POV footage from the ICE agent who was RAMMED by anti-ICE activist Renee Good in Minneapolis has been released

volsrocks said:
If it's a cop telling u to stop and u ignore and hit him ...yes


AI Overview




intentionally hitting a police officer with a car is considered an attack and is treated as a serious felony offense, often leading to charges such as attempted murder, aggravated assault, or assault on a law enforcement officer.
Click to expand...
So a car is only a deadly weapon if it's a cop?
Thanks for proving it was murder since a federal officer is NOT a cop.

You people are so deep in the cult you can't even make sense when you contradict yourselves and lie about facts.
 
Damocles said:
Um... that's not true. A vehicle is a deadly weapon, if the officer thought his life, or the life of others, was in danger at that moment in time it will be a justified shooting. Even if objectively it was not.

Imagine a teen aiming a fake gun that looks real at a cop. Objectively the cop is in no danger, subjectively the cop can absolutely believe his life is in danger. If the cop shoots the teen he will not face charges, it will be justified. This is the same. Did the cop believe he was in danger of great bodily harm or death? If he did, this was justified.
Click to expand...
You forget several things in your analysis of the situation. Did the officer follow training? Would a reasonable person (officer) have reached the same conclusion. The officer can't simply declare they felt they were in danger.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You forget several things in your analysis of the situation. Did the officer follow training? Would a reasonable person (officer) have reached the same conclusion. The officer can't simply declare they felt they were in danger.
Click to expand...
First I "forgot" nothing. Here is the conversation. volsrocks said:
volsrocks said:
In those moments before being shot, Renee committed these crimes.

1. Impeding traffic.
2. Resisting and obstructing.
3. Fleeing and eluding.
4. Hitting Police with a car
Click to expand...
To which you responded:
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Congratulations. You have just made the case for the officer committing murder since none of those allow for lethal force.
Click to expand...
Which I noted is incorrect because a vehicle is a deadly weapon, then gave you a description of how subjective the actual judgement will be. Here:
Damocles said:
Um... that's not true. A vehicle is a deadly weapon, if the officer thought his life, or the life of others, was in danger at that moment in time it will be a justified shooting. Even if objectively it was not.

Imagine a teen aiming a fake gun that looks real at a cop. Objectively the cop is in no danger, subjectively the cop can absolutely believe his life is in danger. If the cop shoots the teen he will not face charges, it will be justified. This is the same. Did the cop believe he was in danger of great bodily harm or death? If he did, this was justified.
Click to expand...
This is the reality. He will be judged on that subjective thing. If he truly believed his life was in danger the shooting will be justified. Other questions like "should he have been there in front of the vehicle" notwithstanding. (BTW that corner of the vehicle is where you will see cops standing regularly because they can see if the driver reaches for things inside the car, changes gears, etc. they can see it better from there than standing next to the window and/or speaking from behind.)
 
Damocles said:
I hear that. But I do see that with the one guy reaching into the vehicle in an attempt to open the door after he found it locked the first time, the guy may also have been worried about his coworker and whether that coworker might be dragged. Split second later things change... I also wonder if the gun went off because he was hit, not because he meant to pull the trigger.

It is clear that she knew they were law enforcement, you can hear him give a lawful order, in a way that didn't seem to be an attempt to deescalate.

I'd like to see the first reaction be towards less than lethal weapons, but if we are going with "what did the officer think"... It seems that he thought there were lives in danger and that we would have a very difficult time proving he did not, and if we use the same standard we always use for law enforcement... I think they'll find this justified.
Click to expand...
Three times? Aimed at her face? What in the actual fuck.
 
Damocles said:
Um... that's not true. A vehicle is a deadly weapon, if the officer thought his life, or the life of others, was in danger at that moment in time it will be a justified shooting. Even if objectively it was not.

Imagine a teen aiming a fake gun that looks real at a cop. Objectively the cop is in no danger, subjectively the cop can absolutely believe his life is in danger. If the cop shoots the teen he will not face charges, it will be justified. This is the same. Did the cop believe he was in danger of great bodily harm or death? If he did, this was justified.
Click to expand...
That's a relatively amateurish interpretation of the law. Tennessee v. Garner said that, "[d]eadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Then, Graham v. Connor held that it is not enough that the officer personally believed they were in danger. "Would a reasonable officer in the same situation, with the same information, have believed deadly force was necessary?"

