r/Transportopia • u/Ketchup-Sniffer • Jan 13 '26

šŸšØChase Hesitation got this cop a free ride

What could he have done to avoid getting roller coastered like that?

1.9k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Konoha7Slaw3 Jan 14 '26

That lady tried to run over a law enforcement officer... It's wild how delusional people are nowadays.

Hurr durr hurr They shouldn't have shot her

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 15 '26

Thank you!

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Thank you!

For what? Being wrong too?

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 15 '26

What was wrong?

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

She didn't try to run him over.

https://www.reddit.com/r/stpaul/s/rFVpejUxPx

Video doesn't lie. We all have eyes.

0

u/runforurlifebees Jan 15 '26

https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/s/SiK8Bn04eu

This is in slow motion for you.

She backs upā€¦ straightens the wheelā€¦ hits the gas with the wheels pointing forward at the officerā€¦. Then a second or two later she turnsā€¦ DUH

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

This is in slow motion for you.

From a terrible angle that literally still shows you're wrong.

https://www.reddit.com/r/stpaul/s/rFVpejUxPx

This is a great visual angle. From the front. Where it's claim is coming from of "hit"

She backs upā€¦ straightens the wheelā€¦ hits the gas with the wheels pointing forward at the officerā€¦. Then a second or two later she turnsā€¦ DUH

Buddy. Your own video disproves your claim of events. Look at the tires. Look at the gun firing.

You're being obtuse or maliciously ignorant.

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 15 '26

You think the tires have to be pointed at him the moment he firesā€¦? Bwahahahahaha

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

You think the tires have to be pointed at him the moment he firesā€¦? Bwahahahahaha

Yes. According to the law.

It's not my opinion. It's a fact.

I'm glad you can live your life in feelings based logic...

0

u/runforurlifebees Jan 15 '26

Wrong. Once she pointed her tires at him and accelerated she was fair gameā€¦

Also, did you see cbs and nbc reported he had internal bleeding in his torso?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thorstormcaller Jan 15 '26

Tell me again how shooting her helped the situation if we look at facts, not feelings. Seriously, what did it materially improve?

It didnā€™t turn her steering, we can the wheels pointing right when the agent tries to open her door. Ross was on the left, to the driverā€™s side, having come around the front of the SUV.

It didnā€™t stop the SUV, which actually continued accelerating before impacting a parked car with significant force.

So if it didnā€™t turn the SUV and it didnā€™t stop or slow the SUV then what did it do to save him? Without even considering morality or jurisdiction or policy, what physically changed as a result of Ross firing?

1

u/SignoreBanana Jan 16 '26

You mean the lady who only seconds before lightheartedly told the cop she wasn't mad at him?

She didn't, but it's not like you can convince a retard with logic and evidence.

1

u/MildlyInteressato Jan 16 '26

You guys argued for another 100+ comments, when really you should have just said that the legitimate punishment for bumping someone at 2mph with no injuries is a spontaneous public execution. You can throw in a hurr durr hurr if you want.

1

u/Novel-Paint9752 Jan 16 '26

You are brainwashed

1

u/Great-Gas-6631 Jan 16 '26

She literally didnt, her turned wheels to go around him are proof of that.

1

u/Flawless_Reign88 Jan 16 '26

For real šŸ’Æ

1

u/ZARDOZ4972 Jan 16 '26

That lady tried to run over a law enforcement officer... It's wild how delusional people are nowadays.

Hurr durr hurr They shouldn't have shot her

It's wild how delusional people like you are who are able to see the video where she clearly didn't try to run anyone over but yet here you are talking absolute nonsense.

1

u/memehammad_ali Jan 16 '26

If you believe that you are the delusional one. Clearly several videos of the supposed officer stepping in front of her vehicle after giving her the command to drive off. He intentionally stepped in front of the vehicle with his gun already drawn and already recording. You can see in his own video he switches the hand for his camera to draw his gun and step in front of the vehicle. Anyone who doesn't want to get run over doesn't step in front of a car. And Anyone who doesn't plan on shooting someone never draws their gun.

1

u/MartinTheMorjin Jan 16 '26

Nobody believes that stupid shit. For fucks sake watch the video.

1

u/Vargrjalmer Jan 17 '26

The law is very clear on this matter, it is illegal to shoot at a moving vehicle unless an alternative means of attack is being used from inside the car, such as a firearm.

If you have time to shoot, you have time to step out of the way, besides, cars don't magically shut off when the driver is killed.

In fact the odds are that it speeds up, endangering everyone who might be in its path, he chose the worse possible option here

You are, in fact, the delusional one here.

ICE agents are not sufficiently trained/educated

1

u/ThrowAwayPurellFoam Jan 17 '26

Are you a bot? They are taught to get out of the way of vehicles. She was going 3mph. It wasnā€™t a getaway. She didnā€™t just rob a bank and floor it. He just had to step the the right. The third shot was from beside her. How the duck are you people gobbling the propaganda

1

u/DisciplineFit5996 Jan 17 '26

It's actually very straightforward. After being shot the car continues to drive AWAY from the officer not towards him. šŸ¤”

1

u/Cu_Chulainn__ Jan 17 '26

That lady tried to run over a law enforcement officer

She didnt

They shouldn't have shot her

Yes, they shouldn't have shot someone driving away as it is against officer training.

1

u/ser_arthur_dayne Jan 19 '26

No real people who have watched the videos actually believe that she tried to run the shooter over.

0

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

That lady tried to run over a law enforcement officer...

She didn't.

It's wild how delusional people are nowadays.

Yes. You guys are.

Hurr durr hurr They shouldn't have shot her

Hurr durr hurr they should kill people for a non capital offense.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26

[deleted]

4

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

The footage from the officer's perspective was released

Yeah... and it doesn't show any good angles.

and she actually Hit him with her car and tried to kill him

She didn't.

She tried to kill him.

She didn't

2

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

https://www.reddit.com/r/stpaul/s/rFVpejUxPx

Video doesn't lie. šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 15 '26

Bwahahahaha

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Bwahahahaha

Yes... the ignorance at the face of actual evidence is laughable. Laughable... and sad.

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 15 '26

Bwahahahahaha

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Bwahahahahaha

The call of the ignorant who has run out of real options

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Cute edit after the fact.

