4 ms·
Here's the legal rubric, the "Five Elements of Self-Defense": 1. avoidance: duty to retreat: You must attempt to retreat or avoid the confrontation if it is
by delichon 10mo ago
Here's the legal rubric, the "Five Elements of Self-Defense":
1. avoidance: duty to retreat: You must attempt to retreat or avoid the confrontation if it is safe and possible to do so without increasing danger.
2. innocence (non-aggressor): You must not be the initial aggressor or have provoked the incident.
3. imminence: The threat must be immediate and underway (or about to begin imminently)
4. proportionality: The force used must match the threat level without excess.
5. reasonableness: Your belief in the necessity of deadly force must be reasonable based on the facts known to you at the time.
To me (3) seems least controversial and (1) most controversial.
- silexia 10mo ago1) I would agree that the officer did not try to retreat. But police officers do NOT have a duty to retreat as their line of work requires them to confront suspects - https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=mlr_online#:~:text=laws%20would%20permit%20the%20police,who%20do%20not%20retreat%20in. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=113... 2. Not relevant as the police officer was being followed and harassed by the motorist and others while attempting to do his job. 3. The police officer was standing in front of the vehicle, unable to see the direction of his tires. He did see the vehicle was shifted into forward and rapidly accelerated. Watch video of the vehicle continuing to accelerate after the shot and then crash down the road a ways. 4. This is probably the strongest element. The police officer had a large vehicle accelerating at him and hit him, but perhaps he could have dodged or gone around it. It is hard to say given he had only one second to make the decision in a heated and dangerous situation, versus all of us arm chair quarterbacking with slow motion video. 5. The police officer could not see the tires of the vehicle, but he could see the vehicle being accelerated towards him. His belief was probably reasonable.
- NietzscheanNull 10mo agoThe vehicle did not hit the ICE agent. The video footage clearly shows the agent first stepping in front of the vehicle, then around to the driver's side with weapon drawn and aimed. The vehicle did not accelerate toward him, it was turning away.
- neogodless 10mo ago2 is at worst, still not a crime, and the citizen was trying to leave and get out of there when she was shot and murdered 2 is also "debatable" because we were told it by Noem/Trump, not by anyone at the scene, or shown in any video
- UncleMeat 10mo agoHave you seen the video from the officer's perspective? The one where after he shoots her dead he says "fucking bitch?" The one where her last words are "we are not mad at you?"
- giardini 10mo agoFWIW it isn't clear who said "f*** b**": it could have been the officer who shot his gun but it also could have been someone else. Time and analysis will show who said what and who did what.
- jacquesm 10mo agoYou expect a fair investigation into this? The head of the FBI has already been making statements and the locals have been thrown out of the investigation. Besides, I'm fairly sure that it wasn't the general public there that said that about the person that had just been shot.
- giardini 10mo agoYou're damned right I expect a fair investigation into this! Don't confuse political posturing with our legal system. I'm uncertain what you meant with your second sentence. Perhaps you could restate what you mean another way?
- jacquesm 10mo agoI am willing to be surprised but very skeptical.