pull down to refresh
The agent's badge and uniform should have told you to freeze and do nothing until ordered. If he was in civilian clothes with no clear identity, then you would be closer to self-defense...
When armed agents block your car, yank at your door, and don’t clearly state cause or give you a lawful order you can actually comply with, panic isn’t ‘terrorism'. It's human. And ‘badge’ doesn’t turn a created confrontation into a forever self-defense claim, especially if the shots come after the car is already moving away.
Look at the feet: shot #1 is fired by the forward agent, who’s offset to the driver-side/front quarter, not squarely in the vehicle’s path. That’s a geometry problem for the ‘I was about to be rammed’ story.
That's a practical argument not a moral one. Wearing a badge and uniform confers no special rights.
Then you apparently haven't read federal law very closely. To each their own.
Rights do not come from the government. Apparently you've never read any political philosophy. To each their own.
Tell me how that works out for you at your next traffic stop, lol. Try reading him Adam Smith or Descartes while you're at it...
Yeah, that's clearly what I meant
The ‘right’ is: stop first, escalate fast, claim ‘reasonable fear,’ and let qualified immunity + deference clean up the rest.
Let's say I approach someone's car, armed and with my own people blocking their path. I try to open their door and they drive away. As they start driving away I shoot them.
Based on that sequence of events, most people would rightly say that I created a life-threatening situation and murdered someone who was acting in reasonable self-defense.
So, what I need to know is what granted the agent a legitimate right to create this situation. Clearly, most of us have no such right. Where did it come from?