That is an objective standard, not a subjective one. It is not enough that Ross (might have) thought he was in danger of death or serious physical injury. Would a reasonable officer in the same situation have held his cell phone in one hand and then unholstered and shot Good in the face three times with his other hand? Or would they have taken one step backward and then traced the license plate number to Good's home? We're going to find out.
 
We have plenty of footage at this point - we have all the angles.

I still think it's wild that many on the right tried to use his cell phone footage as some sort of revelation that he was doing the right thing.

Watching it so many times at this point - it's clear that he didn't take appropriate action. And if he thought his life was in danger, he wasn't judging the situation correctly. It wasn't. He didn't even lose his footing, even though - instead of stepping back further - he chose to take out his firearm, aim and shoot.
 
Damocles said:
First I "forgot" nothing. Here is the conversation. volsrocks said:

To which you responded:

Which I noted is incorrect because a vehicle is a deadly weapon, then gave you a description of how subjective the actual judgement will be. Here:

This is the reality. He will be judged on that subjective thing. If he truly believed his life was in danger the shooting will be justified. Other questions like "should he have been there in front of the vehicle" notwithstanding. (BTW that corner of the vehicle is where you will see cops standing regularly because they can see if the driver reaches for things inside the car, changes gears, etc. they can see it better from there than standing next to the window and/or speaking from behind.)
Click to expand...
You're wrong, and you don't understand the law.
 
Diesel said:
Three times? Aimed at her face? What in the actual fuck.
Click to expand...
There isn't much more he can hit from the front of that vehicle with her behind the wheel. She drove a deadly weapon at him. Even if you "really believe" she was "trying to miss"... hitting someone with the weapon is still hitting him with a deadly weapon. Imagine if I tried to use this absurd argument with a gun. I only "winged" him... It's just a scratch, and once I ran past he wasn't in danger anymore so he should have stopped!

All of that is nonsense. You have an armed and dangerous person who has demonstrated a willingness and ability to aim that deadly weapon at others, and you have less than a second to read the scene...

I believe that the cop thought he was in danger, and because he believed that he will be found to be justified.
 
Damocles said:
There isn't much more he can hit from the front of that vehicle with her behind the wheel. She drove a deadly weapon at him. Even if you "really believe" she was "trying to miss"... hitting someone with the weapon is still hitting him with a deadly weapon. Imagine if I tried to use this absurd argument with a gun. I only "winged" him... It's just a scratch, and once I ran past he wasn't in danger anymore so he should have stopped!

All of that is nonsense. You have an armed and dangerous person who has demonstrated a willingness and ability to aim that deadly weapon at others, and you have less than a second to read the scene...

I believe that the cop thought he was in danger, and because he believed that he will be found to be justified.
Click to expand...
Don't play games, Damo. You "wondered" "if the gun went off because he was hit, not because he meant to pull the trigger." That is a factory full of cow shit. He was standing at the front driver side corner of the car. She started to drive. He moved to the side of the car, pointed his gun in her window, and shot her in the face 3 times.

Now keep reading. I explained to you, in airtight terms, why what the officer (he isn't a "cop") "thought" doesn't matter. Read the case law.
 
Diesel said:
Don't play games, Damo. You "wondered" "if the gun went off because he was hit, not because he meant to pull the trigger." That is a factory full of cow shit. He was standing at the front driver side corner of the car. She started to drive. He moved to the side of the car, pointed his gun in her window, and shot her in the face 3 times.

Now keep reading. I explained to you, in airtight terms, why what the officer (he isn't a "cop") "thought" doesn't matter. Read the case law.
Click to expand...
I did, still do, wonder that. That doesn't change what I predict. And yes, what the cop subjectively believes at the time is the only thing that matters.

If a kid points a fake gun at a cop that looks real and gets shot, the cop was never objectively in danger, but he is still justified if he shot the kid... It happens, rarely, but it does happen. What the cop subjectively believes is pretty much the only thing that matters once someone has wielded a deadly weapon and hit him with it.
 
