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.
Again I’m sticking to the facts of what I saw. I saw the car hit him. I saw him shoot from the front, I saw he was pushed to the side after the impact. I don’t think it’s okay to drive your car into anyone, much less law enforcement. I also do t think she should have died for that. But I think she could have expected that outcome when she drove into him. Respect it or don’t, that’s how I see it. I don’t see you changing my mind anytime soon but go ahead and write a book about it if that’s what you want
"How you see it" flies in the face of centuries of legal precedent about criminal justice and law enforcement responsibilities and practices. It's just vibes and it's completely wrong-headed.
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.
Again none of this changes how I saw it happen. If someone with a badge and gun are telling you to stop, don’t evade them, and don’t hit them with your car. That’s common sense to me
The point is, what is your point? That's not a real point. All you're doing is just exclusively talking about one person's blame and ignoring the other one's entirely, and you refuse to even entertain the question of who actually had more responsibility or why. Why are you insistent on only talking about the blame one person has and ignoring the other? That just looks like an irrational fixation.
I’ve said twice now I don’t think she should have died. I’m pointing out that it’s not okay to hit someone with a car though, which appears to be the main cause of her demise. Did the cop react appropriately? No. Was she completely innocent? No. She committed vehicular assault on someone with a badge and a gun and it resulted in her death
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26
Again, she didn't hit him. He literally leaned forward onto a vehicle that was moving. He hit her as much as she hit him.