100% justified. We can Monday night quarterback it all day, but ultimately it comes down to having to make split second decisions based on training and experience. Many officers would have jumped out of the way, many would have taken the shot. There is no one size fits all.

Let's all remember that as we make right or left turns while pedestrians are still in the crosswalk.

Query: If someone is driving a car around pedestrians, and someone shoots the driver in the head, what happens to the car?

> The driver ran her car into an officer hitting him

No amount of repeating this will make it true.

TFA includes multiple clips of video from separate angles that all corroborate the claim, with detailed analysis, and even including a CNN analyst conceding that the vehicle strikes the officer. There is no question, based on the vehicle's path, that it is moved forward, towards the officer, intentionally.

It swerves away at the last moment, and there is no clear intent (I agree there is likely not intent) to strike the officer; but the movement of the vehicle is clearly without heed for the officer's safety.

The law is clear (TFA cites it extensively) that a deliberate attempt on the officer's life is not required, legally speaking, to justify the shoot. It is also clear that hindsight (e.g. "he could have moved out of the way instead") is not a legal factor.

I am reposting this comment because it was flagged — in spite of being net upvoted, clearly not in violation of posting guidelines, and clearly evidenced — and because it is necessary in order to refute a bald assertion that contradicts the evidence.

----

TFA includes multiple clips of video from separate angles that all corroborate the claim, with detailed analysis, and even including a CNN analyst conceding that the vehicle strikes the officer. There is no question, based on the vehicle's path, that it is moved forward, towards the officer, intentionally.

It swerves away at the last moment, and there is no clear intent (I agree there is likely not intent) to strike the officer; but the movement of the vehicle is clearly without heed for the officer's safety.

The law is clear (TFA cites it extensively) that a deliberate attempt on the officer's life is not required, legally speaking, to justify the shoot. It is also clear that hindsight (e.g. "he could have moved out of the way instead") is not a legal factor.

Even if the person didn't intend on running the officer over, it's reasonable to assume that the officer felt their life was in danger. The person in question was also already committing a crime by continuing to block federal government operations.

Anything that happens while you are in the process of committing a crime is mostly on you.

> The person in question was also already committing a crime by continuing to block federal government operations.

You just made this up, no jury ever ruled that.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=obstruction+of+police+officer+usa gives many results that clearly demonstrate that willfully impeding federal LEO (including physically, as in this case) is a federal crime.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=can+protesters+block+traffic+usa similarly establishes that blocking traffic is not lawful and does not become lawful simply because of free speech protections on protest.

He shot while only being a few feet away from the car, which had already started to drive off.

Why would a trained officer believe that shooting at the driver from only a few feet away would have a higher chance of improving his chances against being hit by the car (which was already well in motion), than trying to physically move out of its way? That makes no sense.

All of this happened in a split second. As explained in TFA, the relevant legal standards do not require the application of hindsight or sober second thought. They are only concerned with what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, with the information available in the moment. Training does not and cannot possibly prevent instinctive actions that appear irrational or ineffective after the fact.

How does that boot taste.

Wouldn't the proverbial reasonable person jump out of the way of a vehicle that's already nearly on the verge of colliding with them? Pulling out a gun seems to be the less instinctual thing to do in such a situation.

I also wonder if they'll ever find out who screamed "F*ing B*tch" at her in that moment.