re: For Anybody Here Who Thinks the ICE Agent Acted Wrongly, Tell Me What He Should've Done

quote:

---

There are few reasonabl ways to interpret the discharge of a firearm directly at another person OTHER than as an attempt to harm them.

---

“Directly at”? A FEW reasonable ways to interpret, OTHER THAN attempt to harm? Lol I don’t know about that. There may be ONE other way to interpret a similar situation, NOT involving “directly at.” Perhaps “in the general direction of” could be interpreted as “merely” seeking to put some distance between yourself and your pursuer, but I can’t think of any rational scenarios demonstrating your assertion(s) herein above.

quote:

---

By comparison, there are MANY potential explanations for Good's actions, the VAST majority of them FAR MORE reasonable than "intent to harm."

quote:

---

Is intent to harm required?

---

---

In this context, no. The governing principle is whether the officer had a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect life.

quote:

---

Again, she actually hit the guy with the car.

---

Again, that is not clear.

From one angle, it appears that this MIGHT be the case. From a different angle, it looks VERY unlikely that the vehicle struck the officer. From the officer's own camera, we cannot even see enough to form an opinion.

He should have called time out and recited the Lord''s prayer then shot Good, her wife and their dog.

quote:

---

Again, that is not clear.

---

Yes, it is. It's quite clear in one angle. Not seeing it clearly in other angles doesn't mean that it might not have happened. it just means that you can't see it from those angles.

quote:

---

The governing principle is whether the officer had a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect life.

---

Then...

To answer your question, I think that it is very ingrained and hardwired in people generally to avoid harming young children and to protect them even when it means that adults may suffer harm. I think the average person would be much quicker to knock a toddler out of the way of a moving car and take the impact themselves than they would to do the same for an adult.

I think that's just hardwired in people. It's a reflex.

And that is the crux of my objection to your view on this. I think those of you armchair QBing the situation are applying a standard to reflex behavior that is unreasonable in this context.

Could there be mitigating factors that might have lowered the threshold for this particular reflex action? Sure.

These people have been obstructing federal agents doing their jobs now for nine months solid. There was a 3200% increase in vehicular attacks on ICE agents in 2025. That is not a typo.

Does that heighten concern when agents are out in the feild? Do ICE agents have regular briefings in which they are warned to be careful of vehicular attacks? I hope so. Does that sort of thing lower the threshold for a selfdefense reflex to fire? Of course.

But none of that is the officer's fault, and avoiding the effect of it is literally impossible, and it's certainly not a case of, "I hate liberals, so I think I'll make a calculated decision to shoot one."

If the decision was made deliberately, it probably would have occurred to the cop that he might be risking his career and freedom by doing it. It makes no sense that it was a calculated move.

It's just absurd to me to think this was anything but a reflex action, and it's asinine to me for ya'll to expect officers to control reflexes to the degree that you are. Especially when they are in an environment in which they regularly have protestors try to run them down with vehicles. 3200% increase is a lot. In my world that makes it pretty reasonable to believe your life is in danger when someone hits you with a car.

quote:

---

With that said she should never had threatened a police officer with her car..

---

This is the relevant escalation.

quote:

---

he should not have put himself in that position

---

If you're saying that the officer didn't follow the correct protocol in the several minutes before the women started driving away and that he is responsible for the situation in which he found himself, I won't argue with that because I don't know what the accepted/recommended protocol is for that situation. I would point out, however, you're the only one making that argument.

But even if he is responsible for not taking the correct action to preclude being in that position to begin with, does that mean he's culpable no matter what?

Let's say a cop responds to a silent alarm at a bank and he's been trained to wait for backup to arrive but he goes in alone. And then let's say that he gets the drop on one of the robbers and the guy turns to run away without minding what he's doing with his weapon and it points at the cop and the cop shoots the robber.

Does that mean it's his fault because he was supposed to wait for backup and didn't?

quote:

---

Are you being facetious? You're aware that cars can move fairly quickly, right?

---

He was clear of the car, did his blowing her head off stop the car? No it accelerated it leaving it to be an unguided missile that could have killed someone.

He should have stayed clear of the vehicle and given the plate number to local police to iron out. But he got what he came for.

quote:

---

He should have stayed clear of the vehicle and given the plate number to local police to iron out. But he got what he came for.

---

That’s a stupid and dangerous assumption to make about future event given a driver who looked you in the eye and proceeds to try and run you over.

quote:

---

The situation appears to be a series of events that unfortunately aligned in the worst possible way. For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, the officer was moving around the vehicle and ended up in front of it just as other officers approached and grabbed the car door. Another person was yelling at her to drive, and the officer in front of the car likely reacted the way he did because he had previously been struck by a vehicle.

Sometimes multiple unlikely factors happen all at once, creating an unusual and chaotic situation like this. It’s likely she did not intentionally try to run over an officer, while the officer believed she was in that moment. Everything unfolded very quickly. I think the officer made a poor, but understandable, decision, but it does appear to have been a legally justified decision.

Let this be a reminder that sometimes bad things happen, and putting yourself in chaotic situations only increases the risk of a bad outcome. So, don’t go participate in intentional altercations with police, all it does is increase your chances of being a statistic.

---

This is the correct answer.

And I am going to reiterate one statistic. There was a 3200% increase in the incidence of vehicular attacks on ICE in 2025.

I don't think this woman intended to hit the officer either. But it's asinine to me that anyone thinks he didn't have reasonable cause to believe she might be doing so.