The Outrage Thread

[Cotton]

 

[Smitty]

Matt Wilson

Here’s my unofficial legal opinion on the ICE shooting in Minneapolis this morning. The Fourth Amendment protects everyone from unreasonable searches and seizures. The law deems a police...

www.facebook.com

Here’s my unofficial legal opinion on the ICE shooting in Minneapolis this morning.

The Fourth Amendment protects everyone from unreasonable searches and seizures. The law deems a police shooting to be a seizure. So any unreasonable use of force is unconstitutional.

Reasonableness is determined by evaluating the totality of the circumstances. The courts can’t look at simply the last second or two and exclude everything leading up to that point. They have to consider the big picture. At the same time, though, a separate Fourth Amendment violation that precedes a shooting does not automatically make an otherwise reasonable use of force unreasonable.

The courts use a three-factor test to ascertain if a use of force was reasonable.

—First, what was the nature of the suspect’s crime, if any?

—Second, did the suspect pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others?

—Third, was the suspect attempting to flee?

Of all these factors, the second one is most important because, at minimum, the police must perceive that a threat is immediate. That perception is based upon the information the police officer had in his or her possession at the time.

At the very least this woman was trying to hinder ICE enforcement of immigration laws. Obstruction of justice, by itself, is not that severe.

But if she intended to use her SUV as a weapon to harm a federal agent, that would have been very severe. Therefore the weight of this factor depends upon her subjective intent, which, admittedly, will never be known. So, let’s weigh this slightly in favor of the agents.

The next factor revolves around the agent’s perception of the rapidly unfolding events. Here we see a woman who was openly hostile to ICE as evidenced by her clear intent to block the road to prevent their movement. When the agents ordered her to stop the SUV and get out, she refused. Instead she starts moving the vehicle.

First, she backs away while one agent is trying to open her door. But then she gets the vehicle out of reverse, turns the steering wheel, and then moves into the general direction of an other agent, who appears to be squarely in front of her left headlight.

This agent does not unholster his gun until after the SUV starts moving toward him. And since there was another SUV to the right of the suspect’s vehicle, her only way forward would have been through the agent.

By my estimation, the movement from reverse to forward was one second and then to the shooting was another second. So from the first encounter to the shooting was two seconds total.

Now if the woman had been shot while she was still reversing, that might have been one thing. But the agent didn’t even unholster his weapon until the SUV starts moving toward him.

People die all the time after being hit by a car. This man was in danger. So the second factor weighs in the cop’s favor.

That leaves the third factor. Was she attempting to flee? Yes.

All in all, this was a reasonsble use of force. Given her hostility toward ICE, her decision the lunge the vehicle toward the cop, the fact that he did not even pull his weapon until after she had put her foot on the gas to escape, this is a clear cut case of reasonable force.

Here’s the link to the video. See for yourself I recommend you start at 35 seconds in and watch at 0.35 speed.

https://youtu.be/Z1rlh51RqBQ?si=iFf7oxkbSSn8xMjg

 

[Smitty]

And falling back on the old using car as a weapon bullshit excuse. And I saw the motherfuckin video. She was just driving away from these cunt jack booted thugs.

All false, par for the course.

Car as a weapon isn't an excuse, it's established precedent in every jurisdiction in the country. And she made contact with the officer, who had been involved in an incident where he was dragged by a vehicle apparently quite recently.

This is classic FAFO and the woman was ten thousand percent in the wrong.

I tend to think the officer probably was a LITTLE quick on his judgment, but there's zero chance he's convicted because if the woman had survived it's a thousand percent chance that she's guilty of some sort of assault with a deadly weapon and maybe even attempted murder.

 

[Smitty]

So the second video looked like she hit an agent head on. I think its justified to shoot.

The first video I would agree with you.

It's indisputable she struck him as she was accelerating and therefore he is legally justified.

This is open and shut.

 

[Smitty]

Regardless, he wasn't in mortal danger.

Definitely not true.

 

[Smitty]

Right, he easily could have moved out of the way without killing a woman.

Insane that anyone could agree this should be a fucking death sentence from a cop.

It wasn't a death sentence. She was killed because she was playing with fire.

No one sentenced her. Her demise was brought about as naturally as someone playing in the middle of the road. Someone who charges at an officer with a weapon.

These are the same type of consequences that occured with Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc, etc.

You know, all those cases where they said "This wouldn't happen if the person was white."

Well, it does.

 

[Smitty]

None of that justifies being shot in the face by a goon.

Yes, it does.

 

[Smitty]

I get it. You don't fucking care if they kill you for disobeying.

They didn't kill her for disobeying.

They killed her for accelerating her car towards an officer and striking him.

Case closed that is lethal force against the officer and case closed he has authority to fire upon her.

Neither of them exercised the best judgment, IMO, its possible he COULD have avoided it, but he didn't have to.

She created the situation, she bears the responsibility, she pays the price.

 

[Bipo]

All false, par for the course.

