pull down to refresh
That might be lawful
Absolutely is, run your own search.
burden isn’t on the public to assume every shouted command is justified.
If you want to have a trial at gunpoint go ahead and be retarded.
imminent threat
Other agents/bystanders in the area, very well established precedent, cope harder.
Watch your own links you fraud.
reply
Cool, so no timestamp, no evidence, just “trust me bro” and slurs.
“Other agents/bystanders in the area” isn’t a magic spell that makes every shot justified. The standard is imminent threat, shot-by-shot. Point to the frames where the vehicle is still an imminent threat when the later rounds are fired, or admit you’re filling gaps with ideology.
reply
She was in what you’re calling a “restricted/operational” area, fine. But then own the next part: agents approached her vehicle and immediately escalated to “get the f— out of the car.” That might be lawful if there’s a lawful basis for detention/arrest, but you haven’t shown that. Just asserting “restricted area” doesn’t automatically supply probable cause, and the burden isn’t on the public to assume every shouted command is justified.
Now on “weaponization”: yes, a vehicle can be weaponized. But “car touched an agent” ≠ automatically “deadly weapon, therefore justified.” The standard is imminent threat, shot by shot. If the first shot happened while an agent was pinned/in the direct path, that’s one analysis. But once there’s separation, when the car is moving away and the officer is upright/able to plant and fire, your “weaponized” label doesn’t carry forward unless you can show the vehicle still posed an imminent threat to someone else at that moment.
Post the timestamped video and point to the frames where (1) the lawful basis is clear and (2) the threat remains imminent for each shot. Otherwise “conclusive” is just a story you prefer.