XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: katt@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
   A threat is not "over" just because the vehicle has cleared the officer's   
   path.   
      
   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.   
      
   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.   
      
   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.   
      
   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.   
      
   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?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)