The Student Room Group

So much for the 2nd amendment

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80

Original post
by ErasistratusV
Look, this is becoming time-consuming and largely pointless. You don't know anything about the issue and yet you cling to your belief that your opinion/attitude is so emphatically correct it's almost hilarious.
I don't have time to reply to your largely ineffectual points, I'm tired of it to be honest and I'd rather argue with a bucket of paint. However, I would point out that at no stage have I categorically stated I believe the guy is innocent or otherwise. I stated I thought this would be a case of self defence and in the main I would not be surprised if the guy was later cleared if historical precedence is any guide. By contrast, you are the one I believe making reference to 'masked death squads'. You clearly and overtly nailed your colours to the mast long before you clamped eyes on the issue, so are you realistically expecting anyone to bother with an attitude like that? I've extended this courtesy so far and it would be useful for you to consider respecting that. I must tell you I find your tone rather tiresome I'm afraid.

"You don't know anything about the issue and yet you cling to your belief that your opinion/attitude is so emphatically correct it's almost hilarious."
Look, I'm not telling you again. Don't hog the irony!

"I don't have time to reply to your largely ineffectual points"
If you don't want to answer, well, people can infer what they might from that. 😉

"making reference to 'masked death squads'."
I gave you a detailed breakdown of why that description is reasonable. You failed to make any kind of response. Just as you fail to respond to every argument, point or question.

"You clearly and overtly nailed your colours to the mast long before you clamped eyes on the issue"
You seem confused. I knew nothing about this before I saw the video. The video seemed to show an unjustified shooting. After subsequently referring to a variety of US law enforcement and legal experts commenting on the videos and the relevant laws, codes, etc, I accepted their consensus that it appeared to be an unjustified and likely illegal killing.

You believe it was justified self defence, for some reason that you seem unable to explain. Good for you.

"I must tell you I find your tone rather tiresome I'm afraid."
Sorry, but you seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a ****.
And don't be afraid. I'm not an ICE agent.

Reply 81

Original post
by ErasistratusV
Didn't read any of that I'm afraid. I'm going for dinner.
Let me know when you're ready to address my actual points and drop the God-complex and I'll be happy to discuss anything you like about this incident. In exchange I might overlook prejudicial attitudes you had which I fear heretofore have confused your understanding things.

"Didn't read any of that"
It has become clear that you haven't read any of the posts here, or if you did you didn't understand them.

"I'll be happy to discuss anything you like about this incident"
To be honest, I don't think you have that capacity.
All - I have removed many posts that have become personal and have descended into arguments. Please keep this discussion civil or we will close the thread.

Thanks,

CQ

Reply 83

According to the slowed down video I watched. She accelerated while the wheels were pointed at the agent, she just didn't pull off until they turned to the right due to the ice.

Also the first person view from the agent in question shows the impact and even the sound from the impact.

In my opinion that constitutes full justification for what followed. I'm also certain that the same outspoken people crying murder, would be in laughing hysterically if she had killed him with the car.

Reply 84

Original post
by Jebedee
According to the slowed down video I watched. She accelerated while the wheels were pointed at the agent, she just didn't pull off until they turned to the right due to the ice.
Also the first person view from the agent in question shows the impact and even the sound from the impact.
In my opinion that constitutes full justification for what followed. I'm also certain that the same outspoken people crying murder, would be in laughing hysterically if she had killed him with the car.

The videos clearly show the 2nd and 3rd shots were fired when Ross was at the side of the car, when there was zero threat to his life. You can even see him take several quick steps alongside the car so he was able to fire the 3rd shot through the passenger window.
Many legal and law enforcement experts have reviewed the footage and the consensus is that the use of lethal force was not justified and that Ross broke a load of regulations and protocols, and that in strictly legal terms, a charge of 2nd deg murder or manslaughter would be appropriate. They also agree that under current circumstances, obtaining a conviction (or even going to trial) is would be difficult.

