@no1marauder said😂. What am I missing? Ummm … tie this in with the discussion 🤡
Like Derek Chauvin?
@no1marauder saidIt really depends exactly which millisecond he made the decision to pull the trigger. We have the advantage of freeze frames and slow motion. In real life, it all happened in seconds.
Let's say for the sake of argument his left leg is touching the slow moving vehicle now turning away from him.
Would a belief by the agent that he was in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury be objectively reasonable?
There was one point at which the officer definitely had the reasonable belief of imminent danger, when the car started moving before it turned. You're essentially saying that this reasonable belief ended a second or two before he fired the first bullet.
Maybe, but it's anything but clear cut.
3 edits
@sh76 said"A reasonable belief of imminent danger" is legally insufficient. He has to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to protect himself or others from death or grave physical harm according to the relevant Minnesota statute. I submit that the slow speed the car was going as well as his easy ability to avoid contact with it does not meet such a standard.
It really depends exactly which millisecond he made the decision to pull the trigger. We have the advantage of freeze frames and slow motion. In real life, it all happened in seconds.
There was one point at which the officer definitely had the reasonable belief of imminent danger, when the car started moving before it turned. You're essentially saying that this reasonable bel ...[text shortened]... f ended a second or two before he fired the first bullet.
Maybe, but it's anything but clear cut.
From the statute quoted on the prior page:
"Subd. 2.Use of deadly force. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:
The circumstances here never reach the level where a person in Ross' position would have a reasonable belief that he was in a position that threatened him with death or grave physical injury.
@no1marauder saidIf her tires hadn't spun on the ice a bit as she stepped on the gas he would have had less time to move out of the way, and he would have perceived danger from the sound of the engine as well. I think a jury will give him the benefit of the doubt, especially when they consider the previous aggressive behavior and trash talking from the two women. That would have also effected his perception of how much of a threat he was facing.
"A reasonable belief of imminent danger" is legally insufficient. He has to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to protect himself or others from death or grave physical harm according to the relevant Minnesota statute. I submit that the slow speed the car was going as well as his easy ability to avoid contact with it does not meet such a standard.
...[text shortened]... protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:[/b]
@Sleepyguy saidLet's send it to a Minnesota jury and find out. We know that a Federal investigation when Trump already endorsed a fictitious version has as much likelihood of reaching a fair conclusion as a report from the Cigarette Smoking Man, but I'm hopeful the Hennepin County Attorney's investigation will result in State charges.
If her tires hadn't spun on the ice a bit as she stepped on the gas he would have had less time to move out of the way, and he would have perceived danger from the sound of the engine as well. I think a jury will give him the benefit of the doubt, especially when they consider the previous aggressive behavior and trash talking from the two women. That would have also effected his perception of how much of a threat he was facing.
- Joined
- 20 Sep 01
- Moves
- 166580
1 edit
There are many 'expert' posts and many others on this tragedy, repeat tragedy.
Not one person posting here would know how they would react to the actions of the driver; without being there and experiencing what REALLY and ACTUALLY occurred.
Also, of course, the actions of the police officer.
@AverageJoe1 saidWhy didn't Erika tell people she was not followed by Egyptian planes?
Yes you are doing “different situation”, indeed.
Stay the subject MB.
Erica doesn’t want people to ask questions???? what in the hell has that got to do with anything? And there is no subject to my knowledge on the forum regarding his assassination details.
You should start a thread on Erika Was Behind It. I will pass if you do.
Your post is stupid
https://rumble.com/v733u3q-erika-kirk-caught-lying-about-egyptian-planes.[WORD TOO LONG]
@Cliff-Mashburn saidThat is a lie. He was not hit by the car.
He was actually hit by the car, his bodycam shows, you can hear a thunk when her car makes contact , and Good was harassing the ICE agents too, calling them "Boy" and talking to them like children with a smug insufferable smirk on her face.
@sh76 saidYou are comply obsessive. You think if police tell you to do something you must comply or die. You want to excuse the first bullet and ignore the other two he shot her in the face with.
