3 ms·

<< It was unnecessary to shoot the woman even if doing so could potentially be a good way to stop someone that is driving towards you Full disclosure. I have/h

<< It was unnecessary to shoot the woman even if doing so could potentially be a good way to stop someone that is driving towards you Full disclosure. I have/had some cops in my extended family so I might come across as biased. If someone is driving towards you and there is an indication it may hurt you, all bets are off. It is a simple question of survival. Now, a lot will rest on that 'reasonably', but based on the video alone, it is not nearly as clear as some would have you believe that he could not reasonably believe that his life was in danger. You may disagree with it, but that is the current state. We can talk about adjusting the policy, but thats day after considerations.

cthalupa 10mo ago
I disagree, and have direct personal experience in having cars moving towards me at that sort of range and that sort of speed. I was afraid I might get my foot run over or bashed about a bit, but it was plainly obvious to me, even in the moment, that unless I intentionally did something very stupid there was no risk of anything more than maybe a broken bone, and that even avoiding that would be trivial. But we can ignore that and work from the idea that he could reasonably fear for his life there. It doesn't matter. Because again: Shooting someone driving a car towards you at that distance makes you MORE LIKELY TO GET HIT. As evidenced by the fact the car wildly accelerates and is out of control after she is shot. It is one of the reasons that officers are often explicitly trained not to shoot at someone driving a car towards you at that sort of distance - because it isn't effective!
defrost 10mo ago
My stance (and I have interacted with Commonwealth LEO's, lawyers, and prosecutors about this very question) is this was a failure of training and procedure. Forget this "last mile" analysis where you're looking at a crowd of agents about a car in slow motion and an officer standing in front with an already drawn weapon. Less than a minute earlier that vehicle was motionless and parked up. Everything that followed happened as a direct result of ICE agents acting as they acted. One of them yelled and screamed at the driver from the get go, attempted to reach in through the window to open the door and waved a weapon. Another put themselves in front of the vehicle and drew a weapon .. which likely wasn't seen by the driver as they were busy trying to reverse, turn, and get out of there .. it's entirely possible the first time they saw the shooter was an instant before the shot. As a reasonable good and honest citizen "on the Clapham omnibus" how would you react to people that beeline in on you in that manner? Do that repeatedly and events like this will occur with frequency. ICE is a clown show and politicised from the outset to maximise this kind of stupidity.
- iugtmkbdfil834 10mo ago
  << As a reasonable good and honest citizen "on the Clapham omnibus" how would you react to people that beeline in on you in that manner? Honestly, I am not sure and tbh most of us will hopefully never have to find out. That said, I can tell you what I did when the raids were happening in Chicagoland. I stayed home and when I did go out, I took papers with. Why? Because there is one sure way to not get oneself in trouble: not being where trouble are. That is why my first question is: why was she there to begin with? << Do that repeatedly and events like this will occur with frequency. I won't lie. It is a concern. << clown show and politicised from the outset to maximise this kind of stupidity. Look at the bright side, if there is a chance to limit some of the police powers at federal level, I could not see a better opportunity.
  - defrost 10mo ago
    > That is why my first question is: why was she there to begin with? It's my understanding she and the other onlookers live there in that city. Unlike the masked bandits airdropped in from elsewhere. Further, IIRC, there was a note on Letters from an American to the effect that the woman had registered herself and had some minimal credentials at least as Constitutional Observer (?) and was there to watch and record the ICE activity. That seems like an admirable patriotic concerned active citizen thing to do. Again, that hardly matters - from a wide angle and looking at the footage from minutes before the shooting occured, she was set upon by masked thugs who were eager to kick doors, breach windows, and shoot fellow citizens at the drop of a hat for kicks. It's a flawed country that allows that to happen. > Look at the bright side, if there is a chance to limit some of the police powers at federal level That sounds so last year, TBH - the US has deeper problems now that the veneer of safeguards, checks, balances has been thoroughly ripped open .. if I were a citizen there I'd be looking for some wider deeper constitutional reforms and restructuring - just as Benjamin Franklin advised when he signed off on the first draft as being a decent draft and sufficient until a despot ignores it. We run a Washminster system, it has it's issues, but it was built upon looking at both the US and the UK systems and tweaking them; it's a lot easier to swap out the active head of state here if they're not serving the broad interests of the majority and grifting hard.

