… 2. Intention ALWAYs matters. For instance, it if could be established that … …
5, His possible state of mind absolutely DOES matter, and would be introduced as evidence in a legal case against him. If it were to be determined …
I do not know enough to say whether or when these things don’t matter (potentially contra your “always” — the apparent KIR point).
But if we grant that these things matter, they matter only to the extent that they can be established/determined. And those tend to be much more difficult arguments to make than ones deriving from other facts.
Intent/Motive ALWAYs matters, in the sense that it is normal, indeed essential, to consider intent when considering why a violent and possibly illegal thing happened and who may be culpable for it. If there is a video of me shooting you in the chest, the crime I'm charged with will be down to evidence of my intent (possible motive for shooting you). If I argue that the shooting was accidental, or due to temporary psychosis, or whatever, it would matter if it could be shown that I had expressed malice toward you in the past, as opposed perhaps not knowing you at all.
In this case, if the women had struck the cop hard enough to seriously injure him, such that he was not able to fire a shot at her, the first question raised would be "what was her intention, because it would make the difference between a charge of attempted murder versus something far less serious. For instance, if she had seen his drawn gun, she could have argued that she feared for her own life and was acting in self-defense. Or, she could have argued that she lost control of her car, etc. It would have to be proven that she intended to kill him. You were arguing that her intention in driving forward was irrelevant to the fact that she started driving toward him. This is wrong. Likewise, for the cop, if he is ever charged, the fact that 1. He said "fvking bytch" right after shooting her; and 2. He might be on record of having said homophobic and misogynist things, would absolutely be adduced, along with the video evidence of him shooting through he side window as she was clearly moving past him, in the case against him
In short, your assertion that this case, if it were ever brought, would come down simply to the question of what "another cop would have done in the same situation" is misinformed enough to make someone question whether you actually understood these basic things, or whether you do, but are just trying to simplify the situation in order to make the cop not culpable (i.e. bad faith arguing in defense of the cop). I confess I don't know what people look for when they review video from police involved shootings. What we're doing here is probably not that narrow, because we're allowed to bring whatever we want to what we see. And I, for one, was referring to factors that would be brought to bear in a legal case against this cop (which would go beyond simply the video evidence). Though I think the video evidence (2 and 3rd shots) would be end for him.
But, yes, just based on the stats, on top of the daily-increasing lawlessness of the federal administration, this guy will never stand trial, at least in the foreseeable future.
Operative phrase might be “standing in front of the car.” He wasn’t standing. He was moving around the entire time and capturing video evidence. He happened to be caught in a position such that he was grazed when the other ICE officers approached the driver side door and asked her to get out, which she failed to comply with.
Perhaps it would’ve been better for all had he been just standing directly in front of the car. She may not have felt like could’ve just floored it at that point or, perhaps, he should’ve just taken the direct hit, because then everyone would exonerate his act as defensible and justified. Even if he was severely injured or killed. Especially if. On second thought, progressives like ArmstrongLibs would still find fault with him.
She was not peaceably assembling, she was impeding a Federal operation parked perpendicularly in the street, she refused to comply w LEO’s orders at that point, and she put another LEO’s life in danger. A guy who had been previously dragged. “Housewives” de-risk for the sake of their kids. They don’t put themselves in situations where they can be taken from their kids (though this one appears to have lost custody of previous children).
My wife is a housewife. She wouldn’t be caught “dead” at an anti-ICE rally or a J6 protest. Because she’s not an idiot.
Intent/Motive ALWAYs matters, in the sense that it is normal, indeed essential, to consider intent when considering why a violent and possibly illegal thing happened and who may be culpable for it. If there is a video of me shooting you in the chest, the crime I'm charged with will be down to evidence of my intent (possible motive for shooting you). If I argue that the shooting was accidental, or due to temporary psychosis, or whatever, it would matter if it could be shown that I had expressed malice toward you in the past, as opposed perhaps not knowing you at all.
