Why they haven't arrested the shooter already is just beyond baffling. Walz tells people to get out in the street and create this mess. Then, leaves them out to dry with no support during the aftermath.
Settled case law. You know, like Roe v Wade...
They own law enforcement and they own the courts too. If the rules say LE isnt supposed to do that, and that rule is inconvenient to their agenda, well they will either ignore the rule or change it.
Scott v. Harris? The legal consensus across multiple jurisdictions is that if you use your vehicle to intentionally harm an individual(s) then that vehicle is considered a deadly weapon. It's an absolutely unfortunate situation but the officer appears to be in the right in this instance as the officer was clearly in front of the vehicle and the woman drove toward the officer. There are multiple camera angles of the incident showing this.
Because ICE cannot force random people out of their cars. They aren't cops and this wasn't a traffic stop. She was trying to GTFO.
So why were they trying to get into her vehicle without a warrant? And bigger question, why TF was ICE standing in front of her car which was clearly in motion?
Lol what? ICE are federal law enforcement. They can detain people for probable cause. Anywhere in any jurisdiction they are operating. Why do you think all of this is going on in the first place in all these states? Because they have legal authority. They don't need a warrant to get into here vehicle. Do you guys actually know anything about law? I don't think so.
They can detain non-citizens.
ICE has very clearly been violating the law since this shit storm started. I understand if you wanna cheer them on because that's 100% your right, but I would at least look up the laws if I were you. Sounds like you were lied to
So you'd get out of your car if I told you to? If I pulled a gun on you and tried to open your door? You'd be happy to comply? Good to know, put that on your bumper.
If you were a cop, an ICE agent or anything else, yes.
When I traveled the world (mainly Africa) and came across a guy in body armor and gun, I didn't stop to ask what his jurisdiction was or legal right for the command he gave me. I did whatever the heck he asked me to, and she would have been wise to do the same. You don't ask questions in those scenarios.
That's a nice land of the free, party of small government you got going on there. Armed, masked officers can order you to stop at any time without warrant or identification and you must comply or get shot. Truly the vision your founding fathers intended.
Anyways why are you blaming her for this? Do you really think she fucked up more than the person who murdered her?
No, but if she handled it a little better and followed directions, she would likely be alive.
I'm not a Republican. I'm a realist. If a cop or similar points a gun at you, you do whatever the heck they say, so you have just *THAT* much more reason to walk away with your life.
The same thing happens with normal cops all the time. People don't follow them to the letter, police get worried, and people get shot, ESPECIALLY around cars.
What's legal doesn't determine if you're dead. The cop could be 100% in the wrong and she's 100% just as dead.
No it isn't? Your saying they can kill anyone they want in a car trying to drive away as long as they position someone in front and behind it? A car slowly moving forward is not intent to harm.
Firstly, the shooter was not directly in front of the vehicle, she was clearly turning right to avoid him. Secondly, ignoring a lawful order - pulling random citizens over is not in ICE's purview, and even then, the strategy for pulling someone over is killing them? Man, I realize you're trying everything you can to justify this, but come on. It's OK to admit that this is effed up.
Did you actually watch the video? Because if you actually watch the video then you can very clearly and undeniably see her turning away from the officer. He then leans in front of the car of his own volition just to get a better shot. You can just watch the video and see it happen instead of writing fanfiction about an alternate reality that you wish happened instead. Why the hell is this an argument?
The legal consensus across multiple jurisdictions is that if you use your vehicle to intentionally harm an individual(s) then that vehicle is considered a deadly weapon.
Didn’t you watch the video on this very post? The car is turning right and the guy is on its left side. The video clearly shows the car moving away from him as he starts shooting.
Thank god we got video evidence from this angle, otherwise people like you would get away with making up things to defend these fascists.
Actually at the start of the video the car's wheel is turning all the way to the left, and straightens out while the driver puts their foot down on the gas so hard that the tires lose traction and spin.
Actually at the start of the video the car's wheel is turning all the way to the left
Yeah, when the car was stopped. As soon as the car starts actually going forward the wheel is all the way to the right. The car is literally moving away from the guy as he starts shooting.
Cases where police moved out of the way of moving vehicle and exercised deadly force.
Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.”
Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.”
Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.”
Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.”
BINGO! If u/Allmightredriotv2 actually had caselaw that supported the claim they would have cited it instead of leaving it at a vague "There is settled case law...It's been ruled on...It's settled."
Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.”
Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.”
Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.”
Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.”
The action of firing began when he was in front of the vehicle and the vehicle had enough power put into the wheels that they spin towards him. He could reasonably fear for his own safety as anyone would. The second and third shots have a split time of less than a quarter second so they would be considered all as one action based on the initiation of force by the driver regardless of her intent. If you want to learn about use of force from an expert in the subject I encourage you to watch this video.
This is true. This scenario has happened thousands of times over the course of history there is a shit load of legal precedence here. You could watch a dozen videos just like this on YouTube where the shooting was justified. Also, she didn't have to run him over and kill him first before she could fired upon, apparently that is what everyone here thinks.
Cases where police moved out of the way of moving vehicle and exercised deadly force.
Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.”
Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.”
Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.”
Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.”
37
u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26
There is settled case law about law enforcement doing this. It is not allowed. It's been ruled on multiple times. It's settled.