The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Zoupa]

Look at that slogan. If you know your Spanish Civil War, you'll recognize "Uno de los nuestros vale por todos los vuestros" made famous by the falangists.

They're not even hiding it anymore.

[bogh]

I find the discussion on whether she was complying, whether she was a protestor, what went before etc to be fairly pointless.

None of that should carry the penalty of point blank execution. Whether it's legal or not, it's clearly disproportionate, amoral, incompetent and so very unnecessary. Nothing necessitates this, nothing is achieved by it, except human tragedy.

[grumbler]

Look at that slogan. If you know your Spanish Civil War, you'll recognize "Uno de los nuestros vale por todos los vuestros" made famous by the falangists.

They're not even hiding it anymore.

That is so outrageous that I had to double check to ensure that it wasn't photoshopped.  It wasn't.

[grumbler]

The location of the bullet hole in the windshield, from the first shot fired, indicates pretty clearly that the shot was not fired from in front of the vehicle.

The videos also show that the ICE agent started drawing his gun before the vehicle had even started moving.  If the agent had time to draw his gun, he had time to move away from the front of the vehicle (where no professional law enforcement officer would ever place himself.

[Tamas]

I find the discussion on whether she was complying, whether she was a protestor, what went before etc to be fairly pointless.

None of that should carry the penalty of point blank execution. Whether it's legal or not, it's clearly disproportionate, amoral, incompetent and so very unnecessary. Nothing necessitates this, nothing is achieved by it, except human tragedy.

Indeed. There is no scenario discussed where the correct, or, I hope, even legal, answer is to shoot her in the head several times at point blank range.

[Admiral Yi]

I find the discussion on whether she was complying, whether she was a protestor, what went before etc to be fairly pointless.

None of that should carry the penalty of point blank execution. Whether it's legal or not, it's clearly disproportionate, amoral, incompetent and so very unnecessary. Nothing necessitates this, nothing is achieved by it, except human tragedy.

I agree.  The only thing that matters in terms of the shooting is whether the movement of the car constituted an immediate threat.

[Zoupa]

Not really. The killer stood in front of the car, disregarding their own guidelines.

[grumbler]

The killer did not shoot until the car was past him (and there is video showing that it did, indeed, brush him in passing, though not, at Trump claims, running him over and leaving in the hospital fighting for life).

In particular, the two shot fired into her head through the open driver's-side window cannot possibly be excused as anything but an attempt to kill her long after any danger existed.

The shooter screaming "fucking bitch" after killing her is a tell, I think, as to his motives. This was hot-blooded murder.

[DGuller]

I find the discussion on whether she was complying, whether she was a protestor, what went before etc to be fairly pointless.

None of that should carry the penalty of point blank execution. Whether it's legal or not, it's clearly disproportionate, amoral, incompetent and so very unnecessary. Nothing necessitates this, nothing is achieved by it, except human tragedy.

I agree.  The only thing that matters in terms of the shooting is whether the movement of the car constituted an immediate threat.

I don't think that's the right question to ask.  I think the right question is whether shooting was going to stop the threat.  Cops aren't supposed to shoot to retaliate for being threatened, they shoot to stop the threat, and when that's the only thing that can stop the threat.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think that's the right question to ask.  I think the right question is whether shooting was going to stop the threat.  Cops aren't supposed to shoot to retaliate for being threatened, they shoot to stop the threat, and when that's the only thing that can stop the threat.

So your point is whether the  driver constituted a threat at the moment she hit the gas, she clearly did not constitute   a threat at the instant the shots are fired? That's a reasonable POV.

[DGuller]

I don't think that's the right question to ask.  I think the right question is whether shooting was going to stop the threat.  Cops aren't supposed to shoot to retaliate for being threatened, they shoot to stop the threat, and when that's the only thing that can stop the threat.

So your point is whether the  driver constituted a threat at the moment she hit the gas, she clearly did not constitute   a threat at the instant the shots are fired? That's a reasonable POV.

It's even more general than that.  Clearly if the threat has passed, you shouldn't be shooting anymore.  However, even if the threat hasn't passed, if shooting is not going to stop the threat, then you can't shoot either.  Shooting is not a punishment for creating a threat, past or present, it's a tool to stop it.

[Admiral Yi]

It's even more general than that.  Clearly if the threat has passed, you shouldn't be shooting anymore.  However, even if the threat hasn't passed, if shooting is not going to stop the threat, then you can't shoot either.  Shooting is not a punishment for creating a threat, past or present, it's a tool to stop it.

Let's see  if I  have this right. A car is barreling towards me, it gets to 10 feet, I can't shoot because even if I  kill the driver I  won't stop the threat due to inertia?

[DGuller]

It's even more general than that.  Clearly if the threat has passed, you shouldn't be shooting anymore.  However, even if the threat hasn't passed, if shooting is not going to stop the threat, then you can't shoot either.  Shooting is not a punishment for creating a threat, past or present, it's a tool to stop it.

Let's see  if I  have this right. A car is barreling towards me, it gets to 10 feet, I can't shoot because even if I  kill the driver I  won't stop the threat due to inertia?

As a general principle, yes.  If shooting can't reasonably be expected to stop any harm, then you shouldn't be shooting.

[Admiral Yi]

As a general principle, yes.  If shooting can't reasonably be expected to stop any harm, then you shouldn't be shooting.

Well, I don't think that's how the statute is written or generally interpreted and I would shoot.

[Zoupa]

Your example doesn't work for this situation, as the killer placed himself in a threatening space by choosing to stand in front of the car.

And I'm being generous with threatening space, as the suburban mom was doing a 3-point turn in her minivan going 3 mph.