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?
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.
"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.
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."
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Oh I like you.
I believe him, but occasionally putting your life on the line is part of his job and we are to hold him to a higher standard than a normal citizen.
Every person on the face of the planet was given the right to defend their own life by God. You can take that up with Him.
Yes.
You don't have to exercise it in all circumstances. Just saying.
How and when you do that matters. This is not clear cut, which is why we have been discussing and arguing about this for hours. From my view, there was malice evident in his actions. Less so in hers. He also placed himself poorly, showing bad judgement. He drew his weapon when he could have sidestepped the car just as easily (even while drawing "just in case"). All of this is woulda-coulda-shoulda, though. What happened happened, and we are all going to have to deal with the consequences of it. None of it will be good.
If you're jay walking and someone almost hits you with you're car, you aren't justified in shooting them. Get the fuck out of the street if you don't want to get hit by a car.
False equivalency.
Just saying that doesn't make it true. Demonstrate how they are different. He was in the road where cars drive and their goal was to get her to move the car so they could pass.
Their goal was to remove her from the vehicle for committing the crime of obstructing and impeding.
She was attempting to flee the scene of a crime.
Here's something idk why no one has brought up. The man is standing in the middle of the street while he and his partners attempt to enforce laws that are not under their jurisdiction (state traffic laws). They were in the wrong as soon as they walked up to the car so anything after that point, they are operating outside of their duties and should have called the local cops.
She was obstructing and impeding. This wasn't enforcement of traffic laws this was her being told to get out of the car for obstructing.
You're finding a clever way to argue your point but it's still wrong.
Can you cite the federal statute then that covers impeding and obstructing bc the language matters.
• 18 U.S.C. § 111 – Assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer
• 18 U.S.C. § 1501 – Obstruction of a federal officer
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to obstruct (in some contexts)
Yeah I can use ChatGPT as well as the next guy.
From the video I've seen, the road is open, is there other video where it's not?
Weren't you just talking about how it wasn't their job to enforce traffic violations? And now you're saying the road was clear? I'm having trouble following now.
Either way. Here's a video where she's parked perpendicular across the road laying on her horn.
https://video.nostr.build/2dc9d3a927266556bda4740be0a5347bc3bb65f4236e474b7ed99a5c136bd1be.mp4
If the road is clear, she's not obstructing. Your video shows multiple cars passing by her, which to me means she's not obstructing, so her being parked in the middle of the road is a traffic violation and outside of their jurisdiction.
If the car:
• Blocks their vehicle
• Prevents execution of a warrant
• Impedes surveillance or pursuit
• Creates a safety hazard during an operation
Then the legal characterization changes.
At that point, federal agents do have authority to act, because they are no longer addressing “parking” — they are addressing interference.
Possible lawful actions:
• Ordering the driver to move the vehicle
• Temporarily detaining the driver
• Physically moving the vehicle if necessary
• Using force proportional to the need to clear the obstruction
The authority comes from:
• Federal obstruction statutes
• Implied authority to carry out lawful duties
• Officer safety doctrines
They still would not issue a parking citation, but they can neutralize the obstruction.
Doesn't look to me like she is blocking traffic. Look at the moment the truck pulls up to her, there is a whole other lane. Also, right before that truck pulls up, another car goes by. It also looks like she even waves them on.
I think this and why the fuck would you stand in front of a car are what the entirety of the argument lie upon.
I wasn't there. Were you? All we are going off of are videos that are all from undesirable angles.
Also everything you're saying essentially comes down to officer discretion.
Is this woman not responsible for her own actions? Or does she get a pass for some reason? She was ordered to get out of the vehicle. She didn't comply. She attempted to flee and or strike the agent with her vehicle.
"Why the fuck would you stand in front of a car"
Why wouldn't she just get out of the car when ordered?
Think she would still be alive if she just complied? Why do you believe she doesn't have to comply with orders given by a federal agent?
