[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •

    You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

    Return

    Drusas ,

    That looks a lot like attempted vehicular assault.

    SkepticElliptic ,

    It wasn’t attempted, it was vehicular assault and reckless driving. Not sure about the definition in AZ though. It was also excessive force when he used the vehicle to ram the trailer and when they intentionally pressed her against the hot tarmac to cause pain or injury.

    They will claim qualified immunity, however, in my opinion, a claim of qualified immunity is an affirmative defense in a civil case. Meaning that the individual officer is admitting that they did something, but cannot be held personally liable for it.

    raccoona_nongrata ,
    @raccoona_nongrata@beehaw.org avatar

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    SkepticElliptic ,

    They did, but also they didn’t. They made it a valid claim to self defense, which this was not.

    chinpokomon , (edited )

    This is in NV, but what I don’t know is what jurisdiction applies. Involved might be federal, state, or county agents. The Ranger truck might suggest that it was federal, but the highway would have been state managed.

    Edit: Read elsewhere that it was a Tribal Ranger truck, so yet another jurisdiction. Excessive response and the conduct is under review.

    SkepticElliptic ,

    That’s tricky, I don’t know anything about tribal law, but I assume NV state law would apply as to how vehicular assault is defined.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •