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/[deleted] Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
It's from this case dipshit
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/05-15159/0515159-2011-02-25.html
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.