Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

That isn't true. The state does have jurisdiction, though there is process by which the US attorney can remove the case to federal court. If the US attorney doesn't Ross can (though it isn't entirely clear what happens to the prosecution if he removes it). But eventually, he will face a jury of his fellow Minnesotans, in state or federal court. It may be 2029, but there is no statute of limitations and Trump cannot pardon him for the state crimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My guess? Because they were in a volatile and hostile situation and apparently about to detain the driver (“get out of the car”). Not saying that he was correct to do so, but think that this is the most likely explanation.

You occasionally see police doing this during traffic stops when there’s reason to believe there’s danger.

Again, not justifying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

That’s not a true.

Besides, there is no statute of limitations. Minnesota said that they will wait out the administration if they need to.

They don’t need to wait until the current administration is gone to file charges. In fact, the hurdles to a successful state prosecution will be higher in 2029 than they are in 2026.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

That’s not a true.

Besides, there is no statute of limitations. Minnesota said that they will wait out the administration if they need to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

That’s not a true.

Besides, there is no statute of limitations. Minnesota said that they will wait out the administration if they need to.

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.

This is probably correct.

He ain't getting charged and we all know it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is probably correct.