Zero reason for this response (3 dudes with guns drawn?) when the goods are insured. Call in another cop, one who is in a vehicle, to follow the car and pull them over if you care that much. Having the AG say this is “justified” is a horrendous misjudgment on her part.
How about the fact that in some states, if someone is invading your home in the middle of the night and you shoot them you can be convicted depending on if you give them an avenue of egress, but these guys jumped in front of a moving car and their “reaction” was “justified?”
It is the responsibility of the police to make arrests, not prove guilt or innocence - that is the job of the courts. The police gathered what information they could, rightly concluded that someone had committed theft and attempted to make an arrest. This means that if they can use their bodies to stop the perpetrator from escaping that arrest, they should.
The question then falls on the idea of, was the car already going 30MPH and an officer jumped in front of it not giving them enough time to stop, and that was seen as an act of violence? That then would have been two poor decisions on behalf of that officer. First, jumping in front of the car, and two, in assuming the car’s not stopping to be an act of aggression upon them that warranted a returned act of agression.
If someone came into my home, robbed me and my family then ran out to their car and I was standing at the end of my driveway by the time the car started moving (I own firearms) and they clearly held no intention of not running me over, I would shoot to kill and I would be completely justified in doing so. Not because they robbed me (though that can actually be warranted too, it just depends), but because they made an attempt on my life, or at the very least, on my physical well-being.
No man should be made to accept another’s attempts to strip them of their life or well-being. I should not be made to suffer a broken body because the only way to have stopped that would be to have taken the life of the assailant who had no qualms with crushing my body.
Also regarding what you posted, many states are wholly nonsensical in the vast majority of their laws. What is rational is that if someone were to enter your property, you are justified in analyzing the threat as rationally as you can, given the circumstance, and acting accordingly. If you shoot the 8 year old running across your yard, you’re in the wrong and just murdered a child, but there are many different situations that can arise. If someone walks into my home (I have young children) and I see that they are carrying a knife or firearm, I’m not going to speak with them, warn them, or otherwise give them an “egress”, I am going to shoot to kill, period, the state be damned.
The 3 seconds it might take me to ask questions and wait for a response could be all it takes before my toddler is shot dead. I don’t have that time, I don’t know this person, I don’t know their intentions, and this is the single most horrific and pivotal moment of likely my entire life - the notion that I should be held more accountable for how I react than the individual who entered my home armed is utter nonsense. NOBODY matters to me as much as my children, and that should be a universality across the whole of humanity. If you don’t believe that, you’re doing “human” wrong.
The 3 seconds it might take me to ask questions and wait for a response could be all it takes before my toddler is shot dead.
Like the 1 year old in the video? So the mother would have been justified running those cops over, right? When someone runs at me shouting with a gun drawn should I assume they just want to talk?
Police in the USA regularly shoot and kill people who pose no threat. The only threat in this situation was entirely brought by the police: they drew weapons and they put themselves in harms way by stepping in front of a moving vehicle.
I never said that she wouldn’t have been justified in running a cop over if he drew a gun on her depending on the situation. She could be completely, 100% justified.
“Police in the USA regularly shoot and kill people who pose no threat.”
Evidence for this claim? I am a scientist and researcher by profession, as well as a formally trained, collage educated researcher. My own past research does not support this claim. Quick current searches can find data that contrasts your proposition:
In 2025, 1,201 people were killed by police in the US. 90% of those killed by on-duty police are armed with a firearm or other weapon, according to data compiled by Everytown Research. Only 98 are from cases where an individual is completely unarmed.
And even if we were to argue that half of all police killings are completely unjustified, we’re talking about 601 deaths.
Over 4,500 people die from unintentional drowning each year. 450 people die each year from falling out of bed. 72 die each year from hornet, wasp, and bee stings.
