To wonder if past trauma was a factor in the Renee Nicole Good murder and that, while not absolving agent, it shows ICE should select agents more carefully?

[Carla786]

Reading this from the BBC, I wonder if the agent was suffering from previous trauma. They had earlier been in the Iraq War and then had huge number of stitches after being dragged by a car while arresting apparently a 'child sex offender' illicit migrant last March.

Thus I wonder if, because Renee Good clipped them with the car earlier(as The Times indicates), shooting at her car as she drove past was less a rational decision borne from evil and more an instinctive reaction from recent trauma with cars on the job?

This is NOT an excuse. But I wonder if it also shows that ICE are selecting traumatised agents who are too dangerous, due to this, to be in that position?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdx4qd4d16no

You're wrong. This has been discussed at length by various US legal experts, including experienced police officers and prosecutors, and several news outlets have quoted the laws directly.

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 to the officer or others, and no other appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.

He had objectively reasonable means of defense. He used them less a second after the first shot when he stepped to the side of the vehicle to fire again.

Once you decide to use lethal force, you are supposed to continue until the threat is eliminated. It’s not something to do by half measures.

Eliminate the threat, not the person. There was no longer a threat when he was at the side of the vehicle. He eliminated any threat when he stepped out of the path of the vehicle. Again, this has been discussed at length by experienced US law enforcement officers and legal experts.

It's also been clarified by US legal experts that you can't step in front of a vehicle and then claim it was a threat.

I didnt realise we were allowed to execute people who blocked a road! There's lots of mumsnet posters who will be really happy to hear that.

Sadly, this.
ICE should not exist and at least half the males who are in the police force should go. Its bad enough people can carry guns let alone violent, misogynistic, racist, homophobic men with anger issues - who seem to be happy to put on a uniform and kill people with apparent impunity.

Agreed, it is an organisational issue, and the organisation has a duty to ensure its employees are suitable and given enough training, supervision, and support.

They're failing the public, for certain, and they're failing to meet professional standards, but I'm not so sure they're failing in their intended duties. Rather, I believe what is happening right now in the US is exactly what Trump intended to happen.

The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the matter, decades ago. You can listen to those experts which confirms your biases, but there’s only one standard to be considered legally:

did he have a reasonable belief that death or serious injury could occur?

Most prosecutors would look at the videos, understand how a jury would see it and never bring it to trial.

She wasn’t killed for blocked a road. She was killed because she drove her car directly at someone.

ICE should not exist

And why is that?

You're missing a key part of the law. Did he have reason to believe he or others were at risk of death or serious injury and no objectively reasonable means of defense, including moving out of the path of the vehicle?

No, he did not because even if he did believe Renee wanted to hit him, he knew he could move out of the path of the vehicle because he did exactly that to fire shots 2 and 3.

Why are you continuing to post this lie? You've been told enough times she did not.
As evidence by the path of the vehicle after she was shot.

You re now just defending murder.

I am not speaking of her intent. I am speaking of the fact that her car moved directly towards him. If you get hit by a car, you are certainly in the path of that car!

The only legal standard is this:

Did he have reason to believe he or others were at risk of death or serious injury.

Whether he had an extra second to jump
out of the way is not the standard. The standard is whether it was reasonable for him to have believed in that moment that he did not.

He certainly had no worries about the car injuring or killing others as it drove on - out of control - and crashed into another car.

If that is true, why did they even bother to add "and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle," to the law around shooting at vehicles if it is not a factor that needs to be considered?

Do legal clauses have a word count they need to meet?
Is there any guidance available as to which clauses can be ignored to make your defence workable?

How could the officer have placed himself in danger when you previously commented that "there wasn't anyone stood in front of the vehicle "?

Clearly there was.

They are not facts. He did not have a bodycam for a start

He had been working there for ten years so recent changes won't be relevant in this case.

Expert analysis disagrees. One of the shots was through the corner of the windscreen. Two of the shots were through the side window. It is physically impossible for him to have shot through the side window if he was in front of the car - a place that protocol says they shouldn't put themselves. There's a documented history of CBP officers deliberately putting themselves in front of a car in order to claim "self defence" for shooting someone.

@RingoJuice Once you decide to use lethal force, you are supposed to continue until the threat is eliminated.

Any perceived threat was eliminated the instant that he was in a position to fire through the side window. No jury is going to conclude that a reasonable person feared for their life while stood to the side of a vehicle, even if a weak argument might be made for the first shot.

Not that the road was actually blocked anyway, a vehicle drove around her car. American streets are very wide.

"Now"? She's spent multiple threads defending murder with the most transparent bullshit and spewing racist propaganda.

You find this whole functioning heart and conscience thing,.a real mental challenge don't you!

It’s just guidelines. The only standard is whether he had a reasonable belief that he or someone else was at risk of serious injury or death.

It should be repeated endlessly so Brits do not howl because this guy is not prosecuted (and even if he was, no jury is going to convict so it’s a waste of time)

all of this.

From the rear view, he actually wasn’t in front of her car until she backed up, then drove forward. She made eye contact, so knew he was there.

What is strange is she did that while a ICE officer was opening her door and her wife was opening the other side door. So incredibly unsafe for all those surrounding the SUV.

She should never have been playing these dumb games with a 2-ton vehicle.

After she drove into him, you mean, with an SUV