Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
Think I saw it on here and was just taking the posters word or perhaps interpreting what was posted incorrectly, either way professionals shouldn't be using phones, they should be properly equipped, wonder why they werent?
Saw this on twitter earlier, not sure if its true or accurate, suspect it might be but am suspicious by nature when convenient things just appear...
From Title 1, U.S. DOJ Policy on Use of Force:
"Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless:
(1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle;
or
(2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury ... and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle."
Deliberately stepping into the path of a moving vehicle is classic officer-created jeopardy and fatally undermines any claim that the subsequent use of deadly force was necessary
|
AGAIN, he didn't step in front. Just as the window on the opposite side of the road didn't "step in front". Either way he wasn't walking across the front, he was facing towards her. Turning and then moving would've taken more time and still risk being hit. The time frames and distances involved were much to small to do anything else. The officer at the side was ALSO in danger.
Remember you have to take off a quarter of second of any times, just for visual reaction delay. Then further take off the time to make a decision and the time to move. After his 20 years in border Patrol and ICE, the simplest and automatic solution would be to shoot.
He wasn't the other side of the road, he was in the same lane as the car. You can see the lane marking behind him.