Because your [sic] experience involves a distinctly different set of circumstances that don't align with the circumstances of this case.
You [sic] experienced a hit and run by someone that wasn't paying attention to the road. You never had the time to react, and by the time you could the guy was already gone. Your circumstances also did not involve law enforcement activity, nor YOU intentionally inserting yourself into a situation where you might be detained.
My point is that even when at full acceleration and with minimal warning the car was not the deadly weapon that would only be stopped by using lethal force on the driver. In fact had I been armed and shot the driver I would have made things worse for others.
And for the record, these weren't hit and runs. The majority of cases I was able to dodge the vehicle or was barely bumped because, like Agent Ross, I had the capability of doing so. So I mostly gave dirty look or word at the driver and they sheepishly waited properly for the light properly. There was one exception but I won't get into that now.
I don't think it takes much time and patience to watch a 12 minute video.
Its still argument by Youtube and doesn't get much respect around here, especially when you refused to even summarize the matter. There's a time and a place for use of videos - this wasn't it.
Much less skip through it to view the Minnesota law and statute citations that the video was posted for. But since you think argument by youtube is a conspiracy theorist's method, feel free to review the law:
www.revisor.mn.gov
"Except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death"
Yeah, here's the thing: The courts long ago established that you cannot put yourself into danger and then claim self-defense. We've covered this in the thread multiple times.
www.revisor.mn.gov
"Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult."
A car you are able to easily avoid (and shouldn't have been in front of in the first place) does not qualify as "deadly force".
www.revisor.mn.gov
Anything listed here is overruled by the DHS policies that an agent is not to place himself in danger and then use said danger as an excuse for deadly force. There are also policies that forbid shooting at a driver unless they are threatening people with things that are not the vehicle.
The law's verbiage addresses the crux of this issue.
The court cases cited in this very thread put any of your arguments to bed.
This is just an excuse being made to avoid a fallacious argument being called out. But it's fine.... at least you're honest about your intent not to read any of my citations. So I can leave the rest of my Sunday to relax on my day off instead of wasting time here.
Its not an excuse, its pure observation. I read your citation (that you couldn't be bother to list before) and some of them were pages long. I couldn't even tell which part you were citing as justification. That's laziness.
The DHS procedures and the courts have already tested your cites and found them wanting. The DHS put these policies in place
precisely to prevent situations like what just happened. The courts have found officers guilty for doing less screwing up than Ross did.
