95% of what's been posted in this thread is speculation. You don't have a problem with 94% of that because it supports your desired conclusion. Your bias is showing.
Speculation. The facts in evidence are the officer was actively engaged in trying to stop the vehicle for a reason we don't know, then the activity disappeared from view.
It is clear in the video that the front of her vehicle had passed the officer by the time he started moving toward the victim. In order to hit an object, a cars motion vector must point toward that object, not away from it as evidenced in the video. The only way the officer could have been in the path of the car was for him to knowingly place himself into the path.
Speculation. You don't know that is what occurred off camera.
Neither do you - my comments were based on information entirely contained in the video. The officer moved into the path of the car.
According to the officer, she was shot after hitting him with a vehicle. Your speculation doesn't jive with his account.
You apparently still don't understand the argument.
He placed himself in a self fulfilling position of harm in order to create the appearance of justifiable cause for lethal force.
In order to be in a position to get hit by hte car, the officer knowingly placed himself in that position. He setup the consequences that precipitated his use of deadly force.
Was the girl guilty of failing to stop - most certainly
Was she guilty of drinking and driving - has no applicability in the current debate
Did the officer use sound judgement in the execution of his duties - doubtful.
Not an accurate comparison. If I run a red light, then try to run the officer down as he motions for me to pull over, I'm not being shot for running the red light. I'm being shot in self defense while attempting manslaughter.
There is no evidence that the dead girl swerved to hit the officer as you suggest in your example. If the officer jumps out in front of your car giving you no reaction time do you think that the shot would be in self defense?
You did read all of it, then jumped to your presupposed conclusion. You warped the facts to justify your desired ends. Incorrectly, I might add.
No, I looked at the facts in front of me and used only those facts no personal vendettas or biases. And those facts lead a prudent person to believe the officer holds the preponderance of the blaim for not using his available tools properly.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD[/QUOTE]