Anonymous #1 4w

The car would still be obstructing the road. A reasonable person would just ask her to move. Wouldn’t that have solved all this and not lead to someone’s death? If she didn’t move, then arrest her. But she was never given the chance

5

Anonymous #1 4w

Mind you she was originally asked to leave and was actively trying to do so…

3

Anonymous OP 4w

They’re past the obstructing the road portion, she was being arrested. As soon as you stop complying with lawful orders, the cop has no idea what you’re going to do with a couple hundred pound vehicle. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

0

Anonymous #3 4w

If an officer is “fearing for his life” because of a Honda pilot going 5mph in the opposite direction of him, then maybe he shouldn’t have been given a gun in the first place

4

Anonymous #3 4w

Also Acosta v. San Francisco literally justifies this as the court rejected the officers argument that the car moving towards him was a threat to his life since the car was going less than 10 mph

3

Anonymous #2 4w

It’s really easy sitting in ur chair watching the video to go ohhhh yeah seee she was turning. If you’re that cop telling the person to put the brakes on and get out, and they’re not listening, you don’t know wtf they’re going to do next.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

Yet again tho the court case I just mentioned shows that it still wouldn’t be legal, unless a Honda pilot can go 0-60 in 0.5 seconds, which last I checked it can’t. This is also why law enforcement needs to wear body cams, to corroborate these things, but they weren’t

4

Anonymous #2 4w

“when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person” when you drive a cop off the hood of your car and he nearly slips on ice as the car barrels off… as far as I’m concerned the threshold of imminent danger of death has been met. And I’m sure that’s how the lawyers will argue and win. They put the important stuff first like most things lol

-1

Anonymous #3 4w

What video did you watch??? Let me know how this shows a cop being rolled off the hood and “slipping on the ice.” While you’re at it, let me know how the boot tastes too

8

Anonymous OP 4w

They did ask her to move. They were giving conflicting orders. And they intentionally placed themselves in front of the car as “justification” to murder her

9

Anonymous #2 4w

After the shot dumb fuck

0

Anonymous #3 4w

I’m losing brain cells trying to explain this to you. If you can’t use your own damn eyes and see the video proving you wrong in real time, then you need to focus more on your education and less on trying to prove someone else wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Where the shooters front left food is clearly right next to the tire??? Hello?? How is this in front of the car and “rolling off the hood” you “dumb fuck”

0

Anonymous #2 4w

It’s just the fact you showed the pic 3 seconds after the shot. So fucking disingenuous lol.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

You still have not told me how that shows the cop in front. And no, that pic was literally half a second into the first shot going off. Sorry for not being a genie and able to magically time frame the very second the shot goes off

0

Anonymous #2 4w

Well a car moves fast so yeah. Claiming the shot went off there does make a difference. You’re going…. Uhhh look how far away he was. BRO WAS LITERALLY STILL ATTACHED TO THE CAR. But yeah no biggie honest mistake. Sureeeeees

0

Anonymous #3 4w

I’m losing brain cells trying to explain this to you. Pls figure out how to genuinely use your sense of sight and connect the frames to see how he was not in front of the car and was not in danger of being run over. And yet again, EVEN IF HE WAS, HE WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE CAR FOR DEADLY FORCE TO BE LEGAL BECAUSE THE CAR WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REACH A HIGHER SPEED IN THE TIME TO CLOSE THAT DISTANCE. I’m done arguing with someone who doesn’t gaf about understanding facts and just wants to be right

4

Anonymous #2 4w

I mean not my fault you posted a pic that was incorrectly representing when the shot went off, and then when faced with that truth were like ohhhh yeah it was just a mistake. Don’t seem like a very honest person. I posted the picture here, let the others come to the obvious conclusion the courts will

-1

Anonymous #3 4w

And yet again, you still haven’t told me how your version shows the cop in front of the car. At this point you’re just trying to rage bait rather than seek to understand something

1

Anonymous #2 4w

If the bullet went through the front window shied, how is at least some of his body not in front of the car. And with that good night

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Go stand next to your front left tire and reach as far as you can across the windshield from there. Tell me how far you get and shove that much up your ass. Have a great night

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Still in front of the car, I guess his hand could’ve got hurt ;)

1

Anonymous #3 4w

You have no common sense. You show me a picture where the guy is clearly not in front of the car, ask me a question that has a clear answer, and then try to be like “oh well I’m right idc.” I’m done responding to you bro if you can’t use your eyes to look at your own evidence then there’s no saving you

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Defenders of the agent keep bringing up that he might not know what she is going to do, but have you considered that maybe the agent should have looked into the windshield he was two feet from and taken note of the terrified woman who would have given no indication of being violent. As well, shooting the driver of a vehicle should be a last resort not the first course of action. Why didn’t the agent try to move out of the way? Why didn’t he shoot the tires? Because he was a trigger happy nutjob.

6