Car as a weapon isn't an excuse, it's established precedent in every jurisdiction in the country. And she made contact with the officer, who had been involved in an incident where he was dragged by a vehicle apparently quite recently.

This is class FAFO and the woman was ten thousand percent in the wrong.

I tend to think the officer probably was a LITTLE quick on his judgment, but there's zero chance he's convicted because if the woman had survived it's a thousand percent chance that she's guilty of some sort of assault with a deadly weapon and maybe even attempted murder.

I've found that the only people that use FAFO are amongst the most despicable. Truly unimaginably immature political discourse by adults.

 

[Bipo]

Also, was that jackbooted thug a retard?

Untrained?

Or looking for a confrontation by approaching a vehicle from the front?

 

[Smitty]

Bipo's junior high girl hysterical rants aside, (even with their comedic value) if this is deemed to be a bad shooting then the guy involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The first video shown, I was fully on the drivers side. It looked like the only guy at their vehicle was at her door. Didn't look like anybody was in danger. But the other videos pretty clearly show there was an officer directly in front of her vehicle. Did not have their weapon drawn at that time. Once she puts it in gear and accelerates, that vehicle is now a deadly weapon being used in the assault of an officer.

I feel truly bad for the person that got shot and their family. But it's pretty simple... DON'T DO SHIT THAT GIVES POLICE A REASON TO SHOOT YOU.

Yeah, from a non-emotional perspective, there's nothing to debate here.

If this was a drug dealer who is detained, he's charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon for striking the officer with a vehicle.

Every single time.

Cute blond lesbian doesn't get a pass because she was engaging in socially acceptable civil disobedience. She chose a reckless, completely irresponsible method of protesting. Same as the idiots who sit down in the middle of the road. I won't cry when they are run over by a Mac Truck. It's never gonna be the Mac Truck driver's fault. Get out of the fucking road.

She shouldn't have been driving her car towards officers. She created the danger. She made the irresponsible decision to accelerate instead of complying. She made the decision to panic and strike an officer with her car, a felony in every state, in every city, in every jurisdiction. She gave him the right to open fire on her for her idiocy.

But these protestors do stupid shit all the time and they think they are free from consequences.

They aren't.

 

[Smitty]

Also, was that jackbooted thug a retard?

Untrained?

Or looking for a confrontation by approaching a vehicle from the front?

He is like a ten year veteran who has been drug by a car before, I read.

 

[Smitty]

Listen to this fuckin waste of a cunt.

She's right.

You're wrong.

 

[Bipo]

He is like a ten year veteran who has been drug by a car before, I read.

Absolutely no trained law enforcement is supposed to engage a vehicle from the front.

 

[Smitty]

People like the woman in Minnesota that was murdered are domestic terrorists being trained to use their cars as weapons?

She would be charged criminally had she survived.

 

[Smitty]

Absolutely no trained law enforcement is supposed to engage a vehicle from the front.

So you're saying he's not a ten year veteran who had recently been drug by a car?

 

[Bipo]

So you're saying he's not a ten year veteran who had recently been drug by a car?

I'm saying no trained law enforcement is supposed to engage a vehicle from the front.

 

[Cujo]

This is exactly what they wanted.

 

[Cujo]

Someone forgot about the rioters saying they wanted to put a bullet in Nancy Pelosi’s head, didn’t they?

Did they?

 

[Smitty]

I'm sorry, but at that the very least that agent is guilty of excessive force.

He's not, though.

You may feel like the law should change, maybe, but it's not.

This is definitely felony conduct by the woman.

At no point was his life in danger and it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to suggest that after watching all of the videos out there about the incident.

You cannot conclude that his life wasn't in danger. We are talking split seconds here. And split seconds is all it takes for the officer to be struck and killed.

Driving your vehicle into an officer is zero tolerance. It doesn't matter if he "probably" wasn't going to be severly injured.

He is not guilty.

I will grant you that you MAY be able to make a compelling argument that he exercised poor-ish judgment, probably stemming from the fact he had been struck by a vehicle and drug before (I read - not verified).

His poor judgment is far, far superceded by her poor judgment.

She

(1) shouldn't have been protesting by blocking the road.

(2) Should have obeyed the commands of the other two officers.

(3) shouldn't have attempted to get away by accelerating.

I don't think she was TRYING to murder the officer. But her conduct created a situation where it was eminently possible.

The officer is not guilty any more than the officer who shot that January 6 protestor Ashlii Babbitt is guilty.

At the very least he should face a manslaughter charge but ICE agents are currently allowed to act without impunity so he won't face any consequences whatsoever.

It's not acting with impunity. He's in the right. She's in the wrong.

Your vehicle is a deadly weapon. That's your starting point.

Every time you drive your car on the road, that's the beginning basis. If you operate your car in a way that endangers someone, you're very, very guilty.

She flaunted her ability to do this because she believed she was righteously protesting and she'd be insulated. It led to a mistake I'm sure she did not intend, but, it cost her her own life and it's a thousand percent her fault.