[NonHyloMorph]

The term to consider here is >extrajudical killing< As in: Someone wotking for the executive kills another citizen, without 1) a need to do so for selfdefense 2) any justification from the judicary for it, and that without being charged for murder/aggrevated manslaugther. The argument: they are not doing what this law enforcement person wants do do of them (whether that obstruction is legal or not), so they are free to be killed is nothing but the total disregard for the law, any decency and the respect for human life and dignity. In short it is lynchmob mentality.

[Amezarak]

The argument is that people recklessly driving their vehicles with a total disregard for the lives around them are a danger to the people in front of their car and anyone else on the street, which is recognized by the Supreme Court even when nobody is directly in front of the car. They don’t have to wait until you kill someone and get tried for it. They can legally just shoot you under current law. That’s what the courts say.

Self-defense is, however, an entirely plausible defense in this scenario, even if the agent could have acted differently to not be in the path of someone already behaving erratically, and even if people only with the benefit of slo-mo multi-angle replays don’t think so. That’s why nobody is being charged. This happens all the time, unfortunately. The minute you choose to endanger people around you in the presence of people with guns, you’ve rolled the dice on your life.

So do you have any actual examples of what you’re describing?

[unethical_ban]

>The argument is that people recklessly driving their vehicles with a total disregard for the lives around them are a danger to the people in front of their car and anyone else on the street

And my argument is that no matter what SCOTUS law one cites, or hand-waving about self-defense that is said, that shooting her in the head from the side of the car was not only tactically unnecessary, but objectively made the situation worse in a way that a competent person should immediately recognize.

One does not need slow-mo to see she wasn't trying to kill anyone.

>The minute you choose to endanger people around you in the presence of people with guns, you’ve rolled the dice on your life.

This is shorthand for "comply or die". Welcome to the free world. I wonder if Europe and Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the world know what they're missing by not having LEO as qualified as ICE running their streets.

[Amezarak]

Too late to edit, but:

> I wonder if Europe and Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the world know what they're missing by not having LEO as qualified as ICE running their streets.

"Europe" is of course not a place, but maybe you'd be surprised to know this does happen in "Europe" and other countries. In fact France specifically legalized police shooting vehicles fleeing traffic stops even if the police themselves are not in danger, and about a dozen people are killed that way every year.

Heck, here's a video of a shooting in Canada where the police fired at someone just trying to get away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lbqjBauouE

[Amezarak]

> One does not need slow-mo to see she wasn't trying to kill anyone.

She accelerated her car before turning the wheels knowing people were in the path of her car. (Even if you argue that the wheels spinning before the wheels turn doesn't count, cars do not turn rotate on their central axis, so accelerating while turning still endangers people in front of the car.) Nobody can read her mind but the possible consequences of that action are obvious. Legally that constitutes intent, regardless of what we might want to project on her state of mind.

Further, if you do want to talk about state of mind, you cannot argue that any person behaving rationally would choose to commit a felony and flee from LEO in a vehicle in the first place. This is an extremely high-risk move for zero benefit and the video confirms it didn't even take place out of panic, which was my original thought. On the ground in that situation there can be no analysis of "what is she thinking" because she abandoned the reasonable course that anyone there would have expected her to take.

> that shooting her in the head

No confirmed gunshot wound is in her head. Where did you hear this? It appears the ICE officer fired center of mass, as two confirmed gunshot wounds are in her chest and one in her arm.

I realize that arguing these technical issues will not change your mind, because for you the emotion of "people dying is bad" trumps all the reasons it happened. But I hope it will get you to consider what other people are thinking.

> tactically unnecessary, but objectively made the situation worse

That isn't clear at all because you cannot know what the counterfactual is. There were armed people who could have shot James Fields before he accelerated into a crowd. If they had, Heather Heyer would be alive today. If they had shot him, then people would be making the same argument you're making. Hitting the gas while your car is surrounded by people is no different than firing a gun randomly. In the very best case, your are operating a deadly weapon with a total disregard for human life. In some situations (self-defense), that may be justified. But it is not innocent.

The way to stop this from happening is to stop encouraging people to commit crimes by interfering with law enforcement. There are other effective ways to protest. Another good start would be winning elections. Encouraging people to get into violent encounters with law enforcement is risking peoples' lives for nothing. Once you choose violence you don't know where it's going to go.

[unethical_ban]

I highly disagree with your analysis. And yes, some of my perspective is based on the ideology that the ICE agents are largely incompetent, racist, hateful human beings led by people of the same quality.

You are correct, she didn't get shot in the head, she was shot in the chest and lived for 20 minutes while she was denied medical attention.

Any resistance to tyranny will involve disobedience of varying levels of severity. This administration is fascist in the true meaning of the word. A woman blocked the street, got killed then called a f*cking b*tch by the cop after he shot her, and a domestic terrorist before her body was cold by the DHS secretary and president and vice president.

