ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

[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.

As long as you wave to passing cars to go around you and they can get.around your car, it doesn't matter how or.where you're parked--very helpful to know in neighborhoods with limited parking.

[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.

You didn’t answer the question. Can you please answer the question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn’t answer the question. Can you please answer the question?

Your question is a stupid distraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn’t answer the question. Can you please answer the question?

So she was an activist. Big deal. Is your position that activists need to be executed? Summarily?

[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.

This is probably correct.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know about any of you here, but if I genuinely felt as if my life were in immediate danger, I would have used BOTH of my hands as protection……I certainly would not have prioritized one hand to hold up a cellphone no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn’t answer the question. Can you please answer the question?

So she was an activist. Big deal. Is your position that activists need to be executed? Summarily?

Yes, it is clear from this thread and from the talking heads on TV that MAGA only wants complicity with Dear Leader and everyone else is at risk. I mean, MAGA has more respect for Iranians opposed their authoritarian regime than Americans opposing the one we have here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

Why would he be put on trial? He didn’t break any law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about any of you here, but if I genuinely felt as if my life were in immediate danger, I would have used BOTH of my hands as protection……I certainly would not have prioritized one hand to hold up a cellphone no matter what.

All that means is he didn’t premeditate or plan to need to discharge his weapon. He was simply walking around the car on the way to the other side when she unexpectedly drove toward him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

Why would he be put on trial? He didn’t break any law.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about any of you here, but if I genuinely felt as if my life were in immediate danger, I would have used BOTH of my hands as protection……I certainly would not have prioritized one hand to hold up a cellphone no matter what.

All that means is he didn’t premeditate or plan to need to discharge his weapon. He was simply walking around the car on the way to the other side when she unexpectedly drove toward him

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about any of you here, but if I genuinely felt as if my life were in immediate danger, I would have used BOTH of my hands as protection……I certainly would not have prioritized one hand to hold up a cellphone no matter what.

All that means is he didn’t premeditate or plan to need to discharge his weapon. He was simply walking around the car on the way to the other side when she unexpectedly drove toward him

He switcched the phone from his dominant hand (right-hand) and moved it to his left-hand. HE drew his pistol before she started moving. He was out for blood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 start unholstering his gun long before he even went around to the front of the car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

Why would he be put on trial? He didn’t break any law.

See, that’s the kind of thing that gets determined in court. That’s how this whole thing works, with laws and stuff.