politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
No. The "reasonable person" standard is applied. Would a reasonable person in the position of the imperiled person believe they faced a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm? If so, anyone present may use any level of force that a reasonable person would believe necessary to stop that threat.
Even if we give him the benefit of an unreasonable doubt and say he was sufficientlt imperiled, "Necessary" is what is going to hang this guy: the level of "force" "necessary" to end the "imminent threat" was to take a half-step to the right. "Sidestep-Right" is the extent of the force he was justified in using against her here.
A reasonable person knows how cars work. They go in the direction the wheels are pointed at. Her wheels were pointed away from the officer, towards an escape path. The mofo was just dying for a chance to shoot someone
I agree completely.
The jury owes him the benefit of a reasonable doubt. For purposes of discussion, I contemplated a scenario where we extended that doubt beyond reasonable, and into the realm of the unreasonable. Even if his unreasonable belief of danger was somehow deemed acceptable, it would only justify a level of "force" necessary to stop that danger. Even if he were actually in danger, moving slightly to his right is all he was justified in doing under self defense law.
Her car wheels drove directly over the ground where he was. He was literally hit as he got out of the way. He would've been seriously injured if he didn't move.
He walked in front of a vehicle being directed to move by the other masked assailants.
He would have been fine had he not walked in front of a moving vehicle.
As you stated, he would have a been seriously injured if he didn't move. moving out of the way is the only needed action. When does stopping and killing come in to play again?
A reasonable person would understand that a vehicle doesn't magically come to a stop if the driver loses control of it (e.g. by being murdered), and would instead GTFO of the way rather than using that time to draw, aim, and fire a weapon.
In fact, the video even shows the vehicle crashing after said loss of control.
So police are never supposed to shoot at cars trying to run them over because the car would keep driving for a bit anyways? Good luck in court with that one...
I don't think that follows from their argument. It's valid for this particular case. It would not be valid in a scenario where the driver was reacting to the officer's evasion attempts by steering toward them.
Aye, there may be some limited circumstances where the it might actually make sense. This event in MN ain't it.
It's an ineffective strategy, so it's illogical to do so anyhow. Anyone with even basic grasp of physics should understand this. I suppose this is where the dumbing down of the American education system has gotten us.
Even DHS guidelines say as much. This agent violated these guidelines.
I wouldn't be the one defending myself in court from murder charges, so I'm not the one in need of luck. Good luck on the shooter convincing me (e.g. as a jury member) that the shooting was justified.