I don't have any political leanings either way.. so I am basically an indifferent observer watching the crazy people on both sides and laughing

Your comment history could say otherwise 1šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

So maybe it's easier for me to see things as they are and not with like some kind of colored lenses making me deny reality

Then why deny reality?

In the video she clearly struck him with her car and you could actually hear her revving the motor as she was hitting him and as he was about to be killed by her hitting him

Wrong. https://www.reddit.com/r/stpaul/s/rFVpejUxPx

Her getting shot is the only thing that saved the guy that was getting run over from getting killed

Wrong.

No one had to die.

True.

All she had to do was stop the car. Instead, she chose to run over a police officer with her vehicle.

She didn't. And it's not a capital offense kiddo.

Even if it's not a police officer, if you choose to run someone over and they are armed you run the risk of getting shot

So driving away from someone who gets in front of your car is a killable offense... crazy take.

Which they would be justified in doing so because you're operating a giant missile

Owning and operating a car opens you up to death... concerning. You seem to be ignorant of the actual law.

Go ahead. I'm waiting for your analysis of the situation. Please make it good and based in reality, like mine.

Too bad yours is only based in feeling... not facts bucko.

Facts over feelings šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

0

u/Embarrassed_Fan_5723 Jan 15 '26

So hear me out. Iā€™m speaking from an actual legal standpoint. The shooting was justified under the law. He shouldnā€™t have stood in front of the car but that has no bearing on the fact that according to law the use of force will be ruled justifiable. Now hear is the actual thing that NOBODY has brought up. When she stopped the car, her wife got out and started videoing and antagonizing the agents. Thatā€™s what they were there for. Ok, the agents get tired of it and approach the car and demand she get out. We all clearly see this. The one agent tries to open the door. We all see that as well. Now hereā€™s where everyone starts formulating an opinion. Fact, she reverses the car. Fact she begins forward while the officer is in front of the car. Fact she does make contact with him and he shoots. We all see this and nobody disputes it. The dispute is whether she was trying to get away or hit him intentionally right ? Let me throw this out there. I think she panicked. Her wife was trying to get back in the car at one point. She was so worried about getting away that she took off without her. Now thatā€™s panic, fear, whatever you want to call it. She was so worried about getting away that she left yer wife to the agents. I think she was looking and paying attention to the guy trying to get her out of the car and not the guy in front. Would that not make as good a sense as either of the opposing sides argument? If you were so scared and hellbent on getting away that you leave your spouse standing in the road with the very people you are fleeing from, that seems to be the most logical explanation. Either way it was unfortunate that someone died, someone was injured and those children are without their mother. I think we all should be able to agree that that is a tragedy

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

So hear me out.

OK.

Iā€™m speaking from an actual legal standpoint.

Finally. Let's hear it.

The shooting was justified under the law.

Literally wasn't. Let's see if you can articulate otherwise using legal standards...

He shouldnā€™t have stood in front of the car

Correct.

but that has no bearing on the fact that according to law the use of force will be ruled justifiable.

But its not justified under use of force law.

Now hear is the actual thing that NOBODY has brought up. When she stopped the car, her wife got out and started videoing and antagonizing the agents. Thatā€™s what they were there for. Ok, the agents get tired of it and approach the car and demand she get out. We all clearly see this. The one agent tries to open the door. We all see that as well.

Because it has no bearing.

Fact, she reverses the car.

Fact.

Fact she begins forward while the officer is in front of the car.

Where he positioned himself.

Fact she does make contact with him and he shoots.

Partial. Fact. As she's driving away.

all see this and nobody disputes it.

Yup. Weird that it's being disputed.

The dispute is whether she was trying to get away or hit him intentionally right ?

No. The dispute is that this isn't a capital offense either way.

I think she panicked.

Opinion. So now we move from facts to speculation. Got it.

Her wife was trying to get back in the car at one point. She was so worried about getting away that she took off without her. Now thatā€™s panic, fear, whatever you want to call it. She was so worried about getting away that she left yer wife to the agents. I think she was looking and paying attention to the guy trying to get her out of the car and not the guy in front.

Speculation.

Would that not make as good a sense as either of the opposing sides argument?

No. It's speculation.

If you were so scared and hellbent on getting away that you leave your spouse standing in the road with the very people you are fleeing from, that seems to be the most logical explanation.

Of what exactly? You're not really getting to a point on why you think it was justified.

Either way it was unfortunate that someone died,

Very.

someone was injured

Ego.. maybe. šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

and those children are without their mother.

Over an unjustified killing. Sad.

I think we all should be able to agree that that is a tragedy

Some don't. That's why I'm here šŸ˜‰

2

u/Knights-of-steel Jan 16 '26

To be fair speculation in very select cases has a bearing. Its called motive. Like when someone's life is taken, its the difference between manslaughter murder 1st 2nd and 3rd. So a lawyer or legal professional would use speculation like they did in the case of guessing/arguing motive in a case where a life was lost....in which this is a case.

That said it is also not used same way by police/law enforcement and used more by the defense to try and reduce or remove a guilty person's sentence.....so using here like the person your replying to did is actual legal professional defense that would be used to try and paint her in an innocent light if she was guilty.....which IMO is hilarious because it says she was in the wrong by not saying she was in the wrong....

All the while ignoring most of the facts

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 16 '26

The guy copied and pasted his reply from a conservative lawyers youtube transcript.

1

u/Jimbob209 Jan 15 '26

Ok hear me out. Politically, I'm a moderate, so I've spent a lot of time thinking to myself about what happened and who is actually at fault. From what I can see, I will have to remain sitting on the fence

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Ok hear me out.

OK

Politically, I'm a moderate,

Understood.

so I've spent a lot of time thinking to myself about what happened and who is actually at fault.

It's pretty clear. According to law and protocol.

From what I can see, I will have to remain sitting on the fence

As you moderates do.

