Subject: Re: New Video Proves Dope1 Wrong
It would be extremely helpful if you and your comrades would stop simply making definitions up and so forth.

Generally speaking, the use of deadly physical force by a law enforcement officer in the execution (pun not intended) of his duties is considered to be legally justified if the officer perceives 1) a threat of death or serious physical injury 2) to the officer him/herself, other officers also trying to do their jobs, or third persons.

The officer does not (again generally speaking) have a legal duty to step aside or avoid confrontation with other persons in the execution of the officer's duties.

The contrary is true. That's the job. Enforcing the law.

It seems that the leftists here (and elsewhere) have a fundamental misunderstanding of the general legal principles that are involved.

Now, digging down into the specifics will depend on many different things.

Did the officer believe himself or others to be in immediate danger of serious physical injury or death? That's a state of mind question. There is both a subjective (i.e. did the officer sincerely believe there was such a threat) and objective component to the analysis (was the belief that the officer sincerely held objectively reasonable?).

Another common principle in these situations is that the officer's conduct must be evaluated without the benefit of hindsight, but rather, at the time, place, and circumstances that confronted the officer.

If a law enforcement officer is standing either in front of an SUV or close enough to the SUV to be in immediate danger of being struck by the vehicle, where the driver clearly is aware of the officer's presence and is clearly acting in a defiant way in response to the officer's instructions to stop and exit the vehicle, and has already made sudden changes in direction, being egged on by a bystander, then it is at least an issue for a jury as to whether or not the officer's subjective perception of immediate danger was 1) sincerely held, i.e. subjectively reasonable and 2) objectively reasonable.

Many factors will come into play. State and federal law, regulations, and case law precedent will all play a role.

Federal law enforcement/ICE policy will obviously play a role. I.e. it is obvious that ICE gives these officers firearms for a reason--that there are situations when they will need to be used. But even if this officer may have violated ICE policy on firearms use (it's not clear that he did under these circumstances), that still doesn't mean he committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Other factors will be necessary for a jury to evaluate as well--pattern and practice, perhaps characteristics of the vehicle being driven, and so forth.

Common sense also plays a role, and common sense will tell a reasonable person that if someone is standing in front of your vehicle, or near enough to you to possibly be endangered if you remain in motion and realize that the pedestrian has no insight into what your split-second intentions may be as to how you are going to drive that vehicle, or your capabilities in handling the vehicle, then it is you as the driver who takes the risks 1) that you hit the person or come close enough to pose a danger to the person 2) that the pedestrian misinterprets whatever your intentions might be.

In this case, the driver egged on by her spouse, was clearly defiant, clearly hostile, and clearly had no intention of complying with the officer's directions. She clearly had no intention of stopping her vehicle. On the contrary, it would have been reasonable for anyone in that officer's position to assume based on her immediate past behavior that even if she did not intentionally want to hit the officer, she would continue to behave and drive in a manner which might recklessly endanger the officer or other persons nearby.

At a first pass, from my opinion, and especially having now seen the body cam or cell phone video by the officer himself, the first shot was arguably justified sufficient to require a jury trial as to whether or not the officer's behavior in firing it constituted a crime.

The second and third shots are far more problematic.

However, the officer's cell phone videos is very illuminating as the entire sequence of the SUV driver moving forward into the officer (or dangerously close to him in order to bypass him) until after the three shots were fired appears to be less than 1 second. Maybe 2 at the most.

In any event, there is plenty to chew over in this situation and anything like it without raising straw men.