shakenvac
7mo ago
the fact you didn't know the first shot went through the windshield proving he was in front of the vehicle
I did know that.
and so your motte position was 'sure, sure, maybe the first shot was fine, but what about the 2nd and 3rd shot .33 seconds later which went 6 inches to the right through the side window'
This is the straw man of my position, yes.
shakenvac
7mo ago
There is no point arguing with you about nitpicks that aren't even relevant to this case. So reducing what you have said to just the relevant parts:
no, he will not have a problem making the defense that 3 shots over 1 second which started in front of the car when he was struck by the accelerating car are also justified
Ok, why?
a fleeing felon who just committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon which she was still driving is an imminent deadly threat to others
A jury would have to be convinced that this was a reasonable belief in this specific circumstance. If I were a juror, you could perhaps convince me of this, but it wouldn't be easy.
he got hit by the car so he was, in fact, not able to retreat in complete safety
OMG is he ok?
less facetiously, once he was alongside the vehicle, and had successfully retreated, and was no longer in danger, he continued to fire. These shots will require justification. Like, I'm not even arguing the first shot right now. I'm willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that that was legitimate. But you don't get to shoot someone because you have been hit - that isn't how self defense works. It's about imminent threats, not threats that have passed. the Drejka case is a good example of this.
the standard is the jury must have zero reasonable doubt the above is wrong
Juries reject self defense all the time.
shakenvac
7mo ago
No one is required to shoot once and wait a few seconds to see what happened.
It’s not about ‘wait and see’, it’s about the fact that he is no longer in front of the vehicle.
I just find it interesting as you're discovering what really happened the different facts don't seem to affect your opinion
To what are you referring?
shakenvac
7mo ago
one, it can be threat of death or serious/great bodily injury
Technically yes, in practice this is the same thing.
two, it is not a requirement the threat can only be stopped with deadly force
I believe this is incorrect; you may not use lethal force to stop a threat if it is obvious a non lethal force would suffice.
Although neither of these points seem relevant to this specific example. The problem the shooter will have, is that the moment he is alongside the car there is no longer any threat of any kind of injury to himself, yet he keeps firing. This will not be impossible to overcome but his defence would have their work cut out for them.
they could not retreat from an accelerating vehicle a few feet away from them in complete safety,
This is somewhat undermined by the fact that he actually did retreat in complete safety.
a person in that cop's circumstance could have both a subjective and objectively reasonable belief he's about to be run over
For the front shot, sure. That’s a plausible defence. Once the cop is alongside the car, however, the idea that he would be afraid of “slipping on the ice” or being “dragged under the vehicle” and that the only remedy to that threat is to keep firing shots into the driver is weak as hell. Good luck convincing a jury that a reasonable person would feel the same way. No, if he ever does find himself in court over this, the best bet to defend against those shots would be either ‘defence of others’ or ‘heat of the moment’, neither of which is great. I sure as shit wouldn’t want to be facing down a jury in his shoes.
shakenvac
7mo ago
Not really. The standard is reasonable belief of an imminent deadly threat which can only be stopped through deadly force.
The most obvious way in which this was violated is - where was the imminent threat when the shots went through the side window?
shakenvac
7mo ago
Not an intentional characterization. The first shot indeed went through the front window. It's the subsequent shots that I think will be very difficult to justify as self defense. I know that there is a norm that cops 'mag dump' into suspects, which they then justify with the phrase 'I fired until the threat was eliminated' - which is the legal standard.
Problem is, that justification makes sense if you're talking about a guy who just pulled a gun or charged at you. It makes way less sense if the threat was a car, and you've just dodged out of the way of that car to the extent that subsequent shots then go through the side window. What is the justification for those subsequent shots? The shooter was no longer in danger. I really think those are going to be a major issue for the shooter, legally.
shakenvac
7mo ago
If you stand in front of a car with the intent of blocking them in, and then shoot the driver when he tries to pull out anyway, that's almost always murder.
shakenvac
7mo ago
Walking across a crosswalk is totally different to deliberately blocking a car that you know is trying to get away. The intents aren't at all similar.
shakenvac
7mo ago
nobody has a right to flee from the police.
Correct, but irrelevant.
the driver would still be alive if she had made any of dozens of decisions leading up to that moment any differently
Correct, but irrelevant.
The only relevant question is 'did the shooter satisfy the conditions for self defence?' this seems very marginal. The fact alone that the officer fired through a side window while not in imminent danger is going to make things extremely difficult for him if this ever goes to court.
Why would Canada be trying to spite the US? Did something happen?
Any problems you have with Canada right now are the result of a one sided failure of American diplomacy. MAGAS like to describe these countries as cucked, but honestly, how cucked would you have to be to buy fighter jets from a country that's threatening to annex you?
More options
Context Copy link