That might have been the intent, but it was unreasonable because it could not have stopped the threat.
Reasonableness applies to whether it was reasonable to believe that she was a deadly threat at that particular moment, and it is applied to whether the response was proportional (e.g. you cannot shoot someone who merely pepper-sprayed you), but at no point has it ever been applied to whether it could have stopped the threat. Even in a gun-on-gun situation it is not guaranteed that a gun will stop the threat. See my other reply here.
As for the rest, we are talking about a time frame of 1 second and humans are not expected to make perfect split-second decisions in such a short time frame. See my other reply here.
Markass
12hr ago
"Not trying to injure him" and "had no idea he was there" does not comport. If I'm in the driver's seat of a car and there is a pedestrian in my blind spot, and I move the car such that I would hit them, but I don't know that they are there, do you think it matters that I wasn't trying to injure them? I think an analogous situation is if I am firing a gun with my eyes closed, or pointing the gun in a direction I can't see.
Why is he to blame for information he didn't know (that she didn't want to injure him), while she doesn't take any blame for information she didn't know (that he was standing there)? Especially when she was clearly being commanded to get out of the car.
As for the rest of your analysis, we are talking about a time frame of 1 second and humans are not expected to make perfect split-second decisions in such a short amount of time. See my reply here.
I can entertain such an argument if made but I don't see any possibility of me being able to accept an argument that supports Charlie Kirk's killing but not Renee's. Noticing that someone supports CK's death but not the other is a heuristic for detecting bad arguments.
Markass
15hr ago
On what grounds do you assert this? He shot to stop the threat. Once the threat was over, he stopped shooting. If he for example had waited a bit and then fired (unjustified) shots later, it would be a clear indicator of murderous intent, but that's not what happened. Once deadly force is authorized, you are allowed to keep using it until the threat has passed. Whatever consequences result from your use of force is not something to care about in the moment (although police are trained to render first aid once the suspect is in custody).
Markass
16hr ago
The law doesn't hold use of force to the standard of "it has to actually stop the threat." A good guy drawing his gun on a bad guy has no guarantee of being able to stop the bad guy, but we still recognize that the good guy has the legal and moral right to draw his gun. Is it a bad idea tactically? Maybe (e.g. drawing from the drop), but that doesn't mean the good guy loses the claim to self-defense if he does end up doing it.
Regarding who caused what, when the ICE agent stands near her car, he's standing off to the side and it's not at all clear that he's initially in the path of the vehicle were it to start moving forward. Only when she starts moving the car and turns the wheels does he end up being in the way. Again, this all happened in the span of a second so it's hard to see how he exactly was the instigator of the situation. The best thing for her to have done would have been to sit still and not move the car at all, because suspects do not have the right to flee from police.
""""Cops""""
Why the excessive levels of quotation? ICE are legitimate law enforcement with the authorities and abilities of any law enforcement agency.
Markass
22hr ago
We are talking about a time frame of 1 second. It takes a certain amount of time for a human to take inputs from all of their senses, process it, make a decision, and then use their muscles to act out that decision. That loop does not happen instantly and it takes more time than the split seconds that elapse between firing rounds from a gun. This is why it's reasonable for a self-defender to fire more rounds from their gun even after the point you can identify, with the benefit of hindsight and the comfort of your computer screen, that they don't need to fire any more rounds. What would be unreasonable for example is if he waited 30 seconds and then fired more rounds without clear justification, but that is not what happened here.
Juries reject self defense all the time.
They tend not to if they recognize that people aren't superhumans who react to changing stimuli lightning-quick in less than 1 second.
Markass
22hr ago
People leaving a city does not fix the dysfunction and chaos resulting from the city refusing to work with ICE.
The police aren't "forbidden"
the people don't want him to spend resources on this nonsense
That's still just forbidding the police from cooperating with ICE. A distinction without a difference.
Markass
23hr ago
A court order to prevent deportation does not mean that you are in the country legally. When Kilmar Abrego Garcia entered the country in 2012, he did so illegally. The court order to return him to the US was only over due process concerns. It does not mean that some judge magically granted him citizenship and he is now in the country legally.
