nobody

Before I waste any more time on this dumb sh¡t. Tim, GutterRon... was the Rittenhouse case self-defense or murder?

I asked chatGPT what constitutes using a vehicle as a weapon.... This case seems to be 3 for 3. Typical legal elements prosecutors look for Act (what happened) — the vehicle was used in a way that caused or threatened harm (e.g., deliberately driving into someone, ramming a crowd, or using a car to strike a person or property). Result — bodily injury or death (or a grave risk of such). Some statutes require “great bodily injury” to elevate the charge. Mental state (mens rea) — crucial. Charges are much more serious when the act was intentional (attempted murder/murder) or reckless (depraved-heart murder or aggravated assault) versus negligent or accidental (vehicular manslaughter/culpable negligence). Clearly threatened harm. Actually resulted in bodily injury Was clearly at least reckless My chatGPT legal degree says this is airtight assault with a deadly weapon which makes the shooting justified.

I will say this. Saying, "he tried to run us over" seems like a mischaracterization. He clearly was trying to flee. I don't think he intended to run people over. Justified shooting from what I can tell. You don't start driving when officers are trying to detain you and at least one is leaning in your window.

Ok First thing the ICE agent says is he tried to run them over. We can discount that statement under your sketicism policy. I'm fine with that since he would say that no matter what. They mention injuries to the knee and elbow. That is physical evidence some sort of injury occurred at least. Eyewitness clearly didn't see much. He said that they "tried to get him or whatever, and he started backing up." I would interpret that as they approached the vehicle to physically detain him and while that was happening, the driver backed up. Okay. That all jives. Got the number of shots wrong. too bad he clearly is an absolute idiot. Car was clearly going reasonably fast given the damage but based on the idiot's account, that had to have happened after the car was free of the agents. Probably 15-20ish mph. The ICE agents were clearly trying to save his life with emergency medical, so that would indicate they weren't cold blooded killers out to take out some illegals. The garage cam footage or whatever that was clearly shows the ICE agent leaning in the window, so backing up while they are doing that can obviously be quite dangerous and be seen as using the car as a weapon. Although we can't see the driver side agent, so it's pretty easy to envision that guy was still attached to the vehicle which is probably how he scraped up his body. So the video is pretty worthless except that it showed how closely engaged the agents were to the car, but it doesn't show anything conclusive.

I guess I have to watch this dumb video. I'll be right back.

So then if that's all that happened, how did the guy's pants and leg get cut up?

That's illogical and harmful to your own perspective. You shouldn't assume it's false. You should assume it isn't necessarily true. Because what happens when some ICE agent whistle blower eventually comes out? You just said by default anything they say is false when we all know you would latch on to that like white on rice.

I didn't see the eyewitnesses. What did they say?

What makes you think ICE lied?

Congratulations. You're both monkeys shilling for your side of the aisle. "thegenital" is good though. I'll give you that.

Maybe he doesn't realize using a car as a weapon justifies deadly force. Weird that he's prosecuting the officer so hard with so little evidence.

So if it went down like they said and evidence of his injuries suggests, then you're good with it. Why are you dying on the hill that it's murder when there isn't evidence to support that... yet at least?

Maybe he was worried either him or one of his fellow officers would get run over in this hypothetical? But why did the guy try to drive away in this hypothetical? Especially with people standing close enough to his car that they could get hurt. Common theme in situations like this is the person getting shot doesn't want to listen to officers. I guess his dad never gave him "the talk"

Well wants the guy tries to runs into you with the car, all bets are off. That's common precedent.

Which would indicate the guy, I don't know, tried to move them out of the way with his car so he could flee? In which case someone could've tried to hold on to the car? Hell if I know. I'm just saying, the guy apparently cut his leg up. That would indicate that something happened. Maybe he did it running through bushes chasing him?