It really depends exactly which millisecond he made the decision to pull the trigger. We have the advantage of freeze frames and slow motion. In real life, it all happened in seconds.
There was one point at which the officer definitely had the reasonable belief of imminent danger, when the car started moving before it turned. You're essentially saying that this reasonable bel ...[text shortened]... f ended a second or two before he fired the first bullet.
Maybe, but it's anything but clear cut.
He shot her as she was passing him by. There is absolutely no reason for the last 2 bullets being fired. The truth is either that guy was an idiot or not in fear of his life at all. Law enforcement is trained to NOT stand in front of a car. If Renee deserved to die from failure to comply that ICE pig deserved to die from being stupid enough to stand in front of a car during a heated exchange of words. He never should have put himself in harms way, especially since he was hit by a car before. And when or if he felt he might be in danger he should have gotten out of the way instead of just standing there and shooting her in the face 3 times. And law enforcement are not supposed to fire at moving vehicles!
Here is a good question for you. Should the extremely stupid ICE agent be fired from his job for ignoring law enforcement training?
@Martin saidI know what I would do. I would get out of the way instead of standing there like an idiot. Not that I would get in front of the car in the first place.
There are many 'expert' posts and many others on this tragedy, repeat tragedy.
Not one person posting here would know how they would react to the actions of the driver; without being there and experiencing what REALLY and ACTUALLY occurred.
Also, of course, the actions of the police officer.
Does this sound like correct law enforcement training?
Always block the car with your body so they cannot leave. Nobody will run over a law enforcement officer because people are always rational. And if they do shoot the driver in the face. If she is dead the car will stop so you will be safe.
The only reason she did not hit that extremely stupid ICE agent is because she was turning away from him which proves she never intended to hit him. The car did not stop after he shot her in the face, did it? Dead drivers don't stop moving, do they? That is why police are trained to not shoot at moving vehicles. It simply does not work.
Should that extremely stupid ICE agent who completely ignored law enforcement training and common sense keep his job?
- Joined
- 20 Sep 01
- Moves
- 166580
@Metal-Brain said"I know what I would do. I would get out of the way instead of standing there like an idiot. Not that I would get in front of the car in the first place."
I know what I would do. I would get out of the way instead of standing there like an idiot. Not that I would get in front of the car in the first place.
Does this sound like correct law enforcement training?
Always block the car with your body so they cannot leave. Nobody will run over a law enforcement officer because people are always rational. And if they do shoot ...[text shortened]... mely stupid ICE agent who completely ignored law enforcement training and common sense keep his job?
I agree with you
@Martin
Martin, MB, wgrass all of you. A precursor of common sense would be logically surmise that the cop who did not mean to kill George Flloyd is in prison.
This cop meant to shoot the woman. More guilty that Flloyd cop.
All the genius minds in the world could simply compare the facts of each case, as you can do, and see that this cop needs to go to prison. Overeaction by the cop, it is the cop's problem. Take his medicine. Bad boy.
This leaves only one answered question, but what is new. You never answer questions....like if I put on a sombrero can I become a Mexican. Only the Marauder poster has taken a stand, his logic is that I can indeed be a Mexican.
So the question: Why did none of you speak out for the little children of Charlie and Erika Kirk? You speak for Rene's child but not for Charlie's.
No one will answer this question.
I would rather you say WHY YOU DONT answer it than actually answering it.
@Martin saidYou are mistaken. The man did get out of the way, but he is not a civilian. He is an armed officer, who was absolutely correct in shooting that stupid woman, who drove her car at him.
"I know what I would do. I would get out of the way instead of standing there like an idiot. Not that I would get in front of the car in the first place."
I agree with you
Whether it was deliberate on her part is for the court to decide.
Whether he intended to shoot to kill is also for the court to decide.
You people need to stop defending fools. The woman is a damn fool. She should stay TF home and look after her family.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidKnown activist's
Doing nothing wrong?
She pulled her car in front of the ICE agents and blocked the road to stop them. She and her girlfriend had been harassing them all morning talking mad sh.i.t to them and being a..ss.holes....She wasn't some "innocent woman dropping her kids off one block from her house"...