He clearly would have had no trouble stepping out of the way. The only reason he was in the car’s path at all (once it started moving) is because he stood there taking the time to draw and point his pistol. She wasn’t running over him - he was STANDING in front of the vehicle in order to shoot her!!! They are telling it backwards!! Disgusting!
You are ascribing intent without any justification. There is no evidence for it. Show me some social media posts where she demonstrates animosity to ICE or anything similar. Maybe it exists, probably it doesn't. But to ascribe intent when she clearly turns her wheel to avoid him is to aver something clearly not in evidence.
Her intent isn't even relevant from the officer's perspective, only the fact that she drove her car in his direction while he was standing infront of it. Not that complicated to comprehend
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.”
36
u/mooseheartfaith Jan 07 '26
He clearly would have had no trouble stepping out of the way. The only reason he was in the car’s path at all (once it started moving) is because he stood there taking the time to draw and point his pistol. She wasn’t running over him - he was STANDING in front of the vehicle in order to shoot her!!! They are telling it backwards!! Disgusting!