Ramos was not a traffic officer. Aldrete was not being purued for bad driving habits.
If you can’t stipulate to this simplest of logical statements than you won’t stipulate to the sun rising in the morning, so I won’t try.
Give me accurate, logical and relevant statements, and I would be happy to stipulate to them.
I know this makes no difference to you but that is because you are ignorant of the law and don’t care if LEO’s are illegally shooting people in the back as long as they are shooting people you don’t like.
This is OVER THE TOP. Show me ONE post--just ONE--where I have shown to be "ignorant of the law" or to not "care if LEO's are illegally shooting people in the back..." JUST ONE, Bob! Come on. BACK IT UP or RECANT.
This time you have REALLY outdone yourself with your continuing lies!!!
As to your continued obsession with the van, did you even read my post? I posted it TWICE. Compean never said BLUE. Chris Sanchez testified to what was actually on the radio transcripts and what you are posting are the twisted myths of Oscar Sanchez that HE ADMITTED on the witness stand were WRONG. READ the darn Transcript!
So far as I could tell, the argument was that since speeding was an act that was “violent”, it made the suspect a danger to others, and justified lethal force.
Bob’s valid argument is that, even if you accept the premise that lethal force or any force can be used to stop a speeding subject, that justification ended the moment the van stopped and the suspect jumped out.
Lethal force is used by officers to prevent imminent threats, not as punishment for previous endangerments.
At the time Davilas was running toward the border, he was NO THREAT to run into anybody with his van.
The argument seems to be that since his fleeing in the van showed him to be threatening, he should be considered a threat afterwards. But beyond the fact that this just isn’t how lethal force is justified in the modern LEO environment, a person who is driving at high speeds often does NOT think they are putting people at risk, and therefore doing so does not prove that the person would do other things that would put people at risk.
Meaning that you can’t use the fact that a person chooses a high-speed chase to argue that if they had a gun, they would shoot the officers.
As to what he was being pursued for, I believe it was because he was suspected of being an illegal alien, and possibly was suspected of driving a van with drugs. Neither of those are crimes of violence that call for lethal force.
When he was shot he was running back toward mexico. That also is not a crime of violence that calls for the use of lethal force. Hence the testimony by both men that they thought they saw a gun in his hand.
OVD says he had no gun. There is no evidence that he owned a gun. There are no other witnesses to a gun. Neither man could state positively that he had a gun. No gun was found. No gun was seen by Compean before OVD was running away. There were no shots fired by OVD.
Neither Ramos nor Compean reported shooting the man. Ramos says he hit him, but did not run after him when he got up limping. Neither man told any other BP agents that there was a man with a gun. Neither mentioned a gun to anybody until they were being questioned as suspects.
Shells from the shooting were discarded. A third BP agent picked up shells, disturbing the scene, and that agent thought he should discard those shells. (I’m leaving out any speculation or discussion as to why he did this).
The story of the shooting only came to light after a report came through OTHER channels of the injuries to the man. Subsequent investigation proved the bullet removed from the man came from Ramos’ gun. (I don’t actually think anybody in this thread is arguing that Ramos didn’t hit him, but I know in the past a significant number of pro-R/C folks refused to acknowledge that fact).