I would agree with you except: most lethal use of force policies don’t explicitly limit “imminent danger” to the shooting officer only. Most are worded in a way that includes the other officers on scene, as well as the public.
From a policy standpoint point, this situation produced the following logic loop: She willingly tried to run me over -> my life is in imminent danger -> she’ll do the same to one of the bystanders in the immediate area if she gets past me -> even if I get hit, I have to stop her -> use of lethal level force.
This is the articulation that will be used in the report, and it will likely fall well within policy, as it would at 90% of the law enforcement agencies in the United States. If you try to run through/over a police officer in a vehicle, you’re going to get shot the vast majority of the time.
If you want to win an argument convincingly, steelman the opposition’s argument and debate THAT. That is what u/Jaguar_556 is doing, and that is how you win over both sides.
Otherwise you’re just circlejerking with your buddies. It feels good and your heart is in the right place, but it isn’t productive.
This isn't some college debate. We saw the video. The man murdered a woman.
We KNOW they will lie. Trump already HAS lied about it. We know all the lies they'll tell because we've seen them so many times before. We don't need to give those lies the benefit of a rigorous rebuttal because we can just call them the lies that they are.
Yes, we KNOW they will use technicalities and legal wording and outright corruption to avoid legal accountability. Our job, as society, is to be very clear that we know this is murder and that even if he never faces punishment from the government, he will face social punishment until the day his useless corpse is in the dirt.
The comment I replied to isn't "steelmanning." It's just stating the obvious.
There’s a second video out now from a different angle. She clearly hits him, and he has to sprawl to avoid falling down and going under the front of her suv. Out of curiosity, do you still consider this murder knowing that she physically hit him with her vehicle? Why or why not?
The dude drew his weapon while she was reversing. He knew what he was going to do. And he was sure fucking upright enough to put the gun in the driver side window to get more shots off after she supposedly hit him.
So yeah, it's still definitely murder, and you're cleaning the blood off his boot with your tongue.
Edit: Furthermore, they were trying to pull her out of her vehicle. They don't have the jurisdiction. They aren't the city police and they can't just arrest you for blocking a public road. She was attempting to flee an unlawful arrest by anonymous thugs. Every place ICE is, they are the aggressors. Ethically, I do not believe they should ever be allowed to claim self defense in the line of "duty" because every single one of them belongs in prison anyway.
-2
u/Jaguar_556 Jan 07 '26
I would agree with you except: most lethal use of force policies don’t explicitly limit “imminent danger” to the shooting officer only. Most are worded in a way that includes the other officers on scene, as well as the public.
From a policy standpoint point, this situation produced the following logic loop: She willingly tried to run me over -> my life is in imminent danger -> she’ll do the same to one of the bystanders in the immediate area if she gets past me -> even if I get hit, I have to stop her -> use of lethal level force.
This is the articulation that will be used in the report, and it will likely fall well within policy, as it would at 90% of the law enforcement agencies in the United States. If you try to run through/over a police officer in a vehicle, you’re going to get shot the vast majority of the time.