The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Admiral Yi]

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.

No one said it did.

[grumbler]

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.

The statute is written and interpreted as the use of deadly force is allowed if it is to prevent harm to the shooter or others. If the deadly force will not prevent the harm, it is banned.

Granted, the cop cannot always accurately gauge, in the heat of the moment, whether the use of force is going to achieve the desired results, but in this case the danger had passed before the ICE agent opened fire.  He shot as she passed by because he was pissed that she brushed him with the bumper of her car.

[The Minsky Moment]

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

That is not the only thing that matters.

I do think we need to distinguish between two different concepts: (1) whether a use of force by a law enforcement officer was justified in the sense that it was a necessary response and application of reasonable and proper law enforcement methods in context, and (2) whether it is justified in the legal sense of providing a valid legal defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.

Many considerations are relevant to both: in both situations, the totality of the circumstances are relevant, including the events leading up to the event and even events afterward to the extent it reflects on motive.  However, the standards for (2) are somewhat more forgiving and subjective than for (1).  You can be acquitted of murder but that doesn't mean you weren't an unprofessional goon that has no business carrying weaponry and a badge in public.

Whether the car posed "an immediate threat" is relevant, but certainly not determinative. Did the officers do things to escalate or make that situation more likely to occur?  Could the threat be avoided by using means other than using lethal force?  How serious was the threat?  Did using lethal force meaningfully reduce the risk posed by the threat?

Many of those questions could be answered if a normal investigation were conducted, or a proper litigation, in which experts would analyze the car's movement and velocity in detail, as well as the officer's precise position and the timing and direction of the shots.  Alas, it seems we can't rely on the FBI to do that job objectively.  Perhaps the plaintiff's lawyers will unearth the truth assuming the feds don't despoil the evidence.

From my own unaided eye's view, it looks really bad. The officers appear to escalate the situation and act in a threatening manner. It looks like she is trying to escape, not harm. With the officer in front well to the left, she is turning her wheels sharply right - apparently perpendicular to his position. The car is moving from a dead stop and thus seems unlikely to be moving at a velocity to pose serious harm.  And indeed, the officer appear to be struck and suffer no visible harm.  But that's how it looks unaided.  A proper expert analysis if fairly conducted could answer these questions. 

[bogh]

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

You'd shoot her in the head at point blank through the side window as the car was passing you after it grazed you? Why?

[Admiral Yi]

You'd shoot her in the head at point blank through the side window as the car was passing you after it grazed you? Why?

No.  I would shoot the hypothetical driver at 10 feet driving towards me.

[Tamas]

You'd shoot her in the head at point blank through the side window as the car was passing you after it grazed you? Why?

No.  I would shoot the hypothetical driver at 10 feet driving towards me.

Well, if it's a mass terrorist event that might make sense.

But I am puzzled why you guys are so invested in this theoretisation when you have access to video and audio footage of the incident from multiple camera angles.

The ICE guy may had been at risk of being hit, but it is blindingly obvious the woman's intent was not to harm him. She was trying to avoid being forcefully dragged out of her own car by a masked assailant claiming to be police. If the masked ICE agent had legal justification to forcefully remove her from the car, then you can tell she was resisting arrest, I guess; although I don't think "get out of the car" is official speak for "you are under arrest" so how was she going to know?

If the ICE agent had no legal right to get her out of the car then I guess the worst she can be accused with is reckless driving while fleeing in self defense.

Now, does any one of you think that either reckless driving (by scraping a pedestrian as you 3-way turn) or resisting arrest for the crime of semi-blocking the road, is a valid reason for summary execution by headshot through your car's side window? If not there's nothing further to discuss. If you think under some circumstance either of these might be a valid reason, then the problem is with you, and again, no further discussion is necessary.

[bogh]

Hehe

No.  I would shoot the hypothetical driver at 10 feet driving towards me.

When all you have is a gun, everything starts to look like a target.

I'd probably try and get out of the way to be honest, not try to unload on the car in question. Cultural differences I guess.

Anyway - that's all hypothetical and has very little bearing on the actual situation as it unfolded.

[DGuller]

Hehe

No.  I would shoot the hypothetical driver at 10 feet driving towards me.

When all you have is a gun, everything starts to look like a target.

I'd probably try and get out of the way to be honest, not try to unload on the car in question. Cultural differences I guess.

Anyway - that's all hypothetical and has very little bearing on the actual situation as it unfolded.

I think it has bearing because it establishes how far away the actual situation is from the one where shooting is legitimate.  It's the difference between one element being missing and multiple elements being missing.  The fact that the shooting wouldn't be justified even if the woman was heading straight for the officer highlights how much less justified the shooting was in the actual event.

One element being missing can be chalked up to the pressure of being in the situation, multiple elements being missing indicates reckless disregard or feeling of impunity.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Nothing wrong with summary execution by masked government agents, it is the American way  and strongly linked to the precious freedoms they enjoy over there.

[Oexmelin]

Indeed. Some of the people kidnapped by masked agents of a presidential para military group may even have committed bad things.

[grumbler]

Indeed. Some of the people kidnapped by masked agents of a presidential para military group may even have committed bad things.

Yeah, it raises the question of how the Obama administration deported undocumented aliens at twice the rate of the Trump administration without even having a gestapo of armed masked thugs dressed all in black.

Though the ICE thugs look more like ISIS fighters than Gestapo.

[bogh]

.

Though the ICE thugs look more like ISIS fighters than Gestapo.

I feel like they're cosplaying the SA, not the SS.

[Valmy]

Quick flashback to 5 years ago when the anti-vaxx MAGA crowd were worried about nazi methods in America.

Yeah and who was President in 2020 MAGA?

It was, indeed, only the beginning.

[Valmy]

Yeah, it raises the question of how the Obama administration deported undocumented aliens at twice the rate of the Trump administration without even having a gestapo of armed masked thugs dressed all in black.

Probably by not concentrating his efforts in Minneapolis.

[Syt]

FWIW, Legal Eagle's video about the shooting: