Too much ice

#1,776
#1,776
Orange_Crush said:
I will bet you 1000 VN bucks that this will be ruled a justified shooting, mainly because it will fit the legal definition of self defense. Even the resident lawyer, who hates ICE and specializes in this type of case, has repeatedly stated why.
Click to expand...
yeah, that doesn't mean as much as you think it does. way too many questionable shootings have been ruled justified to really make people buy that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, NashVol11 and DuckInAPen
#1,777
#1,777
EasternVol said:
She posed potential harm to him and those behind him, which is why restraining her was warranted. Killing her wasn't. Letting her pass wasn't either.
Click to expand...
The gal driving the 4000# car posed potential harm to the officer and others, which is why they tried to restrain her. Killing her wasn't. Letting her pass wasn't either.
 
#1,778
#1,778
CobbVol said:
General rule of thumb for me is to follow any requests by a LEO. If they tell me to turn the car off I will. If they tell me to get out of the car I will do so. Of course, I would not have been impeding a law enforcement operation in the first place, but that is just me.
Click to expand...
I am sure you were a good boot licker for Fauci too.

y'all realize its possible for there to be multiple bad acts, on both sides, right? even if its ruled justifiable, won't remove the question and the stain.
 
#1,779
#1,779
Orange_Crush said:
I will bet you 1000 VN bucks that this will be ruled a justified shooting, mainly because it will fit the legal definition of self defense. Even the resident lawyer, who hates ICE and specializes in this type of case, has repeatedly stated why.
Click to expand...
And OJ was found innocent.

The legal ruling has no impact on the fact that he needlessly murdered a woman.....and it's as simple as that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#1,781
#1,781
Orange_Crush said:
Wait a minute. I thought your opinion was that morality is nothing more than social agreement. It would seem that our laws would be the best representation of that. What happens when the law defines why it was a justified shooting?
Click to expand...
WTH?!?!?!

Did you respond to the wrong post?
 
#1,782
#1,782
tim said:
He is walking from his car to around her drivers side. Fractions of seconds.
Click to expand...
so HE was not blocked in by her, and put himself in harms way.

none of the videos show what direction her head was facing as she drove off. but I am willing to bet it was turned to face the cops trying to open her door. she may not have even been aware of him crossing in front of her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and DuckInAPen
#1,785
#1,785
BeardedVol said:
So you've moved on from this being a defensive action in and of itself, to it being justified by his PTSD from a previous incident?
Click to expand...
No he did what he needed to do to stop the threat. The Liberal Left nuts like you are the ones crying and spending every second to say it was murder
 
#1,786
#1,786
Except where otherwise required by inspections or other operations, Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid standing directly in front of or behind a subject vehicle. Officers/agents should not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle’s path.

Avoidance of Path: Under Department of Justice and DHS guidance, agents are generally taught not to step in front of moving vehicles to block them. Policies mandate that deadly force is only a last resort when no reasonable alternative exists, which explicitly includes stepping out of the vehicle's path.

Deadly Force Standards: DHS policy allows the use of firearms against a vehicle only if the driver poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury that cannot be resolved by moving out of the way.

y'all are embarrassing
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, LouderVol, NashVol11 and 2 others
#1,789
#1,789
FLVOL_79 said:
The same people hear cheering on ICE as they attack/kill US citizens are the same people who bemoaned Ruby Ridge. How times have changed. More gubmint as long as its the type that can physically oppress amirite?
Click to expand...

How are they remotely the same? This woman went out of her way to inject herself into the situation she got herself into. The government went out of their way in the other scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#1,794
#1,794
LouderVol said:
I am sure you were a good boot licker for Fauci too.

y'all realize its possible for there to be multiple bad acts, on both sides, right? even if its ruled justifiable, won't remove the question and the stain.
Click to expand...
Ohhh, you got me there lil'buddy.
 
#1,795
#1,795
luthervol said:
No one believes that he had to shoot her in order to save his own life.

That stance would be beyond stupid.
Click to expand...

But he did. It’s stupid to assume someone’s intent when they make someone fear for their safety. You don’t have to fight fire with fire.
 
#1,796
#1,796
InVOLuntary said:
Ashli Babbitt was an unarmed female that posed no harm that one of yours shot. On the other hand, the insurrectionist from yesterday had a 400# weapon that she tried to use to kill a law enforcement officer. It shows your hypocrisy. It's ok for law enforcement to kill as long as it isn't one of

You belive ms Babbitt was using a pair of fingernail clippers to smash the glass to gain entry,along with a lot of other choir members, to Mayberry hold a prayer meeting, then OK.
What I saw was a woman using a large object to Break into the capita inner chamber leadin.a mob calling to kill a US congresswoman and hang a sitting Vice President.

You and spacecadet saw a woman running over peace loving ice agents, and as trump declared hospitalized with life threatening injuries.

What I used my eyes to see was an ice agents charging a car with weapon drawn.as the car passed by without touching him he fired shot into her face murdering her.
Click to expand...
 
#1,797
#1,797
newarkvol said:
Except where otherwise required by inspections or other operations, Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid standing directly in front of or behind a subject vehicle. Officers/agents should not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle’s path.

Avoidance of Path: Under Department of Justice and DHS guidance, agents are generally taught not to step in front of moving vehicles to block them. Policies mandate that deadly force is only a last resort when no reasonable alternative exists, which explicitly includes stepping out of the vehicle's path.

Deadly Force Standards: DHS policy allows the use of firearms against a vehicle only if the driver poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury that cannot be resolved by moving out of the way.

y'all are embarrassing
Click to expand...
I’m sadly ignorant but curious about whether this has any bearing on the outcome of legal proceedings. There has been litigation over whether officers created the circumstances that placed them in danger and whether they followed department procedures, but I can’t remember the context.

Legal tea leaves tell me it won’t matter, but I am interested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top