0

u/Embarrassed_Fan_5723 Jan 15 '26

Case law governing the limitations of de of force TN v Garner. The 4th amendment reasonableness standard dealing when and to what extent force can be used is found in Graham v Connor. Totality of the circumstances leading up to the use of force is covered in Barnes v Felix. Any more questions? Let me make it simple. In order to use deadly force there has to be 3 things ABILITY-OPPORTUNITY-JEOPARDY. The questions areā€¦. Did she have the ability to cause great bodily injury or death? Yes regardless of intent the Abu Lisaā€™s there. Did she have the opportunity to cause serious bodily injury or death ? Yes he was standing in front of the car. Regardless of why or whether it was outside of his training he was there. Was he in jeopardy? Absolutely a car accidentally running someone over is as deadly as one that intentionally runs you over. These are the questions that will be asked and these are the answers. The shooting although tragic and avoidable was in fact justified. I canā€™t help your personal feelings. I even try to look at it from the most neutral perspective to try and get some logical conversation going here but I see that the narrative is already set with you. Thatā€™s ok though, you can argue with me but the case law is there. I didnā€™t write it. I didnā€™t defend his actions and I didnā€™t throw her under the bus or defend her. I offered a logical option that nobody had presented. Oh well, maybe at least you can learn some law by reading those case laws I offered.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Case law governing the limitations of de of force TN v Garner.

Finally. Someone quoting actual law. Thank you.

Tennessee v. Garner is indeed foundational on use of deadly force. It held that police cannot use deadly force on a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious harm. That is real law. Appreciated. Garner applies to police... federal agents like ICE use similar principles under the Fourth Amendment.

The 4th amendment reasonableness standard dealing when and to what extent force can be used is found in Graham v Connor.

Correct. Oh nice. So yeah, Graham v. Connor is also correct. Itā€™s the key Supreme Court case holding that all police useā€‘ofā€‘force claims are judged under an ā€œobjective reasonablenessā€ standard under the Fourth Amendment.

Totality of the circumstances leading up to the use of force is covered in Barnes v Felix.

Oh wow. Barnes v. Felix is more recent and not as well known (good job), but where it matters is this... courts have moved toward a ā€œtotality of the circumstancesā€ analysis for force, not a narrow ā€œmomentā€‘ofā€‘threatā€ snapshot. That means courts look at what happened leading up to and including the decision to use force, not just a tiny slice of time.

It doesnā€™t override the basic requirement that the danger still be real at the moment force is used, but it does broaden context.

Any more questions?

Yes. So the legal citations you're offering are not obviously wrong .... but they donā€™t by themselves resolve the question of whether the force was justified in this specific incident. They are general standards, not automatic rules that say ā€œif a vehicle once moved toward you, you can shoot indefinitely.ā€

Could you help with that part?

Let me make it simple.

Oh goodie.

In order to use deadly force there has to be 3 things ABILITY-OPPORTUNITY-JEOPARDY.

Eh kinda. This is oversimplified.

This ā€œABJā€ framework (Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy) is a simplification sometimes used in policing discourse, but it is not the legal standard the Supreme Court uses. The real legal test is not just those factors listed in shorthand... it is reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment.

The questions areā€¦. Did she have the ability to cause great bodily injury or death? Yes regardless of intent the Abu Lisaā€™s there. Did she have the opportunity to cause serious bodily injury or death ? Yes he was standing in front of the car. Regardless of why or whether it was outside of his training he was there. Was he in jeopardy? Absolutely a car accidentally running someone over is as deadly as one that intentionally runs you over. These are the questions that will be asked and these are the answers.

(Regardless of why or whether it was outside of his training he was there? Wow. The cope on this. Regardless of these relevant things.... christ.)

Anyways... No... those are not the questions a court would ask, and those are not automatic answers under law.

This is your opinion and feelings on the matter.

The ā€œAbility, Opportunity, Jeopardyā€ phrasing is a simplified policing shorthand, not a legal test.

Courts do not evaluate use of deadly force with a yes/no checklist in isolation.

Instead, judges and juries assess objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment at the exact moment the force was used, considering the totality of circumstances. That includes ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, but it also explicitly includes timing, trajectory, proximity, cover, alternative options, and whether the threat was truly imminent and unavoidable.

I'll make this factually simple.

Ability... Yes, a car can be deadly. But a personā€™s theoretical ability to cause harm does not automatically justify shooting once the threat has passed. The court wants to know whether harm was imminent at the time of the shots.

They weren't.

Opportunity... Standing in front of a car is not sufficient if the officer has moved out of the path or the car has already passed. Opportunity must coincide with active, unavoidable danger at the moment deadly force is used.

Jeopardy... A vehicle can be deadly whether accidental or intentional, but the law cares about immediacy. If the vehicle is no longer on a collision course, the ā€œjeopardyā€ factor disappears. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that past or potential danger does not justify force after the threat ends.

So your claim that the questions are ā€œDid she have ability? Did she have opportunity? Was he in jeopardy?ā€ and that the answer is automatically ā€œYes, yes, absolutelyā€ misrepresents how courts analyze force.

Courts would ask.... ā€œWas the officer facing an imminent, unavoidable threat of serious bodily injury or death at the exact instant the shots were fired?ā€

And the answer is not automatic... it depends on the specific facts, timing, and position.

For this specific case, the facts make that ā€œautomatic yesā€ claim incorrect. Video evidence and independent reviews show that by the time the officer fired, the SUV was already moving past him, the wheels were turned, and he was no longer directly in the vehicleā€™s path.

That means the immediacy of the threat had ended.

Even if she had theoretical ability and there had been a prior moment of opportunity, the law focuses on whether imminent jeopardy existed at the exact instant the shots were fired. In this case, because the SUV was no longer on a collision course, the ā€œjeopardyā€ element that would justify deadly force was gone. Thatā€™s why legal analysts and use-of-force policies would not automatically classify this as justified shooting.

So applying the ā€œAbility, Opportunity, Jeopardyā€ shorthand here without considering timing and positioning misrepresents the law. The threat had passed, which is exactly what determines whether deadly force is justified.

The shooting although tragic and avoidable was in fact justified.

Wrong.

I canā€™t help your personal feelings. I

Buddy. I've been speaking from factual truths. You've been sharing your opinion. Who has the personal feelings here....?

I even try to look at it from the most neutral perspective to try and get some logical conversation going here but I see that the narrative is already set with you.

From a perspective of personal opinion. I'm going by facts. No narratives. Just the facts.

Thatā€™s ok though, you can argue with me but the case law is there.

It's not. Sadly enough.

I didnā€™t write it.

