XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-12 09:39, AlleyCat wrote:   
   >   
   > On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 23:16:44 -0800,  Alan says...   
   >   
   >>> Both criminals.   
   >   
   >> You aren't allowed to shoot at someone when they aren't a threat.   
   >   
   > Correct... I guess.   
   >   
   > But, no. (see bottom)   
   >   
   >> Even if his first shot was when he was near the front of the vehicle,   
   >> his next two were from directly beside the driver's door, and it was   
   >> turning AWAY from him.   
   >   
   > And I've explained this, moron.   
   >   
   > Law enforcement, after having been run over, plowed down, assaulted with a   
   > deadly weapon, vehicularly (Y, IK) assaulted, or any other term you might   
   want   
   > to use   
   > here, usually shoot until the perpetrator is incapacitated or out of range,   
   to   
   > keep the driver from doing any more harm to others or even themselves.   
      
   Except this officer was not "run over" OR "plowed down".   
      
   >   
   > A threat is not "over" just because the vehicle has cleared the officer's   
   > path.   
      
   Yes, actually it is.   
      
   >   
   > If Good has already demonstrated her intent (which the officers did not KNOW)   
   > to use a vehicle as a weapon, they remain a 'deadly threat" until they are   
   > stopped. Turning "away" could simply be a maneuver to reposition for another   
   > strike or to flee at high speeds, endangering the public.   
      
   Her obvious intent was to leave the area and an officer with no   
   authority grabbed at her door, escalating the situation.   
      
   >   
   > The courts have often used the "Split-Second Decision" standard (from Graham   
   > v. Connor). Officers ARE NOT EXPECTED TO STOP FIRING the exact millisecond a   
   > car turns, as human reaction time and the momentum of the event make that   
   > physically impossible.   
   >   
   > Your "hindsight" logic is bullshit. NO ONE knows what Good's intent was. Just   
   > because the car turned away, the immediate threat to that specific officer   
   had   
   > passed, but the public in range were still in danger.   
      
    From a soccer mom leaving a scene having committed no crimes?   
      
   >   
   > You're treating a dynamic "gunfight" like a turn-based video game. You ASSUME   
   > the officer has "infinite" processing time to see the wheels turn, conclude   
   > the danger is 100% gone, and signal his brain to stop pulling the trigger-all   
   > in less than a second.   
   >   
   > Fuck that, AND you.   
   >   
   > Standard procedure is as follows: law enforcement is trained to "shoot to   
   stop   
   > the threat." If the first shot doesn't stop the driver, the threat (a moving   
   > 5,000lb weapon) is still active.   
      
   Actually, officers are trained by CBP not to put themselves in a place   
   where they can then claim there was a "threat".   
      
   >   
   > The flaw in your bullshit logic is that the second and third shots were   
   > "punitive" (retaliation) rather than "preventative."   
   >   
   > An un-incapacitated driver in a moving vehicle is still a "rolling" deadly   
   > weapon.   
      
   An incapacitated driver in a moving vehicle is a threat.   
      
   >   
   > Fuck off...   
   >   
   > ... and...   
   >   
   > PLONK!   
   >   
   > No more bullshit semantics and/or arguing minutiae.   
   >   
   > =============================================================================   
   >   
   > MINNESOTA LAW:   
   >   
   > 1. The "Perspective of a Reasonable Officer" (MN Statute 609.066)   
   >   
   > Minnesota law is very clear: whether the force was justified must be   
   evaluated   
   > based on what a "reasonable officer" perceived at the time, "without the   
   > benefit of hindsight."   
   >   
   > "But the car was turning away."   
   >   
   > You're using hindsight.   
   >   
   > The law says we must look at the "totality of circumstances" known to the   
   > officer at that split second. If the driver just attempted to run them over,   
   a   
   > reasonable officer perceives an active, deadly threat until that driver is   
   > stopped.   
   >   
   > 2. The Definition of "Imminent" (Federal and MN Standards)   
   >   
   > In the 2025/2026 legal guidelines, "imminent" does not mean the bumper has to   
   > be touching the officer's skin.   
   >   
   > The Law: Under MN policies, "imminent" means "ready to take place;   
   impending."   
   >   
   > An SUV that is maneuvering after an attempted assault is "impending" danger.   
   > It doesn't have to be traveling toward the officer in a straight line to be a   
   > threat; its presence as a mobile, heavy weapon with a hostile driver makes   
   the   
   > threat continuous.   
   >   
   > 3. The "Plumhoff v. Rickard" Precedent   
   >   
   > This is a Supreme Court case (often cited in federal investigations like the   
   > one by ICE/DHS in Minneapolis) that specifically addresses shooting at a   
   > moving vehicle.   
   >   
   > The Fact: In Plumhoff, the court ruled that if an officer is justified in   
   > firing at a vehicle to stop a threat, THEY ARE JUSTIFIED IN CONTINUING TO   
   FIRE   
   > UNTIL THAT THREAT HAS BEEN NEUTRALIZED.   
   >   
   > I said, "Shoot until the perpetrator is incapacitated."   
   >   
   > This is backed by Plumhoff. The court found that if the initial shots are   
   > justified, the subsequent ones are too, as long as the driver hasn't clearly   
   > surrendered or been stopped.   
   >   
   > 4. Why the Feds have the evidence:   
   >   
   > Since this involves federal agents (ICE/DHS), the Federal Tort Claims Act and   
   > federal supremacy often apply.   
   >   
   > The Fact: When a federal agent is involved, the federal government has a   
   > "sovereign interest" in the investigation. They aren't "preventing" Minnesota   
   > from seeing it; they are following a standard legal "primacy" rule where the   
   > federal investigation often takes the lead on evidence custody to prevent   
   > local interference or bias.   
   >   
   > Suggested "Refocusing" Statement   
   >   
   > I'm shutting down the your bullshit "minutiae" about the car turning right   
   > now.   
   >   
   > Minnesota Statute 609.066 and the Supreme Court's ruling in Plumhoff both   
   > reject your hindsight. You don't get to pause a video and say the threat   
   ended   
   > because the wheels turned three degrees. The law judges the officer's 'split-   
   > second decision' in a 'tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving' situation.   
   >   
   > If you use an SUV as a deadly weapon, the 'whys and whatfores' of the   
   > investigation don't change the fact that the threat exists until the driver   
   is   
   > stopped."   
   >   
   > Had enough?   
   The "threat" only existed because the "officer" created it by stepping   
   in front of the vehicle, and that cannot be used to justify deadly force...   
      
   ...as is outlined in the CBP "Use of Force Policy".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)