The “solution” proposed in this thread is “more training”, but what training, exactly? Current “quality” training is noted to reduce the tendency for violence used by police by roughly 30%, but that doesn’t mean it reduces killing by 30%. Not all violent altercations end in a shell discharge. So what are we talking about for a fix here? This ethereal training that will reduce physical altercations by 30% that reduce killings by 20%, dropping the number from 1,201 to 961. So you maybe save 241 lives at the cost of what, exactly?
Enhanced police training programs are primarily funded through local property taxes, state sales and income taxes. The total cost to recruit, equip, and provide advanced field training to a single officer can exceed $100,000 in their first 18 months. This excludes their salary.
Municipal budgets tend to go over capacity for salaries and overtime as it is today. Large-scale training updates also require physical equipment upgrades which cost multi-millions in costs. Such trainings often require simulation infrastructure. And keep in mind that there is no such thing as universal federal law on policing, policing conduct, rules, structure, hiring practices, and training are rooted at the state and local levels, so everywhere you go they have different criteria. So how do you make these trainings a universality? How do you get people to pay for it in Las Angeles vs. say, New Square New York, a village known for its high poverty rate and a low average family income near $20K? Is the proposed answer just to, “eat the rich”?
So again what is your ACTUAL proposal? You can’t just raise taxes, that will not work. You also can’t mandate that training changes happen universally across the country. Nobody has that authority. Districts hold their own authority independent of one another. And even if you could get the funding AND make it universal, the average American will not vote for it. You propose a cost of say, 3 billion to give all officers in the US enhanced training and tell them this is estimated to save 241 lives annually and they will scoff at your proposal and assume 75% of those people saved are likely hardened criminals anyway, so why exactly are we putting 3 billion to save the lives of known felons?
If you want to make change, you have to convince your fellow man to live righteously, which is no easy task. Change doesn’t happen overnight because some government mandate was put in place or because some money was thrown at some police districts for “enhanced training”.
Hell, simply removing laws that have no victim would reduce all police altercations by anywhere from 20-80% (impossible to strictly judge this with any available data). Don’t arrest someone for drug possession for example because there’s no need to. Let people live their lives the way they want and put into their body what they want because its their life and their body and these things would organically reduce anyway. The government IS a HUGE part of the problem alone.
I’m going to assume you are discussing in good faith.
Yes, it is the policy’s responsibility to enforce the law. But they are also not supposed to escalate or use unequal force. Jumping in front of a moving car is “dont do this 101.” She had diapers in her car and was trying to get away, not hurt people. In this case gunfire is never an appropriate and justified force. If she had a bomb in her car and said “I’m going to go blow up the elementary school” and sped off towards the school, I’d understand using lethal force to stop her.
Your home invasion part created a lot of unnecessary arguments. In most states, if you shot someone fleeing in their car when they were no longer threatening your life, you’d be convicted of murder. You then conflate accepting an attack on you with shooting someone that was clearly fleeing because they previously threatened you. I’m also not sure why you even brought up shooting an 8 year old running across your yard, that isn’t relevant to this situation and I think everyone can agree that’s wrong no matter what, no matter how old the person is.
It doesn’t matter if states laws are nonsensical, and that’s kind of the point. You also confuse what you’re willing to accept to do to protect your family with what is legal. In some states you have a duty to warn them or allow them to retreat if they are not directly threatening you, and being in your home unlawfully is not automatically threatening you.
Your emotional conviction to protect your children is not being argued. The point was that even in a situation, where a civilian such as yourself fears the safety of their children, you could have a duty to warn or allow an invader to flee your house depending on the state you live in. While a trained and professional police officer escalated a nonlethal situation by jumping in front of a moving vehicle, and then further escalated it by using lethal force and murdered a person. Even worse, it was legally “justified” despite being completely unreasonable.
There is no system, there are just people. And is it justified to hurt people over theft? Of course it is.
