After further reflection, Jake, I really have to wonder. She’s easily ducking and dodging your little questions, and she’s a lightweight. A 7th grader on the school newspaper could pin her down. Easy peazy Charmin squeezy. Kind of embarrassing. That is, unless you don’t really care. Unless you’re a lightweight too.
No way that's going to fit in three and a half minutes.
Who you gonna believe?
Fleeing, resisting arrest, and impeding law enforcement are covered by 18 U.S. Code Chapter 49, 18 U.S. Code § 111.
In Minnesota Law, Statute 609.065, 609.066, and 609.06, govern the use of force and self defense. Those are the only considerations I regard under this issue because any trial that involves the officer will hinge on their applicability. You're advocating for a charge of first degree murder, which in the eyes of the law requires premeditation and specific intent to commit said crime. As much as you want to kick and scream that this is how things played out, you have not demonstrated this intent and won't be able to based on the limited information you have. At least not as far as the legal debate is concerned.
Just because I assess she broke the law doesn't mean I have to automatically agree with everything "my side" says about her being a terrorist. They are mutually exclusive issues. I don't see you pushing back on rhetoric comparing ICE and anyone that disagrees with you to neo nazi's. Do you agree with that characterization?
I have not argued for this. I'm not here to waste my breath on a strawman.
As if his comment at the end weren't already evidence of malice.
Indeed. I mention panic (liberally coated with sarcasm) only because the right is telling us their idea of his probable mental state, which amounts to dancing daintily around the concept of panic. He was forced into a split-second decision which, they assure us, he wouldn't have made in hindsight or without the "PTSD" of his prior encounter. And this is supposed to be some kind of flex? If they are so certain a jury would acquit him on the merits, I wonder why they're trying so hard to make sure this never sees a jury.
Reasonable force in this case (he says, lecturing the lawyer
) is the force a reasonable officer would have used in similar circumstances, without the benefit of hindsight. Disobedience to official policy and regulation governing your conduct is prima facie evidence of unreasonableness. If you break the rules, you are on the hook to show that your conduct was nevertheless reasonable; it's no longer presumed. As for recklessness—under the law it is knowing that something is dangerous and doing it anyway.
I already addressed that. That law requires those actions to be forcible. Mere flight is not forcible.
I already addressed those too.
Where did I advocate that particular charge? The proper charge would be manslaughter.
If you don't want to waste breath on straw men, start with your own.
Premeditation.
And you are basing this assumption that she was doing all of those things on what, exactly?
From watching the video of this murder, IMO it was not panic that caused this murder, but anger
Oh, Irony.
Transient mental derangement; PTSD, he had a flash back to being dragged by a car previously and in that flashback he thought he had a taser in his hand. At least that is what I would think could be a possible defence.
