Anonymous #2 5w

Just curious, what legal cases are you referring to that would justify law enforcement shooting and killing an unarmed individual who was merely attempting to drive away from police?

16

Anonymous OP 5w

Graham V. Connor is probably the most applicable in this case. Your statement that she’s attempting to drive away is completely an assumption and unfortunately we can’t ask her what her intentions were. Legally, she’s behind the wheel of a vehicle that can absolutely be used as a deadly weapon. Graham gives officers a bit of leeway in scenarios like this because of the rapidly evolving nature of the situation (as seen in the video). It’s incredibly easy to slow down the video and view the entire

-2

Anonymous #2 5w

Situation in hindsight, but the initial interaction between the officers and Good happened in real time. If this does go to court and the agent’s attorney can display that the agent did what any reasonable officer would do when met with a potential threat upon their life, I see no way he goes to jail for this

-2

Anonymous #2 5w

But that’s just not true. Video footage does show the woman turning her steering wheel rightward which clearly indicates an attempt to turn away from the officer and leave without hitting anyone. The officer also had more than enough time to move away from the car to the point where lethal force was wholly unnecessary. Not to mention this wasn’t just an officer, this was ICE. ICE does not have the right to search or even arrest US citizens without suspicion of fugitive harboring

18

Anonymous OP 5w

Once again you are using the video evidence and not considering the officer’s perspective in real time. Federal agents (including ICE) have been able to detain anyone impeding an investigation as Good was doing since 1970 under US V. Varkonyi

-3

Anonymous #2 5w

Yeah, your case breaks down when see the driver side wheel TURN right before he even brandished his weapon. Not only that, they DENIED medical attention. You think it’s a cut and dry case in defense of the ice agent but it’s the other way around 😂

13

Anonymous #2 5w

I’m not trying to be mean, but are you telling them to disregard VIDEO evidence for feelings? I’m sorry but in court, the video will show if the force was justified or not, no matter the officer’s feelings. If the video shows the woman turning away (aka leaving and not threatening their lives), then shooting her was unnecessary and won’t be considered justified force. It’ll be considered murder.

10

Anonymous #5 5w

I mean if you read Graham V. Connor you’ll see that law enforcement has much more leeway in situations like this than you’d think. All an Attorney would have to do is prove that the Ice Agent was acting as a reasonable officer would and that he did not act outside the scope of his training. Graham gives officers a lot of slack because of the rapidly evolving nature. It’s always going to be easy to tell what happened when you have video evidence that can be slowed and replayed

4

Anonymous #2 5w

Graham V. Connor doesn’t explain the 2nd or 3rd shot lol. It only explains the 1st. You can’t claim self-defense when you’re out of the path of the vehicle and still firing into it. This is the exact same type of reason why you can’t claim self-defense when you’re shooting at someone running away. He’s fucked.

3

Anonymous ___joker__ 5w

Officers are trained to shoot to neutralize the threat, not just to maim them. I will reiterate t

3

Anonymous #2 5w

That it’s going to be hard to say he was acting far outside of the scope of his training and protocol

1

Anonymous #2 5w

But no available evidence suggests they were impeding any investigation? And yes it’s true that we must consider the officer’s pov, but that doesn’t mean police can get away with using lethal force in any case when an officer ‘feels’ threatened. We have to determine whether it was reasonable for the officer to assume danger was imminent that would justify lethal force, and the video clearly shows the victim turning and driving away from the officer. Opening fire here was clearly unjustified

6