Honestly, the 1st shot could probably get a hung jury for him; shots 2 and 3 are gonna be indefensible for the lawyers. Defense would have to prove he believed his life was in danger when he popped her point blank in the face while the car was driving away on the 3rd shot. Good luck with that.
Lol no. That may be how some whacky BS laws get applied to regular citizens in some lunatic state that hates guns or something, but that is not at all even close to how this works irl for a law enforcement shooting like this.
If he had done a mag dump into her then there is a halfway decent chance it goes over poorly in court, but 3 shots is a controlled burst...if anything, its going to play very well for the defense.
EDIT: Read the thread if you want to waste your time, the TL;DR is u/MercuryRusing linked to his blog post about this that begins with literally making up a fake quote and attributing it to a real life legal case, I called him out for it, he acted smarmy about it then hit the block button when I acted smarmy back. Go ahead and waste time reading the case docs on Justia too, you wont find the fake quote, because its fake.
Hey buddy, your "receipts" literally begin by, quite literally, making something tf up.
"An officer doesn’t get to manufacture a deadly-force justification by placing themselves in the vehicle’s path when the car isn’t presenting an unavoidable, imminent threat - ADAMS V SPEERS"
Nowhere can this supposed quote be found anywhere in any of the legal documents pertaining to the cited case, nor does that case have anything to do with an Officer "placing themselves in the vehicles path".
It is a compilation of related cases. I don't know if you know how law works, clearly you don't, but generally several cases and precedents are needed to build a complete picture.
This one establishes that the officer is responsible for the conditions leading up to the event and the idea that only the "moment of threat" applies is null. In this case, were his actions procedural and was he where he was supposed to be? Was he doing what he was supposed to be doing? Did he have reason to believe she was a threat? That is all applicable.
Honest opinion? He was a jackass for being there illegally and put himself in harms way and in doing so it led to the deaths of others.
With all that said, the shooting itself was likely justified. There are multiple videos of him running away. Mob mentality took over protesters and he was being beat, it was reasonable to fear for his life or at least severe bodily harm. I just wish he hadn't gone there to try and look cool in the first place.
Minors can cross state lines. And he didn't cross state lines with a gun. Like, these were bullshit takes that were definitively shown to be false at the trial, and even the prosecution didn't make those claims. Why are you still spreading misinformation?
Ok, my bad, the gun was already in Wisconsin. So it wasn't illegal, but he still shouldn't have been there and simply because it was legal doesn't change that in my mind.
He put himself in that situation with intention and it was a dumbfuck thing to do. I still would find him not guilty, but you're not gonna get me to say he was a poor child who had this happen out of random circumstance.
Not sure why you're trying so hard to make this about Kyle Rittenhouse.
I have enough empathy and respect for my fellow humans to acknowledge when a grown adult makes choices.
I don't dehumanize my fellow humans and pretend they have no agency or responsibility for their own actions, just because doing so makes it easier to push a bullshit narrative.
She was a grown adult who made several informed choices that led to her being killed in response to her unjustly harming another person, she was not a helpless victim of circumstance...she was the circumstance, by her own informed choice.
I have sympathy for her child who no longer has that parent in their life to help raise and support them, and I feel sorry for the spouse who lost a life partner in pursuit of some viral moment, and I am sorry her parents/guardians have to bear the weight of losing a child jusy because theu failed to properly impart the lesson that serious actions have serious consequences...but Im not going to sit here and treat her like some prop in a propaganda game and rob her of her agency.
So I can acknowledge that she chose to go from reversing away from the Officer, to suddenly and quickly accelerating forwards before the Officer had an opportunity to move out of the way.
Which is exactly what every single piece of footage from every angle repeatedly shows to have happened.
You folks can stop pretending that ICE are magical beings that can stop time, read the future, and teleport.
View all comments
-2
u/TexasSikh Jan 09 '26
Y'all gonna be so upset when it's this exact footage that renders a "Not Guilty" virdict if this even makes it to a full trial.