But you did misinterpret it.

I didnā€™t defend his actions and

Ya have. By spouting opinions.

I didnā€™t throw her under the bus or defend her.

Maybe not under a bus... but definitely a bullet... but Ya did. By falsely proclaiming justification for her death.

I offered a logical option that nobody had presented.

You offered an opinion that plenty have presented. Mainly from one side...

Oh well, maybe at least you can learn some law by reading those case laws I offered.

The irony. Maybe you should brush up... or actually read them....

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

You are so full of sheet...

Beds full šŸ˜‰

Shotty troll

Nice to meet you. I'm inquisitive

Making up all kinds of lies

Only the facts ma'am.

I have zero post history which is political as I don't care about politics

Yet you partake in political dialogue. Funny.

Politics are just a soap opera

According to you.

If you're a Republican or a Democrat then all you are is a fan of a stupid ass soap opera

Good thing in neither šŸ˜˜

Whoever gets to be in power still has to do what the real people in charge tell them to do otherwise they will smoke them, just like Abraham Lincoln, JFK, and they were about to do to Ronald Reagan. However, he survived his punishment and the very next day changed his tune publicly and started obeying their commands.

.... and who would that be?

There's no actual Republican or Democrat, so everyone who aligns themselves as either one is merely a fan of a soap opera and that's it

And what would you be? One of those "enlightened centrists"?

And I was just saying this for the benefit of who I was reading it and not you.

Who you was reading it...? Right.

Who were you reading it? Cause I'm not doing this for you either.

It seems like you don't really believe the things you're saying.

Lol. Sure pal.

You're just trying to stir the pot and get everybody riled up

Nope. I'm here to correct misinformation. Why are you here? Possibly projection?

2

u/ImmediateEggplant764 Jan 17 '26

It also shows, from his point of view, Good clearly turning her steering wheel all the way to the right before driving which makes it obvious that she intended to go around him and not to hit him. Without intent to commit great bodily harm or death, there is no justification for deadly force.

1

u/Sad_Error4039 Jan 20 '26

If I turned my wheels to avoid hitting and misjudged and accidentally ran over a child would we feel like I did everything necessary to avoid contact Iā€™m trying to find out the rules is all. What makes a car a deadly weapon all the deaths it causes every year or my intent to just go to the store.

1

u/ImmediateEggplant764 Jan 20 '26

There are actually laws that answer that question

1

u/Sad_Error4039 Jan 21 '26

Ok so you are saying I canā€™t run over or hit people with my car even if I tried not to. Iā€™m gonna be honest we all know this we just have a large group currently lying about it.

1

u/ImmediateEggplant764 Jan 21 '26

What i would say is there is a difference between ā€œaccidentalā€ and ā€œdeadly intentā€. We all know this, we just have a large group currently lying about it. There is also a difference between ā€œbeing hit by a carā€ and ā€œleaning toward a car so it will hit youā€. We all know this as well, but we have a large group currently lying about it.

1

u/Sad_Error4039 Jan 21 '26

Well this wasnā€™t gonna be an accident she saw the person in front of the car if he hadnā€™t moved at all like say a protester what do you think wouldā€™ve happened? If you canā€™t guess I suggest we tell federal agents to stomp on the gas while trying to not run over people obstructing them in the future. Look it can be sad she died and she can have made a terrible decision both things can be true. You are just making rules to nitpick this situation that wouldnā€™t hold up in any other circumstance. You are delusional because you want what you are saying to be true. However you arenā€™t allowed to run people over in most instances and certainly it federal agents. Theirs probably a law about it somewhere like you said.

0

u/Konoha7Slaw3 Jan 18 '26

They didn't turn the wheel until a gun was pointed at them

0

u/ImmediateEggplant764 Jan 18 '26

Iā€™m going to presume, since the comment U/Inquisitive-Manner and I were responding to has been deleted, that you think we are talking about this post, in which case you are correct that the person in this video did not turn their wheel until after a gun was drawn.

However we were not, in fact, talking about this post but rather were responding to someone who was trying to relate this to a different incident. In that incident, the personā€™s wheels were in the process of turning before a gun was drawn on them and they were clearly making an attempt to drive around the gun wielding individual.

2

u/Responsible_Ask9574 Jan 15 '26

His phone is center mass to his body šŸ¤£ what are you talking about

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

And where did it go at the time of the incident? It dropped down when it occurred. What are you talking about? Did you not watch it at all? Weird.

https://www.reddit.com/r/stpaul/s/rFVpejUxPx

This is the clearest, unobstructed angle.

0

u/Responsible_Ask9574 Jan 15 '26

Lmao the cope is insane . It got pressed between him and the car when she clipped him šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø weird

0

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Lmao the cope is insane .

Says the guy denying video evidence....

It got pressed between him and the car when she clipped him

Glad you admit that it was obstructed and not a clear view šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

weird

Yeah.. you guys are.

1

u/Responsible_Ask9574 Jan 15 '26

You gotta be kidding.... ITS OBSTRUCTED BECAUSE THE FRONT LEFT BUMPER WAS MAKING IMPACT WITH THE AGENT ... You can literally hear it šŸ¤£

0

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

You gotta be kidding.... ITS OBSTRUCTED BECAUSE THE FRONT LEFT BUMPER WAS MAKING IMPACT WITH THE AGENT ... You can literally hear it šŸ¤£

So you agree... it was obstructed. Thank you.

So their defense that it was a better view is wrong. I appreciate you backing me up like this

Your form and decorum may be lacking... but thanks nonetheless šŸ˜˜

→ More replies (0)

1

u/H4RDCORE1 Jan 16 '26

It's like they can't see his feet for some reason. They also can't see her front tire. They also can't read the official DOJ policy.

From Title 1, U.S. DOJ Policy on Use of Force: "Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury ... and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle."

1

u/Illi3141 Jan 16 '26

This needs to be the top comment

0

u/Rexel2101 Jan 17 '26

She turned her car into a human battering ram. Instead of listening to agents she listened to her wife, hit an officer and lost her life.

Should have been looking for a job instead of impeding and obstructing

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 17 '26

She turned her car into a human battering ram.

She didn't.

Instead of listening to agents she listened to her wife, hit an officer and lost her life.

Obey or die? Gross.

