You can't start at the point the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her. That's equivalent to equating legality with morality, which doesn't work when talking about what ought to be. Rather you have to examine the entire situation, which was an extreme escalation by ICE in response to what was essentially protesting.

There was no pretext to execute her. It's when she started driving (even spun the wheels I think) towards the officer were shots fired. In your mind, does police getaway equate with protesting now?

In your mind, does getting away from the police equate to getting shot? In the head? Three times?

Even police chiefs have called out how incompetent that agent was.

As I said, you're starting at a point where the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her.

And as I said, there was no pretext to execute her. (Or you need to explain what the word "pretext" means to you, and perhaps also "execute".)

The pretext is deliberately standing in a position such that if the car moves he can claim to be acting in "self defense". This was directly contrary to ICE's own procedures about how to approach vehicles. This particular agent had even previously fucked around and found out about moving vehicles, so it's a reasonable assumption that this positioning was fully deliberate - the agent set the situation up so that he'd have an excuse to kill the next driver who didn't respect his authorituh.

If you look at the video, then the woman turns the front of the car towards the agent, who comes from the other side. Do you mean that he knew the movement that was going to happen and risked his life to do that.

Would you say the woman was in her right to attempt a getaway?

"As I said, you're starting at a point where the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her."

Sitting in front of a screen and Monday-morning-quarterbacking, it's easy to say that driving off was wrong. But nobody really knows what they themselves would do in a fight or flight situation when being assaulted by a group of masked men, especially when one of the group is aggressive enough that they are indeed going to end up killing you.

The point is these "public servants" should not be escalating to create such high-stakes situations in the first place, especially with regards to citizens who are protesting. There is zero excuse for it, and under any halfway-sane administration such an event would be, at the very least, a moment of investigation and reflection.

Wut? You do realize that being in the presence of law enforcement officers is much different than the situation of being actively assaulted by them, right?

For example, the other day I interacted with a few police officers in person by virtue of being tangentially-involved with a car crash. I laughed and joked with them, then went about my business. But if they had instead been surrounding me with guns drawn, it would have taken me the rest of the day to come down from that.

"As I said, you're starting at a point where the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her."

You keep coming back to this point in time, to the exclusion of everything that led up to it. Why?

Because the alledged pretext assumes being able to predict the future.

Are you claiming it is impossible for an ICE agent to think "I'm just going to shoot the next person who tries to drive away" or what?

That's a weird way to frame the perspective of someone whose primary job responsibility is physical aggression. It's also not too hard to jump out of the way of a vehicle that you're focusing on if it starts moving. The argument you're effectively making is that the agent's positioning was entirely non-deliberate, even though he had been dragged by a car previously.

So the argument you are effectively making is that the police officer was planning to jump out of the way and this posed reasonably little health risk?

Do you think the shots through the driver window, after the agent was 100% out of the way of the vehicle, were justified?

From the medical examiner we know it was one of these two shots that killed her. We know they did not come in through the front windshield when the agent was at the front quarter panel. We see them clearly occur on video while the officer is definitively out of the path of the vehicle.

It also is quite clear from the results that shooting her did not make the situation safer after he was clear, either - it directly causes the car to accelerate while not under the control of a living human being.

Personally, I would still argue about even the first shot - but I have yet to be able to find any common ground in discussions with people that defend the 2nd and 3rd shot.