Too much ice

#9,077
#9,077
BeardedVol said:
When you are constantly forced to try to defend the indefensible, the only option is to go on the offense.

Which is why they immediately tried to vilify Alex Pretti as a "domestic terrorist" carrying TWO EXTRA MAGAZINES with intent to murder as many federal agents as he could.
Click to expand...
It's got much to do with not being remotely qualified for their positions as well. That most of them are incompetent isn't a surprise
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan and NashVol11
#9,078
#9,078
Carl Pickens said:
Sounds like it’s a miracle they didn’t shoot each other
Click to expand...
I think that was a movie. “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight”.

Actually a report from a doctor at the scene who got to him initially said he was hit 5 times. But that was a quick evaluation. 5 out of 10 from point blank range is still pretty sad when 3 of them were probably from about a foot away. Of the next 7, they only hit 2.

Insane that we are even talking about such a scenario in a free, non-banana republic country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and BernardKingGOAT
#9,081
#9,081
NorthDallas40 said:
I think it’s safe to say her political career is over. Would the image rehab effort really be worth it? She’s still exposed as largely unintelligent and she’s pretty much alienated forever every pet owner in the country
Click to expand...
To clarify, your saying her political career is over for publicity defending the folks in her department or because someone who works in her department killed a protester who was intervening in an attempted arrest or is it for something else she’s done?

To me, her hair and other attempts for a teenager appearance makes it hard to take her seriously but that’s likely not a majority opinion.
 
#9,084
#9,084
n_huffhines said:
View attachment 810543
Click to expand...
He jumbles up a few things and then couldn't stick the landing for where it matters.
1. By "absolutist" is that merely the stance that the R2KABA is fully defended under things like the Heller decision? Maybe, but that's a Charmin soft application of that particular word.
2. A blanket statement of "have your permit on you" doesn't hold up in a fair portion of the country. He does save some face in THIS case as an ID and permit would be required "legally"
3. The biggest problem is that even if one were to accept everything said in this quote it provides scant cover for the shooting itself. Would he have been charged for unlawful carry if he'd merely been arrested and taken into custody? Almost certainly and deservedly so. That's not what happened.
 
Last edited:
#9,087
#9,087
GVF said:
Fair point. A good beating, even a mild one, would have been sufficient from a non-compliance view point. Goode was wrong all day long, and it happened. In this guys case, excessive force should end when perp is controlled. This is a totally different scenario, and admiitedly I have followed very little of it, so my comment is strictly from a common sense deduction without having viewed much at all of this incident. Even if he did have a side arm, was it on him during the take down, and did he go for it. THat would be my first question not having followed this shooting for various reasons. He could very well be a repeat militant agitator that has had run-ins with ICE already, but at this moment if unarmed, yeah big problem. Hostile take down and gain of control. No loss of life. No problem.

Won't agree this guy was right by any means in his activities, but once you are unarmed and have no possession of lethal threat it changes the end game.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen, he was armed.

Had a gun in the right-side waist of his pants. The gun was removed by an agent, here:

1769547958704.png


Looks like he may have been reaching for his gun, not knowing that an agent had removed it.

1769548036554.png



This guy is a use of force attorney and breaks it down.

 
#9,097
#9,097
Orange_Crush said:
From what I've seen, he was armed.

Had a gun in the right-side waist of his pants. The gun was removed by an agent, here:

View attachment 810547


Looks like he may have been reaching for his gun, not knowing that an agent had removed it.

View attachment 810548



This guy is a use of force attorney and breaks it down.

Click to expand...


You do realize, that he'd already been shot, at least once and possibly three times, at this point in the video right?


So is your argument now is that because in his flailing about after being shot, his hand was near his hip where hie firearm had previously been, that the act somehow has a bearing on the justification for shooting him in the first place?
 
#9,098
#9,098
walkenvol said:
To clarify, your saying her political career is over for publicity defending the folks in her department or because someone who works in her department killed a protester who was intervening in an attempted arrest or is it for something else she’s done?

To me, her hair and other attempts for a teenager appearance makes it hard to take her seriously but that’s likely not a majority opinion.
Click to expand...
No I’m saying her political career is over for losing total control of her department and blatantly lying to the American public about what her subordinates did and what the victim did. Next?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, NashVol11, BernardKingGOAT and 1 other person
#9,099
#9,099
BeardedVol said:
You do realize, that he'd already been shot, at least once and possibly three times, at this point in the video right?


So is your argument now is that because in his flailing about after being shot, his hand was near his hip where hie firearm had previously been, that the act somehow has a bearing on the justification for shooting him in the first place?
Click to expand...
I didn't make an argument. Do you get paid by how many words you try to put in peoples' mouths. If there is a less good-faith poster on this board than you, we'd be hard-pressed to find them.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top