Putting aside the extensive argument that has been made about that case already (and no, you cannot actually discern that she is "shot in the face" in the footage anyway, not that it matters), that is completely irrelevant to anything I said.
(There is also no valid reason to flag my comments.)
If the trajectory of the bullet goes through the front windshield and struck the driver, what location would that place the officer at? Somewhere near the front of the vehicle?
DHS training manual says not to stand in front of a vehicle, so if a bullet went through the front of a vehicle I would judge whether the situation should have happened at all. But also, depending on the angle of entry, you could be quite far to the side and still shoot through the front. Ignoring the curvature of the Earth, if the car was facing North the shooter could have been in Vancouver.
Or if the direction of entry is the most important to you, most of the bullets went through the side window, what position does that indicate? Somewhere to the side, perhaps?
Or maybe none of this is important in the case of propaganda, like I implied.
> DHS training manual says not to stand in front of a vehicle
Supposing that you could cite this, it is irrelevant, because he was not "standing" there but completing a circle of the vehicle to gather video footage.
> But also, depending on the angle of entry, you could be quite far to the side and still shoot through the front.
There are photos of the bullet hole in the windshield and it's quite clear that the impact was quite square.
> Or if the direction of entry is the most important to you, most of the bullets went through the side window, what position does that indicate?
It indicates the result of the car moving during the fraction of a second required to fire multiple shots (faster than a human can consciously process the decision to stop firing, and congruent with standard LEO training to fire multiple shots).
> Or maybe none of this is important in the case of propaganda, like I implied.
This is not an argument and is also not appropriate rhetoric for HN.
Putting aside the extensive argument that has been made about that case already (and no, you cannot actually discern that she is "shot in the face" in the footage anyway, not that it matters), that is completely irrelevant to anything I said.
(There is also no valid reason to flag my comments.)
If the trajectory of the bullet goes through the front windshield and struck the driver, what location would that place the officer at? Somewhere near the front of the vehicle?
DHS training manual says not to stand in front of a vehicle, so if a bullet went through the front of a vehicle I would judge whether the situation should have happened at all. But also, depending on the angle of entry, you could be quite far to the side and still shoot through the front. Ignoring the curvature of the Earth, if the car was facing North the shooter could have been in Vancouver.
Or if the direction of entry is the most important to you, most of the bullets went through the side window, what position does that indicate? Somewhere to the side, perhaps?
Or maybe none of this is important in the case of propaganda, like I implied.
> DHS training manual says not to stand in front of a vehicle
Supposing that you could cite this, it is irrelevant, because he was not "standing" there but completing a circle of the vehicle to gather video footage.
> But also, depending on the angle of entry, you could be quite far to the side and still shoot through the front.
There are photos of the bullet hole in the windshield and it's quite clear that the impact was quite square.
> Or if the direction of entry is the most important to you, most of the bullets went through the side window, what position does that indicate?
It indicates the result of the car moving during the fraction of a second required to fire multiple shots (faster than a human can consciously process the decision to stop firing, and congruent with standard LEO training to fire multiple shots).
> Or maybe none of this is important in the case of propaganda, like I implied.
This is not an argument and is also not appropriate rhetoric for HN.
1 reply →