ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[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.

And yet, you're the ones saying "tread on me harder, daddy." Good little bootlicker.

[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.

Whilst not perceived as such by any who watch the recordings, the elapsed time from first discharge of the firearm to last was naught point seven seconds.

Thus, the characterization of “a couple of seconds” (as stated previously), is inaccurate by a rather great magnitude.

[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:

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.

Well, we’ve heard from the pedophiles. Anyone else?

[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.

Teachers on afternoon pickup patrol show less "fear" than the snowflake Jonathan Ross. We all appreciate that he has to make the legal argument that he "feared for his life", but in reality he should be embarrassed claiming that.

[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:

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.

And yet, you're the ones saying "tread on me harder, daddy." Good little bootlicker.

Ha ha. I hurt your feelings.

[Anonymous]

If Ross was in fear for his life because a car was driving near him, shooting and killing the driver made the car even more dangerous, so that point is now null and void.

[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:

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.

And yet, you're the ones saying "tread on me harder, daddy." Good little bootlicker.

Ha ha. I hurt your feelings.

No, we are making fun of you for being a little b@tch. That’s it.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True leadership…

She should have shown him respect by beating him over the head with an American flag and then throwing a fire extinguisher at him.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

Directly at him? He watched her turn the steering wheel to wheel-lock to the right and was prescient enough about his space to where you can see both of his feet on the side of the car when he discharges his weapon the first time. Nice try but MAGA bs only work with fellow MAGAs.

[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.

Then he should not have tried to assist other agents attempting to keep her on the scene by standing in front of the car using his body (or pointed gun) to prevent her leaving.


This wasn’t a battle during wartime.

This was driving down a street filled with non combat civilians, and they were essentially freelance parking police.

This didn’t require combat techniques.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Ross was in fear for his life because a car was driving near him, shooting and killing the driver made the car even more dangerous, so that point is now null and void.

The only valid people that should have feared for their lives was his partner from an errant bullet and anybody down the street in the path of a car with a murdered driver at the steering wheel. More stuff that he'll need to explain.

[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

Post or refer to one that is THIS SITUATION.

Also, your "reasonable doubt" is political. Not based on what is on that video. You MAGA people simply canNOT admit you're wrong. Ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Ross was in fear for his life because a car was driving near him, shooting and killing the driver made the car even more dangerous, so that point is now null and void.

The only valid people that should have feared for their lives was his partner from an errant bullet and anybody down the street in the path of a car with a murdered driver at the steering wheel. More stuff that he'll need to explain.

+1. The only danger that the other ICE agents were in was getting hit by friendly fire from Ross. If that happened, I’m sure that MAGA would try to blame that on Good as well.

[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 watch police videos online they often empty the entire magazine

Post or refer to one that is THIS SITUATION.

Also, your "reasonable doubt" is political. Not based on what is on that video. You MAGA people simply canNOT admit you're wrong. Ever.

They learned that technique from their diarrhea daddy.