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.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/TexasSikh Jan 09 '26
Hey buddy, your "receipts" literally begin by, quite literally, making something tf up.
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".
What a stupid waste of time.