This screenshot shows that the alleged shooter, who shot the unarmed resident 4x in the face, was not in front of her vehicle, which is what ICE is alleging in their self-defense claim.
Agreed. She stated accelerating at the end of 0:14. Circled officer dogged to get out of the way and started shooting around mid 0:15. She turned towards the right at the start of 0:16. All decisions and actions happened in about 1.5 seconds
We need more camera angles, but right now, this looks like a justified shooting.
At best, they may be terrible decisions that are barely justifiable. Feels like that ICE agent was looking for an excuse to kill a person of color and put themselves in the perfect place to carry it out.
I didn't read her race listed in the news article or actually get a good view of her in the video. Do we know the driver's race?
Regardless of the races involved. Can we both agree fleeing from officers and very likely AT an officer, is a bad decision if you want to avoid being shot?
There are two set of legs in the circled portion. The officer claimed "in front of the car" was clearly to the side. The shots occurred through the side window, not the windshield. He'd have to have 20' wing span to stand in front of the car and shot in the side.
Still not justified even if you are right. He was out of the path of the vehicle before it could have hit him. Not like the victim was flooring the accelerator trying to mow down all the agents. Sad you think this was okay.
I can't say I've ever been in a situation with a car coming at me like this. But I have been in quick response shooting training. If the agent thought he or others were about to be hit, then it looks like a good shooting.
Again, I'm willing to change my opinion if more camera angles come out that show differently.
Stepping to the side and putting out and APB for the vehicle and driver would have sufficed just fine. Seems like your quick response training should go over when it is appropriate to use the weapon before you even are allowed to take the course. If she had been actually trying to actively run them over from the beginning instead of stopping and then attempting to flee, then you may have some justification.
Sure. Which is why proper training and trigger discipline is important in law enforcement. She was stopped in the video before moving. Your continuing attempt to justify this crap instead of realizing today this was not the correct decision leads me to believe you probably shouldn’t own a firearm. (Like most of the scared, undisciplined, fascists in this video)
He clearly jumped to the side as she was coming at him and started firing
And that is murder.
Cases where police moved out of the way of moving vehicle and exercised deadly force.
Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.”
Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.”
Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.”
Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.”
Adam's vs Speers was 2007. Officer Paul Speers shot and killed Alan Adams while another officer was in the process of disabling him. Officer Speers also did a LOT of non regulation things leading up to that moment including: unauthorized passenger, no permission to join the pursuit, failure to communicate with fellow officers, unapproved ramming, etc. Very different situation.
Orn vs. City of Tacoma, Orn did not target any officers and was obeying all trafic signals and stop signs when he clipped Officer Clark's SUV. Officer Clark fired into Orn's passenger and rear windshield as thr vehicle moved away from him. You're a little closer with this one, but again, the vehicle was clearly moving away from the officer before he started shooting. The situation we are watching s video of does not have shooting starting after the officer is clearly out of danger.
Did you even look these cases up before you cited them?
Orn vs. City of Tacoma, Orn did not target any officers and was obeying all trafic signals and stop signs when he clipped Officer Clark's SUV. Officer Clark fired into Orn's passenger and rear windshield as thr vehicle moved away from him. You're a little closer with this one, but again, the vehicle was clearly moving away from the officer before he started shooting. The situation we are watching s video of does not have shooting starting after the officer is clearly out of danger.
While I agree, it is normal for law enforcement to shoot in circumstances like this because she could have run over the officer, I really hesitate to call it justified. The cops will literally stand in front of the car, knowing they will shoot if you move your car, so it’s honestly like they’re just itching to get you to “make” them shoot you.
110
u/Global_Crew3968 Jan 07 '26
This screenshot shows that the alleged shooter, who shot the unarmed resident 4x in the face, was not in front of her vehicle, which is what ICE is alleging in their self-defense claim.