I've seen the actual videos. While tragic, then she was trying to drive away, not obeying the approaching officer's orders. At that moment, the officer towards she was driving was the one that shot her.
It also seemed that right before the event she was doing some kind of traffic regulation there which is why the officers approached her.
Do you think the shots through the driver window, after the agent was 100% out of the way of the vehicle, were justified?
From the medical examiner we know it was one of these two shots that killed her. We know they did not come in through the front windshield when the agent was at the front quarter panel. We see them clearly occur on video while the officer is definitively out of the path of the vehicle.
It also is quite clear from the results that shooting her did not make the situation safer after he was clear, either - it directly causes the car to accelerate while not under the control of a living human being.
Personally, I would still argue about even the first shot - but I have yet to be able to find any common ground in discussions with people that defend the 2nd and 3rd shot.
You can't start at the point the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her. That's equivalent to equating legality with morality, which doesn't work when talking about what ought to be. Rather you have to examine the entire situation, which was an extreme escalation by ICE in response to what was essentially protesting.
There was no pretext to execute her. It's when she started driving (even spun the wheels I think) towards the officer were shots fired. In your mind, does police getaway equate with protesting now?
I've seen the actual videos. While tragic, then she was trying to drive away, not obeying the approaching officer's orders. At that moment, the officer towards she was driving was the one that shot her.
It also seemed that right before the event she was doing some kind of traffic regulation there which is why the officers approached her.
Do you think the shots through the driver window, after the agent was 100% out of the way of the vehicle, were justified?
From the medical examiner we know it was one of these two shots that killed her. We know they did not come in through the front windshield when the agent was at the front quarter panel. We see them clearly occur on video while the officer is definitively out of the path of the vehicle.
It also is quite clear from the results that shooting her did not make the situation safer after he was clear, either - it directly causes the car to accelerate while not under the control of a living human being.
Personally, I would still argue about even the first shot - but I have yet to be able to find any common ground in discussions with people that defend the 2nd and 3rd shot.
You can't start at the point the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her. That's equivalent to equating legality with morality, which doesn't work when talking about what ought to be. Rather you have to examine the entire situation, which was an extreme escalation by ICE in response to what was essentially protesting.
There was no pretext to execute her. It's when she started driving (even spun the wheels I think) towards the officer were shots fired. In your mind, does police getaway equate with protesting now?
13 replies →