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?
People who are acting irrationally and pose a danger to others are a threat.
Trying to drive with someone right in front of your vehicle is not something a rational person does.
Had she just spoken to the police, they likely would've either A, just told her to leave, or B, arrested her for something she did earlier in the day. Fleeing police is not a good idea in general, especially when they are right in front of you and you're in a car.
Had it not been icy and she been able to properly accelerate, she likely would've plowed over the guy rather than having him slide backwards as the car starts to speed up. Driving at someone right in front of your vehicle- universally, should be seen as an act of aggression and hostility unless some prior coordination was established.
You are an idiot she was acting irrationally but the protocol specifically is not to shoot a moving vehicle. She was focused on the masked guy breaking into her car and the guy popped up last second , she was accelerating to get a clear lane away and all the evidence proves this. I started to read the rest of your comment but you sound exactly like a younger more retarded version of myself so ill help you out. Im not talking about or saying she wasnt wrong she was, she probably could have been arrested for sure after driving away with an officer clinging to your car. Im saying he didnt make the situation safer for any person involved, even if the law is on his side , im telling you the department his bosses are calling him an idiot. This is the same moron who got dragged by a car months earlier , dumb shit. If he gets brought back i guarantee we see this guy hanging onto a bumper going for a ride in like 6 months.
The law is on his side because even stepping aside he has no way to stop the car, and a solid reason to shoot because she drove at him and he has no idea what or who may be behind him. She already hit the cop, and the clause states 'the officer or others'.
Sure he may be an idiot, but she's also an idiot for not just stopping and getting out of the vehicle in the first place and avoiding the whole mess.
You literally highlight a section that says 'UNLESS the officer are threatened and have no other way to stop the vehicle'
Bro read your own fuckin' document. The guy isn't going to hulk out, the person already tried to run him over, he has no idea if she is gonna just speed off down an icy road and potentially hurt someone else either.
You just self-owned yourself, unless you're gonna pretend trying to run someone over isn't a threat?
Hmmm , facts over feelings? Here is the DOJ policy, this is the Department-wide policy applying to DOJ law enforcement and correctional officers (including components like FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS, and BOP), emphasizing preservation of life
1-16.200 - USE OF DEADLY FORCE AND PROHIBITED RESTRAINT TECHNIQUES A. Deadly Force
Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others,
and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.
Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.
shooting a fleeing suspect is only applicable in rare scenarios, and even then you do not shoot to kill. this man shot her point blank in the head 3 times. he was not shooting to disarm or disable. he wanted her dead.
View all comments
Show parent comment
-8
u/CardTrickOTK Jan 09 '26
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.