My analysis from yesterday is here. (Note that my animation at the top of the thread was converted by bsky into a static jpeg, so I added frames and a video later on in the thread.)

bsky.app/profile/thom...

The 2013 CBP report I referenced in another thread today specifically recommends against that exact practice.
bsky.app/profile/thom...

This is why they are blocking Minnesota from accessing the evidence.

Calls for Minnesota to investigate anyway... um... maybe, but people need to understand that, while they will have access to lots of footage, they'll have no physical evidence. From a legal standpoint, that probably IS a huge problem in reaching any prosecutable conclusion.

To be clear, these were all just recommendations. But (after a several refusals) these policies were put into place.

It's not clear what's happened with policy since then, but if any of these rules were relaxed since then, it was not due to lack of information about the shit bad policy causes.

Ha!

For the record current estimates are that it is around 60 meters (200 feet) in diameter. Very similar in size to the Chelyabinsk event. If it strikes the moon, and IF that is sufficient for debris to achieve escape velocity (which I seriously doubt), that debris will be small and harmless.

Yesterday, the officer placed himself in front of the vehicle which was turned on, after the driver stated an intent to leave. This is absolutely contrary to their policy. It is called officer-created jeopardy.

Even after that break with policy, he stool could have safely chosen to not shoot.

That's the entire point. Are law enforcement officials at greater risk? Absolutely 100%. But that is the job. To put yourself at greater risk in an effort to protect others.

Who was protected yesterday?

And sure, you can argue that, had they fired the first time, then the officer would not have been injured in the later part of the video. Which is also true. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT MAKES SHOOTINGS JUSTIFIED.

Nobody can predict the future. You can only estimate your ability to control things.

Note that I saw this because another user reposted it as evidence that officers reasonably fear for their lives. That's true. But they obviously missed the point that despite that reality, these officers showed restraint in the face of a clear and obvious attempt to kill them.

Another point here - neither officer EVER positioned themselves in front of the vehicle. In fact, in the part you can see in my clip, the officer who was nearly struck tried to dodge away from in front of her as she steered towards him, but she was turning to fast and he had to change direction.

The full video is here. It's more graphic. The driver successfully strikes one of the officers who flies through the air several feet and then the other officer opens fire, killing the driver.
It's a terrible outcome. But the officer actions were justified.
x.com/WomanDefiner...

That's what deescalation looks like. And look closely at his body position. The car had driven three or four feet forward AT the officer. The lean of this officer was more than the lean yesterday, and yet THIS officer characterized this as "almost struck me".

At first glance in the aerial view (left of this image), I thought this officer was actually struck. The body cam view shows that he used his hands to prevent full contact, much like we saw yesterday, but this was more egregious.

Fair.