You say she shouldn't have been there. I say ICE shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have issued conflicting orders, shouldn't have gotten in front of her car, and should have kept going around her like they had been. I say her demeanor before she left meant she clearly was not trying to harm anyone. Period.

Authority is not ipso facto moral.

[Amezarak]

> shouldn't have issued conflicting orders

There were no conflicting orders, unless you mean ICE telling her to get out of the car while Good's partner yells "drive, baby drive!"

> shouldn't have gotten in front of her car,

It certainly would have been smarter for the ICE agent on a personal welfare level, but the idea that the cops have to leave you an escape route is silly. It's policy mostly for police safety; from everyone elses' standpoint, you don't get to say "the cops have stopped me and I don't have a way out so I have no choice but to run them over."

> Any resistance to tyranny will involve disobedience of varying levels of severity. This administration is fascist in the true meaning of the word.

Right, well, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who is out protesting and resisting the incompetent, hateful, and violent thugs of a fascist regime should absolutely, 100% expect to be killed. I mean, that's what fascist thugs do. Instead, Good and her partner appear to have been caught totally off guard, with her partner demanding to know why they had real bullets. There's a disconnect somewhere.

Anyway, I guess one of my overarching points is that this is not actually unusual police behavior, even by international standards. It's getting so much attention because of its political salience. I don't know (and doubt) there is any coordination going on, but in these situations I think people should always ask themselves why: a) this event, like many others, is incorrectly being treated as unprecedented or beyond the norm and b) why it is so emotionally charged when similar past events were not, c) whether the emotionality is productive at all personally and d) whether the outrage is likely to lead to desirable political consequences. For a closely related example in the lattermost question, I am no lover of cops, but it appears the actual political results of the BLM protests were highly mixed, at best, and in some cases made things worse. So, for example, returning to a situation where we have immigration laws and minimal enforcement is clearly not a desirable end for anyone except maybe some classes of businessmen.

[unethical_ban]

>There were no conflicting orders

Factually incorrect. Now then,

It got a lot of attention because it is death, because it was avoidable, because it was the responsibility of ICE to make it avoidable, and because popular tension breaks at unpredictable moments. Hers happened to be on video from a thousand different angles.

Your rhetoric waffles between support of the actions of the authorities, and you seem to drift between satire and reality. "I'm no lover of cops" while you victim blame a woman for getting killed.

>I think it's pretty clear that anyone who is out protesting and resisting the incompetent, hateful, and violent thugs of a fascist regime should absolutely, 100% expect to be killed

Given the amount of energy you are expending to defending the actions of officers in this instance, I assume you are a supporter of this administration and their actions.

[NonHyloMorph]

What? You know someone in thisbthread made the argument, that it is not smart to shoot at someone driving at you because it won't stop the car. The truth of that can be seen in the recording of the video where renne nicole is being shot by that ICE person. The car is driving right on till it crashes into a mast or post or whatever these things are called. At this point her brain must be blown all over the interior of the car, since he had that gun on her head before the car started. You know. The guy was standing to the side of the car, and that woman must have been scarred for her life. I mean when you're so close, you must feel what is going on. And I think it is clear where the car will be going by the point that man decided to pull the trigger. Watch the video closely again. Imaging standing there with the gun. You would feel the rotation of her boy propagating through the pistol that is elongating your hand. You feel how the car is movjng away from you, even so you want it to stop and want the dooe to open up. You must see the thoughts and emotions of that woman running over her face as she decides to disobey and flee. What I see is someone who wants someone else to obey and to control them and is so entitled to the idea that the woman in the car should do, that when she doesn't do as he wants, the inhibition that a person who is representing the state doesn't work anymore and the impulse to take control and to take power is taking over. And he pulls the trigger. I mean that is what I think I see when I watch the video. You described your perception. (That isn't even to contadicting. You argue that starting the car and (potentially) fleeing, is legitimage reason to kill someone. To me that is insane but so is everybody carrying weapons, so there is that. Especially non police having these privileges that are normally reserved for highly trained and sworn in police (that have in my understanding absolutely have to weigh the risk to their life against the certainty to end that of someone they are there to protect, even if that person acts against there will. Where I live it is assumed that the impulse to flee is and to preserve yourself is extremely strong in every individual so, that attemptimg to do so does not constitute a crime/felony or whatever) Anyways: to get from disagreements in perspective and assumptions about what is right and wrong to something that can be the foundation of a civil society (as opposed to the "lawless wild west" as the sayinf goes) there is written law and independent judical processes in which these assumptions and perspectives are weight againsg each other. So that is what should be happening. People not having to undergo this scrutiny after such an act hat ended someone elses life means and being protected from that is so inlawfull I miss the right terms to qualify it. Something about lynching, mobs, lawlessness and disregard for humaan life and dignity all sanctioned by the highest political authority of your country.