A Rebuttal for Jessica Riedl
I would like to take a moment to address the claims made in this X Post.
The Post Continues:
“That’s just not true. Lethal force is allowed ONLY when there is literally no possible alternative to preventing other deaths. In this case, that requires that: 1) An officer would surely have been killed by her continuing to drive 2 mph away from them, and 2) There was NO OTHER WAY to save their lives, such as hopping out of the way of a barely moving car, shooting the tires, firing a warning shot, or shooting to just injure. No rational person can watch the video and conclude that both standards were met. And, no, there is no “the ICE officer was panicking and didn’t have time to think” exception. The law still applies, and if we’re going to judge the panicked response of a woman in a car with a gun pointed at her, then we can absolutely judge the panicked response of a ICE official who had unnecessarily pulled a gun in a situation that did not require it. There are rules of engagement, even for under-trained ICE officials who just saw their training slashed from 5 months to 47 days (because Trump is #47, how cute). This ICE official clearly failed to follow those rules, and that means a 6-year old had to be told at school today that his mother is gone forever.”
Jessica, here, is laboring under a lot of false assumptions, based not in fact but in what appears to be Hollywood vomit. That said, let me take this point by point.
“There’s a misperception that law enforcement (or ICE) is permitted to use lethal force any time they feel the slightest bit endangered, or whenever some terrified person with a gun pointed at them does not immediately follow (often unclear) orders perfectly.”
There is no misperception, Jessica. First, no thinking person believes that law enforcement thinks that they can ‘use lethal force any time they feel the slightest bit endangered’. This is a strawman argument that you’re making and it’s a sloppy tactic. Here is the reality. Law Enforcement (and in most places, private persons) may use lethal force if they reasonably believe that their lives or the lives of a third person are in immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. This means that if someone is pointing a gun at me, I have the right to use deadly force to stop the attack. This is one of our most fundamental rights. Now, it makes no difference if a person doesn’t immediately follow orders or not, if that person (terrified or not) points a gun at a Law Enforcement Officer, he has the right to use deadly force to stop the attack, especially if the weapon is pointed at him/her. The only thing an officer has to prove to be justified in using deadly force is that he reasonably believed that his life or the life of another was in immediate threat of death or serious injury. Full Stop!
“That’s just not true. Lethal force is allowed ONLY when there is literally no possible alternative to preventing other deaths. In this case, that requires that:
1) An officer would surely have been killed by her continuing to drive 2 mph away from them, and
2) There was NO OTHER WAY to save their lives, such as hopping out of the way of a barely moving car, shooting the tires, firing a warning shot, or shooting to just injure.”
Okay, first, these officers have no duty to retreat when they are engaged in their lawful duties, and a private citizen actively tries to prevent them from doing their job. Let’s make that clear right now. Two, Lethal Force, as I’ve already pointed out, is allowed at any time a person reasonably believes that their life or the life of another is in immediate danger of death or serious injury.
This requires only that the officer reasonablybelieved that a person in a motor vehicle, backing up, turning her wheels toward him and then flooring it was an immediate threat to his life. That she hit him while accelerating argues powerfully in his favor.
As for your point two, as I’ve already stated, there was no duty to retreat, if he had tried ‘hopping out of the way’ on an icy street, that wouldn’t have been safe and likely could have resulted in his slipping under the wheels of the vehicle in question. As for ‘shooting the tires, firing a warning shot or shooting to injure’; these are all just so much Hollywood garbage and bear no resemblance to reality. Shooting the tires, firing a warning shot or shooting to injure are A) Reckless, B) Considered escalation (Warning shots/shooting the tires) and C) all are considered use of Lethal force. When I train security officers working under my command, I explain to them on day one, Any use of force must be justified and reasonably believed to be necessary. The moment you draw your weapon, that is lethal force. It doesn’t matter if you fire a warning shot, shoot out their tires or shoot them in the hand; it is still lethal force. In short, if you believe that shooting out the tires will stop the attack (Little hint, Jessica, shooting the tires won’t stop a car) then you didn’t believe lethal force was necessary and thus, you’re in trouble. If you think firing a warning shot will stop the attack, you didn’t think lethal force was necessary. If you think shooting to disable will stop the attack, then you didn’t think lethal force was necessary!
