re: The definitive video showing Good's vehicle striking the agent

quote:

---

Is there a person in front of your vehicle when you hit the gas?

---

He thinks that person should NOT be allowed to defend himself.

quote:

---

He thinks that person should NOT be allowed to defend himself.

---

Absolutely not. I think someone has a right to defend themselves. I’ve taken courses on it.

I just don’t know if they can prove that she was trying to use her vehicle with deadly force. The video didn’t look like she was.

The distinction between a vehicle and a gun is very relevant though. If she was brandishing a gun, it’s clear that there is a risk. She wasn’t brandishing a gun though. She was driving her vehicle and was even stopped . She looked to me like she wanted to get away. Maybe she made statements about running the officer over or other comment that led them to feel threatened….

quote:

---

And did that look to you like she was using her vehicle in that manner? Ie with deadly force?

---

Is Creole your first language?

It’s hard to figure out how you read what I said and responded with the above.

quote:

---

t doesn't change the outcome or analysis of the police officers actions one bit. It does provide more context for social commentary.

---

He used deadly force

Was she intending to kill him?

quote:

---

He used deadly force. Was she intending to kill him?

---

Under relevant Minnesota law, her intent is irrelevant in evaluating HIS actions.

The only question is whether he had a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect his own life (or the lives of others) or to prevent serious bodily injury.

It does not matter whether she affirmatively wanted to kill him or if she didn't even know that he was present.

quote:

---

Once again, slowly this time so you might have a 0.0001% of understanding...Her. Intent. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Charges. Against. Him

---

Sure it does and your juvenile internet insults don’t change it. Was she intending to kill the officer? Was his response reasonable under the circumstances? It can easily be argued no to both the former and the latter.

There are several cars in the area. Are they all deadly? Why didn’t he shoot those drivers?

quote:

---

There are several cars in the area. Are they all deadly? Why didn’t he shoot those drivers?

---

Which other car hit him?

Cajun, you are just wrong

quote:

---

609.066(2)(a)

... the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay ....

---

I find subpart (iii) interesting, because the term "must" seems to suggest that deadly force can be used ONLY if deadly force is the ONLY way to prevent death or injury. If that is the correct interpretation, that is a pretty damned high standard to meet.

quote:

---

Sure it does and your juvenile internet insults don’t change it. Was she intending to kill the officer? Was his response reasonable under the circumstances? It can easily be argued no to both the former and the latter.

---

Holy shite. All you can do is just laugh at you at this point

Her.Intent.Has.No.Bearing.On.His.Situation

quote:

---

Could he have taken other action to remedy the situation?

---

THAT is where 609.066(2)(a)(1)(iii) becomes interesting.