Renee Good shooting bullets 1,2,3,and 4

[VitaMan]

The ICE officer managed to get off 4 shots.


When he fired the first one, video shows he was clearly in front of the vehicle and drew his gun.


Bullets 2,3 and 4 were fired when he was alongside the car.


The first shot is justified as he is in immediate danger of being run over.
The others are not and likely could be grounds for a successful prosecution.

[Mort Watt]

I disagree with you that the first shot was justified. He NEVER should have approached the vehicle in that way. He put himself in danger when he did not have to.

But that's my opinion. And unfortunately, we will never be able to trust the "investigation" to give us a definitive answer.

The rest of your post is dead on though.

EVERY SINGLE TIME a law enforcement officer pulls the trigger, they are required to consider whether it is justified.

It is a common misconception that cops are trained to "dump the entire magazine" when they decide to shoot.

Certainly, there are times when it is necessary for LE to fire multiple shots in succession.

Not here.

After he fires that first shot, she is not a danger to him or anyone else. He should have stopped shooting. His decision to fire through the side window is indefensible, though I'm sure that the "investigation" will "determine" that it was.

(I say she wasn't a danger when he fired the first shot...but...whatever...he's gonna get off...will probably go on the Kyle Rittenhouse speaking tour)

.

[VitaMan]

Video clearly shows he is in front of the car and the car starts moving into him. Use of deadly force in that situation is written into law. I could post the photo of him drawing his gun when he is in front of the car.


This ICE officer got into a similar situation before and was dragged quite a distance by the vehicle.

[Mort Watt]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Video clearly shows he is in front of the car and the car starts moving into him. Use of deadly force in that situation is written into law. I could post the photo of him drawing his gun when he is in front of the car.


This ICE officer got into a similar situation before and was dragged quite a distance by the vehicle.

The video does not "clearly" show that. I suggest you undertake the hassle to look at the NY Times analysis that txdot posted.

And again, even if it "clearly" shows that, please tell us why he was justified in placing himself in front of the vehicle. ICE guidelines even state that he should not be doing this.

.

[elghund]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Video clearly shows he is in front of the car and the car starts moving into him. Use of deadly force in that situation is written into law. I could post the photo of him drawing his gun when he is in front of the car.


This ICE officer got into a similar situation before and was dragged quite a distance by the vehicle.

Then this ICE officer is clearly an idiot, or a danger to his co-officers and the general public. Since it happened previously to him, he obviously doesn’t understand how to safeguard anyone, including himself.

You don’t put yourself in a dangerous situation. Pretty much common sense.

elg……

[VitaMan]

He was in front of the car. There is no debate on whether he has to justify being in front of the car. He does not have to justify it.


The video clearly shows he is in front of the car when the car starts moving forward toward him. I can post
a photo from that video if you like. He draws his gun from the holster at that time.

[elghund]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

He was in front of the car. There is no debate on whether he has to justify being in front of the car. He does not have to justify it.


The video clearly shows he is in front of the car when the car starts moving forward toward him. I can post
a photo from that video if you like. He draws his gun from the holster at that time.

As I said…..a dangerous man to other law enforcement officers and the general public.

You don’t put yourself in dangerous positions.

elg……

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

The ICE officer managed to get off 4 shots.


When he fired the first one, video shows he was clearly in front of the vehicle and drew his gun.


Bullets 2,3 and 4 were fired when he was alongside the car.


The first shot is justified as he is in immediate danger of being run over.
The others are not and likely could be grounds for a successful prosecution.

Four shots? This is the first I heard about a fourth shot. Three is the number being brandied about. So, does that mean one of the bullets went totally off course and he missed at such short range?

I only concentrated on looking at the initial video I saw of the incident and what was clearly seen (by what was visible from the person blocking most of the view in front of the shooter) is that the first shot I see, that hit the windshield, the shooter legs have clear distance to the side of the tire that is turned away from him. The angle of impact shows that he leaned into the vehicle. And if the shot from that round hit her, he leaned especially hard since he is right handed.

Being that he was not squarely in front of the vehicle on that shot, he was not gravely in danger of his life. And rules of engagement from his employer, and other departments I might add, specifically say that the use of firearms is not allowed.

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Video clearly shows he is in front of the car and the car starts moving into him. Use of deadly force in that situation is written into law. I could post the photo of him drawing his gun when he is in front of the car.


This ICE officer got into a similar situation before and was dragged quite a distance by the vehicle.

