Too much ice

[LouderVol]

I don't disagree, the cop shouldn't have been standing in front of her car, he is a dumbazz for doing so. I've also said he didn't have to shoot her, it was a POS move on his part but that doesn't negate the fact that she was also a dumbazz. The difference between the two other than she's dead is that the cop has the law on his side, she didn't.

and thats a problem when the government can just insert itself into your life, waiting for you to make a mistake they get to punish you for.

 

[luthervol]

From his perspective and in the time he had to assess and react, he could reasonably perceive that to be the case.

I'll add to my earlier comments on this that we often have expert witnesses who study reaction times. The officer must assess the situation, decide to fire, then physically fire. Then, as circumstances change, he must reassess the situation, decide to stop firing, and then physically stop. Each direction takes in most studies a tad over 2 seconds.

In this case, that allowance for his reaction time is well within reason.

While I agree with criticism of ICE being there at all, and am critical of the administration for doing this, and while I agree that Trump, Noem's, and Vance's attacks on this lady are reprehensible and stupid, as to the actions of the officer -- completely lawful. Unfortunate, but not unlawful.

I never said I thought he would be convicted of anything.....I'm quite certain that he will not be.

In the eyes of the law......justifiable homicide.
In reality...........the complete avoidable and unjustifiable intentional taking of a life.....which I tend to call murder.

 

[EasternVol]

lol “he is scum”. But the actual criminal isn’t. This is why no one takes you seriously

Unnecessarily and intentionally killing someone is considerably scummier than trying, however misguided it may have been, to help someone.

 

[LouderVol]

Might of kept her alive if she hadn’t been trained to follow ICE around and harass them

follow? she was in front of them. that was the whole basis of the argument for her starting it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I never said I thought he would be convicted of anything.....I'm quite certain that he will not be.

In the eyes of the law......justifiable homicide.
In reality...........completely avoidable and unjustifiable intentional taking of a life.....which I tend to call murder.

I think she was illegally killed.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

but the ICE agent will get away with his.

I doubt too many of our bad decisions led to someone getting dead. that tends to change the equation.

Woman Shot by ICE Agent Identified As Member of Radical 'ICE Watch' Group Targeting Federal Officers

Sigh ... her death would've not happened if she didn't interfere w/LEO. She choose to.
She was well known to be in a radical anti-ICE group known as "ICE Watch" which she,
herself, was a trainer in teaching others what to do when confronted in those situations.

 

[Orangeburst]

Dont any of these people have jobs? professional protesters, sheesh it is pathetic.

 

[appvol]

if only all the other liberal women would do the same…let’s make it a movement and make the world a better and safer place.

Man that’s a face of someone who would never try to run a ICE agent over

 

[Vol8188]

I guess the next question would be....From the Native American perspective, was it an improvement?

The vast majority of natives aren’t choosing to live like they did before the wheel, medicine, rifles, etc. The majority rather chose assimilation because they recognized the obvious improvements

 

[EasternVol]

Well what did you think the deadly use of force was for?

looks like it worked. He’s alive

Shooting her had no effect on that.

 

[EasternVol]

I will 100 agree that both were acting very foolishly.
FWIW, „fleeing“ isn’t automatically an excuse for avoid potentially lethal consequences. I see police chase videos all the time where idiots try and flee from police driving 120 mph plus. The officer has to decide if they are going to allow the driver to continue to endanger others by such driving or try and forces the vehicle off the road, often with fatal consequences. It becomes a judgment call. And this officer had less than 2 seconds to decide.
And at least one video I saw clearly shows that the car did hit the officer, which tends to indicate dangerous potential if she continues

Less than 2 seconds?!?! Ermahgerd!!! A lot of you bootlickers would never be able to cross the street in Bangkok or Jakarta.

 

[luthervol]

Orange Crush

You can see that I said it met MY definition of murder.........right?
By definition, murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a life.......right?

So it was illegal in my eyes.

Kind of like the obvious face mask that didn't get called in a game last week.

If it's not called, is it still a penalty?

Is face masking illegal in football?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Less than 2 seconds?!?! Ermahgerd!!! A lot of you bootlickers would never be able to cross the street in Bangkok or Jakarta.

Bootlickers are the vast amount of anti-Trump cult members so are you addressing them?

 

[Rickyvol77]

I'm not the one saying her not complying justified shooting her.

Jesus you are dense. "her not complying" isn't the reason she was shot, the main reason was her striking an officer with her vehicle.

If she had gotten out of the van and started running she would not have been shot in that instance

 

[Rickyvol77]

and thats a problem when the government can just insert itself into your life, waiting for you to make a mistake they get to punish you for.

She "inserted herself" into the government's operations and committed crimes doing so...she provoked their response, it wasn't some innocent mistake

 

[lawgator1]

I never said I thought he would be convicted of anything.....I'm quite certain that he will not be.

In the eyes of the law......justifiable homicide.
In reality...........the complete avoidable and unjustifiable intentional taking of a life.....which I tend to call murder.

I don't think there is a viable civil claim there, either.

Evidence of the propensity for deployment of ICE to create the circumstances where this could happen? Absolutely.

 

[EasternVol]

100% Facts on this

Are you kidding?

 

[Rickyvol77]

Unnecessarily and intentionally killing someone is considerably scummier than trying, however misguided it may have been, to help someone.

What if she intended to kill or injure him? The same or no?
You don't get to determine what was "unnecessary" or not, because you weren't in that position

 

[Rickyvol77]

follow? she was in front of them. that was the whole basis of the argument for her starting it.

She and her group were there harassing them prior to this incident

 

[InVOLuntary]

Might of kept her alive if she hadn’t been trained to follow ICE around and harass them

And block them. Their own side is on video saying she was doing an excellent job of impeding them.

