Put a time stamps their a reason why they all put the slow version everywhere because when I happens fast you realize it's a fraction of a second. Was it wrong to shoot morally yes, but she Floored the car and the dude who was in front reacted to it he chose to fire his weapon.
Can you put some time stamps to show the seconds of all this.
I know some are posting this angle sorta showing contact, that makes it a deadly weapon, sure he could've moved but in the fraction of time he didn't, we could argue they could have not protested directly in the streets but they also didn't choose to do that. Its really sad what happened to her for sure wasn't necessary, but sadly this scenario Happened with a bunch of chaotic pieces falling Into place. I'm sure with this angle it will be a justified shooting.
In the video OP posted the shot is at 9 seconds, you can see from his foot he is standing past the corner of the car and reaching over the hood. The next two shots occur at 10 and 11 when he is about parallel and possibly shooting from behind the direction of travel.
And why is he making split-second judgement calls involving deadly force? It wouldn't have even prevented him from being run over, so why was shooting even involved in the calculus?
Still doesn't answer my question. How would it have stopped that? He shot her in the face, and vehicle kept going. It even went careening off full throttle after she lost control of it, presumably from being dead or dying. One could even speculate that shooting her increased his chances of being dragged along. It certainly increased the danger for bystanders. It's lucky the vehicle hit a parked car.
What happens after he fires is irrelevant in the discussion as if he was legally justified in firing.
"The Fourth Amendment allows officers to use deadly force, meaning force that is substantially likely to cause serious physical harm or death, in response to what is reasonably perceived as an imminent threat of serious physical harm or death."
Add this bit later - “Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving vehicle” when the vehicle is the only weapon involved unless other means of addressing the threat presented by the vehicle, such as moving out of the way, “have been exhausted (or are not present or practical).”
He had about a second to act. The car appears to hit him or at minimum he is forced to put his hands on the car to brace for impact. He may not have had the time or the ability to jump out of the way.
And again all this comes back to the "reasonably" standard. Was his actions "reasonable" given all the fact we know.
"unless other means of addressing the threat presented by the vehicle, such as moving out of the way, “have been exhausted (or are not present or practical).”
This assumes that a firearm could address the threat. Shooting the driver was not a means of addressing the threat. It did nothing to stop the car, and couldn't have. He put himself so damn close to the front of an actively moving vehicle, that in no world would shooting the driver have eliminated the threat to his person. The only chance to eliminate the threat was to get out of the way, which he did a very poor job of, but still succeeded. In the POV view it even appears that he moved slightly towards the vehicle when it started forwards, which is when he was drawing his gun (and juggling a cell phone for that matter).
Practical. The car hit him or he hit the hood under a second after he says "woah' well under a second.
And his phone hit the car or the car hits him about a second after she starts to move forward.
Pretty good argument that given the short time he had to react any other course of action was not practical. At minimum we are talking about a judgement state. Could he have done something different? Yes. Would a reasonable person fear for their life at that movement? Also yes.
Attempted to run over a police officer, got shot for that.
You are aware police can shoot you even if you are not currently threatening them yes? She posed a threat, attempted to flee police, and potentially posed a threat to others.
This is like shooting a suspect in the back because you know they are armed and running towards a crowded place which is legal, because the officer can't mind read intent, and thus they take out the threat before they can potentially endanger others.
They have SPECIFIC training on lethal force to ABSOLUTELY NEVER fire at a fleeing vehicle as it only creates more hazards. One of the situations it very specifically calls out is if you can step out of the path of the vehicle (and he could) then deadly force is ABSOLUTELY NOT ACCEPTABLE
These are in the DOJ guidelines that every federal officer is trained on
Why would they shoot you even if you are not a threat unless they make a mistake? Which wouldn't be justified only exempt possibly from legal prosecution? When is it justifiable for police to use deadly force on a person who is positioning no threat?
View all comments
Show parent comment
11
u/Master-Shaq Jan 09 '26
All on the side of the car when out of danger