In this case, if the women had struck the cop hard enough to seriously injure him, such that he was not able to fire a shot at her, the first question raised would be "what was her intention, because it would make the difference between a charge of attempted murder versus something far less serious. For instance, if she had seen his drawn gun, she could have argued that she feared for her own life and was acting in self-defense. Or, she could have argued that she lost control of her car, etc. It would have to be proven that she intended to kill him. You were arguing that her intention in driving forward was irrelevant to the fact that she started driving toward him. This is wrong. Likewise, for the cop, if he is ever charged, the fact that 1. He said "fvking bytch" right after shooting her; and 2. He might be on record of having said homophobic and misogynist things, would absolutely be adduced, along with the video evidence of him shooting through he side window as she was clearly moving past him, in the case against him
In short, your assertion that this case, if it were ever brought, would come down simply to the question of what "another cop would have done in the same situation" is misinformed enough to make someone question whether you actually understood these basic things, or whether you do, but are just trying to simplify the situation in order to make the cop not culpable (i.e. bad faith arguing in defense of the cop). I confess I don't know what people look for when they review video from police involved shootings. What we're doing here is probably not that narrow, because we're allowed to bring whatever we want to what we see. And I, for one, was referring to factors that would be brought to bear in a legal case against this cop (which would go beyond simply the video evidence). Though I think the video evidence (2 and 3rd shots) would be end for him.
But, yes, just based on the stats, on top of the daily-increasing lawlessness of the federal administration, this guy will never stand trial, at least in the foreseeable future.
i mean honestly, are we meant to reply to this? ill start but then i give up;
yes, possible intent. but if something happens (she hits him), then a different intent (she didnt intend to him) needs strong evidence (hi legsweakdies).
no. seriouslness of the event does not go directly to intent or fact. if i fire at oyu, then the severity of the injury is not necessarily part of the intent.
why are his words after the event pertinent to her intent before the event?
above aside. driving into someone directly in front of you is reckless. reckless disregard of human life, minimum. Given he is a leo and oyu know he is there, and his colleague is giving you a lawful order to stop and exit the car? and you put your car deliberatly into forward gear after, or as a leo tells you to stop and exit? easily escaltes it to fleeing and assault with a deadly weapon.
It is unbelievable that there is endless debate here about whether an unarmed housewife who declared she wasn't angry with the agent was at the same time intending to take his life. The only person intent on taking life was the ICE agent. There was no justification for it. That so many of you seek to excuse or justify his act of homicide shows how far you have degenerated as a civilized society.
Unless there’s some legal principle or precedent that excuses some of the rounds of a very tight group of shots, I’m willing - based on the video seen so far - give him the benefit of the doubt on the first shot through the windshield.
I would be very disappointed if he didn’t suffer a very significant punishment for rounds two and three.
If you can’t control your shooting, don’t carry a weapon for a living.
Put a different way, if a law enforcement officer is excused for split second decisions he thinks necessary to protect himself, he should also be expected to display the same split second ability to REFRAIN from unnecessarily killing a citizen.
And make no mistake, that FULLY appears to be what shots 2 and 3 were. The unnecessary killing of a citizen who was not jeopardizing him.
Intent/Motive ALWAYs matters, in the sense that it is normal, indeed essential, to consider intent when considering why a violent and possibly illegal thing happened and who may be culpable for it. If there is a video of me shooting you in the chest, the crime I'm charged with will be down to evidence of my intent (possible motive for shooting you). If I argue that the shooting was accidental, or due to temporary psychosis, or whatever, it would matter if it could be shown that I had expressed malice toward you in the past, as opposed perhaps not knowing you at all.
In this case, if the women had struck the cop hard enough to seriously injure him, such that he was not able to fire a shot at her, the first question raised would be "what was her intention, because it would make the difference between a charge of attempted murder versus something far less serious. For instance, if she had seen his drawn gun, she could have argued that she feared for her own life and was acting in self-defense. Or, she could have argued that she lost control of her car, etc. It would have to be proven that she intended to kill him. You were arguing that her intention in driving forward was irrelevant to the fact that she started driving toward him. This is wrong. Likewise, for the cop, if he is ever charged, the fact that 1. He said "fvking bytch" right after shooting her; and 2. He might be on record of having said homophobic and misogynist things, would absolutely be adduced, along with the video evidence of him shooting through he side window as she was clearly moving past him, in the case against him
In short, your assertion that this case, if it were ever brought, would come down simply to the question of what "another cop would have done in the same situation" is misinformed enough to make someone question whether you actually understood these basic things, or whether you do, but are just trying to simplify the situation in order to make the cop not culpable (i.e. bad faith arguing in defense of the cop). I confess I don't know what people look for when they review video from police involved shootings. What we're doing here is probably not that narrow, because we're allowed to bring whatever we want to what we see. And I, for one, was referring to factors that would be brought to bear in a legal case against this cop (which would go beyond simply the video evidence). Though I think the video evidence (2 and 3rd shots) would be end for him.