All legality ends in killing when taken to its end result. If you get a speeding ticket, what happens if you don’t pay it? You get a warrant for your arrest. What happens when you’re stopped for speeding again and the officer, noticing your warrant, goes to arrest you but you, believing the state has no business apprehending you for something you never agreed not to do on roads nobody actually owns (which is a legitimate and objective claim, mind you), resist that arrest?
One of three things can occur:
You are arrested, which means that another human being placed their hands upon you and did things to you that you do not consent to. If your neighbor did this to you you would consider it both insane and immoral, and you would be wholly justified in that consideration.
You escape arrest, but you will most likely be arrested in the future.
Your resistance utilized some level of force which was reciprocated by the officer, and you were shot and killed.
And what do you think happens if you do successfully resist arrest? Now you have a warrant for your arrest not only for speeding, but also for resisting arrest. And what do you think would happen if say, you successfully resisted arrest say, 5 times? Do you think the state is going to just throw its hands up and say, “well, we tried but that bugger got away so what can we do!?” No, of course not. Eventually the criminal escalation will be so great that you would be seen as a violator of the law wholly need of processing, which means violence used against you to ensure your capture. What happens then when those escalated officers draw weapons on you and demand your surrender and you try to escape a sixth time? They throw up their hands?
Of course not, they open fire.
ALL criminal acts eventually lead to death unless you succumb to the will of the authoritarian structure or you’re successfully captured and processed, it just depends where along that line you are.
Is it rationally justified to open fire on someone for stealing from a Walmart? Of course not. But it would have been justified to arrest the woman and punish her to the fullest extent of the law, barring that the law is just, and by just, keep in mind, simply being that in which violates the will of another through a logical order of operations. I.E: Murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.
An officer who shoots at a car to prevent someone from getting away with petty theft at a Walmart should be tried and convicted of murder, but the woman who stole from that Walmart should be tried and convicted of theft, at least barring that the Walmart wanted to press charges at all.
Are you calling me a boot licker, or referring to someone else? I am an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist. I am anti-government. If you took that I am pro government from my post, then I either didn’t communicate my point across adequately, you didn’t understand my point, or you don’t understand what government is at its most fundamental level.
Yes, you are a boot licker. No, you are absolutely not an anarchist. Sticking feathers up your ass doesn’t make you a chicken. It takes more than just saying that’s what you are, Javert. You are applying legalist morality as justification. Do you not understand why multiple people keep calling you Javert, Javert?
Ah, but I never said I was a commie. Communists anarchists are nonsensical. An anarchist is to monarchy as an atheist is to theism. It simply means no rulers. I believe the best state to exist in would be one without rulers. Communism is a nonsensical state as the abolition of the state and of money is a nonsense proposition.
You understand first and foremost that you cannot steal that in which you already own, correct? Just like you cannot own that in which is stolen. Are we talking about semantics here, or ideas?
If your argument is that Walmart stole from you and thus, you are entitled to what they’ve stolen back, that would be true, so long as you could prove that this occured.
Can you prove without some kind of ethereal ideological viewpoint that this occurred? I could use mental gymnastics to argue that you’ve stolen from me too, so why don’t you go ahead and Venmo me $10,000?
It’s not justified. That’s an objective statement. You do not need to give any creed to people who make objectively incorrect claims. You just disregard them.
Zero reason for this response (3 dudes with guns drawn?) when the goods are insured. Call in another cop, one who is in a vehicle, to follow the car and pull them over if you care that much. Having the AG say this is “justified” is a horrendous misjudgment on her part.
Zero reason for this response if the goods aren’t insured. In what sane universe is it morally justified to hurt anyone over material items??
FFS on top of that it was diapers. Meaning mom and friend were desperate to care for their baby. The system is so disgustingly broken.
How about the fact that in some states, if someone is invading your home in the middle of the night and you shoot them you can be convicted depending on if you give them an avenue of egress, but these guys jumped in front of a moving car and their “reaction” was “justified?”
Wouldn’t that depend though?
