Look up Brosseau v. Haugen case law. There's extensive precedent for self defense for federal agents when people drive their car recklessly near them.
Note that in Brosseau v. Haugen, the court ruled explicitly that even a car driving AWAY from an agent can be considered an imminent deadly threat, and that firing multiple times can be justified.
In fact, that case was even murkier because the target was shot in the back (versus getting shot through the windscreen into the chest), and more bullets were discharged, and the car was further away!
Interesting way to pronounce "intentionally shot twice in the head through the side window" as "through the windscreen into the chest". Or maybe you just randomly forgot.
Jonathan Ross, who killed an unarmed observer trying to drive away from him, has allegedly completed advanced firearms training and maintained expert marksman qualifications according to DHS Assistant Secretary McLaughlin.
He shot to kill.
And then him and his pals barred a doctor from trying to help the victim.
There's so many videos from all angles it's really undisputable ("alternative facts" narrative non-withstanding).
Are you claiming he did not shoot her in the chest through the windscreen? Patently ridiculous claim, there's clear evidence showing that this was the case. Unambiguously, the first shot was fired through the windscreen. Later, in a medical release, we learned that 3 bullets hit her. Meaning, the first shot through the windscreen hit her in the chest. Pretty blatantly obvious.
>him and his pals barred a doctor from trying to help the victim
Do you think police should allow a random guy claiming to be a doctor into an active crime scene to tamper with evidence? Or wait for an actual paramedic to show up? Not that it means absolutely anything at all, because given she was shot three times, twice in the chest, she was absolutely dead and there was no saving her, especially not by a random physician.
>There's so many videos from all angles it's really undisputable
You'll dispute the fact she hit him, though. Despite the evidence.
"Johnson said his biggest takeaway from the video was a crunching sound he heard immediately before the gunshots, which he believes is the sound of the SUV hitting the ICE agent."
"That data point for me shows that there was contact made with the agent, who is now in reasonable fear, who could clearly articulate being hit with an SUV as reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. And then the shots were fired," said Johnson.
The ruling itself even says that every case has to be taken in context, and that particular one was a known felon who has been accused of a crime fleeing in a vehicle. As a matter of fact, if you look at the decision [1] you won't find the word "defense" once, only "fleeing".
Last I checked, no one is a felon until so adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Parent comment appears to have in mind either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a felony was committed. So not identical at all — nor clear.
Also questionable whether any commands were lawful.
No it's not. See the most recent NY Times article where they analyze the shooting from every available angle, and it's clear Agent Ross was not in danger, and was not hit by Good's vehicle. His phone he was recording with hit the front of the car as he was preparing to fire his weapon.
Terrible ruling then and polls show majority of Americans agree shooting Renee Good was not justifiable, nor are the current ICE tactics of dragging people fron their cars, breaking down their doors. And throwing pepper spray under the cars of families trying to leave.