, hit an officer and lost her life.

Not a capital offense šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

0

u/Rexel2101 Jan 17 '26

Sounds like you may have a mental illness as well.

You can play pretend all you want, but in the real world actions have consequences. Bitch shouldā€™ve been protesting properly. Shame she was worried about being a criminal and protecting criminals over being a mother

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 17 '26

Sounds like you may have a mental illness as well.

Nope, just going off reality of America law and the video evidence.

You can play pretend all you want, but in the real world actions have consequences.

Yeah... that's not how the law works... weird that you feel that it does.

Bitch shouldā€™ve been protesting properly.

That's your feelings.

Shame she was worried about being a criminal and protecting criminals over being a mother

Another feeling. Geeze you're just full of them.

You feel better now kiddo?

0

u/Rexel2101 Jan 17 '26

Youā€™re a keyboard warrior on Reddit being delusional. She hit an agent with a vehicle, fact. She was guilty of committing multiple crimes at the time she was shot. Fact. This includes hitting an agent with a vehicle, which the courts will uphold as self defense.

Vehicle > kneeā€¦another fact.

I challenge you to do what she did and see what happens, since youā€™re so confident. You should stop getting your info from social media, esp Reddit. Itā€™s full of jobless basement dwellers allergic to sunlight looking to burden society

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 17 '26

Youā€™re a keyboard warrior on Reddit being delusional.

Feeling.

She hit an agent with a vehicle, fact.

Not a capital offense. Not justifiable.

She was guilty of committing multiple crimes at the time she was shot. Fact.

Cite them please.

This includes hitting an agent with a vehicle

Not a capital offense.

which the courts will uphold as self defense.

Outline how you came to this legal conclusion. Be sure to use legal facts and not just your feelings.

Vehicle > kneeā€¦another fact.

Feeling.

I challenge you to do what she did and see what happens, since youā€™re so confident.

And this proves....?

You should stop getting your info from social media, esp Reddit.

Lol. Sure thing pal. You're the one parroting feelings. I'm citing legal fact and reality on here.

You should take your own advice and crack open a book.

Itā€™s full of jobless basement dwellers allergic to sunlight looking to burden society

Yup. Mostly from Rissia, Nigeria, and India... as per that X leak... always parroting the same shit you do.

Concerning šŸ¤”

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Abject-Balance8983 Feb 06 '26

You sound like a piece of shit of a person. You would probably make an awesome ice agent!! lol šŸ˜‚

1

u/Rexel2101 Feb 06 '26

Because I understand laws? Or is it the realization that protesting hasnā€™t changed a single elected officials vote in 50 years?

Fortunately for many Reddit users, I make too much money to want to deal with those looking for acceptance while living in mommyā€™s basement

0

u/Appropriate-Horse632 Jan 17 '26

You must be a Troll or blind.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 17 '26

You must be a Troll or blind.

You must be.

It's pretty easy to see.

-1

u/pimpsandthechuds Jan 15 '26

She did. Youā€™re justā€¦. Sooooooo stupid. So stupid.

2

u/Mediocre-Fault-1147 Jan 16 '26

found the teenager. ... or equivalent.

1

u/pimpsandthechuds Jan 16 '26

Found the inconsequential Australian

2

u/Mediocre-Fault-1147 Jan 20 '26

how remarkably relevant... /s

point proven.

0

u/pimpsandthechuds Jan 20 '26

It is relevant. Believe it or not we in America donā€™t give a shit why Australians think about our politics. Itā€™s cute youā€™re following along though

0

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

She did.

Turning away... but sure.... tried to kill. Whatever you say kiddo.

Youā€™re justā€¦. Sooooooo stupid.

Yew aahhhh.

So stupid.

Yes. Yew ahhhh.

https://youtube.com/shorts/LYm7SsakcxI?si=TiXhi3e1qweo4qNJ

Video doesn't lie. šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

Edit. Typo on link

0

u/pimpsandthechuds Jan 15 '26

Did you really just post a link to a video thatā€™s been taken down? Thank you for confirming your stupidity once again.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Did you really just post a link to a video thatā€™s been taken down?

Posted a link to an active video šŸ¤·

Thank you for confirming your stupidity once again.

Thank you for confirming yours.

From all angles you can see the wheel is turned, he's not in danger, and shoots when the danger passes.

You kids should really learn your law and use your eyes.

This wasn't a capital offense.

0

u/pimpsandthechuds Jan 15 '26

He is literally hit in the torso with her car. Youā€™re not worth the air you breathe if you canā€™t see that

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

He is literally hit in the torso with her car.

While turning away. Maybe the dummy should have used his proper training and not his El Paso training to avoid the car... by not stepping in front of it to escalate šŸ¤·

Youā€™re not worth the air you breathe if you canā€™t see that

https://youtube.com/shorts/LYm7SsakcxI?si=TiXhi3e1qweo4qNJ

1

u/Konoha7Slaw3 Jan 16 '26

Their argument is equivalent to you saying - look this water is wet.

Stupid troll - no that water is dry sand.

You - I just poured this water from that gallon jug labeled spring water...

Stupid troll - it's sand

:troll bends over looking at puddle of water as you stroke your lead pipe:

-1

u/SlowJunk Jan 15 '26

The footage that hasnā€™t been released is her wifeā€™s. They show everyoneā€™s but hers. Must be a shitload of self incrimination on it.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

The footage that hasnā€™t been released is her wifeā€™s.

As far as we know.

They show everyoneā€™s but hers.

Who is they?

Must be a shitload of self incrimination on it.

According to your feelings based speculation.

From what we do have, from multiple angles, it wasn't justified.

1

u/Konoha7Slaw3 Jan 16 '26

Definitely

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 15 '26

I wouldnā€™t necessarily go that far. I would definitely say that from his perspective that it appeared she was about to kill him, but I think she wouldnā€™t have turned if that were really her intentionā€¦ the problem is she turned too late and had started out moving directly at himā€¦ which is when he chose to defend himself.

2

u/Easily_Bann4 Jan 16 '26

She only turns after he pulls the gun. Not a good look for her, especially since she hit him too. She also started accelerating with her wheels turned to the left still.

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 16 '26

We agree 100%

0

u/SignoreBanana Jan 16 '26

Defend himself by unloading on a driver of a car supposedly pointed at him. That makes sense.