It is the responsibility of the police to make arrests, not prove guilt or innocence - that is the job of the courts. The police gathered what information they could, rightly concluded that someone had committed theft and attempted to make an arrest. This means that if they can use their bodies to stop the perpetrator from escaping that arrest, they should.
The question then falls on the idea of, was the car already going 30MPH and an officer jumped in front of it not giving them enough time to stop, and that was seen as an act of violence? That then would have been two poor decisions on behalf of that officer. First, jumping in front of the car, and two, in assuming the car’s not stopping to be an act of aggression upon them that warranted a returned act of agression.
If someone came into my home, robbed me and my family then ran out to their car and I was standing at the end of my driveway by the time the car started moving (I own firearms) and they clearly held no intention of not running me over, I would shoot to kill and I would be completely justified in doing so. Not because they robbed me (though that can actually be warranted too, it just depends), but because they made an attempt on my life, or at the very least, on my physical well-being.
No man should be made to accept another’s attempts to strip them of their life or well-being. I should not be made to suffer a broken body because the only way to have stopped that would be to have taken the life of the assailant who had no qualms with crushing my body.
Also regarding what you posted, many states are wholly nonsensical in the vast majority of their laws. What is rational is that if someone were to enter your property, you are justified in analyzing the threat as rationally as you can, given the circumstance, and acting accordingly. If you shoot the 8 year old running across your yard, you’re in the wrong and just murdered a child, but there are many different situations that can arise. If someone walks into my home (I have young children) and I see that they are carrying a knife or firearm, I’m not going to speak with them, warn them, or otherwise give them an “egress”, I am going to shoot to kill, period, the state be damned.
The 3 seconds it might take me to ask questions and wait for a response could be all it takes before my toddler is shot dead. I don’t have that time, I don’t know this person, I don’t know their intentions, and this is the single most horrific and pivotal moment of likely my entire life - the notion that I should be held more accountable for how I react than the individual who entered my home armed is utter nonsense. NOBODY matters to me as much as my children, and that should be a universality across the whole of humanity. If you don’t believe that, you’re doing “human” wrong.
Like the 1 year old in the video? So the mother would have been justified running those cops over, right? When someone runs at me shouting with a gun drawn should I assume they just want to talk?
Police in the USA regularly shoot and kill people who pose no threat. The only threat in this situation was entirely brought by the police: they drew weapons and they put themselves in harms way by stepping in front of a moving vehicle.
I never said that she wouldn’t have been justified in running a cop over if he drew a gun on her depending on the situation. She could be completely, 100% justified.
“Police in the USA regularly shoot and kill people who pose no threat.”
Evidence for this claim? I am a scientist and researcher by profession, as well as a formally trained, collage educated researcher. My own past research does not support this claim. Quick current searches can find data that contrasts your proposition:
In 2025, 1,201 people were killed by police in the US. 90% of those killed by on-duty police are armed with a firearm or other weapon, according to data compiled by Everytown Research. Only 98 are from cases where an individual is completely unarmed.
https://everytownresearch.org/graph/percent-of-deaths-of-civilians-caused-by-police-are-with-a-firearm/
And even if we were to argue that half of all police killings are completely unjustified, we’re talking about 601 deaths.
Over 4,500 people die from unintentional drowning each year. 450 people die each year from falling out of bed. 72 die each year from hornet, wasp, and bee stings.
The “solution” proposed in this thread is “more training”, but what training, exactly? Current “quality” training is noted to reduce the tendency for violence used by police by roughly 30%, but that doesn’t mean it reduces killing by 30%. Not all violent altercations end in a shell discharge. So what are we talking about for a fix here? This ethereal training that will reduce physical altercations by 30% that reduce killings by 20%, dropping the number from 1,201 to 961. So you maybe save 241 lives at the cost of what, exactly?
