It doesn't matter if she was impeding an ICE smash and grab. It doesn't matter if she might have clipped the ICE officer at 4-5 mph when she freaked out - because the officer shot her after all the ICE agents were already out of danger of death or significant bodily harm. And it's not clear that she even clipped him.

Most police departments have policies around this. The DOJ does. I can't find if DHS does. You are explicitly not supposed to shoot at people fleeing in cars outside of it being an immediate necessity to save lives or significant bodily harm. That clearly is not met here. It's also not even a smart way to handle it - dead people can't control the accelerator or the steering wheel. Point proven when right after that the car accelerates.

The expectations for someone given the power to enforce the law, detain people, and use lethal force when required to are, and should be, many times higher than that of an everyday citizen. Should she have tried to flee? No. She would have hit him for sure if he didn't step out of the way. But it doesn't matter relative to the greater issue at hand here, which is that we should be able to trust our LEOs to not needlessly use lethal force - but we can't.

ICE is explicitly not allowed to use deadly force to prevent someone from fleeing or because they might receive a minor injury. It's also not allowed to use it for revenge, which would be the case here if he was swiped - the shots happen after he is to the side and continue even as she is past them.

It is strictly to be used as a preventative measure to protect others. That is obviously not what happened here.

Trying to justify the murder of someone by an ICE agent that has gone far outside of policy and far outside of policing standards just because the victim might have also done something far far far more minor wrong is insane.

Wow. Just wow.

We even investigate and charge LEO's for rape, stalking, murder, etc. when they overstep boundaries.

The video linked is to a 4chan hosted selective cut and edit with overlaid commentary of questionable authority.

Full raw video starts earlier, the audio includes conflicting instructions, the car reverses and moves forwards all before the linked video begins.

The LEO LARPer in front of the car is "in danger" as they moved there in order to shoot the driver.

A trained response and recommended protocol would be to let the vehicle go .. as they earlier commanded as they apparently wanted the road cleared.

In that context, it appear to be a clusterfuck by untrained clowns resulting in a citizens death.

It was unnecessary to shoot the woman even if doing so could potentially be a good way to stop someone that is driving towards you, but it also patently is not a good way as evidenced by the fact that doing it caused the car to accelerate significantly more than it ever did before she was shot, before it crashes into the parked cars.

Many police departments have explicit policies here.

The DOJ does:

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy...

ICE is part of DHS, and DHS has policies as well, though not as explicit as the DOJ's:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/la...

They're explicitly prohibited from using deadly force unless they reasonably believe their life is in danger or they are under threat of significant bodily harm, which is obviously not the case here. It's also explicitly prohibited to use it just because a subject is fleeing, unless they have reason to believe the subject fleeing will allow them to kill or significantly injure others - again, obviously not the case here.

The ICE agent acted in a way that goes against DHS policy, against standard policy in general, and in a way that would have zero productive outcomes even ignoring the fact he murdered some poor lady.

Full disclosure. I have/had some cops in my extended family so I might come across as biased. If someone is driving towards you and there is an indication it may hurt you, all bets are off. It is a simple question of survival. Now, a lot will rest on that 'reasonably', but based on the video alone, it is not nearly as clear as some would have you believe that he could not reasonably believe that his life was in danger.

You may disagree with it, but that is the current state. We can talk about adjusting the policy, but thats day after considerations.

But we can ignore that and work from the idea that he could reasonably fear for his life there. It doesn't matter.

Because again: Shooting someone driving a car towards you at that distance makes you MORE LIKELY TO GET HIT. As evidenced by the fact the car wildly accelerates and is out of control after she is shot. It is one of the reasons that officers are often explicitly trained not to shoot at someone driving a car towards you at that sort of distance - because it isn't effective!

Forget this "last mile" analysis where you're looking at a crowd of agents about a car in slow motion and an officer standing in front with an already drawn weapon.

Less than a minute earlier that vehicle was motionless and parked up.

Everything that followed happened as a direct result of ICE agents acting as they acted.

One of them yelled and screamed at the driver from the get go, attempted to reach in through the window to open the door and waved a weapon. Another put themselves in front of the vehicle and drew a weapon .. which likely wasn't seen by the driver as they were busy trying to reverse, turn, and get out of there .. it's entirely possible the first time they saw the shooter was an instant before the shot.

As a reasonable good and honest citizen "on the Clapham omnibus" how would you react to people that beeline in on you in that manner?

Do that repeatedly and events like this will occur with frequency.

ICE is a clown show and politicised from the outset to maximise this kind of stupidity.

Honestly, I am not sure and tbh most of us will hopefully never have to find out. That said, I can tell you what I did when the raids were happening in Chicagoland. I stayed home and when I did go out, I took papers with. Why? Because there is one sure way to not get oneself in trouble: not being where trouble are. That is why my first question is: why was she there to begin with?

<< Do that repeatedly and events like this will occur with frequency.

I won't lie. It is a concern.

<< clown show and politicised from the outset to maximise this kind of stupidity.

Look at the bright side, if there is a chance to limit some of the police powers at federal level, I could not see a better opportunity.

It's my understanding she and the other onlookers live there in that city.

Unlike the masked bandits airdropped in from elsewhere.