But, yes, just based on the stats, on top of the daily-increasing lawlessness of the federal administration, this guy will never stand trial, at least in the foreseeable future.
i mean honestly, are we meant to reply to this? ill start but then i give up;
yes, possible intent. but if something happens (she hits him), then a different intent (she didnt intend to him) needs strong evidence (hi legsweakdies).
no. seriouslness of the event does not go directly to intent or fact. if i fire at oyu, then the severity of the injury is not necessarily part of the intent.
why are his words after the event pertinent to her intent before the event?
above aside. driving into someone directly in front of you is reckless. reckless disregard of human life, minimum. Given he is a leo and oyu know he is there, and his colleague is giving you a lawful order to stop and exit the car? and you put your car deliberatly into forward gear after, or as a leo tells you to stop and exit? easily escaltes it to fleeing and assault with a deadly weapon.
With all due respect, you have followed the exchange between this poster and I closely enough to understand it, let along comment on it, which is probably why you're finding it difficult to understand.
To summarize: He said that you can settle this simply by looking at the video and deciding whether what this cop did is consistent with what the average cop would have done in similar circumstances (and he thought what this cop did WAS consistent with normal, lawful procedure: therefore, case closed). And if he's telling the truth about being a long time profession at reviewing video of police-involved shootings, then it makes perfect sense he'd say this. But I said that if we were looking more broadly at this thing, the way, say, a jury would be asked to, there would be far more information to consider, particularly related to intent--of both cop and victim. What were their possible/probable states of mind, for instance. He then replied that intent would be impossible to determine and that therefore it would be down simply to what we can see in the video. I then replied that this would never be the case, and gave examples. In the very first instance, the question of whether she intended to run the cop over would be central. And this could not be determined with 100% certainty (which he thinks it would have to be), it could be shown based on the evidence in the video, and about of her probable state of mind, to be less rather than more likely. Same goes with the cop's behavior.
P.S. I never said the seriousness of the event in question increases the importance of determining motive or states of mind. I was only comparing apples with apples: two different videos of someone being shot to death. You simply can't well everything based on video evidence alone. You also have to have recourse to the question of the states of mind of the people in them. Accidents and murders can look identical in a video.
I've been posting a lot in this thread because I think what happened, and what is happening, in Minnesota could well end becoming a pivotal moment in the history of the collapse (temporary, we can hope) of US democracy. In other words, this could be event that leads to the invocation of the Insurrection Act, which then leads to the cancellation of the mid-term elections in the fall, and whatever follows.
And with respect to the episode itself, having looked at the video many times, then having learned a few things about the background to the prohibition in most jurisdictions on the police practice of standing in front of vehicles, I'm coming to the view that this shooting was possibly premeditated murder (though only by a few mins).
As it happens, CBP was one of the first agencies to prohibit the practice of standing in front of vehicles in order to confront suspects. And they did it because there was reasonable suspicion that CPB officers were deliberately standing in front of suspect vehicles IN ORDER to create pretext to claim their life was in danger, so that they could deliberately kill suspects.
This cop was experienced. He would have known this background and would likely have known how to pull of the maneuver in question. Watching the video again, and looking at how he walks around the car and manages to land himself in the perfect position in front of it-- perfect, that is, in terms of not being in any real danger (because he would have guessed, like any other reasonable person, that the driver would turn right in an attempt flee rather than slightly to the left in an attempt to kill him) yet be able to plausibly CLAIM to have believed he was in danger, one wonders about his motives. His positioning--on the front left side of the vehicle-- was also pretty ideal for firing through her front windshield (bullet hole is low on the far left side of the window). Then, of course, having missed, he fires two shots through the side window, which in it's own right suggests prior murderous intent. If it's anyone but a cop doing this sh@t, it looks pretty straightforwardly like murder.
Add to this is evident animus toward the victim (the "fvcking bytch" comment and his online commentary, which is no doubt going to include some flagrant examples of misogyny and homophobia), and it probably wouldn't be hard to build a case for premeditated murder against this guy. And this is partly why all measures, legal and otherwise, will be made to insure that this guy never sees the inside of a courtroom.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
You say “it’s just too fast.” Yes, once the car moves, things happen very quickly. Some people here have fixated on the exact position of the vehicle’s wheels at the instant the car is put in drive. I’d say that a few other factors override that concern, and they are based on what the officer and the driver would know.
