Her motivations don't matter. What matters is the legal definition of when deadly force can be used:

"Would a reasonable officer believe there was a threat of death or great bodily injury to himself or others."

He doesn't have to know her intent. He only has to see a vehicle coming at him to be LEGALLY JUSTIFIED.

Read that again.

I didn't say "right." The right thing to do and the legal thing to do are not necessarily related.

Cops, by precedent, have no duty to retreat. They don't have to "get out of the way." They can, but legally they are not required to do so.

Yes policy says don't put yourself in front of a vehicle. But that is not an absolute rule. If he was moving to the drivers door to assist his partner in her lawful arrest, he is under no obligation to take the extra time to walk behind the car to do so.

The two shots through the drivers window are concerning. But again it will come down to the LEGALITY of it. There is a legal concept for a "continuous act". So if all three shots are judged to be part of the same action, and the first shot is justified, they all will be. If they believe there was a significant enough pause between any shots, then they will be judged separately.

Personally, I don't think this will even be presented to a grand jury By the AUSA.

6: anyone driving a car straight AT an officer would believe they were under threat of great bodily harm or death. Especially an officer that had been hit by one.

7. I don't know what they were doing opening the door for sure. The investigation will have to determine that. My assumption is they were placing her under arrest for obstructing a federal officer. Something WELL within their rights and authority to do. She may not have agreed with the charge or want to be arrested, but your fight the police in court, not the street. She took exactly the wrong action.

9: I'm not making any judgements on if their arrest was legal. That's what court is for. But if that's what they were arresting her for, it it well within the authority to do so. A judge may have found in her favor, but y day didn't mean what they did was v outside of their authority in that moment.

Right. She was shot because drove a 3000 pound weapon into him. Not because she was trying to flee a lawful arrest.

14. Yes she did. If you actually believe she didn't touch him with the front of her vehicle, then you are even more of a partisan hack than i thought. There is zero debate that the front of her car made contact with him.

And I don't disagree that there is a possibility the investigation reveals he was not justified. That's fine. If true I hope he pays. But based on the real time evidence, he almost certainly was legally justified.

If he is found to not be legally justified I'll certainly admit I was wrong. But if he is found to be legally justified and in the scope of his duties by the investigation, will you admit you were wrong? Or will you continue to repeat what you would now know to be a lie?

That proves nothing. What is your point? Was he hit by the car or not. That doesn't show what you think it does. Just because someone SAYS that's where the first shot came from doesn't mean it IS. You are seeing what you want to see and interpreting what you want.

It looks like he almost certainly was legally justified. But I'm not conducting the investigation. If I'm wrong, I'm man enough to admit it. Hopefully if there is a decision to not even bring this case to a grand jury, you will admit you were wrong.

Incorrect. The investigation will determine that with angle on entry calculated and noted.

If ultimately that's true and they determine it to not be legally justifiable? He loses his qualified immunity and is prosecuted.

Thats fine. That doesn't change a reading of the evidence as it is now.

I will be happy to admit I was wrong if he is charged. Will you admit you are wrong if he isn't?

Or ... the request to investigate wasn't made in good faith.

The governor, the mayor, and the chief of police in Minneapolis made egregiously biased and inflammatory statements within a blink of an eye after the shooting.

I wouldn't trust them to be impartial for ANY reason.

What I would like is an independent concurrent investigation, from an impartial state like Arizona or Colorado for example.

Minnesota clearly can't be trusted.

28. True. Half a day after the mayor, the police chief, and the governor were calling him a murderer.

If they had just said they were "troubled by the days events, add we look forward to a thorough investigation into the matter" like they should have, the administration may have not countered with their narrative.

I wouldn't trust any investigation chaired by investigators in Minnesota. Not a chance. Bring in some impartial investigators from a disinterested state to run a concurrent investigation would be a much smarter idea.

That's the funny part. I'm not. I never voted for him. Never will.

But I don't have to view this through political eyes like you.

You do realize some humans have the capacity to judge effects on their merits, not based on what political party they prefer.

The amount of "I hate Trump and he loves ice so I have to hate ice" is hilarious.

We arent doing that. We are detaining them for the violation of being in the country illegally, and putting them in front of an immigration judge. They could have requested asylum within a year after crossing the border illegally ... . But if they didn't, can you give me a reason why they Shouldn't see an immigration judge?

41. Jesus. I never said SHOULD have been killed. I said he was legally justified in doing so. It's willfully ignorant to conflate the two.

The right thing to do and the legally acceptable thing to do are UNRELATED. They often go hand in hand, but not always.

I understand use of force, case law in deadly force, and policy and procedure better than 99.9% of the population.

43 thank you for proving my point. She was arrested not for the bad checks ... she was in the city illegally. She thinks her marriage should protect her from deportation. That's true..,

If you apply for it. Why didn't she apply the second she got married and gain legal status? Why is she only indignant steer the fact, when forethought works have prevented this from becoming a problem. She can plead her case to an immigration judge. She has enough mitigating factors that he might well decide in her favor.

But that doesn't mean she shouldn't have fine the paperwork eight years ago.

What's the phrase? "A lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on anyone else's part."

46. I have far more experience and expertise than you. But that's fine.

I was ABH here since 2004ish ... but when I changed computers this last time I didn't bring over my old password and I couldn't get it reset so I just made a new account.

Glad I could satisfy your curiosity.

Snooty. Please. You do know there is a difference between federal and state court. I don't want the state of Minnesota anywhere near it. I trust the FBI far more than them.

The Ausa will decide whether or not to send it to grand jury.

The crime of the bad check predicated their attention. They are detained and awaiting an immigration judge because they don't have legal immigration status.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

George Floyd was 100% murdered. Ashli Babbitt was absolutely legally shot by the officer an ore than that RIGHTFULLY shot.

I don't remember enough about the Castile case to be able to say. I'll have to look it back up.

And to answer your questions: I have never had the need to discharge my firearm on duty as a law enforcement officer.

Because then government of Minnesota has shown demonstrably that they can't be trusted.

71: 37 years at the federal and state level.

Do you mean besides the prejudicial and inflammatory statements made within HOURS of the shooting? No thanks.

Oh please snoofy. Congress intervened and you can't spot the why? Really? You don't think honest congress demands? Maybe she was given a PR bond.

Do you really think you are making some sort of a point?

80 almost a day AFTER the buffoons in Minnesota gave them no choice by trying to control the premature narrative Olympics.

Again. AFTER Minnesota gave them no choice.

Minnesota put out immediate prejudicial and inflammatory statements to try and gain immediate control of the narrative.

You don't think this administration of any was going to answer that power play?

It was stupid in their part. They should have just said they were waiting for all the facts.