'The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.' George Orwell, 1984

616367937_10239592770012918_8510661680857294339_n.jpg

Reply 85

Original post
by 2WheelGod
The videos clearly show the 2nd and 3rd shots were fired when Ross was at the side of the car, when there was zero threat to his life. You can even see him take several quick steps alongside the car so he was able to fire the 3rd shot through the passenger window.
Many legal and law enforcement experts have reviewed the footage and the consensus is that the use of lethal force was not justified and that Ross broke a load of regulations and protocols, and that in strictly legal terms, a charge of 2nd deg murder or manslaughter would be appropriate. They also agree that under current circumstances, obtaining a conviction (or even going to trial) is would be difficult.
'The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.' George Orwell, 1984
616367937_10239592770012918_8510661680857294339_n.jpg

She may not have been afterwards an immediate threat to him. However I would argue that someone that drives a deadly 2 ton weapon into law enforcement remains a threat to others and society as a whole after the fact.

Please provide names/sources from these legal experts to which you refer.

Reply 86

Original post
by Jebedee
According to the slowed down video I watched. She accelerated while the wheels were pointed at the agent, she just didn't pull off until they turned to the right due to the ice.
Also the first person view from the agent in question shows the impact and even the sound from the impact.
In my opinion that constitutes full justification for what followed. I'm also certain that the same outspoken people crying murder, would be in laughing hysterically if she had killed him with the car.

The guy reacted to a perceived threat, rightly or wrongly, in reality it won't change the outcome. All such officers have the right to self-defence, good luck trying to change that legislation.

This is yet another incident where lethal force was used and a person died as a result. This won't even be considered news in 12 months. Officer involved shootings in the USA are not uncommon unfortunately. This is the nature of the violence in some areas there.

A portion of the second amendment community are generally supportive of the police. Of course, it's somewhat self-selecting since you have to be a law abiding citizen to be able to own a firearm and really be part of that group in the first place.

Reply 87

Original post
by Jebedee
She may not have been afterwards an immediate threat to him. However I would argue that someone that drives a deadly 2 ton weapon into law enforcement remains a threat to others and society as a whole after the fact.
Please provide names/sources from these legal experts to which you refer.


It is easy to retrospectively judge in leisure the actions that others had to make in haste- and whilst they were under duress.

Whether or not the first, second or third shot were justified I don't know, nor do I know which shot struck the driver but forensics will work it out. However, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find the officer later be cleared. It has happened before.

He tried to approach from the passenger side, no dice, his colleague approached from the drivers side, he gets clear off the off-side as being there puts him at risk of cross-fire (this is the USA where there is ever chance the average driver is also armed) and moves to the front. The driver panics or whatever in response to the other officer and tries to flee with the guy in front of her.

The net result is that had the driver complied with police demands they would likely have been charged with a misdemeanour/felony rather than been shot at.

As I have mentioned before, the very worst thing you will do in any interaction with law enforcement in the United States is fail to follow their commands carefully or do anything suddenly or unexpectedly out of the ordinary- anything that they might interpret as a threat. Police officers in the USA approach any situation through the prism of their own safety and the vast majority of them are armed, in fact a lot of them have routine access to equipment that is way outside the scope of what European firearms trained officers might have available.

Reply 88

Original post
by Jebedee
She may not have been afterwards an immediate threat to him. However I would argue that someone that drives a deadly 2 ton weapon into law enforcement remains a threat to others and society as a whole after the fact.
Please provide names/sources from these legal experts to which you refer.

Thankfully, the facts don't care about your opinions.

Reply 89

Original post
by Jebedee
She may not have been afterwards an immediate threat to him. However I would argue that someone that drives a deadly 2 ton weapon into law enforcement remains a threat to others and society as a whole after the fact.
Please provide names/sources from these legal experts to which you refer.