I'm not sure by what stretch of the imagination you assert that Neiyerver Adrian Leon Rengel was "invited into the country" for an immigration hearing. What he actually did was use the CBP One app to schedule an appointment at a port of entry about an asylum claim. Presumably he made some plausible claim to asylum that was later found to be false, because DHS asserts that he entered the country illegally.
Markass
1d ago
Someone driving in your general direction is almost certainly not trying to injure you.
Sure, but you left out the part where she was non-compliant and refusing to stop the car. She was not just some ordinary driver commuting from work.
Markass
1d ago
How do you imagine this would work exactly? So a normal citizen sees a guy charging at him with a knife, then pulls out his gun and shoots the attacker. A cop... can't do that? What does the cop do instead? Just run away? Do you think this would lead to an ordered, civilized society?
Markass
1d ago
/u/StableOutshoot said:
When the police decide to arrest you, they are now allowed to use whatever amount of force is necessary (but not more) to get you in handcuffs and into custody.
I don't see anything overbroad or less defensible here. Being charitable, I'm guessing you have a legitimate confusion as to what "necessary" means. The answer is that, per Tennessee v. Garner, they are not allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless the suspect is a deadly threat to others. If they were to shoot a nonviolent suspect who posed no threat (like they did to Garner), that force would be considered unnecessary.
Do you still think /u/StableOutshoot's statement is an overreach?
Markass
1d ago
Ethics means nothing if it's not achievable in practice. It's not merely that it's easiest to hit the center of mass, it's that missing (or hitting an anatomically insignificant region) does not end the threat and at best, wastes your time and ammo, and at worst, results in your death. You should also not be so quick to dismiss the legalities because if something is supposedly ethical but illegal then no one is going to do it.
Markass
1d ago
If someone is not willing to hold consistent standards, that's a red flag for the validity of their argument. It's likely they have an isolated demand for rigor.
E.g. "Charlie Kirk's shooting was justified because of the things he said" vs. "Renee's shooting was not justified" is clearly holding Charlie Kirk to a much higher standard than Renee.
Markass
1d ago
I have my gripes with urbanists, but the amount of people online who diminish the deadly threat of a car driven by an agitated person is starting to make me sympathize with them.
Markass
1d ago
It doesn't matter that she was not trying to murder someone. What matters is that she was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the agent standing near the car. I emphasize imminent because this happened in a matter of seconds and expecting anyone to instantly predict the path of a car they are standing next to -- whose driver you already know is uncooperative -- is unreasonable. For similar reasons, it doesn't matter if she was trying to escape, notwithstanding that a reasonable person would not attempt to flee police in the first place.
Markass
1d ago
Tennessee v. Garner supports using deadly force to stop a suspect if they are a danger to the community, and Plumhoff v. Rickard is a case directly supporting shooting such a driver who was considered a deadly threat to others under the totality of the circumstances.
Markass
1d ago
Who said she was trying to kill him? Regardless, the law of self-defense doesn't care about intentions, it cares about articulable, reasonable beliefs. It was reasonable for the agent to believe that the driver of the car, who resisted his force earlier, would use the car to cause death or great bodily injury to him, was capable of doing so, and was an imminent threat, and because of that, it was reasonable for him to use deadly force to stop the threat.
Markass
3d ago
The difference is that musicians aren't selling pictures of their genitals online, and if you stop being a musician there aren't lasting negative consequences from your past career as a musician.
Markass
3d ago
I think there are still problems with this argument - namely, that women choosing to make porn are often compelled to do so out of financial need which makes it unempowering at times.
Yes, and for Onlyfans in particular, only 1% of the women make 99% of the money (or a similar ratio), meaning the overwhelming majority of women on there are selling their dignity and trading away immeasurable respect and status for pennies on the dollar. I consider this exploitative.
Markass
5d ago
My first AAQC. I'm surprised I got it so quickly, but thankful all the same.
How exactly do you expect the cop to defend himself non-lethally? Tasers and 40mm shotguns fail all the time to stop people who are charging at a cop. Do you expect him to just run away?
More options
Context Copy link