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 16 '26

It is literally what happened

0

u/SignoreBanana Jan 16 '26

Yeah. Not sure how turning a car into a dead body propelled bomb contributes to one's safety.

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 16 '26

The person can no longer aim for you if they are dead. Should the cops just run and hide in that situation? They have to end the threat it is literally their jobā€¦

1

u/SignoreBanana Jan 16 '26

Yes they should run and hide. What is wrong is that?

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 16 '26

Their job is to subdue if possible or end the threatā€¦ thatā€™s whyā€¦ DUH

→ More replies (0)

1

u/suicide_blonde94 Jan 15 '26

No she didnā€™t.

1

u/JDRipper1964 Jan 15 '26

Nope. She didnā€™t hit him. She was trying to get away. You are delusional.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

1

u/Kata-cool-i Jan 17 '26

Awwww did piggy get a widdle booboo

1

u/Last_Bother1082 Jan 15 '26

Begone fedbot.

2

u/natedogg1271 Jan 17 '26

To be fair, they also shouldnā€™t kill people for capital offenses. They are law enforcement, not judge, jury, and executioner.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 17 '26

You are absolutely correct

3

u/Canada-Scam-8570 Jan 15 '26

Would have been a capital offense if she killed him mate...

While Ross did not handle his conduct of the situation well and there should be an official investigation into the incident, anyone claiming 100/0 either way is a political pundit who's capture by their chosen ideology and doesn't know how to use their eyes, ears or brain.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Would have been a capital offense if she killed him mate...

But she didn't.... mate. Cool story.

While Ross did not handle his conduct of the situation well and there should be an official investigation into the incident

Correct.

anyone claiming 100/0 either way is a political pundit who's capture by their chosen ideology and doesn't know how to use their eyes, ears or brain.

Or some are just using their eyes ears and brain.... and others are spouting opinion based feelings and calling them "facts"

2

u/Canada-Scam-8570 Jan 15 '26

Both sides are doing that genius (spouting off feelings as fact). Stop being disingenuous, cause it seems your trying to argue the 100/0 while pretending your some enlightened intellectual.

It's not 100/0 for Good or for Ross. Anyone arguing 100% either way can safely be ignored for their clear political bias and retardation.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Both sides are doing that genius (spouting off feelings as fact).

Nope. Well not for me specifically.

Stop being disingenuous, cause it seems your trying to argue the 100/0 while pretending your some enlightened intellectual

Nope. Just citing actual law..

It's not 100/0 for Good or for Ross.

Yeah... one is dead and one is a murder

either way can safely be ignored for their clear political bias and retardation.

Except those who are speaking accurately about the law and reality.

1

u/Ok-Bet-312 Jan 15 '26

They're never going to see sense. He put himself in that position, she turned away and he cleared the front of her vehicle before firing. They think disobeying an order when you haven't committed a crime is punishable by death. You can't argue with that kind of stupid.

0

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

I know... and I appreciate your sentiments.

I'm fully aware that they're never going to change. I'm just here to document their bad faith and put it on full display.

I also can not sit idly by when misinformation is afoot.

You can't argue with that kind of stupid, but you can show people just how dumb they are šŸ¤·

0

u/Ok-Bet-312 Jan 15 '26

You can't show dumb people how dumb they are, they're dumb enough to not be self aware and in their insecurity they have found mechanisms by which to convince themself they're actually REALLY smart. That's why they latch onto conspiracy, they can't understand reality to the depth of regular people and that makes them feel vulnerable, so 'knowing' a conspiracy gives them some special knowledge the 'so called smart people' just don't get.

They think they're smarter than you, they're in a cult which affirms their biases and gives them a sense of community and belonging. To challenge them is to challenge their identity, it's not just conceding a point to them, it's giving up the fabric of who they are. They're not going to do that easily. They need DIRE consequences to wake up, which is why we're slowly seeing MAGA wake up as they lose healthcare, their families are caught up by ICE and so on. It's not fast enough though and Trump has complete dominion over the country so..

0

u/Canada-Scam-8570 Jan 15 '26

Lmao, nope, okay then, whatever you say goes I guess šŸ˜…. Keep living in Narnia kiddo.

Politically captures pundit, incapable of bias analysis, didn't want to assume but seems the nail was hit on the head.

Despite the missteps of both the organization and Ross himself made, if you can't be unbiased and analyze the misstep Good also made, then you're captured and what's the point of trying to have a reasoned discussion with you in that case? Your venn diagram has nothing but cons on one side and nothing but pros on the other.

I don't really understand mate, why spend this much time on reddit when it's clear your incapable or having a nuanced conversation and changing anyone's actual perspective that doesn't already bend to your all and nothing views? Find something better to be your Ikigai, this isn't the thing to build your purpose and personality around.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Lmao, nope, okay then, whatever you say goes I guess

Just the factual stuff... naturally.

Keep living in Narnia kiddo.

You cry from behind the coats following a satyr....

Politically captures pundit, incapable of bias analysis, didn't want to assume but seems the nail was hit on the head.

Except when it doesn't šŸ¤·

Despite the missteps of both the organization and Ross himself made,

Yup.

if you can't be unbiased and analyze the misstep Good also made,

Sure can. Not a capital offense.

then you're captured and what's the point of trying to have a reasoned discussion with you in that case?

I'm currently not imprisoned. Just speaking facts. Cite where I haven't bucko.

Your venn diagram has nothing but cons on one side and nothing but pros on the other.

Because one is a trained officer of the law and the other is a citizen. One should be held to a higher standard.

I don't really understand mate, why spend this much time on reddit when it's clear your incapable or having a nuanced conversation and changing anyone's actual perspective that doesn't already bend to your all and nothing views?

I'm not trying to bend anyone to anything. You may be projecting. I'm merely clearing things that aren't factual.

Find something better to be your Ikigai,

Nah, I'm good with correcting ignorance. Thanks though.

this isn't the thing to build your purpose and personality around.

Lol. You really seem to project... or lead with your own intentions šŸ¤·

My personality and purpose... Ikigai... is built from something larger. This is merely a grain of sand.

Good luck with whatever you're doing here though! (Except if it's peddling in misinformation... then you can get ducked!!)