 

[Rickyvol77]

LOL

 

[Rickyvol77]

Shooting her had no effect on that.

How do you know that?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Orange Crush

You can see that I said it met MY definition of murder.........right?
By definition, murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a life.......right?

So it was illegal in my eyes.

So, you're equating your personal, contradictory morality as the legal system?

Or have you had enough of getting embarrassed when you try to lecture us according to your contradictory personal moral code, so you tried to slip it by via equivocation? How does your personal moral code == a "legal" proclamation?

Kind of like the obvious face mask that didn't get called in a game last week.

If it's not called, is it still a penalty?

Is face masking illegal in football?

No. It's not. A facemask is a penalty, illegal in football rules. To call it "illegal" is to refer to the rules, not your preferences. You didn't say that the killing was uncalled. You said that it was illegal. There is a major difference, which is why I quoted both posts to point out the difference.



You weren't claiming that she was killed by a piece of paper, were you?

And you don't teach anything having to do with vocabulary, logic or critical thinking, do you?

And it's OK to @me if you want to discuss further.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Less than 2 seconds?!?! Ermahgerd!!! A lot of you bootlickers would never be able to cross the street in Bangkok or Jakarta.

Why would we? 3rd world trash cultures

 

[GVF]

My first post said (and every post thereafter inferred) that the shooting was legally justified but that it was morally wrong.

It’s morally wrong because she wasn’t a threat to others, wasn’t trying to hit him and, in hindsight, he wasn’t in immediate danger.

It’s legally justified because we defer to the snap second judgments of police and his reaction was reasonable if viewed without the benefit of hindsight.

So you’re not *saying* she deserved to die, but you keep arguing to put the blame more squarely on her. And you’re arguing with me, who says simply that her killing was morally wrong.

So do you see why it looks like you’re arguing that she deserved to die and why I’m confused about this? It’s a lot like arguing that Charlie Kirk was a racist scumbag in a thread about his murder.

I will number these to follow your separated statements: [[For perspective I am conservative but not far right type beanbag. I am accepting of other views. I don't think the Church of Christ are the only christains going to heaven. Just a little humor. I'm CoC. But I don't agree with calling a Club a Spade. Maybe my debates sometimes are more from a point of perspective or perception and not absolute. The extreme righties in here are just as questionable as our far lefties. But, I am firm in that actions precipitate consequences. This can even be found on Luther's continuums. So, to paint this agent as a murderer, which would infer it was premeditated and intentional, is false and I will debate that nonsense. You can see "murderer" all through these posts.]]

1. Agreed. You have been very consistent with the legal aspect.

2. I'm glad you defined what you call morally wrong because I was struggling to decifer your meaning. I think it's reasonable to define it that way. Got no issue with that. I think there's enough video now to show she did hit him. We can reasonably infer that probably wasn't her intent. But she did. And she's no longer here to say either way. And it was her decision that day placing her there to do what she was doing. I think it's reasonable to say they went there to htat op to be antagonistic. Even took it furhter by being physical obstacles and not just sideline protestors. I struggle with your Legal/Moral line on this because based on what appeared to be going on and the fact they were there to agitate, he really didn't have much time to work with on a moral/legal reaction. Another agent however, may have indeed made a different decision or inherent reaction. It's too easy to hindsight something and call it morally wrong. He had a microscope and a second or two. We all have wide angle lenses and all the time in the world. To phrase his reaction as legal but immoral takes alot of hedging IMO. I'm sure he'd like to have that fasball back and take a slow curve so he can see thread rotation.

3. Agreed. I don't think you even need to be a lawyer to understand, or agree, or accpet that. It's situational and it is what it is and it defers to the pressures of the job and real time evaluations of circumstances.

4. Yes. I am saying she did not deserve to die. At the same time, I am also saying her actions are a contributing factor to her dying. And initiated the chain of events. Both can be true at the same time. Two friends in high school. We were seniors. They were heading to a "rumble". Went around deadman's curve at 120. Left the road. Passenger seat broke loose and threw him out the back (240Z). Head on rock. Dead. Did he deserve to die? No. Did their decisions to be headed to a fight and speeding 70 mile over the limit contribute to the fact he did die? Abslolutely. Any other decision they made would have prevented the outcome. Did the driver, or his actions, kill his best friend? Yes. Did he murder him? No. They both had opportunities to make different decisions that would have changed the entire evening for the good.

5. See #4. I don't see the confusion in saying someone does not deserve to die, yet their actions simultaneously are the catalyst that set it in motion. This is not a mutually exclusive concept. Intent is irrelevent. I'm strictly debating cause an effect. There are outcomes (desired or undesired). There are events that lead to outcomes. Intentional or unintentional. The outcome does not judge or control the events. The outcome is merely a final resting place. Events (decisions) can be singular or plural and determine or contribute to the outcome. If things didn't inherently work this way you wouldn't have a job.

A)The agent did not start his day planning on taking someone's life.
B)The woman did not begin her day planning on losing her life.
C)The agent was on location performing job duties.
D)The woman went to that location to impede those duties.
E)The woman ignored calls to exit vehicle and sped away.
F)The woman struck an officer with said vehicle.
G)The officer responded in self defense by firing his weapon
H)The woman was killed (not murdered) by said officer

Remove D&E from the series of events, and the outcome changes. And C for that matter. Had he specifically been performing duties in another city....maybe no one would have been shot in either location. But the tides do ebb and flow. The reason I'm only partially with you on the moral issue in this case is that so many things can be inherent in a moral decision, and more times than not instant reflexes are a-moral. A harshly worded lashout in an instant reaction to something said or done to you that you would have done differently had you had time to evaluate. Not took time. But had time. An instantaneous situation.