ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Then why did he follow his first shot with TWO more kill shots? Why did he call her an effing B? Why did he walk away without checking to see how she was and rendering any assistance after she crashed her car?

Doesn’t matter if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his partner were in danger was in danger. Which he probably did.

The standard is would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger when he fired each individual shot. As in firing through the driver's window for shots 2 and 3.

The fact that thousands of reasonable people saw different things in the video means there was reasonable doubt. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

You think a reasonable person would find it necesssary to shoot twice through the driver's open side window as the car passed by?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Her wheels are past him, and both his feet are visible, when he fires the first shot. He was not in danger.

Your perception, formed from frame by frame slow motion analysis of a couple of seconds in time, has absolutely no bearing on the way this will be evaluated if it goes to court.

Of course it will. Each single shot has to be justified. She was clearly turning away from him and his feet were to the side of the car, out of danger, when he shot. Per the video from his perspective, he even steps back toward the car before shooting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Then why did he follow his first shot with TWO more kill shots? Why did he call her an effing B? Why did he walk away without checking to see how she was and rendering any assistance after she crashed her car?

Doesn’t matter if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his partner were in danger was in danger. Which he probably did.

The standard is would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger when he fired each individual shot. As in firing through the driver's window for shots 2 and 3.

The fact that thousands of reasonable people saw different things in the video means there was reasonable doubt. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

You think a reasonable person would find it necesssary to shoot twice through the driver's open side window as the car passed by?

If you watch police videos online they often empty the entire magazine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Then why did he follow his first shot with TWO more kill shots? Why did he call her an effing B? Why did he walk away without checking to see how she was and rendering any assistance after she crashed her car?

Doesn’t matter if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his partner were in danger was in danger. Which he probably did.

The standard is would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger when he fired each individual shot. As in firing through the driver's window for shots 2 and 3.

The fact that thousands of reasonable people saw different things in the video means there was reasonable doubt. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

You think a reasonable person would find it necesssary to shoot twice through the driver's open side window as the car passed by?

If you watch police videos online they often empty the entire magazine

Through a side window as someone drives by? Do you mean police or gang members?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Then why did he follow his first shot with TWO more kill shots? Why did he call her an effing B? Why did he walk away without checking to see how she was and rendering any assistance after she crashed her car?

Doesn’t matter if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his partner were in danger was in danger. Which he probably did.

The standard is would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger when he fired each individual shot. As in firing through the driver's window for shots 2 and 3.

The fact that thousands of reasonable people saw different things in the video means there was reasonable doubt. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

Nope. If you voted for Trump in the last election, you are not a reasonable person. There are millions of idiots in this country who parrot RWNJ talking points like automatons.

Reasonable people? FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Her wheels are past him, and both his feet are visible, when he fires the first shot. He was not in danger.

Your perception, formed from frame by frame slow motion analysis of a couple of seconds in time, has absolutely no bearing on the way this will be evaluated if it goes to court.

Yes. There is really no way for us to tell with any certainty when each bullet left the barrel of his gun based on internet videos. This has to be evaluated by experts, ballistics, and evidence at the scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster.

I do not understand why people here are trying to refute that she was an activist for the group Ice Watch?

All the reporting I’ve seen indicates she was part of the group and was advocating for the group at the time.

It really has no bearing on what happened (and it’s up to the courts and authorities to decide the officers guilt or innocence here).

So why are people trying to deny the fact of her activism? Can someone explain?

So what? She still didn’t deserve to die. I’d like to hear more about the shooter. He served in Iraq. Did he have PTSD? What else was going on in his life that made him so angry? Anyone who can shoot a civilian in a non-combat situation multiple times and then follow it up with a gendered expletive has some issues.

[Anonymous]

True leadership…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster.

I do not understand why people here are trying to refute that she was an activist for the group Ice Watch?

All the reporting I’ve seen indicates she was part of the group and was advocating for the group at the time.

It really has no bearing on what happened (and it’s up to the courts and authorities to decide the officers guilt or innocence here).

So why are people trying to deny the fact of her activism? Can someone explain?

So what? She still didn’t deserve to die. I’d like to hear more about the shooter. He served in Iraq. Did he have PTSD? What else was going on in his life that made him so angry? Anyone who can shoot a civilian in a non-combat situation multiple times and then follow it up with a gendered expletive has some issues.

This. Let's dissect his life for a change. What makes a man shoot a woman who is no threat to him in close range in cold blood and then call her a "b". Why did this guy have a gun in the first place? Why did he think it was a good idea to film her in her car? He is a complete moron if nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Then why did he follow his first shot with TWO more kill shots? Why did he call her an effing B? Why did he walk away without checking to see how she was and rendering any assistance after she crashed her car?

Doesn’t matter if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his partner were in danger was in danger. Which he probably did.

The standard is would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger when he fired each individual shot. As in firing through the driver's window for shots 2 and 3.

The fact that thousands of reasonable people saw different things in the video means there was reasonable doubt. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

You think a reasonable person would find it necesssary to shoot twice through the driver's open side window as the car passed by?

If you thought your life was in danger, in a split second decision, after being dragged by another criminal 6 months earlier? Probably, maybe, I hope I never find out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Then why did he follow his first shot with TWO more kill shots? Why did he call her an effing B? Why did he walk away without checking to see how she was and rendering any assistance after she crashed her car?

Doesn’t matter if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his partner were in danger was in danger. Which he probably did.

The standard is would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger when he fired each individual shot. As in firing through the driver's window for shots 2 and 3.

