• Ishmael [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    148·
    2 months ago

    This view provides an interesting detail. He walks around the car with the phone, documenting the plates and the bumper stickers, and then before he walks in front of it a second time (for what reason?) he switches the hand with which he is holding the phone to free up his right hand. In a video from another angle, you can see he starts reaching for his gun when she’s still in reverse, or at least before she accelerates. So to me, it seems like he’s performing the behavior that was mentioned in a 2013 paper on CBP use of force. In that report, they mentioned agents were standing in front of cars about to flee, and then shooting the drivers in frustration and then claiming self-defense. Here, Ross positions himself in front of a fleeing person (but just barely, so he can still step out of the way) and uses them hitting the gas as an excuse to use deadly force. The fact he says “fucking bitch” afterward and also flees the scene suggests he killed her with malice and knew it was unjustified.

    Here is an article about the use of force paper from 2014 https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/us-border-agents-intentionally-stepped-front-moving-vehicles-justify-shooting-them/

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      1151·
      2 months ago

      This is one million percent what the ice pigs were doing. They were barking contradictory orders at her, one guy reaching into her car, one guy yelling at her to leave, and then this guy with his hand inching towards his weapon and standing around in a precarious spot to instigate a self defense claim. I hate these people so much and hell is too good for them.

        • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
          21·
          2 months ago

          I don’t think it takes being very sharp to observe that to the extent that danger to the pig was remotely real, he deliberately put himself in danger to justify the shooting, and that means it obviously does not count as self defense (and I think there is legal precedent for that). It truth is obvious, it’s just a matter of a chud judge or jury going “Yah, based” anyway.

          Edit: Also, two shots were in the side window, right? What’s the claim there? That she was going to hit him with the car door? That she was going to circle around and try to hit him “again”? It’s all nonsense.