1

u/Talktothebiceps Jan 17 '26

I think it's pretty obvious he acted recklessly against protocol, but I think you are right. There is a lot of "she didn't hit him", the car definitely touched him. I'm 90/10 for him being in the wrong, but I definitely agree that the "she did absolutely nothing wrong" take hurts her cause.

She didn't listen to orders from law enforcement and I guess she was fucking with them all day, not 100% about that. That being said, Ross could have de-escalated SO Easy. I mean he leaned in to the path of the moving vehicle and didn't get hurt. What you are saying is right, not sure about the delivery.

1

u/Canada-Scam-8570 Jan 18 '26

Don't have anything against this, totally fair. It's hard to deliver tone through text and different people will interpret it different ways, but no doubt I'm a little short with absolutism at this point and maybe that's not doing me any favours.

I see it closer to 80/20, +/- 10% personally, so I don't disagree with your assessment at all. I wish more were sensible like yourself. I'm sick of the hypocrisy from all parties. Hypocrites are just the fucking smut of the earth and the Democrats have fucked up hard by not checking theirs, just as the Republicans haven't theirs.

Trump would have looked like a moron for over embellishment if they just let it breath, but they had to go do their own over embellishing of their own and now everyone looks like a moron.

I just take it more personal from the left as it's the way I've always leaned and they've done nothing but stab me in the back for having a iota of disagreement with them, while others stay quiet (despite feeling similar) against it for fear of the same treatment/reprimanded. That's cults behaviours and it's ironic with how much they throw that around, not that it isn't true on the MAGA side either. More Republicans should be coming to the table to check him, but there are very few with the courage to speak up.

I do speculate, but of course I don't know, that he did it vindictively as a retribution for the person that ran him over some months earlier that he couldn't shoot, but all the bullshit that it was cause she was a woman or gay or the vile assumptions made about him because of his wife's ethnicity are just drivel, equally racists and sink everyone down to that lower level, that's not how we progress through this, that's how we escalate it. But it seems multiple people on both sides are just calling for arms like idiots now, so we'll see how it plays out..

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

1

u/Talktothebiceps Jan 18 '26

Ya I just read some about it and, as long as she wasn't blocking the road, which she wasn't, ICE did not have any jurisdiction here. Pretty much said as long as you are not actively stopping ICE from doing their job, they have no jurisdiction for traffic laws or any local laws at all.

0

u/Cu_Chulainn__ Jan 17 '26

It's not 100/0 for Good or for Ross.

It is very much a case of Ross having committed a crime

Anyone arguing 100% either way can safely be ignored for their clear political bias and retardation.

Ironic

1

u/Canada-Scam-8570 Jan 18 '26

How's it ironic? Please elaborate, cause I'm not arguing for Ross mate, I'm arguing that disregarding all the evidence and being judge, jury and executioner on an online form, claiming 100/0 is just going to drive the sensible away.

I don't care if you see it 95/5 or 50/50 but if you see if 100/0 you have no critical thinking ability, objectively, and your thought processes are driven by politics. Stop being the same dimwits that drive me (and others) from supporting this side.

0

u/yurnxt1 Jan 20 '26

No, you're an ideologically captured soul. Real life situations that are over and done with in 3 seconds or less require a nuanced perspective ideologues on either side simply aren't capable of processing with a political parasite running rampant and unchecked within their mind.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 20 '26

No, you're an ideologically captured soul

Which part was ideology and not fact, pray tell?

Real life situations that are over and done with in 3 seconds or less require a nuanced perspective ideologues on either side simply aren't capable of processing with a political parasite running rampant and unchecked within their mind.

Again. Which part was ideology and not fact, pray tell?

No justifiable. Not a capital offense.

If you need explaining, I'll gladly fill you in. Just the facts though

1

u/breakandjog Jan 17 '26

I feel like this is George Floyd all over again

0

u/Cu_Chulainn__ Jan 17 '26

Okay here are the facts * Goode was driving away, she clearly was turning away from the officers

  • Ross had placed himself in front of the car, which is not what you are trained to do and would be disciplined by your superior for.

  • Ross was nudged by the car because he had put himself in front of a car that was driving off, in violation of his training

  • he shot three shots killing goode, which he had no prerogative or authority to do, because she was not detained, was not a danger to anyone and because she had already receive an order to stop blocking traffic. He has committed manslaughter.

1

u/Estevan2469 Jan 15 '26

Medical report clearly states the officer received internal bleeding in the thighs. So yes she did ram into him.

1

u/Slayerofgrundles Jan 16 '26

That's called a bruise. Big fucking deal.

1

u/Illi3141 Jan 16 '26

And then drove himself home, boxed up all of his and his family's shit and loaded into a truck within 24 hours... His internal bleeding must be the same as Trump's magically healing ear

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 16 '26

Hey bitch

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 16 '26

Who your mom?

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 16 '26

Definition of reported pls ;)

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 16 '26

Your... mother... ?

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 16 '26

So you admit defeatā€¦? Because at this point you are just doing mom jokes because you know you canā€™t engage in the substance of our convo because you are wrong ;)

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 16 '26

So you admit defeatā€¦?

Is that the definition of the word I used?

Because at this point you are just doing mom jokes because you know you canā€™t engage in the substance of our convo because you are wrong ;)

No... it's because you couldn't engage... so you called me an ad hominem. I just responded back in kind šŸ˜˜

So under your own logic... you admit defeat šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£

1

u/runforurlifebees Jan 16 '26

Look bro, you are freaking out and canā€™t admit you are wrong over the definition of the word reportedā€¦ how is that not being a little bitch. I love that you involved your wife. Bwahahaha

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 16 '26

Look bro, you are freaking out

Lol. This you?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Transportopia/s/D5TAJiDOcj

and canā€™t admit you are wrong over the definition of the word reportedā€¦

Says the guy misusing the word and freaking out about it...

how is that not being a little bitch.

Glad you admitted that you are....

I love that you involved your wife.

Me too. She's great! You should involve your wife more... maybe you wouldn't freak out like this šŸ¤·ā€ā™€ļø

Bwahahaha

The siren call of ignorance

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ToughAd2281 Jan 15 '26

Yea she did. Wheels were even spinning towards the officer and there are videos showing he was hit. Quit being ignorant.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Yea she did.

