Renee Good's Autopsy

@no1marauder said
You mean the "f****ing b****"?

The test is a reasonable person not a poorly trained thug.

Yeah yeah. You always hate the guy with the gun. Zimmerman with his busted nose, Rittenhouse running for his life etc etc.

We'll see.

@fornichessate removed their quoted post

Lol.

@no1marauder said
You mean the "f****ing b****"?

The test is a reasonable person not a poorly trained thug.

“You mean the "f****ing b****"?”

Why would you ADD that?

You realize your argument is faulty unless you can make the officer appear prejudiced dont you?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
“You mean the "f****ing b****"?”

Why would you ADD that?

You realize your argument is faulty unless you can make the officer appear prejudiced dont you?

It shows his state of mind.

How do you think it's going to play to a Minnesota jury?

@fornichessate removed their quoted post

Too much Internet happened awhile back, right after you checked the custody paperwork of a murder victim.

@no1marauder said
It shows his state of mind.

How do you think it's going to play to a Minnesota jury?

If the defense can establish that she willfully drove the vehicle into him, even though she swerved to the right, and even better if she did swipe/hit him, then him calling her names is justified, and shooting at the vehicle is also justified, because then the vehicle is like a weapon and she fired first.

This is an easy case. The only complication is deciding that the vehicle was in fact used to deliberatly hit someone.

@Rajk999 said
If the defense can establish that she willfully drove the vehicle into him, even though she swerved to the right, and even better if she did swipe/hit him, then him calling her names is justified, and shooting at the vehicle is also justified, because then the vehicle is like a weapon and she fired first.

This is an easy case. The only complication is deciding that the vehicle was in fact used to deliberatly hit someone.

That's not the law of self-defense and deadly force here.

At the moment deadly force is used, a person in the position of the user must have had a reasonable belief they in were in imminent danger of death or grave physical harm.

@no1marauder said
That's not the law of self-defense and deadly force here.

It can be established that she fired first.
That is all that is required, and it seems pretty easy to do.

@no1marauder said
That's not the law of self-defense and deadly force here.

It is all over the US for fed officers

You can quit lying anytime…it’s making you look foolish

@Rajk999 said
It can be established that she fired first.
That is all that is required, and it seems pretty easy to do.

I won't waste further time explaining it to you.

@no1marauder said
I won't waste further time explaining it to you.

That is because Raj is right😉

@Mott-The-Hoople said
It is all over the US for fed officers

You can quit lying anytime…it’s making you look foolish

There is no special law that applies only to frd officers.

The law of deadly force in self-defense is exactly what I stated as I showed in the other thread using State laws and even SCOTUS cases.

@no1marauder said
It shows his state of mind.

How do you think it's going to play to a Minnesota jury?

It wont play at all…Mn doesnt have jurisdiction to charge the fed officer for performing his duty.

I thought you knew the law…hmmm

@no1marauder said
There is no special law that applies only to frd officers.

The law of deadly force in self-defense is exactly what I stated as I showed in the other thread using State laws and even SCOTUS cases.

Yes there is