Video does show that he is clearly in front of the vehicle. You remiss yourself by not stating that he his walking around the vehicle and the front is part of his route. The moving of the vehicle is not with him directly in front and the driver is not steering the car in his direction.

Use of deadly force in that situation is not written into the law.

Drawing the gun and where the actual threat is one the gun is cleared of the holster and being placed on a target are two entirely different situations.

He definitely was in a situation where he was dragged by a vehicle. His superiors were either negligent in not reviewing that incident and showing where he deviated from the book in what he did.

You fail to mention in another department he worked that the actions he took in Minnesota were the norm:

Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) Report: A scathing, initially hidden, 21-page report by the PERF, commissioned by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and reviewing incidents from January 2010 to October 2012, found that agents frequently put themselves in the path of moving vehicles to justify using deadly force. The report concluded that some agents fired in frustration at rock-throwers and that the agency lacked diligence in reviewing these incidents.

Originally Posted by VitaMan

He was in front of the car. There is no debate on whether he has to justify being in front of the car. He does not have to justify it.


The video clearly shows he is in front of the car when the car starts moving forward toward him. I can post
a photo from that video if you like. He draws his gun from the holster at that time.

Yes. He was in front of the car. Walking. No debate he was walking around the vehicle.

He does have to justify his use of the firearm if this was a pre-trump era country. But at the moment, his superiors jumped out the gate before any semblance of an investigation started stating that the guy ain't got nothing to worry about.

Again, the timing of drawing a gun and the leveling of said gun at target is different from when a threat is clear and when the threat is gone. All in the timing.

And the timing shows he was under no threat when the gun was leveled.

A *guess* would be that his mindset from border patrol days wrongly stuck with him. But it seems his bosses are going to let that go.

But there is alot of heat that has been generated from the action.

[VitaMan]

Several of your statements are incorrect.


He was in front of the car, and the car began accelerating toward him. Then he drew his gun.
He was at imminent risk of injury or death, and the law clearly states deadly force can be used in that situation. Bullets 2 to 4 may not be justified as the threat had passed by then and he was alongside the car.


Here is the proof:

[Salty Again]

... Bullets #2 through #4 WOULD BE "Deadly Force" ...

... So the shoot was justified. ... His life was in danger.

#### Salty

[69in2it69]

His life was not in danger. Every shot he fired, his feet and body were to the SIDE of the car...which clearly had it's wheels turned AWAY from him. There were not 4 shots, 4 wounds...most likely (my guess) is that the arm wound was through and through and then into the chest. The kill shot was from the SIDE to the left side of her head, while the car was turned right.


De-Escalation and Alternatives

Emphasis on De-Escalation

• Officers are trained to use de-escalation techniques to stabilize potentially violent situations before resorting to force.
• The goal is to avoid loss of life whenever possible, and officers should seek alternatives to using deadly force.

Duty to Intervene

• Officers have a responsibility to intervene if they witness excessive force being used by another officer, provided it is safe to do so.

[69in2it69]

It may not happen until after shitzen pants is gone...but he will be prosecuted and jailed for MURDER.

[Salty Again]

... Not if President Trump gives the fellow a Pardon.
... Then it's Case Closed.

#### Salty

[Mort Watt]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Not if President Trump gives the fellow a Pardon.
... Then it's Case Closed.

That might be the only accurate thing that you've said in a very long time.

There was a detailed discussion on this by someone in the Media today, I don't remember who. But there is virtually NO state or local jurisdiction or authority here.

A pardon would end it.

And he probably can't be sued either. Certainly the U.S. government cannot.

I, for one, hope it comes to this. It would add argument to the corrupt use of pardons that Trump has already normalized. And in its own special way, a pardon is a statement acknowledging that someone committed a crime...Joe Biden and his pre-emptive pardons be damned....

.

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

That might be the only accurate thing that you've said in a very long time.

There was a detailed discussion on this by someone in the Media today, I don't remember who. But there is virtually NO state or local jurisdiction or authority here.

A pardon would end it.

And he probably can't be sued either. Certainly the U.S. government cannot.

I, for one, hope it comes to this. It would add argument to the corrupt use of pardons that Trump has already normalized. And in its own special way, a pardon is a statement acknowledging that someone committed a crime...Joe Biden and his pre-emptive pardons be damned....

.

If you have the time to dig it up, I would appreciate a link to the media source you mention.

This Lawfare article discusses the nuanced legal questions, centering on how Minnesota could prosecute Ross for violating state law (not pardonable by Trump). One intriguing idea I hadn't considered is that they might wait until the next administration for access to information the FBI has hoovered up and stored on the shelf.