The fact that thousands of reasonable people saw different things in the video means there was reasonable doubt. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

You think a reasonable person would find it necesssary to shoot twice through the driver's open side window as the car passed by?

If you thought your life was in danger, in a split second decision, after being dragged by another criminal 6 months earlier? Probably, maybe, I hope I never find out.

This makes whatever fear he did have unreasonable. It is subjective and the standard is an objective standard. And if it impacted him to that extent, Bovino, Homan and Noem are directly culpable for putting him back in this duty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Then why did he follow his first shot with TWO more kill shots? Why did he call her an effing B? Why did he walk away without checking to see how she was and rendering any assistance after she crashed her car?

Doesn’t matter if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his partner were in danger was in danger. Which he probably did.

The standard is would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger when he fired each individual shot. As in firing through the driver's window for shots 2 and 3.

The fact that thousands of reasonable people saw different things in the video means there was reasonable doubt. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

You think a reasonable person would find it necesssary to shoot twice through the driver's open side window as the car passed by?

If you thought your life was in danger, in a split second decision, after being dragged by another criminal 6 months earlier? Probably, maybe, I hope I never find out.

This makes whatever fear he did have unreasonable. It is subjective and the standard is an objective standard. And if it impacted him to that extent, Bovino, Homan and Noem are directly culpable for putting him back in this duty.

It is the opposite of subjective. It shows he had first hand knowledge of the dangers of arresting criminals operating motor vehicles in confined spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Then why did he follow his first shot with TWO more kill shots? Why did he call her an effing B? Why did he walk away without checking to see how she was and rendering any assistance after she crashed her car?

Doesn’t matter if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his partner were in danger was in danger. Which he probably did.

The standard is would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger when he fired each individual shot. As in firing through the driver's window for shots 2 and 3.

The fact that thousands of reasonable people saw different things in the video means there was reasonable doubt. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

You think a reasonable person would find it necesssary to shoot twice through the driver's open side window as the car passed by?

If you thought your life was in danger, in a split second decision, after being dragged by another criminal 6 months earlier? Probably, maybe, I hope I never find out.

This makes whatever fear he did have unreasonable. It is subjective and the standard is an objective standard. And if it impacted him to that extent, Bovino, Homan and Noem are directly culpable for putting him back in this duty.

It is the opposite of subjective. It shows he had first hand knowledge of the dangers of arresting criminals operating motor vehicles in confined spaces.

It is the law, black letter law, that an individual's personal experience makes that fear subjective. An objective standard is what an ordinary, reasonable person would fear. Not a person who has been traumatized. This has been litigated countless times for more than a hundred years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Then why did he follow his first shot with TWO more kill shots? Why did he call her an effing B? Why did he walk away without checking to see how she was and rendering any assistance after she crashed her car?

Doesn’t matter if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his partner were in danger was in danger. Which he probably did.

The standard is would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger when he fired each individual shot. As in firing through the driver's window for shots 2 and 3.

The fact that thousands of reasonable people saw different things in the video means there was reasonable doubt. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

You think a reasonable person would find it necesssary to shoot twice through the driver's open side window as the car passed by?

If you thought your life was in danger, in a split second decision, after being dragged by another criminal 6 months earlier? Probably, maybe, I hope I never find out.

This makes whatever fear he did have unreasonable. It is subjective and the standard is an objective standard. And if it impacted him to that extent, Bovino, Homan and Noem are directly culpable for putting him back in this duty.

It is the opposite of subjective. It shows he had first hand knowledge of the dangers of arresting criminals operating motor vehicles in confined spaces.

It is the law, black letter law, that an individual's personal experience makes that fear subjective. An objective standard is what an ordinary, reasonable person would fear. Not a person who has been traumatized. This has been litigated countless times for more than a hundred years.

This board is full of hundreds of DC Car Violence devotees who poop their pants at just the mere sight of a parked automobile. You put these people on an icy street with a car coming straight at them and everyone on this board would be calling for an air strike on that car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His feet are clear of the car when he shoots the first time. He was not in danger. It comes down to that.

I think it’s even worse than that. If it’s the officer that creates a dangerous situation, then he can’t use the foreseeable risks to try to jurist deadly force. He stepped in front of a car that was in drive, then used that as the excuse.

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

Then why did he follow his first shot with TWO more kill shots? Why did he call her an effing B? Why did he walk away without checking to see how she was and rendering any assistance after she crashed her car?

Doesn’t matter if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his partner were in danger was in danger. Which he probably did.

The standard is would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger when he fired each individual shot. As in firing through the driver's window for shots 2 and 3.

The fact that thousands of reasonable people saw different things in the video means there was reasonable doubt. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

You think a reasonable person would find it necesssary to shoot twice through the driver's open side window as the car passed by?

If you thought your life was in danger, in a split second decision, after being dragged by another criminal 6 months earlier? Probably, maybe, I hope I never find out.

This makes whatever fear he did have unreasonable. It is subjective and the standard is an objective standard. And if it impacted him to that extent, Bovino, Homan and Noem are directly culpable for putting him back in this duty.

It is the opposite of subjective. It shows he had first hand knowledge of the dangers of arresting criminals operating motor vehicles in confined spaces.

It is the law, black letter law, that an individual's personal experience makes that fear subjective. An objective standard is what an ordinary, reasonable person would fear. Not a person who has been traumatized. This has been litigated countless times for more than a hundred years.

This board is full of hundreds of DC Car Violence devotees who poop their pants at just the mere sight of a parked automobile. You put these people on an icy street with a car coming straight at them and everyone on this board would be calling for an air strike on that car.

Agree - so funny I love it.