3 ms·

Police are allowed to summarily execute fleeing violent felons. It does look like she barely nicked him with the car, which technically is felony battery on a

Police are allowed to summarily execute fleeing violent felons. It does look like she barely nicked him with the car, which technically is felony battery on a a police officer. I will say I don't have all the facts, nor do I agree with the morality of the shooting, just to note the police are allowed to execute people even not in self defense. If we judge him by, say, civilian standards in Minnesota though there was no excuse as it is a "duty to retreat" state and he had a clear path of retreat.

JohnFen 9mo ago
> just to note the police are allowed to execute people even not in self defense. Only if they reasonably believe that the suspect represents an immediate danger to the public. And even then, they're expected to use the minimum amount of force necessary to defuse that danger.
- mothballed 9mo ago
  I honestly have no idea how that officer could have stopped a car that was just used in his own eyes as a deadly weapon, other than shooting the driver, which enabled him to crash her car immediately into another car rather than let it get away. Shooting the tires or something is the closest second readily available but you can drive a long time with a blown out tire. I am certainly not defending what he did. I find his actions unreasonable. However I do think they were legitimately seen reasonable through the eyes of someone with PTSD from being dragged 7 months before and who never should have been put back in the field because he was now mentally unfit from said PTSD of his last idiotic episode of man v car. Which is something he seems to constantly find himself in despite most officers never having that happen in their life.
zahlman 9mo ago
[flagged]
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9mo ago
  > serious threat Regardless, neither that agent's actions nor his decision-making were serious when he murdered Renee Good. > But they are allowed [to murder because they feel like it] They're also "allowed" to get out the damn way. Interesting how the violent solution seems preferred, though. One might even mistake a "law enforcement officer" for a "gang member".
  - zahlman 9mo ago
    >> serious threat > Regardless, neither that agent's actions nor his decision-making were serious This is a strange, non-sequitur word game. > They're also "allowed" to get out the damn way. I previously submitted a legal analysis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8). Please indicate where you disagree with what is said in the video. The short version is that what the officer could have done, with the benefit of hindsight, is not legally relevant. Note that I have not insulted you at any point, nor alleged bad faith on your part, so I think this is a more reasonable request than the one that was made of me in the other thread. > But they are allowed [to murder because they feel like it] No, my entire point is that this is objectively not covered by the definition of the word "murder", and that it was clearly not done "because the officer felt like it". > Interesting how the violent solution seems preferred, though. One might even mistake a "law enforcement officer" for a "gang member". This sort of rhetoric is not conducive to discussion.

JohnFen 9mo ago

> just to note the police are allowed to execute people even not in self defense. Only if they reasonably believe that the suspect represents an immediate danger to the public. And even then, they're expected to use the minimum amount of force necessary to defuse that danger.

mothballed 9mo ago
I honestly have no idea how that officer could have stopped a car that was just used in his own eyes as a deadly weapon, other than shooting the driver, which enabled him to crash her car immediately into another car rather than let it get away. Shooting the tires or something is the closest second readily available but you can drive a long time with a blown out tire. I am certainly not defending what he did. I find his actions unreasonable. However I do think they were legitimately seen reasonable through the eyes of someone with PTSD from being dragged 7 months before and who never should have been put back in the field because he was now mentally unfit from said PTSD of his last idiotic episode of man v car. Which is something he seems to constantly find himself in despite most officers never having that happen in their life.

zahlman 9mo ago

[flagged]

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9mo ago
> serious threat Regardless, neither that agent's actions nor his decision-making were serious when he murdered Renee Good. > But they are allowed [to murder because they feel like it] They're also "allowed" to get out the damn way. Interesting how the violent solution seems preferred, though. One might even mistake a "law enforcement officer" for a "gang member".
- zahlman 9mo ago
  >> serious threat > Regardless, neither that agent's actions nor his decision-making were serious This is a strange, non-sequitur word game. > They're also "allowed" to get out the damn way. I previously submitted a legal analysis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8). Please indicate where you disagree with what is said in the video. The short version is that what the officer could have done, with the benefit of hindsight, is not legally relevant. Note that I have not insulted you at any point, nor alleged bad faith on your part, so I think this is a more reasonable request than the one that was made of me in the other thread. > But they are allowed [to murder because they feel like it] No, my entire point is that this is objectively not covered by the definition of the word "murder", and that it was clearly not done "because the officer felt like it". > Interesting how the violent solution seems preferred, though. One might even mistake a "law enforcement officer" for a "gang member". This sort of rhetoric is not conducive to discussion.