Further, IIRC, there was a note on Letters from an American to the effect that the woman had registered herself and had some minimal credentials at least as Constitutional Observer (?) and was there to watch and record the ICE activity.

That seems like an admirable patriotic concerned active citizen thing to do.

Again, that hardly matters - from a wide angle and looking at the footage from minutes before the shooting occured, she was set upon by masked thugs who were eager to kick doors, breach windows, and shoot fellow citizens at the drop of a hat for kicks.

It's a flawed country that allows that to happen.

> Look at the bright side, if there is a chance to limit some of the police powers at federal level

That sounds so last year, TBH - the US has deeper problems now that the veneer of safeguards, checks, balances has been thoroughly ripped open .. if I were a citizen there I'd be looking for some wider deeper constitutional reforms and restructuring - just as Benjamin Franklin advised when he signed off on the first draft as being a decent draft and sufficient until a despot ignores it.

We run a Washminster system, it has it's issues, but it was built upon looking at both the US and the UK systems and tweaking them; it's a lot easier to swap out the active head of state here if they're not serving the broad interests of the majority and grifting hard.

Yep. It has become more and more obvious that there just isn't any actual mechanism to resolve the executive branch just doing whatever it wants the way things currently stand. As a US citizen, the rest of this term and the term or two after it are going to determine whether I remain in the country or not. How much farther do we slip? Do we realize this is all an awful idea? If the opposition takes power next time, do they use it to actually resolve the underlying issues, or do they just wield that same power against the other side?

If the presidency and congress don't work to fundamentally implement an actual enforceable division of powers over the next decade, even if things don't "get worse" from here, I don't think it's a place that makes sense for me to stick around.

The ICE agent is maybe pushed by a car moving at low speed. Maybe. He is still never in danger of losing his life or being seriously harmed. The car still accelerates more after he has shot the woman than it did before he shot her.

Meanwhile taking that all at face value relies entirely on low res and heavily compressed video taken at a distance, vs. what we appear to see in the much closer, much higher res, much less compressed footage. We even see the officer after the shooting holster his weapon, calmly move around without any sign of injury, no limp, etc.

The standard is whether the agent reasonably believes he is in danger. It is not based on whether the car is going too slow to cause damage based on an arm chair's expert claim online.

Now, if you are saying there is nothing in that video that makes you question some of your assumptions, we can stop this conversation now. You are too motivated to make 'your side' win.

Even if we assume the first shot was justified (which I disagree with but whatever, we're not going to change each other's minds) the remainder are not.

Lethal force is not on the table for punitive actions. It is meant to be used as a preventative measure.

Laughable.

They approached from the front, and stepped into the path of a turning "fleeing" vehicleto get a better shot at the driver and then jumping to the side.

> I will admit I would like to see how her car got into the middle of the road

I'm also curious about this, but in Australia this would have zero bearing on the "right" of a LEO to use lethal force.

> What I do know is that she had a choice to get out of the car, but chose to press gas.

She reversed, turned wheels to arc into the exiting lane and was shot by an officer who was already drawn prepared to fire.

That officer had the option to step either way, that officer chose to step into the turning arc to get a better shot and then side step clear .. they were not in any danger other than the danger they put themself in.

It's not acceptable here to kill people for fleeing.

I realise it's more common in the US which has a reputation for LEO's shooing unarmed people in the back.

Friend. Just from pure logic if the path was blocked by ICE agent then her pressing a gas means attempt to run that ICE agent over. And if you look at the vid in slow motion, he does jump to the side to avoid a swipe.

<< That officer had the option to step either way

And I guess this is where the lawyers will have a field day. Best I can say is that he is lucky to have protection that comes from being LEO, where the standard is just different.

<< I realise it's more common in the US which has a reputation for LEO's shooing unarmed people in the back.

To be fair, here it was literally face to face.

<< She reversed, turned wheels to arc into the exiting lane and was shot by an officer who was already drawn prepared to fire.

As I am rewatching the video in slow motion, it does seem like he was preparing for the eventuality, but the entire interaction and change in stance takes mere seconds.

<< this would have zero bearing on the "right" of a LEO to use lethal force.

To me it is not the question of whether they are right, but whether she had a good reason to be there. If she was following them around and ended up in that situation as a result, I might be more inclined to give ICE a pass. If she is an actual random individual that simply did not know what to do and panicked, then it is an actual problem.

That said, it does not appear atm that that was the case. FWIW, I am not happy about it as I believe it further undermines existing system, but what I think does not really matter.

To me that's irrelevant - FWiW I come from a largish extended family with more than a century of history in various military and civil conflicts.

Well trained personnel should handle the situation of a vehicle blocking traffic in a civilian non theatre of war context in a manner that doesn't lead to escalation.

> If she was following them around and ended up in that situation as a result, I might be more inclined to give ICE a pass. If she is an actual random individual that simply did not know what to do and panicked, then it is an actual problem.

Either way, regardless of her background, three agents gave conflicting instructions, acted in a bullying manner, escalated a situation and shot a citizen.

If she was there in protest, in a country that boasts free speech and the right to protest, that doesn't justify or give a pass to the clown show on camera.

This should be the rallying cry. But it isn't. As I noted in previous posts, I am not super happy about it, but at this point, the case is alreadya political football.