Enhanced police training programs are primarily funded through local property taxes, state sales and income taxes. The total cost to recruit, equip, and provide advanced field training to a single officer can exceed $100,000 in their first 18 months. This excludes their salary.
Municipal budgets tend to go over capacity for salaries and overtime as it is today. Large-scale training updates also require physical equipment upgrades which cost multi-millions in costs. Such trainings often require simulation infrastructure. And keep in mind that there is no such thing as universal federal law on policing, policing conduct, rules, structure, hiring practices, and training are rooted at the state and local levels, so everywhere you go they have different criteria. So how do you make these trainings a universality? How do you get people to pay for it in Las Angeles vs. say, New Square New York, a village known for its high poverty rate and a low average family income near $20K? Is the proposed answer just to, “eat the rich”?
So again what is your ACTUAL proposal? You can’t just raise taxes, that will not work. You also can’t mandate that training changes happen universally across the country. Nobody has that authority. Districts hold their own authority independent of one another. And even if you could get the funding AND make it universal, the average American will not vote for it. You propose a cost of say, 3 billion to give all officers in the US enhanced training and tell them this is estimated to save 241 lives annually and they will scoff at your proposal and assume 75% of those people saved are likely hardened criminals anyway, so why exactly are we putting 3 billion to save the lives of known felons?
If you want to make change, you have to convince your fellow man to live righteously, which is no easy task. Change doesn’t happen overnight because some government mandate was put in place or because some money was thrown at some police districts for “enhanced training”.
Hell, simply removing laws that have no victim would reduce all police altercations by anywhere from 20-80% (impossible to strictly judge this with any available data). Don’t arrest someone for drug possession for example because there’s no need to. Let people live their lives the way they want and put into their body what they want because its their life and their body and these things would organically reduce anyway. The government IS a HUGE part of the problem alone.
I’m going to assume you are discussing in good faith.
Yes, it is the policy’s responsibility to enforce the law. But they are also not supposed to escalate or use unequal force. Jumping in front of a moving car is “dont do this 101.” She had diapers in her car and was trying to get away, not hurt people. In this case gunfire is never an appropriate and justified force. If she had a bomb in her car and said “I’m going to go blow up the elementary school” and sped off towards the school, I’d understand using lethal force to stop her.
Your home invasion part created a lot of unnecessary arguments. In most states, if you shot someone fleeing in their car when they were no longer threatening your life, you’d be convicted of murder. You then conflate accepting an attack on you with shooting someone that was clearly fleeing because they previously threatened you. I’m also not sure why you even brought up shooting an 8 year old running across your yard, that isn’t relevant to this situation and I think everyone can agree that’s wrong no matter what, no matter how old the person is.
It doesn’t matter if states laws are nonsensical, and that’s kind of the point. You also confuse what you’re willing to accept to do to protect your family with what is legal. In some states you have a duty to warn them or allow them to retreat if they are not directly threatening you, and being in your home unlawfully is not automatically threatening you.
Your emotional conviction to protect your children is not being argued. The point was that even in a situation, where a civilian such as yourself fears the safety of their children, you could have a duty to warn or allow an invader to flee your house depending on the state you live in. While a trained and professional police officer escalated a nonlethal situation by jumping in front of a moving vehicle, and then further escalated it by using lethal force and murdered a person. Even worse, it was legally “justified” despite being completely unreasonable.
Agreed.
There is no system, there are just people. And is it justified to hurt people over theft? Of course it is.
All legality ends in killing when taken to its end result. If you get a speeding ticket, what happens if you don’t pay it? You get a warrant for your arrest. What happens when you’re stopped for speeding again and the officer, noticing your warrant, goes to arrest you but you, believing the state has no business apprehending you for something you never agreed not to do on roads nobody actually owns (which is a legitimate and objective claim, mind you), resist that arrest?