Damocles said:
I did, still do, wonder that. That doesn't change what I predict. And yes, what the cop subjectively believes at the time is the only thing that matters.

If a kid points a fake gun at a cop that looks real and gets shot, the cop was never objectively in danger, but he is still justified if he shot the kid... It happens, rarely, but it does happen. What the cop subjectively believes is pretty much the only thing that matters once someone has wielded a deadly weapon and hit him with it.
Click to expand...
The gun did not fire by itself 3 times. Ross did not accidentally pull the trigger 3 times. Do you hear yourself when you write this stuff? It's literally delusional.

I see you edited your post after the fact.

Now I know you're delusional. I just gave you the 2 cases that definitively qualify lethal self defense. You disregard them and then state a lie as fact ("what the cop [he's not a cop -- try to regain your capability to learn and stick to reality] subjectively believes at the time is the only thing that matters"). That is the exact opposite of what the law says.

Your analogy is baseless. Graham v. Connor held that it is not enough that the officer personally believed they were in danger. "Would a reasonable officer in the same situation, with the same information, have believed deadly force was necessary?"

You know what I find tragically ironic in this exchange? You sound *exactly* like Dutch. You seat yourself on a very tall stool and then pontificate about things that you know little or nothing about. Your opinion and gross misinterpretation of the law does not supersede the law itself. You should try to represent Ross in court and see how that goes for both of you.
 
Diesel said:
The gun did not fire by itself 3 times. Ross did not accidentally pull the trigger 3 times. Do you hear yourself when you write this stuff? It's literally delusional.

I see you edited your post after the fact.

Now I know you're delusional. I just gave you the 2 cases that definitively qualify lethal self defense. You disregard them and then state a lie as fact ("what the cop [he's not a cop -- try to regain your capability to learn and stick to reality] subjectively believes at the time is the only thing that matters"). That is the exact opposite of what the law says.

Your analogy is baseless. Graham v. Connor held that it is not enough that the officer personally believed they were in danger. "Would a reasonable officer in the same situation, with the same information, have believed deadly force was necessary?"

You know what I find tragically ironic in this exchange? You sound *exactly* like Dutch. You seat yourself on a very tall stool and then pontificate about things that you know little or nothing about. Your opinion and gross misinterpretation of the law does not supersede the law itself. You should try to represent Ross in court and see how that goes for both of you.
Click to expand...
Nah, 2 more times. We have already gone over that.

Once she wielded a weapon, leaving her armed with the weapon is just asking for more attacks. Seriously, it matters what the man believed. While I wonder if the gun may have gone off unintentionally at first, I know it didn't go off unintentionally two more times.

Hence my prediction... He will be found to be justified, for the reasons that I have given. He believed he was in danger and that letting her leave while still armed only endangered others. I find it difficult to believe that even leftists who really don't like it will understand that a cop that had been attacked with a car earlier might think he was in danger when he was attacked with one again.
 
Damocles said:
Nah, 2 more times. We have already gone over that.

Once she wielded a weapon, leaving her armed with the weapon is just asking for more attacks. Seriously, it matters what the man believed. While I wonder if the gun may have gone off unintentionally at first, I know it didn't go off unintentionally two more times.

Hence my prediction... He will be found to be justified, for the reasons that I have given. He believed he was in danger and that letting her leave while still armed only endangered others. I find it difficult to believe that even leftists who really don't like it will understand that a cop that had been attacked with a car earlier might think he was in danger when he was attacked with one again.
Click to expand...
She wasn't "armed". She was using a vehicle to try to flee danger that *she* perceived. He might have killed her because he perceived that she was a danger to him, but no one with two intact brain cells thinks she was a danger to unnamed "others". You're grasping at straws, and it's so beneath the person that you used to be that I can't help but wonder if you ever quietly admit to yourself that you sound insane. Ross is not a "cop", but you've tripled down on that mistake, so you're obviously determined to be wrong. Yet again. Lastly, if Ross had unresolved mental issues about a prior incident, then he shouldn't have been on active duty. His mental state obviously left him incapable of doing his job. He and his commanders put the public's safety in danger. A woman is dead and 3 children have lost a mother as a result. Good didn't attack anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top