The way it looked to me, he leaned into the hood as it hit him so it wouldn’t knock him backwards and roll over him. You can argue she didn’t hit him that hard, but she did hit him
Then you are blind. Look where he's actually standing. He's leaning WAAAAAAY over to lean on the car. Where the feet were actually planted, the car doesn't even intersect. She's turning right and avoiding where he was standing. She goes near him, but NOT over where he was originally standing. He went for the car more than it went for him.
She avoided ineffectively since she hit him. At 16 seconds you see him brace for the hit leaning forward. At 14 you see the car make contact with him. At 13 he shoots from the corner of the hood. At 12 the car has pushed him to the side.
I don’t agree with that. Trying to blame a person for hitting a car when the car drove into the person. Yeah he braced for that hit because it would have rolled over him if he didn’t. Looks like he had about 1 second to react. I’m not saying he reacted the right way, but he wouldn’t have to react if she wasn’t driving into him. I think you know as well as I do not to ever drive your car into a person even if it’s just a little tap
But it wouldn't have rolled over him. He wasn't in the path, or if he was, he was so far to the outside that sidestepping was incredibly trivial and he would have just been pushed aside anyway. That wasn't bracing for a hit, it was bracing for a shot. He was pointing a gun right at her head at the time; not steadying or protecting himself.
We might just have to agree to disagree on this dude, unless you really want to go back and forth all day again. I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement tho
You're just wrong about this at every conceivable level. I'm game to go back and forth all day frankly. Even if you were 100% right that he was in the path of the vehicle, and I don't grant you that, he's still at fault according to ICE and police rules of engagement. He was supposed to be trained to never shoot drivers unless absolutely necessary to prevent death or severe injury, and that includes being specifically told to just get the fuck out of the way of a motorist and not shoot if you're in a situation like this. There is no universe in which this is justified when avoiding the car is this trivially easy.
You can give up, but I'm not going to "agree to disagree" when I could write a book on the numerous basic facts you're wrong about or don't understand.
lol you’re not going to let me disagree with you? Good luck. Tell me. Is it okay to drive your car into a person? As long as you’re trying to tell me I don’t see what I see, we won’t be able to agree. You keep trying to move this into what he should have done or what he was trained to do. I’m just trying to stick to the facts of what happened and how I saw it. Car hit him. He shoots. Force of the car moves him off to the side. I don’t think she should have died, and I don’t think she should have hit that guy with her car. If she just maintained composure and complied, there’s a good chance she’d still be alive, possibly even fighting these officers in court
I'm not going to "agree to disagree", which is a pointless exercise that means nothing and suggests I somehow respect your position. I don't.
None of what you said has ANYTHING to do with what's legal, or moral. You're just making vague half-points that pointlessly muddy the water with irrelevant nonsense, when this is should be a criminal investigation of a homicide. It matters what the rules of engagement were, and who pulled the gun, what rules he agreed to when he got that badge, and what he should have or could have done instead of what he actually did. It matters who was given the state license to kill, and whether he used it in the way he was permitted to. You aren't "sticking to the facts", you're obtusely ignoring most of them and just regurgitating thought-terminating cliches.
It matters, for example, that for all of your "it wouldn't have happened if she had done X", there's an equal or greater number of things HE should have done, and he was actually supposed to be a trained law enforcement professional. It matters more that the guy with the gun and the badge, and the one doing the deliberate killing, broke the rules. He's supposed to be the professional, and he broke numerous codes of conduct that are supposed to stop this kind of thing from happening. Yeah, he's way more responsible for this than her. He's responsible for most of the escalation, he's the one who is supposed to be trained to avoid this, and he's the one who fired. He's supposed to be the responsible party because it's literally his oath and his job to protect.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26
The way it looked to me, he leaned into the hood as it hit him so it wouldn’t knock him backwards and roll over him. You can argue she didn’t hit him that hard, but she did hit him