Fuck this Leftist Terrorism, and fuck the corporate media & political sophists & rhetoricians making up BOLD. FACED. LIES. Please shove this in the face of any retard you encounter IRL.
This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. This is not an argument. This is not a controversy. There was none before. There is none now. The law in the US has not changed on this issue in many decades. Anyone who claims the shooting of Renee Good by Officer Jonathan Ross is anything but an obvious case of a self-defense shooting by an officer against a suspect, is a liar and a fraud. Especially, if that person has any legal background, or worse: is an attorney. They are knowingly spreading disinformation.
Ofc Jonathan Ross is a victim of a vehicular attack. Renee Good is the criminal suspect. This is not a discussion.
If you accelerate a vehicle in the direction of anyone at close range, it is reasonable for them to open fire on you in self-defense. Using Andrew Branca's 5 Principles of Self Defense we'll go over why:
- Innocence - A law enforcement officer in the performance of their duty is innocent of a crime. Yes, ICE are "real police". Yes, ICE can arrest you for obstructing their investigations. No, this is not a debate. Anyone who has said otherwise has knowingly lied to you. This is especially true if the person who has said this to you has a background in law of any kind.
- Reasonableness - Any reasonable person would reasonably expect that they were at a high risk of death, maiming, or hospitalization from being struck by a car.
- Imminence - An accelerating vehicle at close range means that the use of the deadly weapon that is a fast moving vehicle, is a threat that is actively aggressing upon the victim.
- Proportionality - A fast accelerating vehicle, a short distance from you, traveling towards you is a deadly force threat against your life and it is proportional to meet this deadly force threat with deadly force by virtue of a weapon.
- Avoidance - A fast accelerating vehicle, a short distance from you, traveling towards you is nearly impossible to avoid easily by feet alone.
Notice, at no point, I mentioned "the suspect intended to escape". This is because it doesn't matter, so nobody cares. Anyone who has told you that this matters is knowingly lying to you, especially if they have a background in law.
Hence, law enforcement, for many years, has shot and killed people that they reasonably believed were aggressing upon them or anyone else with a vehicle. The suspect's thoughts at the time when they attacked the officer is NOT RELEVANT. The act is sufficient. This is not new. This is not the first time this has ever happened in American history. The list of comparable cases are enumerable, which is why this is settled case law.
They are so enumerable that I will now list 10 of them where no officer faced discipline for the shooting.
- Terrance Shane was shot by officers of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department for crushing and officer with his door as he attempted to evade arrest
- Miesha Scott was shot by officers of the LAPD-Harbor Division after she struck a woman, missed and officer, and fled after leaving a child custody exchange
- Melanie Udell was shot by Ofc Nathan Anderson of the Bismark Police Department after striking an Ofc Matthew James with her car and mounting the vehicle on a snowbank.
- Aiden English was shot by officers of the Chicago Police Department after reversing into an officer and crushing him while attempting to escape
- Holly Lynn Graham was shot by officers of the Columbus Police Department after accelerating into an officer, striking him, and mounting him on the hood of the car
- Jamazea Kittell was shot in the face by Ofc Brad Kim of the Vallejo Police Department as he attempted to escape arrest by driving through the officer in a stolen car. This is almost an exactly identical incident to the one in Minneapolis.
- Jeremy Bennett was shot by multiple NYPD officers accelerating towards officers after having rammed into multiple civilian and law enforcement vehicles during his attempt to escape a pursuit. 7 Officers and 1 civilian were hospitalized in the incident.
- Charles McGonegal II was shot by multiple Manteca Police Officers after having rammed multiple civilian vehicles, and then rammed 2 police cruisers.
- Maxie Ray Whitaker was shot multiple times by Houston Police Officers for dragging a police officer in an attempt to flee.
- Manuel Ramirez was shot a fusillade of gunfire from LAPD officers in an attempt to evade a pursuit and stand off.
I'm tired of the lies and the insane gaslighting by Leftists and Communists who are raping civilization and endorsing terrorism as a moral imperative.
Just TODAY there was ANOTHER vehicle attacks on ICE agents in Portland. At this point, I wish Trump would declare Oregon and Minnesota in a state of insurrection since they are openly insistent on killing federal law enforcement.
We agree that it doesn't matter because it's self-defense in face of a deadly threat. I'm just talking about timing and physics.
Why do you include reaction time as a factor in evading, but not in drawing and firing? I assume you've seen the video. Assuming the same reaction time, jumping to the side would be faster than drawing and firing. Even if we assumed they take the same amount of time, shooting the driver does not guarantee the threat goes away.
If you want to say it's to stop the threat for benefit of others or public safety or whatever, then fine. Neutralizing the threat has additional value beyond evasion. But I still say from a purely "don't get killed by the car" standpoint, from his starting position, evading was equivalent or faster and more reliable.
I think either I misspoke or you misunderstood me. That is the "draw to first shot" time. 1 to 1.5 seconds to evade compared to 1 to 1.5 seconds to draw and fire. Evasion is impossible, shooting at that speed is a professional shooter standard. You won't get out of the way, but you will get one shot. Sometimes, as we see here, that's enough.
I don't really agree that evading at the range he was at would have helped. At a further distance? Absolutely. 20 feet or so, sure. The issue is that you must never put yourself in a position where that can happen. The choice in the moment is effectively irrelevant when you can mitigate it altogether with more space. "Distance buys you time. Time buys you options"