Too much ice

[whodeycin85]

Yes because she also was a terrible mother and past criminal involved in similar criminal behavior.

But much like most high profile cases (OJ, etc.), some low IQ "empathic" jurors were more anti-police and pro-celebrity thoughts than actual logical reason and the law itself

Dude you make this claim... Link it... I've tried searching and haven't found anything.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Now do Ashli Babbit.

Ok. LE said it was a lawful killing. You're good with that right? I mean LE said it was cool, so it must be cool.

 

[appvol]

No, she wasn't. The officer's fear was. You keep proving that you don't understand it

No her being somewhere she had no business being and trying to run over a officer is what you don’t understand

 

[LouderVol]

I didn't say that she deserved to die. Every day people make bad decisions that get them killed but that doesn't mean they deserved to die they just put themselves in the position to die.

but a cop does it and he is justified in shooting someone.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Seriously?

That's like saying that everyone who has a car accident intended to have a car accident....which is obviously STUPID!!!

Everyone that knowingly commits a crime can expect maybe something bad will happen to them

 

[Orange_Crush]

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

We'll need to agree on the moral standard; else we're kind of just stuck on legality.

 

[Rickyvol77]

so you agree that the US hadn't established itself over those lands when they went in there.

The right of might wasn't part of the discussion. thats a red herring you threw in there.

They settled and created a country yes. What's the argument here?

Their society was decades and sometimes centuries above the nomadic tribes of people living there

 

[Rickyvol77]

The follow up shots ? I wouldn’t know but to me that sounds excessive in this situation. I’d understand if all the shots came from the front but in my view things change once he’s out of the path of the vehicle

It's a standard LEO response. 2 shots center of mass, one to the head

 

[luthervol]

Anyone that thinks she didnt accelerate toward a cop is a complete moron of epic proportions.

lol....Going from a stop to 1mph is acceleration. He was standing near her path of exit, so moving "toward" him was to be expected.

 

[luthervol]

No her being somewhere she had no business being and trying to run over a officer is what you don’t understand

Trying to run over an officer???????? Get serious. That's insane and everyone knows it.

 

[LouderVol]

No she did that. She willfully, for her paycheck to do so, placed herself in the middle of those cops to impede them. Her spouse can be seen exiting the car to video the confrontation.

was the raid the house she was directly in front of? or was it a one way/dead end street she had blocked? how long was she blocking them? because I don't think she was creating an impossible situation for the cops or putting them in danger just by being in the road.

the only videos I have seen show the cops stopped far enough back where she clearly didn't jump out and cut them off to block them. that would be dangerous. and her interference seems to have lasted less than a minute. <- thats an assumption on the time line I have no clue how long it had been going on but the videos don't show a big standoff before hand. that is hardly an impossible situation for the cops.

 

[luthervol]

Everyone that knowingly commits a crime can expect maybe something bad will happen to them

Absolutely.....which is entirely appropriate.

 

[hog88]

Well if the provocation was unintentional, then the "why would she provoke them/give them a reason" stuff is less meaningful to me

Come on now. We've all done dumb stuff never intentionally wanting a bad outcome but were still responsible for the bad outcome.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Trying to run over an officer???????? Get serious. That's insane and everyone knows it.

You have no clue what her intent was, you are assigning her motives to your twisted view of "justice" and reality.

All we know for sure is she knowingly hit an officer with her vehicle while committing a crime

 

[EasternVol]

Well, at least genuinely seeking religious experts can agree on the basis of the standard and debate from that as the authority, as opposed to wrapping themselves in contradictions while claiming there are no contradictions.

So, your argument is that morality is a social construct, except that the social construct does not exist.

Society is the moral standard, which means that slavery was the moral option, which means that abolitionists were immoral.

etc... etc...

You say that the agent murdered the woman, the legal definition be damned? Does that mean simply that he should go to jail merely for offending your sensibilities?

Since when has that happened?

 

[Rickyvol77]

Absolutely.....which is entirely appropriate.

She knowingly committed a crime genius, so she should've expected something bad might happen to her

 

[hog88]

I think she was illegally killed.

There you go again, thinking isn't your strong suit.

 

[LouderVol]

I don't know that they should've shot her to death... but the first two were legal.
I'm iffy on the death though. Maybe. I don't think she was tryna run them over, but they didn't want to flex power or kill just to kill. Both sides have truth to this

do we know which shot killed her? was she only hit once?

I have assumed it was the one from the front. but that was because it was the only one shown.

 

[hog88]

It’s going to be important to determine which shot killed her.

No, that is immaterial. If there was even a second pause between the 1st and 2nd shot then possibly but in this case it doesn't matter if it was the 1st or 3rd that killed her.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Since when has that happened?

If we agree that the Bible is the ultimate source, we can seek to interpret it while respecting it as the source outside of ourselves, and having a common standard to which we can appeal and correct one another by. As opposed to saying something like "social agreement is the source of morality, except when it disagrees with me".

We at least have something to debate besides personal preferences.

We have folks that may not even admit it to themselves, but seem to operate on the moral code that all conservatives are a danger to the revolution, so anything they do is wrong.

We have folks that may not even admit it to themselves, but seem to operate on the moral code that all liberals are a danger to our culture and country, so anything they do is wrong.


Trying to have a debate at the "moral" level in here is probably more useless than me trying to get everyone to agree that the entirety of the Bible is the objective standard by which our lives should be directed and judged.

 

[LouderVol]

No her being somewhere she had no business being and trying to run over a officer is what you don’t understand

it was a public road, she has a right to be there. she didn't have a right to block them, but there was nothing banning her from being in that spot before ICE showed up.

 

[lukeneyland]

No, that is immaterial. If there was even a second pause between the 1st and 2nd shot then possibly but in this case it doesn't matter if it was the 1st or 3rd that killed her.

I don’t think so because the first shot was taken from a position of potentially grave danger while the following shots weren’t.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Ok. LE said it was a lawful killing. You're good with that right? I mean LE said it was cool, so it must be cool.

Hey, I'm consistent. If the Ashli Bobbitt killing was justified. This one was definitely justified, probably more so since she had a 4000# SUV as a weapon, Ashli Bobbitt had nothing.

 

[Orange_Crush]

There you go again, thinking isn't your strong suit.

Ask him which legal standard. Marx's or America's?

 

[luthervol]

She knowingly committed a crime genius, so she should've expected something bad might happen to her

If she knowingly committed a crime, which I believe she did, then I'm certain she realized something bad might happen.

John Lewis was arrested over 40 times.....but luckily he was never shot in the face......just beaten. He called it "good trouble".