- Joined
- Dec 19, 2001
- Messages
- 7,041
- Reaction score
- 4,113
Opinion on a bullet stopping a vehicle at that distance is not what the objective reasonable test would be. There are instances of officers not even getting prosecuted let alone being found not guilty for worst than what we saw.
Is there a reasonable expectation the agent felt a threat from the vehicle and then about the ability to move out of the path of the vehicle. As soon as you are in a territory of an officer directly in front of a vehicle that launches at him its a very strong defense. Its clear from the video the there was a threat with the vehicle and being that close while also with the agent standing on what looks like a sheet of ice on the road so that is probably going to be a strong argument for his defense. If you think thats completely wrong and its a 100% slam dunk hes going to be guilty I mean I don't know what to tell you. Again we will find out clearly to see if you are right here and if more video shows up but I cant see how anyone reasonable can be sure on that outcome unless its just strong bias.
How is it a strong defense when the officer deliberately stepped in front of the vehicle? That is the key point you seem to be missing, he chose to put himself in danger, so he can't claim self defense, and if he felt in danger he could have just stepped out of the way which is what any reasonable person would do. The moment the car moved forward he STOOD STILL AND PULLED HIS WEAPON, when he could have easily stepped aside which he did eventually. His actions were inconsistent with self defense.
Do you know anyone who would remain standing in front of a car coming towards them? No they simply move. I am not speaking about the outcome of the case at all because the system is so corrupt, but that says nothing about what should happen. He should be convicted of murder but he probably won't even be charged because he will be protected.