Nate the Lawyer breaks down the ICE shooting footage in detail [video] | Hacker News Reader

Nate the Lawyer breaks down the ICE shooting footage in detail [video]

youtube.com

19 pointszahlman16 comments

horrible take

The driver ran her car into an officer hitting him. Anyone who’s played gta knows a car is a deadly weapon. Pretty sure the officer was justified in using deadly force.

Even if the person didn't intend on running the officer over, it's reasonable to assume that the officer felt their life was in danger. The person in question was also already committing a crime by continuing to block federal government operations.

Anything that happens while you are in the process of committing a crime is mostly on you.

> The person in question was also already committing a crime by continuing to block federal government operations.

You just made this up, no jury ever ruled that.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=obstruction+of+police+officer+usa gives many results that clearly demonstrate that willfully impeding federal LEO (including physically, as in this case) is a federal crime.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=can+protesters+block+traffic+usa similarly establishes that blocking traffic is not lawful and does not become lawful simply because of free speech protections on protest.

> The driver ran her car into an officer hitting him

No amount of repeating this will make it true.

100% justified. We can Monday night quarterback it all day, but ultimately it comes down to having to make split second decisions based on training and experience. Many officers would have jumped out of the way, many would have taken the shot. There is no one size fits all.

Let's all remember that as we make right or left turns while pedestrians are still in the crosswalk.

Query: If someone is driving a car around pedestrians, and someone shoots the driver in the head, what happens to the car?

He shot while only being a few feet away from the car, which had already started to drive off.

Why would a trained officer believe that shooting at the driver from only a few feet away would have a higher chance of improving his chances against being hit by the car (which was already well in motion), than trying to physically move out of its way? That makes no sense.

All of this happened in a split second. As explained in TFA, the relevant legal standards do not require the application of hindsight or sober second thought. They are only concerned with what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, with the information available in the moment. Training does not and cannot possibly prevent instinctive actions that appear irrational or ineffective after the fact.

How does that boot taste.

Wouldn't the proverbial reasonable person jump out of the way of a vehicle that's already nearly on the verge of colliding with them? Pulling out a gun seems to be the less instinctual thing to do in such a situation.

I also wonder if they'll ever find out who screamed "F*ing B*tch" at her in that moment.

It is reported that the ICE agent who fired the deadly shots already experienced a harrowing situation with a car . . . He was seriously injured last summer when he was dragged by the vehicle of a fleeing suspect whom he shot with a stun gun.

Apparently the driver rolled up the driver's side window on his arm and dragged him.

None of that matters.

So you're saying he wasn't qualified to be there in the first place?

That's true, but it doesn't exonerate him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com