Too much ice

#2,576
#2,576
luthervol said:
WTH???? Can you ask a coherent question?

No I do not believe it was a justifiable homicide, but I believe the authorities (refs) will view it that way.
What he did meets my definition of murder, and murder, by definition is the illegal taking of life.
So again....in my eyes, it was murder, which is illegal.
In the eyes of the authorities who will make the ultimate call, it was not illegal, which means it was not murder.

The facemask was committed on a running back in the backfield and in complete unobstructed view of multiple refs.
It turned his head completely sideways and caused his upper body to twist significantly......and it was at a critical time late in the 4th quarter. Even the announcers were shocked that there was no call. The fact that there was no penalty called and enforced in no way negates the fact that an obvious illegal activity occurred.

If the refs were to later claim that they viewed the facemask as incidental, it would in no way change the fact that an illegal facemask occurred and they completely blew the call.....but alas...still no penalty.
Click to expand...
Do you think the first shot was legal ?
 
#2,578
#2,578
Vol8188 said:
Should we be upset that we live in a world where showing up to berate law enforcement and then hitting them with your car leads to your death?
Click to expand...

The push to get body cams universally has done more harm to the people who pushed them for political purposes than the side they thought it would only make worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, GVF, Good Ol' Charlie Brown and 6 others
#2,580
#2,580
etsuvol13 said:
There is a whole world full of officers out there that would not shoot in this situation as well. Preferential treatment in distributing grace in this situation should not be only given to the officer. Both acted poorly, but only 1 is no longer here. That is what people forget.
Click to expand...
Fair statement about officers. But no one has forgotten one is no longer here. :)
 
#2,582
#2,582
JMSqb11 said:
This is pretty funny to me.

Minny's Sheriff instructed local law enforcement not to work with Federal Officers in any sort of capacity. And now journalists are bitching that the body cam footage is public.


Click to expand...

That makes the officer appear more guilty. It's obvious that he could have easily avoided the car and that she was in no way attempting to intentionally run into him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#2,587
#2,587
luthervol said:
That makes the officer appear more guilty. It's obvious that he could have easily avoided the car and that she was in no way attempting to intentionally run into him.
Click to expand...

She literally pressed the gas pedal while looking directly at him in front of the car.

Like the bar is so so so low to objectively watch this and come away with the position this was justified.

If that is truly your position, you have shown you serious lack the skill of critical thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeeohdeeWood, whodeycin85, Matt2496 and 5 others
#2,590
#2,590
JMSqb11 said:
She literally pressed the gas pedal while looking directly at him in front of the car.

Like the bar is so so so low to objectively watch this and come away with the position this was justified.

If that is truly your position, you have shown you serious lack the skill of critical thinking.
Click to expand...
don't you understand, Luther wouldn't decided to just let himself get run over by the vehicle from this "freedom fighter"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Good Ol' Charlie Brown and Rickyvol77
#2,592
#2,592
NashVol11 said:
If you're afraid to talk about the morality of the situation just say that. People had no problem criticizing Casey Anthony, for example, when "legally" she was not guilty. Same with OJ
Click to expand...
I still think there is still a lot of talking past each other on this.

You have a group A, that’s pointing to details of what she was doing that seem to have an no real relation to either the legal or moral framework.

You have Group B, who thinks she shouldn’t have been killed, pointing out that these things don’t change the moral calculus.

Then group C ignores group A but argues with group B that the facts underlying the moral calculus are not the legal standard and don’t change the legal calculus.

A and C are creating a bit of a motte and bailey situation where this narrative about her actions is being pushed but pushing back or trying to suss out what the purpose of the narrative is a big no-no.

It seems like almost everybody is in agreement that this falls in between a good shooting and a criminal shooting and people are just trying to find things to argue about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hndog609 and JMSqb11
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top