It is reported that the ICE agent who fired the deadly shots already experienced a harrowing situation with a car . . . He was seriously injured last summer when he was dragged by the vehicle of a fleeing suspect whom he shot with a stun gun.
Apparently the driver rolled up the driver's side window on his arm and dragged him.
The driver ran her car into an officer hitting him. Anyone who’s played gta knows a car is a deadly weapon. Pretty sure the officer was justified in using deadly force.
He shot while only being a few feet away from the car, which had already started to drive off.
Why would a trained officer believe that shooting at the driver from only a few feet away would have a higher chance of improving his chances against being hit by the car (which was already well in motion), than trying to physically move out of its way? That makes no sense.
100% justified. We can Monday night quarterback it all day, but ultimately it comes down to having to make split second decisions based on training and experience. Many officers would have jumped out of the way, many would have taken the shot. There is no one size fits all.
Even if the person didn't intend on running the officer over, it's reasonable to assume that the officer felt their life was in danger. The person in question was also already committing a crime by continuing to block federal government operations.
Anything that happens while you are in the process of committing a crime is mostly on you.
It is reported that the ICE agent who fired the deadly shots already experienced a harrowing situation with a car . . . He was seriously injured last summer when he was dragged by the vehicle of a fleeing suspect whom he shot with a stun gun.
Apparently the driver rolled up the driver's side window on his arm and dragged him.
None of that matters.
The driver ran her car into an officer hitting him. Anyone who’s played gta knows a car is a deadly weapon. Pretty sure the officer was justified in using deadly force.
He shot while only being a few feet away from the car, which had already started to drive off.
Why would a trained officer believe that shooting at the driver from only a few feet away would have a higher chance of improving his chances against being hit by the car (which was already well in motion), than trying to physically move out of its way? That makes no sense.
Let's all remember that as we make right or left turns while pedestrians are still in the crosswalk.
Query: If someone is driving a car around pedestrians, and someone shoots the driver in the head, what happens to the car?
100% justified. We can Monday night quarterback it all day, but ultimately it comes down to having to make split second decisions based on training and experience. Many officers would have jumped out of the way, many would have taken the shot. There is no one size fits all.
Even if the person didn't intend on running the officer over, it's reasonable to assume that the officer felt their life was in danger. The person in question was also already committing a crime by continuing to block federal government operations.
Anything that happens while you are in the process of committing a crime is mostly on you.
> The driver ran her car into an officer hitting him
No amount of repeating this will make it true.
[flagged]
[flagged]
horrible take
[flagged]