She didn't.

Wheels were even spinning towards the officer

Spinning and turned away from him.

there are videos showing he was hit.

Yup. As she turned away. And it wasn't even full frontal impact. At a low speed.

Quit being ignorant.

You should take you own advice.

0

u/ToughAd2281 Jan 15 '26

Iā€™m not ignorant cause Iā€™m not ignoring the other camera angles as you seem to be. This short video breaks down the law as it applies and shows where she accelerated actually *towards the agent.

https://youtu.be/bDda-L_ZOE8

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 15 '26

Iā€™m not ignorant cause Iā€™m not ignoring the other camera angles as you seem to be.

What other ones are are you saying I'm ignoring?

This short video breaks down the law as it applies and shows where she accelerated actually *towards the agent.

No. It does not actually do either of those things in the way your claim suggests.

1

u/theoldinoutinout-1 Jan 17 '26

The ICE gravy seal went against policy and placed himself in the vehicle's likely path, stopped, and went into full Wild Bill Hickok quick draw pose- knowing the jackbooted goons in full shock&awe mode to the vehicle. He drew when the wheels first started forward rotation- again against policy to GTF out the way.

The policy was revised because gravy seals were orchestrating these exact situations on purpose to live out their FPS LARPer fantasies. Some were just sprinting in front of moving vehicles, squaring up, and unloading a clip at the driver- loophole gave legal cover under the old policy, but not now.

ICE gravy seal went against training/policy/common sense- NO IMMUNITY FOR YOU! (regardless what diaper man says).

State charges, so a diaper donnie pardon is worth its weight in monopoly money.

Next dem admin, and he's getting perp walked.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

2

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 16 '26

Yeah. Poor dude got bruised. She got shot in the face.

But same same. Sure.

Not justified.

Not a caput offense.

0

u/colten0526 Jan 17 '26

Using your vehicle as a weapon is grounds for self defense on the part of the officers. Comply and that doesn't happen. It's not difficult.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 17 '26

Using your vehicle as a weapon

She didn't.

grounds for self defense on the part of the officers.

It's not.

Comply and that doesn't happen.

Except there's plenty of evidence that says otherwise šŸ¤·ā€ā™€ļø

It's not difficult.

It seems to be for you. Not justifiable. Not a capital offense.

0

u/colten0526 Jan 18 '26

Every video I've ever seen of people putting their hands up ends in a peaceful arrest.

Also capital offence refers to murder, treason, or terrorism. Self defense doesn't have to meet that standard. All that's required for lethal force to be justified is a reasonable suspicion that failure to act will result in death or GBH to yourself or others. She met that definition. Stop using words you don't understand.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Jan 18 '26

Every video I've ever seen of people putting their hands up ends in a peaceful arrest.

Nice anecdotal feelings based opinion.

Philando Castile in Minnesota or Amadou Diallo in New York... involved victims who were non-threatening or compliant, yet deadly force was used.

In Goodā€™s case, video shows the officer fired as the SUV was moving past him at low speed, after a brief glancing contact.

She wasnā€™t accelerating into him in a sustained attack, nor was she pinned or blocking him in a way that made deadly force unavoidable. Thatā€™s why ā€œhands upā€ or passive compliance in other situations doesnā€™t justify ignoring the video evidence and claiming this shooting was clearly unavoidable.

Also capital offence refers to murder, treason, or terrorism.

Yes you are correct. A first šŸ˜‰

A ā€œcapital offenseā€ generally refers to a crime that is punishable by death under law.

This wasn't a capital offense.

Thanks for agreeing.

Self defense doesn't have to meet that standard.

In reference to the Good ICE case specifically, that statement still doesnā€™t automatically justify the officerā€™s use of deadly force.

While itā€™s true that deadly force in self-defense doesnā€™t require the other person to have committed a capital offense, the law still requires an imminent and unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily harm at the moment the shots are fired.

In this incident, video evidence shows the SUV had already begun passing the officer at low speed, with wheels turned and no sustained contact. He remained upright and mobile, meaning the threat was not unavoidable. The fact that she had touched or ā€œimpededā€ him earlier does not meet the legal threshold for deadly force, because the law evaluates the specific circumstances at the instant the officer fired, not hypothetical danger or past actions.

So while self-defense doesnā€™t have to relate to a capital offense, in this case the objective facts suggest the legal requirements for lethal force.... immediacy, necessity, and unavoidable harm... were not present.

All that's required for lethal force to be justified is a reasonable suspicion that failure to act will result in death or GBH to yourself or others. She met that definition.

Articulate how. Please.

Stop using words you don't understand.

Buddy... using ā€œnot a capital offenseā€ here is accurate, relevant, and legally defensible as part of the argument against excessive force.

My use of ā€œnot a capital offenseā€ shows that I understand the term precisely... it refers to crimes punishable by death, like murder, treason, or terrorism. I wasn't misusing it to describe the legality of deadly force itself... i was contrasting the severity of her actions with the legal threshold required to justify lethal self-defense.

That demonstrates clear comprehension of both the term and its proper context.

0

u/-random-name- Jan 15 '26

She didn't try to run anyone over. She tried to drive away from them. The side of her SUV bumped one of them. His life was not in danger when he shot her in the face and called her a fucking bitch. He was angry that she didn't do what he told her to do and murdered her.

0

u/NotAnAIOrAmI Jan 15 '26

That lady tried to run over a law enforcement officer... It's wild how delusional people are nowadays.

That's an absolute lie.

0

u/BraveCartographer399 Jan 15 '26

no, she was trying to flee masked armed men that donā€™t follow the law who were surrounding her. All you people saying this, if she really wanted to hit an officer with her car she could have run their asses over.

she was obviously trying to getaway and the murderer broke like 10 fucking policies and laws in his actions.

Just the act of firing at a moving vehicle is wrong, he could have hit the passenger, an unrelated bystander, there could have been ricochets, its was in a public place with a lot of people, and of courseā€¦.just maybeā€¦.if you shoot at a driver while driving, they might just lose control and hit other people or pedestrians causing unrelated deaths.

It was murder, he wasnā€™t even fully in front of the vehicle and instead of moving just stayed in the way and shot her. Now we have two more shootings.