One of three things can occur:
And what do you think happens if you do successfully resist arrest? Now you have a warrant for your arrest not only for speeding, but also for resisting arrest. And what do you think would happen if say, you successfully resisted arrest say, 5 times? Do you think the state is going to just throw its hands up and say, “well, we tried but that bugger got away so what can we do!?” No, of course not. Eventually the criminal escalation will be so great that you would be seen as a violator of the law wholly need of processing, which means violence used against you to ensure your capture. What happens then when those escalated officers draw weapons on you and demand your surrender and you try to escape a sixth time? They throw up their hands?
Of course not, they open fire.
ALL criminal acts eventually lead to death unless you succumb to the will of the authoritarian structure or you’re successfully captured and processed, it just depends where along that line you are.
Is it rationally justified to open fire on someone for stealing from a Walmart? Of course not. But it would have been justified to arrest the woman and punish her to the fullest extent of the law, barring that the law is just, and by just, keep in mind, simply being that in which violates the will of another through a logical order of operations. I.E: Murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.
An officer who shoots at a car to prevent someone from getting away with petty theft at a Walmart should be tried and convicted of murder, but the woman who stole from that Walmart should be tried and convicted of theft, at least barring that the Walmart wanted to press charges at all.
Cool, you’ve stolen a lot of people’s time in this thread. Are you volunteering to be subject to your own claims?
This has to be slop.
Boot lickin’ Javert, doing his favorite thing: Lickin’ boots!
Are you calling me a boot licker, or referring to someone else? I am an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist. I am anti-government. If you took that I am pro government from my post, then I either didn’t communicate my point across adequately, you didn’t understand my point, or you don’t understand what government is at its most fundamental level.
Yes, you are a boot licker. No, you are absolutely not an anarchist. Sticking feathers up your ass doesn’t make you a chicken. It takes more than just saying that’s what you are, Javert. You are applying legalist morality as justification. Do you not understand why multiple people keep calling you Javert, Javert?
Ah, but I never said I was a commie. Communists anarchists are nonsensical. An anarchist is to monarchy as an atheist is to theism. It simply means no rulers. I believe the best state to exist in would be one without rulers. Communism is a nonsensical state as the abolition of the state and of money is a nonsense proposition.
And yet you are arguing that it is never acceptable to steal from a walmart.
Have fun with those feathers, Javert.
You understand first and foremost that you cannot steal that in which you already own, correct? Just like you cannot own that in which is stolen. Are we talking about semantics here, or ideas?
If your argument is that Walmart stole from you and thus, you are entitled to what they’ve stolen back, that would be true, so long as you could prove that this occured.
Can you prove without some kind of ethereal ideological viewpoint that this occurred? I could use mental gymnastics to argue that you’ve stolen from me too, so why don’t you go ahead and Venmo me $10,000?
Why are the municipal police insuring Walmart’s bottom line using taxpayer dollars?
They’re paid by a 3rd part security group who is hired by Walmart. They were paid $100 an hour to kill this child.
why are they protecting any property? oh yeah because people don’t like getting things stolen from them.
As if some megacorporation doesn’t have the money to pay for it themselves and instead has to rely on corporate welfare from the local municipality.
It’s not justified. That’s an objective statement. You do not need to give any creed to people who make objectively incorrect claims. You just disregard them.
Removed by mod
Following them turns into a high speed chase now endangering other people. Not really a better option when random people get killed.
This comment is dumb. You are saying she should be executed to prevent a crime she has not committed yet. Use your head.
Nice strawman.
Oh yeah, now instead of just getting the license plate and putting out a BOLO, they just killed a 1 year old.
Never said shooting is a good/better alternative, what is it with you people here commenting that? I said an alternative that got mentioned is shit.
Or they could do some police work and, y’know visit the address associated with the plate number.
That said, police shouldn’t be doing loss prevention for Walmart.
Yes, that is a much better option than following let alone shooting.
So you gotta get the boot soaking wet before you shove it up your ass or does it just slide up there easily?
Why even comment this garbage if you can but comprehend what you reply to?