Here's a career homicide prosecutor and U.S.D.A. who has investigated police lethal force shootings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epxQcJ2H8gM

Here's an ex DOJ lawyer calling it "murder".
https://youtube.com/shorts/44an_a5Domg?si=P6uXOa4Wk2M-909-

Here's an in-depth analysis from one of YT's premier legal channels (which includes the opinion of several "lethal force" experts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AQbhes-Ntw&t=1542s

There are many more.

Reply 90

Original post
by ErasistratusV
The guy reacted to a perceived threat, rightly or wrongly, in reality it won't change the outcome. All such officers have the right to self-defence, good luck trying to change that legislation.
This is yet another incident where lethal force was used and a person died as a result. This won't even be considered news in 12 months. Officer involved shootings in the USA are not uncommon unfortunately. This is the nature of the violence in some areas there.
A portion of the second amendment community are generally supportive of the police. Of course, it's somewhat self-selecting since you have to be a law abiding citizen to be able to own a firearm and really be part of that group in the first place.

"Officer involved shootings in the USA are not uncommon, unfortunately"

As you've said. Multiple times. You keep making the same few points, which other posters have largely disproved. You mystify me, honestly.

Reply 91

Original post
by Jebedee
According to the slowed down video I watched. She accelerated while the wheels were pointed at the agent, she just didn't pull off until they turned to the right due to the ice.
Also the first person view from the agent in question shows the impact and even the sound from the impact.
In my opinion that constitutes full justification for what followed. I'm also certain that the same outspoken people crying murder, would be in laughing hysterically if she had killed him with the car.

"In my opinion that constitutes full justification for what followed. I'm also certain that the same outspoken people crying murder, would be in laughing hysterically if she had killed him with the car."

It doesn't constitute full justification. It's still murder, regardless of how people would react. Your last point is giving far-right. Do you like podcasts? It feels like one of those badly done far-right podcast points that they think are genius- just criticise the 'other side' and you've won the argument 😝😝😝😝😝

Reply 92

Original post
by ethereal-bleach
"Officer involved shootings in the USA are not uncommon, unfortunately"
As you've said. Multiple times. You keep making the same few points, which other posters have largely disproved. You mystify me, honestly.

No one has disproved anything.

Extensive video examination proves nothing.

I will not be surprised if the guy is cleared.

One simply cannot interact with armed agents in this way and expect an optimal outcome.

Reply 93

Original post
by ErasistratusV
No one has disproved anything.
Extensive video examination proves nothing.
I will not be surprised if the guy is cleared.
One simply cannot interact with armed agents in this way and expect an optimal outcome.

He will be cleared - not because the killing was lawful and justified, but because the DoJ won't even investigate it.
However, as there is no statute of limitations on murder, I wouldn't rule out a prosecution a few years down the line when the DoJ is no longer Trump's toothless lapdog.

"Extensive video examination proves nothing."
More nonsense.
Investigations and trials are often decided by extensive examination of video evidence.

"One simply cannot interact with armed agents in this way and expect an optimal outcome."
Interact in what way, exactly? Drive a car near them?
And why must we expect an "optimal outcome" (whatever that even is - getting a prize)? Why not simply a "not-shot in the face at point blank range and then denied medical assistance" outcome?
(edited 1 month ago)

Reply 94

Original post
by ErasistratusV
No one has disproved anything.
Extensive video examination proves nothing.
I will not be surprised if the guy is cleared.
One simply cannot interact with armed agents in this way and expect an optimal outcome.

@2WheelGod has disproved it very well. Actually. Unless we are seeing different threads and users here.

Uh
I mean
I'm like 99999% sure that extensive video examination will uh, prove something. As you're viewing what happened. You see what I mean or no? Viewing evidence typically proves something.

He will only be cleared because the US justice system is corrupt.

Interact how? Drive? Drive away? Because she did NOT knock his ass over

Quick Reply

How The Student Room is moderated

To keep The Student Room safe for everyone, we moderate posts that are added to the site.