re: Right on cue - MN - Police shoot and kill woman attempting to run over agent

The video from the front with the other angle does a better job of showing the ice officer being in front of the vehicle and nearly getting run over

quote:

---

Yes. We know. Put another innocent law enforcement officer in jail so you can get your rocks off. One way or another you leftists will assure their families are made to pay for not allowing his life to be ended by one of your violent ilk. How dare he try and defend himself?

---

What the Frick is wrong with your unhinged self? All I said is based on the video it may go to trial. It’s not cut and dry. I’m certainly not going to get off because a law enforcement officer was seemingly in danger and used his gun as defense.

And based on the slow motion version, if it does go to trial, he will likely get off, as he should.

I am on record here a number of times that I fully support deportation of a legal immigrants.

Try your narrative with someone else.

quote:

---

t wont matter. parts of the country will still burn; soros-bucks will see to that.

---

A lot of USAID money has been cut off so that should put a damper on the protest.

Cops are retreating... being swarmed and pelted with snowballs.

quote:

---

$100 bucks to the first one to reply to this post if this woman is:

1. not overweight
2. doesn't have an unnatural hair color
3. doesn't have some sort of trashy piercing

---

and 4. has a penis

I was watching live commentary on one of the news stations. One of the commentators said during the investigation, they will likely based part of the outcome on which window the bullet traveled through. He said if it traveled through the side drivers window, “that is not good“. In the slow motion video, he appears to shoot through the front windshield, which does support the imminent threat stance

Maybe that’s true if you close your eyes and also ignore the video from the other angle where she hits him ;)

quote:

---

finally caught up with the news

the problem with the Fed Gov's narrative is that she obviousy fleeing, is reversing and going the opposite direction from the agents judging by her tires

perhaps she wouldve side swiped, but the idea the agent was fearing Death and this was a clean shot is

LINK

---

people see what they want to see......

but, in the end, the shooting will be cleared as justified.......

.... onus will be to prove the Federal agent was not in fear for his life in this spit second incident..... driver complies with agents, still alive....

Here is the federal statute that would cover whether the agent was justified.

I am not sure how anyone could reasonably argue that he was not justified in shooting her.

quote:

---

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

---