Going back to the lady who was taken out in her car, I originally had said:
The shooter had cased out the scene (the car) better than the two guys just arriving, by walking around the car and seeing the driver up close. He also had a sense of the passenger who was standing on the street at the passenger side. Thus, he had some situational awareness, awareness of the driver and likely a sense of motive (why was she there and what might she do). Was the driver a 'real' threat? No, not really. Yet okay, suppose her actions began to be deemed a threat, what kind of threat?
Cross quote from the recent session:
Q: (Mrs. Peel) Was the woman who was recently shot in Minneapolis planning harm to the ICE agent with her vehicle, or was she just trying to get away?
A: Planning minor harm and getting away with it.
Q: (Mrs. Peel) Did he actually think he was in danger?
A: Yes
Q: (L) Why was that?
A: From the look on her face at the instant.
Q: (L) So that leaves out shooting her out of spite?
A: Yes
So, he though he was in danger and it was not in spite, and yet she had
planned 'minor harm.' At that final moment "from the look on her face
at the instant,' he seemed to have had the perspective to look into her eyes (or just the overall), and possibly in his mind, something about her conveyed the intensity of a real threat requiring deadly action. So yes, it can be understood that he saw something no one else did, and reacted. He may have seen something and misinterpreted it - overreacted (how it can be seen). Perhaps, too, all these officers are being feed real information that is going to make their hair triggers at risk of being hyper.
Have a look at just this one section of many:
To participate in police-reform discussions, it’s helpful to appreciate the multiple incentives driving the movement. Some believe that the police are members of a racist system and that violent criminals are merely responding to years of systemic oppression. Others believe that the police...
www.forcescience.com
“Officer-Created Jeopardy”
In policing, the idea that officers can influence jeopardy is not particularly new. “After-action reviews” and training frequently address how tactical decisions can (or did) influence the intent, ability, means, or opportunity of the suspect.
Although frequently couched in terms of “officer-created jeopardy,” these reviews aren’t intended to blame officers for the decisions and actions of suspects. Instead, they identify strategies and tactics for officer-safety, that might simultaneously save suspects from the consequences of their own intended conduct.
Well-run tactical reviews encourage radical honesty as officers think critically about their decisions and performance. These shared experiences increase tactical options, improve decision-making, and help officers avoid repeating ineffective tactics. Equally important, after-action reviews allow supervisors to identify and limit when otherwise lawful police conduct may not align with the current agency or community priorities. Avoiding armed confrontations with people who are only threatening themselves comes to mind.
The car was deemed a weapon, and that is fair, it can be. So, all that was left was considering her intent with situational awareness around it - split second stuff; for the officer, the public around, other officers.
An officer’s real-time threat assessments are nothing more than “educated guesses,” or, if you prefer, educated judgments. They are reasonable beliefs informed by training, education, and experience. Incomplete information and intentional deception make it difficult to achieve a high level of certainty in these judgments. As such, perfection can never be the standard, and reasonable people can always disagree.
The officer has to now live with it and society needs to figure out how to stop this (Signals groups, agitating, corruption, better training...) as all this nonsense is only going to lead to more deadly encounters and further division.
Not to mention the ICE age, and the arctic POLAR VORTEX that is INVADING the US