The driver knows that she has backed up with her wheel cranked to the left, which angles her car away from the direction. The officer has been walking into the side opposite the one he is near at the front of her vehicle. At the point of stopping her reverse, she goes handover hand to crank her wheel to the right and turn her wheels to the right. She may very well, not know the exact position of her wheels on the pavement at that moment, just that she has cranked her steering wheel to the right. This to me indicates a mindset to drive up to the right and away. That she has chosen to do so when her partner screams drive is an indication of recklessness rather than intent to harm. So that becomes a reputation of all the people who say she intended to harm him. It does not absolve her of all responsibility.
Another would be with the officer can see. We have a likely inference about that based on where his eyes would be trained, which is up on the driver. I seriously doubt at that distance and that angle and with the other things occupying his attention he would be looking at her wheels. that is a point at least roughly corroborated by the cell phone video, which is trained on the driver at that point. That shows the driver engaging in exactly those actions I describe above. To me those actions strongly depict her intent of by driving up to her right and the officer’s left.
I would expect it by the time she is midway through her reverse point it would look too an officer in that position as though she’s going to attempt to flee to his left. I would think that would certainly be further confirmed, or at least become clear even to somebody a little bit slower to perceive, at the moment she cranks her wheel to the right. That’s when I would believe a person would process a thought like ”she’s trying to get away.” Ideally, that would involve him moving in that instant prior to where we agree, as you have said, things happen very fast.
And this is borne out by the path the vehicle then traverses. It is angled much more sharply right than it is in the direction of the officer. And that follows as a logical consequence from what the officer was most likely to have seen in the seconds leading up to it moving forward.
Again, I can’t weigh in directly on whether the officer should be deemed responsible because I don’t know his direct training. I just know that there is training for officers to not stand in front of vehicles, because departments specifically want to avoid this or similar kinds of situations.
And that’s why I think it’s preposterous for anyone to try to lump together broad perspectives questioning the officer’s actions as “lies.”
Operative phrase might be “standing in front of the car.” He wasn’t standing. He was moving around the entire time and capturing video evidence. He happened to be caught in a position such that he was grazed when the other ICE officers approached the driver side door and asked her to get out, which she failed to comply with.
Perhaps it would’ve been better for all had he been just standing directly in front of the car. She may not have felt like could’ve just floored it at that point or, perhaps, he should’ve just taken the direct hit, because then everyone would exonerate his act as defensible and justified. Even if he was severely injured or killed. Especially if. On second thought, progressives like ArmstrongLibs would still find fault with him.
She was not peaceably assembling, she was impeding a Federal operation parked perpendicularly in the street, she refused to comply w LEO’s orders at that point, and she put another LEO’s life in danger. A guy who had been previously dragged. “Housewives” de-risk for the sake of their kids. They don’t put themselves in situations where they can be taken from their kids (though this one appears to have lost custody of previous children).
My wife is a housewife. She wouldn’t be caught “dead” at an anti-ICE rally or a J6 protest. Because she’s not an idiot.
You mean your wife knows her life is in danger from the American Gestapo if she were to exercise her rights to lawful protest.
1) Her driving hurt no one. Objective fact, unless the available videos are really deceiving us, AND he hides injury really, really well.
He was hospitalized, and is lucky to be alive.
He walked away from the killing without a care in the world. There's only one way he is lucky to be alive. No one in the crowd was carrying a weapon. That will change.
He walked away from the killing without a care in the world. There's only one way he is lucky to be alive. No one in the crowd was carrying a weapon. That will change.
That guy has some of the most blatantly annoying troll tactics on here. His primary goal is to get you to engage and get a rise out of you. The smart play: Don’t engage.
That guy has some of the most blatantly annoying troll tactics on here. His primary goal is to get you to engage and get a rise out of you. The smart play: Don’t engage.
Clearly you’re talking about ArmstrongLibs, am I right?
That guy has some of the most blatantly annoying troll tactics on here. His primary goal is to get you to engage and get a rise out of you. The smart play: Don’t engage.
Clearly you’re talking about ArmstrongLibs, am I right?
So if that guy is a fool, you wouldn’t just prefer to see him disengage? Especially from a guy who is at least as bad?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.