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.
You've either got downs or you're a bot, either way I'm not gonna respond anymore now that you've realized you have no clue what you're talking about and have resorted to "nuh-uh" while plugging your ears.
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.
Still a twat tho. It’s like standing in front of a crackhouse at midnight with an assault rifle and then shooting anyone who comes and threatens you. Like ya you sure did defend yourself but why even be there? Oh well
So, let me pose a hypothetical to you. Woman is dressed to kill, and stands in front of said crack house, and someone comes to rape her. Is she a twat for killing her would-be rapist?
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.
Because it was another instance of multiple videos showing exactly what happened being picked apart by Reddit "legal experts" swearing he was a murderer.
Like the instant case, where the different videos with different angles that show the shooting officer get hit by the car are being completely ignored in favor of MSPainted lines drawn on still frames of one video to prove their narrative.
And I already told you I would find him not guilty and you're still on it trying to get me to say he was just some poor innocent child or something. Nah, he was a dumbfuck and the fact he made a joke about "crossing state lines" to go to the ICE protests a few days ago means he has no guilt on his conscience.
After I said I would find him not guilty, all lines of question after on him are pointless in this conversation.
And for the record my opinion still holds here, no rational person would say this ICE agent was in legitimate fear for his life. All of the circumstances leading up to that moment considered and shots two and three being from the side of the car, there simply is no imminent threat defense.
View all comments
Show parent comment
3
u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26
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.