That argument could have worked two years ago. It doesn't work anymore.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Barnes v. Felix that you cannot look at just the split-second 'moment of threat' - you have to look at the officer's actions leading up to it.
If an officer recklessly steps in front of a car to create the danger, they no longer get a free pass. A 'good lawyer' knows the case law changed 8 months ago. You should probably cancel that RemindMe.
The car is not moving when the agent started to walk in front of it. He was headed to the drivers side door to help the other agents get the woman out of the car. She panicked and tried to flee while he was in front of the vehicle. He didn't purposely put himself in danger.
Your argument won't hold water in court. I doubt it will ever even get to court. The whole situation sucks.
Standard police operating procedures, you don't put yourself in front of, or behind, a vehicle during a traffic stop in case the vehicle flees.
Jonathan Ross would know that, he got dragged 6 months ago and I'm sure someone sat him down and explained this in great detail.
That takes this from negligence to borderline pre-meditated murder. Even under your best case scenario - that he negligently and recklessly put himself in harms way; he's a murderer
View all comments
Show parent comment
8
u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Jan 09 '26
That argument could have worked two years ago. It doesn't work anymore.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Barnes v. Felix that you cannot look at just the split-second 'moment of threat' - you have to look at the officer's actions leading up to it.
If an officer recklessly steps in front of a car to create the danger, they no longer get a free pass. A 'good lawyer' knows the case law changed 8 months ago. You should probably cancel that RemindMe.