The precedent for which disciplinary action will be taken has not yet been set.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/us/portland-oregon-border-pat...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1q7u4kz/ice_agen...
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q7y43s/cbp_poin...
1. avoidance: duty to retreat: You must attempt to retreat or avoid the confrontation if it is safe and possible to do so without increasing danger.
2. innocence (non-aggressor): You must not be the initial aggressor or have provoked the incident.
3. imminence: The threat must be immediate and underway (or about to begin imminently)
4. proportionality: The force used must match the threat level without excess.
5. reasonableness: Your belief in the necessity of deadly force must be reasonable based on the facts known to you at the time.
To me (3) seems least controversial and (1) most controversial.2. Not relevant as the police officer was being followed and harassed by the motorist and others while attempting to do his job.
3. The police officer was standing in front of the vehicle, unable to see the direction of his tires. He did see the vehicle was shifted into forward and rapidly accelerated. Watch video of the vehicle continuing to accelerate after the shot and then crash down the road a ways.
4. This is probably the strongest element. The police officer had a large vehicle accelerating at him and hit him, but perhaps he could have dodged or gone around it. It is hard to say given he had only one second to make the decision in a heated and dangerous situation, versus all of us arm chair quarterbacking with slow motion video.
5. The police officer could not see the tires of the vehicle, but he could see the vehicle being accelerated towards him. His belief was probably reasonable.
The one where after he shoots her dead he says "fucking bitch?" The one where her last words are "we are not mad at you?"
Time and analysis will show who said what and who did what.
Besides, I'm fairly sure that it wasn't the general public there that said that about the person that had just been shot.
I'm uncertain what you meant with your second sentence. Perhaps you could restate what you mean another way?
2 is also "debatable" because we were told it by Noem/Trump, not by anyone at the scene, or shown in any video
> I have a mental illness that makes me think that people will change their minds if presented with correct arguments, appropriate facts and data.
But there were multiple persons filming the incident, the police vehicles nearby likely had cameras and likely some officers had body cameras as well. And there may be surveillance video cameras on buildings too.
In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
>In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
is just a mad, mad take. It is literal prejudice, either way. Just an opinion based on basically nothing.
I agree with that. Perhaps this is one of those "extreme things". But current interpretations of this event are politically extreme and harmfully polarizing to us as a people. So all the more reason to be cautious and circumspect.
twixfel says >"
[giardini]>In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
[twixfel>"is just a mad, mad take. It is literal prejudice, either way. Just an opinion based on basically nothing."
Please remain calm.
My viewpoint is neither "a mad, mad take" nor "literal prejudice". nor "an opinion based on basically nothing". My viewpoint is a statement of our individual ignorance, of our lack of complete information, and a claim that none of us are omniscient. And it is a request that we be patient and trust our juridical system to proceed the way it was intended.
Although difficult, We must withhold judgement until all [evidence has been presented.**