The only standard that matters here is did the officer in question reasonably believe his life was in danger. That’s it, that’s the standard. No thinking person can watch that video and conclude that he didn’t reasonably fear for his life.
“And, no, there is no “the ICE officer was panicking and didn’t have time to think” exception. The law still applies, and if we’re going to judge the panicked response of a woman in a car with a gun pointed at her, then we can absolutely judge the panicked response of a ICE official who had unnecessarily pulled a gun in a situation that did not require it.”
The only rule that applies here, again, is did the officer reasonably believe his life was in danger. The answer to that is unequivocally yes. She hit him, he fired and then went down. So yes, I would call that reasonable belief. You want to know something else? The reasonableness of his action? That’s going to be based on people like me with similar training and experience, watching the video and telling the jury how they would have responded in the same situation. Guess what they’re going to say. As for comparing his actions to hers? That’s disingenuous horse crap. She was there, illegally obstructing the ICE Agents from carrying out their lawful duties. She chose to be there and her actions or mindset do not matter. At.All. What matters is what he was thinking at the time, as it was he that was under threat and she was the one putting it under threat.
“There are rules of engagement, even for under-trained ICE officials who just saw their training slashed from 5 months to 47 days (because Trump is #47, how cute).
This ICE official clearly failed to follow those rules, and that means a 6-year-old had to be told at school today that his mother is gone forever.”
Rules of Engagement? Where the hell are you getting this crap? This only exists in crappy police dramas and movies. Again, Hollywood bears no resemblance to reality. Quit relying on Netflix for your research into police policy, training or procedure.
Police Officers do not have ‘Rules of Engagement’. That is typically a military term or one used by low information smooth brained individuals who would rather rely on HBO Max for their information rather than actual research.
The truth is, what ICE, DHS, FBI, US Marshall’s Service, and nearly every other law enforcement and private security agency in the US uses is something called the Use of Force Continuum. Each agency has their own version of what the Use of Force Continuum is. For Example, PDX uses a different Use of Force guideline than say, Eugene Police Dept. uses. PPB, if I recall correctly, removed ‘persistent chemical irritants’ from their use of force guidelines except in cases of Riot. Eugene still has that tool on their belts.
The Use of Force Continuum dictates the level of force that an LEO may use in a particular circumstance and includes everything from mere presence of a uniformed officer to Verbal compliance all the way to use of Lethal Force. Examples can be found here:
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/use-force-continuum
Here:
https://www.concealedcarry-ed.com/texas/studyGuide/Use-of-Force-Continuum/80104502_188750
and Here:
https://medfordpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MPTC-Use-of-Force-Continuum.pdf
The Use of Force Continuum may differ from agency to agency, but each agency has one.
As for your accusation of training being slashed from 5 months to 47 days? Horseapples. You’re going to have to show your homework on this one and back it up with actual, credible sources.
The ICE Agent clearly followed his policies and Use of Force guidelines. Even so, this shooting will be investigated, likely by multiple agencies and then reported on. If they find he violated his policies or that he acted unlawfully, then he will face charges for that. It would then be for a judge and jury to decide. Thankfully, not you and your mob of sycophants screaming for his head.
A six year old had to be told that his mother is gone forever, not because an ICE Agent murdered her, but because people like you, the Mainstream Media and Politicians on the left had convinced her that she could block ICE agents from doing their jobs, engage in irresponsible behavior, and do anything she wanted. You and your ilk convinced her that she could do these things without consequence and be hailed as a hero for it. Her blood is on the hands of all of you.
Well done. Well done, indeed.