cthalupa 10mo ago

I disagree, and have direct personal experience in having cars moving towards me at that sort of range and that sort of speed. I was afraid I might get my foot run over or bashed about a bit, but it was plainly obvious to me, even in the moment, that unless I intentionally did something very stupid there was no risk of anything more than maybe a broken bone, and that even avoiding that would be trivial. But we can ignore that and work from the idea that he could reasonably fear for his life there. It doesn't matter. Because again: Shooting someone driving a car towards you at that distance makes you MORE LIKELY TO GET HIT. As evidenced by the fact the car wildly accelerates and is out of control after she is shot. It is one of the reasons that officers are often explicitly trained not to shoot at someone driving a car towards you at that sort of distance - because it isn't effective!

defrost 10mo ago

My stance (and I have interacted with Commonwealth LEO's, lawyers, and prosecutors about this very question) is this was a failure of training and procedure. Forget this "last mile" analysis where you're looking at a crowd of agents about a car in slow motion and an officer standing in front with an already drawn weapon. Less than a minute earlier that vehicle was motionless and parked up. Everything that followed happened as a direct result of ICE agents acting as they acted. One of them yelled and screamed at the driver from the get go, attempted to reach in through the window to open the door and waved a weapon. Another put themselves in front of the vehicle and drew a weapon .. which likely wasn't seen by the driver as they were busy trying to reverse, turn, and get out of there .. it's entirely possible the first time they saw the shooter was an instant before the shot. As a reasonable good and honest citizen "on the Clapham omnibus" how would you react to people that beeline in on you in that manner? Do that repeatedly and events like this will occur with frequency. ICE is a clown show and politicised from the outset to maximise this kind of stupidity.

iugtmkbdfil834 10mo ago
<< As a reasonable good and honest citizen "on the Clapham omnibus" how would you react to people that beeline in on you in that manner? Honestly, I am not sure and tbh most of us will hopefully never have to find out. That said, I can tell you what I did when the raids were happening in Chicagoland. I stayed home and when I did go out, I took papers with. Why? Because there is one sure way to not get oneself in trouble: not being where trouble are. That is why my first question is: why was she there to begin with? << Do that repeatedly and events like this will occur with frequency. I won't lie. It is a concern. << clown show and politicised from the outset to maximise this kind of stupidity. Look at the bright side, if there is a chance to limit some of the police powers at federal level, I could not see a better opportunity.
- defrost 10mo ago
  > That is why my first question is: why was she there to begin with? It's my understanding she and the other onlookers live there in that city. Unlike the masked bandits airdropped in from elsewhere. Further, IIRC, there was a note on Letters from an American to the effect that the woman had registered herself and had some minimal credentials at least as Constitutional Observer (?) and was there to watch and record the ICE activity. That seems like an admirable patriotic concerned active citizen thing to do. Again, that hardly matters - from a wide angle and looking at the footage from minutes before the shooting occured, she was set upon by masked thugs who were eager to kick doors, breach windows, and shoot fellow citizens at the drop of a hat for kicks. It's a flawed country that allows that to happen. > Look at the bright side, if there is a chance to limit some of the police powers at federal level That sounds so last year, TBH - the US has deeper problems now that the veneer of safeguards, checks, balances has been thoroughly ripped open .. if I were a citizen there I'd be looking for some wider deeper constitutional reforms and restructuring - just as Benjamin Franklin advised when he signed off on the first draft as being a decent draft and sufficient until a despot ignores it. We run a Washminster system, it has it's issues, but it was built upon looking at both the US and the UK systems and tweaking them; it's a lot easier to swap out the active head of state here if they're not serving the broad interests of the majority and grifting hard.