Nostr Web Client

I think the idea that he wasn't in danger is the main idea that I disagree with. How would one objectively be able to determine that?

I don't think this is "standard" so I think the notion of it falling under "standard operating procedure" is a bit of a stretch.

Why should we believe heavily left leaning assessment of the situation from redditors but not believe when the officer says himself that he feared for his life?

The Beave 4d ago

Sure. The standard is "in fear of grievous bodily harm."

The issue I have with that is that AS a public agent and AS someone presumably trained in the case law regarding situations like this, the agent/officer/JotP is (and should be) held to a higher standard since they are trained and supposedly know what the standards are.

Also, that defence has been used to dismiss some utterly disgusting cases of otherwise obvious incorrect and culpable behavior from police in general.

And no, this is a fairly ubiquitous standard across most LEO/Agent training I'm aware of. Could I be wrong? Yes. I don't think I am on this point.

I'm neither left or right. The video on reddit seems to be a correctly implemented and highlighted compilation of the events that took place. So why should I not accept it as correct? The videos used in it are readily verifiable, unlike the other I have seen.

If that turns out to be legit, I will, again, change my opinion based on facts.

This situation would be simpler if officers were not covered by *qualified immunity* (a legal precedent repugnant to good law, IMO) and a grand jury or even insurance investigation (to revoke or not cover the officer's conduct under insurance contracts) swiftly conducted to asses as many of the facts as possible after a proper thorough investigation as possible. But that's all idealism and not what we are dealing with.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

makeheroism 4d ago

"The issue I have with that is that AS a public agent and AS someone presumably trained in the case law regarding situations like this, the agent/officer/JotP is (and should be) held to a higher standard since they are trained and supposedly know what the standards are. "

Ok? What does an objective "higher standard" constitute? How can you say? You're trying to make momentary judgement a binary or at very least some calculable thing you can plug into an excel spreadsheet to HR or even convict a person that for all intents and purposes believed in that moment that they were defending themselves from a lethal threat.

"Also, that defence has been used to dismiss some utterly disgusting cases of otherwise obvious incorrect and culpable behavior from police in general. "

Ok how is that relevant? Or is it just used to demonize the defense? "All cookies are bad all the time cause they made my cousin fat!"

"And no, this is a fairly ubiquitous standard across most LEO/Agent training I'm aware of. Could I be wrong? Yes. I don't think I am on this point.

Do you believe in personal accountability? Please explain to me why or why you don't believe that this woman is or isn't responsible for her actions that got her shot? If she is- then these are just the consequences of her actions right? Like it's not great. It's not the desired outcome for someone. But it is what it is. If she's not then what? We call this a murder and what? Leave all the illegals here and end ICE and allow anyone from anywhere into our country because borders are oppressive cause one lady got shot for doing something stupid? I don't see the argument.

"If that turns out to be legit, I will, again, change my opinion based on facts."

Fair

"This situation would be simpler if officers were not covered by *qualified immunity* (a legal precedent repugnant to good law, IMO) and a grand jury or even insurance investigation (to revoke or not cover the officer's conduct under insurance contracts) swiftly conducted to asses as many of the facts as possible after a proper thorough investigation as possible. But that's all idealism and not what we are dealing with."

And we never will be. In any society. Even without qualified immunity. I don't agree with qualified immunity. And I don't like the blue code shit where cops basically won't narc on one another. BUT. That doesn't stop me from understanding where these things stem from.

I get that there are definite issues with policing. I'm not defending the idea of policing or law enforcement at all.

My issue comes in where we have to remove the choices of this woman and then because this guy is wearing a uniform and doing a job we have to say to ourselves "I have no idea how he could do that" while if we were put in a scenario we believed contemporaneously was life or death we would act in a way that we believed was going to keep us alive.

The Beave 4d ago

That's a fair rebuttal of some points. Thank you.

Whereas a citizen involved in a questionable shooting should be given a very generous interpretation of the "I was in fear of my life" defense, an agent of the state should be able to justify their actions by a reading of that precedent that requires a higher burden of proof.

I agree that moving car can constitute deadly force. However this also does not jive with "minimal necessary force." Also, a reasonable person, IMO, would have placed himself in a tactically untenable position in front of a vehicle that is moving. He could have sidestepped it (and, from what I've seen and others have pointed out, did), which goes against the defense of "I was in fear of my life."

For these reasons, I will start to assume malice or incompetence. Either of which makes him culpable for charges of murder or manslaughter.

I do believe in personal accountability. Which is why I rant about qualified immunity needing to be completely rescinded across all levels of "law enforcement."

As far as the woman goes, she made a string ofbad choices. Doesn't mean she deserved to be shot. (Again, based on what I've seen so far. I'm very open to new evidence.)

The result is that that agent is charged and tried and the rest of life goes on. I've been actively defending the precept that "if we still have national boarders, then ICE has a job to do." I'm also still not a fan of government thugs being given free reign. Both of those things are not incongruent.

I do think that every criminal of foreign origin should be returned to sender, by force, and in some cases sans parachute. But again, the easiest way to deal with this is to end all welfare programs at all levels immediately. Once the free money spigot is turned off, then people will either leave on their own, find jobs, or show how awful they might truly be. At which time, they should be booted or shot. (Not necessarily by gubment thugs.)

Lucas M 4d ago

Exactly. This officer clearly did not abide by acceptable security measures. Shoving your sidearm through someone's window is an action that lacks any sense, at all. In his situation, it should've been common sense to step further away and do your best to catch the license plate.

makeheroism 4d ago

At a certain point I just can't care. There are probably around a hundred million people in my country that shouldn't be here. I want them out. I either want them out of my country or out of this plane of existence. I don't care how that sounds. I don't care about coming off like a monster or insensitive. My country and culture has a right and many reasons to be preserved. If we continue to walk that idea back every time something makes us feel a little queasy then you may as well be signing a death warrant on our way of life.

If you have children or grandchildren you should be prepared to be apologizing for giving their country away while you're laying on your deathbed.

The boomers are currently in this position. GenX is on the same trajectory.

I'm sick of the compassion for people who are actively trying to destroy the country. This woman would've likely pissed on your grave if it would've been you dying at the hands of your enemies.

This woman was actively involved in replacing people like you in your country. I have no sympathy for her.

Neal 4d ago

When the people in the peanut gallery get to insert their arbitrary standards and definitions into the arena, that’s bad for all people.

Rules have to be written for the man in the arena, or else men just abandon the society all together and we go back to the law of the jungle.

Just because one says their arbitrary standard is “common sense” doesn’t make it so.

Logic is hard, and rigorous consistency is even harder, but that’s what it takes to have a society, and exactly why we are fragmenting.

I say this with love and respect because i owe u the truth.

the principles you are espousing in this thread are arbitrary.

makeheroism 4d ago

Oh I like you.

captjack 🏴‍☠️✨💜 4d ago

thugs cover their faces - u r thug supporter

The Beave 3d ago

In that rather simplistic and idiotic logic, yes.