> There is no state in the continental US that says a law enforcement officer can discharge his weapon in self defense at an on coming vehicle being used as a threat

wrote:

False.

False.

Sockpuppet wrote:

“Come at us” is not a threat.

You arent arguing with me, you are literally arguing with google.

AI Overview

Yes, "come at me" can be considered a threat, especially in an aggressive context, because it implies an invitation to a physical confrontation, creating reasonable fear of harm, though context, tone, and intent matter greatly; it can be a conditional threat of self-defense, a taunt, or a serious declaration of intent to injure, depending on delivery and circumstances.

Sockpuppet wrote:

I do not believe the murderer says. anything. No order. Nothing. Prove me wrong.

“Come at us” is not a threat.

She was given several orders to get out of the car by various agents - it doesn't matter if the shooting agent spoke a single word to her.

What do you think "come at us" means?

wrote:

She was given several orders to get out of the car by various agents - it doesn't matter if the shooting agent spoke a single word to her.

What do you think "come at us" means?

So now you admit the murderer did not give an order.

Who said “come at us?” When did they say it?

Spanky wrote:

"plowing into"

Quite different than "slowly turning the wheel away from the scene, from people, from officers, and just starting to slowly drive away."

Its a borderline case but an angry militant lesbian druver tips it in the officers favor.
   \

So now you admit:

1) the murderer did not give an order
2) the innocent victim did not make a threat

Got it. Thanks.

wrote:

I said it's irrelevant - she was given many lawful orders to get out of her car by several different agents, and she refused them. 

Is "come at us" a threat?  Yes or no? 

Her girlfriend - who was in the car with her until she got out to confront the agent - yelled "come at us!" 

The same person then told the driver to "drive baby, drive!" while the agent was standing in front of the car. 

As I said, it is irrelevant whether or not the woman was an actual threat, only that it was reasonable to think at the time and without hindsight she was.

She was intentionally obstructing justice and harassing agents.  She refused lawful orders.  She placed her car in drive while the agent was in front of her as her partner - who had just threatened the agent -  yelled, "Drive baby, drive!"  She then in fact did "drive."  Given the fact pattern (and without hindsight or benefit of multiple camera angles and slow motion) it was reasonable to assume she was going to run him over. 

Good shoot - no charges.

I also admit the sky is blue, which, like your points, is irrelevant to the discussion.

Sockpuppet wrote:

So now you admit:

1) the murderer did not give an order
2) the innocent victim did not make a threat

Got it. Thanks.