Definitely would agree on complying leads to her being alive, doesn't make shooting her the right move. Could have just got her plate and issued a warrant. But you can't answer my question with a question. Highway patrol doesn't start in the middle of the street while writing tickets. Why? Because that is retarded. Just because you're a federal agent doesn't mean you get to act retarded and are exempt from the consequences of your actions.
Your Officer Discrection point is valid until he uses unnecessary deadly force. Even the laws you cited say using proportional force, it's very obvious that he is escalating, not using proportional force OR he is intentionally using his body as a barrier of which the possible consequence is getting hit.
The woman was ordered to get out of the vehicle. She didn't comply. She attempted to flee and potentially attempted to strike the officer with her vehicle. It is up to the discretion of the officer how they choose to handle that.
"Unnecessary force" is not an objective statement. Again this is decided by the officer.
Your argument is that the woman should've just been allowed to flee a crime by federal agents. Pretty certain that's not what the title of Law Enforcement is generally paid to do on a conceptual level.
It really doesn't matter IF you agree with it.
What crime did she commit? If you're gunna say obstruction, watch the video, there are dozens of cars passing her.
Do you honestly believe when I'm saying "obstruction" I mean that she's obstructing traffic? Is that a serious take?
I already posted this once I guess you didn't read it the first time so maybe you should take the time to read it aloud to yourself so you can grasp the content better.
If the car:
• Blocks their vehicle
• Prevents execution of a warrant
• Impedes surveillance or pursuit
• Creates a safety hazard during an operation
Then the legal characterization changes.
At that point, federal agents do have authority to act, because they are no longer addressing “parking” — they are addressing interference.
Possible lawful actions:
• Ordering the driver to move the vehicle
• Temporarily detaining the driver
• Physically moving the vehicle if necessary
• Using force proportional to the need to clear the obstruction
The authority comes from:
• Federal obstruction statutes
• Implied authority to carry out lawful duties
• Officer safety doctrines
They still would not issue a parking citation, but they can neutralize the obstruction.
Here's more information that you could be looking up all on your own but I guess you need your hand held.
Criminal obstruction:
Intentional or knowing conduct that materially interferes with a law enforcement officer’s lawful duties, beyond mere speech or presence.
Impeding surveillance:
Purposeful acts that materially disrupt or expose lawful law enforcement monitoring activities.
Impeding pursuit:
Conduct that physically or practically prevents officers from lawfully chasing or apprehending a suspect.
This is all just out there and you can read I think so? I guess you should be taking the time to do that instead of throwing a hissy fit cause you don't like that some dumb lady got killed? I don't know? Maybe you just really like immigrants or something?
Do you honestly believe when I'm saying "obstruction" I mean that she's obstructing traffic? Is that a serious take? (No)
If the car:
• Blocks their vehicle (see video, does not apply)
• Prevents execution of a warrant (not applicable)
• Impedes surveillance or pursuit (not applicable)
• Creates a safety hazard during an operation (not applicable)
Possible lawful actions:
...
• Using force proportional to the need to clear the obstruction (shooting the driver is not proportional)
Criminal obstruction:
Intentional or knowing conduct that materially interferes with a law enforcement officer’s lawful duties, beyond mere speech or presence.
^^^
This point right here disproves your whole argument even-if she was blocking the road.
In your opinion.
Your opinion doesn't matter. You know the only person whose opinion really matters in this case?
The agents that were there.
Wanna know why?
It's up to their discretion.
You just don't like that. And that's fine. But it doesn't change anything.
Also I really like the cherry picking you did to make your point as if your entire argument wasn't also made moot by this-
"Impeding surveillance:
Purposeful acts that materially disrupt or expose lawful law enforcement monitoring activities.
Impeding pursuit:
Conduct that physically or practically prevents officers from lawfully chasing or apprehending a suspect."
This combined with officer discretion pretty much just ends this entire debate.
Those agents clearly believed that she and her wife were preventing one or both of those things and they needed to be removed from the equation. They were told to exit the vehicle. They didn't. At which point they attempted to flee after committing what was then criminal impeding/obstruction.
It's just completely pointless to talk about any of this because you're going to see what you want to.
Very good point
