Too much ice

#1,627
#1,627
luthervol said:
Self defense? Is he not faster than an 87 year old woman?
Click to expand...
^ ^ ^ ^
This person has forgotten how quickly a granny can move on a misbehaving grandchild with a flyswatter, or slipper. Like a freaking lightning bolt. 87 year old woman might be the fastest human on the planet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol, whodeycin85, EasternVol and 3 others
#1,628
#1,628
Rickyvol77 said:
1) yes due to her actions, it ended her life
2) the officer made a decision of self-defense based on his perception of if he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury
3) Constitutionally it's 100% a good shoot of self defense
4) I am not "all-in" for LE, I just am educated on law, especially in these areas
5) "most people" that you know or follow your leftist spectrum probably do think that, but the majority of normal people do not
Click to expand...
The "majority of normal people" don't see something like this and start looking for every possible way in which the officer was technically not breaking the law, especially when he was not remotely in danger
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#1,631
#1,631
NashVol11 said:
The "majority of normal people" don't see something like this and start looking for every possible way in which the officer was technically not breaking the law, especially when he was not remotely in danger
Click to expand...
Yes they actually do, because they know assaulting and interfering with law enforcement officers are not something normal people do
 
#1,633
#1,633
newarkvol said:
Truly a beautiful world we live in where you can be killed by federal agents and in less than 12 hours have memes/AI porn made of you.

The actual gloating online is one more sign of a very sick and dying society-- 'died for somalis that hate you award' memes already hot off the press. A liberal woman 'dying for her suicidal empathy' is already how it's being spun -- just another 'darwin awards' for these folks.

It's already being justified in MAGA land because if it isn't their whole endeavour crumbles. It has to be justified. Whoever she was, whatever she was doing, it's paramount--- it's deserved for questioning ICE authority in any capacity. And to minimise the gravity of executing a mother it will be clowned on, memed on, until the event is hidden behind ten thousand reaction images. If all of us watching Charlie Kirk being executed and a fountain of blood being put on autoplay can be buried under memes and transformed into something so derivative of the event the actual moment and event it is almost forgotten, this will be too, asap, by necessity.
Click to expand...
Questioning ICE authority and then obstructing them all day to end it by pushing the gas pedal to the floor when one is in front of you is a little different than just questioning ICE authority. She chose to take the money to be a paid insurectionist (am I doing that right?). I was old that play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I was told FAFO was a thing. I'm just applying the same rules.

Maybe we should place the blame on political leaders that promote and encourage this violence? They are truly the ones to blame. ICE wouldn't be in any of these cities if the local communist governments would have cooperated and handed over the criminal illegal aliens in their jails. But they would rather not cooperate and keep those criminals in the US at the detriment of their own constituents in an attempt to resist Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,634
#1,634
Rickyvol77 said:
Yes they actually do, because they know assaulting and interfering with law enforcement officers are not something normal people do
Click to expand...
That's actually a caricature. There is a difference between looking for every possible way, and looking at the facts/videos and making a logical judgment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,635
#1,635
Rickyvol77 said:
Yes they actually do, because they know assaulting and interfering with law enforcement officers are not something normal people do
Click to expand...
No they don't lol, he was not in danger at all and killed someone. The "well he THOUGHT (incorrectly) that his life was in danger from a car turning away from him at 3 mph" narrative is not working on anyone outside of the cult
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen, luthervol and EasternVol
#1,636
#1,636
NashVol11 said:
The "majority of normal people" don't see something like this and start looking for every possible way in which the officer was technically not breaking the law, especially when he was not remotely in danger
Click to expand...
Wrong. The majority of normal people would recognize this woma's actions were wrong and the result was of her own actions. Lack of accountability is the decay rotting our country's foundations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Rickyvol77
#1,637
#1,637
NashVol11 said:
No they don't lol, he was not in danger at all and killed someone. The "well he THOUGHT (incorrectly) that his life was in danger from a car turning away from him at 3 mph" narrative is not working on anyone outside of the cult
Click to expand...
If you have someone hit you with a car, you are in danger. Even if they "graze" you or run over you or try to accelerate into you, especially on an icy roadway

Also what the officer thought DOES work because that's the Supreme Court's standard
 
#1,638
#1,638
GVF said:
Wrong. The majority of normal people would recognize this woma's actions were wrong and the result was of her own actions. Lack of accountability is the decay rotting our country's foundations.
Click to expand...
She did absolutely nothing that warranted being shot in the face
 
#1,641
#1,641
NashVol11 said:
especially when he was not remotely in danger
Click to expand...

Good grief... this is not directed exclusively at you, but you just provided a great example of a major problem.

Why does everything have to be argued as if every circumstance is black-or-white? It's not enough to say "He wasn't struck with significant that hard." It has to be "He was not remotely in danger." And the other side can't simply say "This situation is tragic, but the shooting was probably justified." It has to be "She was an agitator/domestic terrorist who FA and FO!"

We live in a world of grey, folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, theFallGuy and Rickyvol77
#1,642
#1,642
Rickyvol77 said:
If you have someone hit you with a car, you are in danger. Even if they "graze" you or run over you or try to accelerate into you, especially on an icy roadway
Click to expand...
Yeah, good luck pushing that. I'm sure everyone who has been grazed by a car turning away from them immediately pulled their gun
 
#1,645
#1,645
Rickyvol77 said:
If you have someone hit you with a car, you are in danger. Even if they "graze" you or run over you or try to accelerate into you, especially on an icy roadway

Also what the officer thought DOES work because that's the Supreme Court's standard
Click to expand...
I have been hit by a car. 14 years old. Riding my bike home from baseball practice. I can attest to the reaction time of the officer. If you don't know, you don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Rickyvol77
#1,647
#1,647
bamawriter said:
Good grief... this is not directed exclusively at you, but you just provided a great example of a major problem.

Why does everything have to be argued as if every circumstance is black-or-white? It's not enough to say "He wasn't struck with significant that hard." It has to be "He was not remotely in danger." And the other side can't simply say "This situation is tragic, but the shooting was probably justified." It has to be "She was an agitator/domestic terrorist who FA and FO!"

We live in a world of grey, folks.
Click to expand...
we also live in a world where we like to take video after the fact and time check every moment and decision that was made in the moment. That's not reality when you are making split second decisions on whether you are in danger or not
 
  • Like
Reactions: bamawriter
#1,649
#1,649
SpaceCoastVol said:
This is an idiotic take. You have no idea what he intent was. None whatsoever.
Click to expand...
We know her intent wasn't to run him over, her wheels were pointed away from him. The argument is that the officer didn't know she was turning (or see her hands on the steering wheel) and wrongly thought he was going to die, and that shooting her would save himself
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol, DuckInAPen and EasternVol
#1,650
#1,650
NashVol11 said:
We know her intent wasn't to run him over, her wheels were pointed away from him. The argument is that the officer didn't know she was turning (or see her hands on the steering wheel) and wrongly thought he was going to die, and that shooting her would save himself
Click to expand...
You have no clue about her intent, you are assigning facts not in evidence to skew towards YOUR view of what you think happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and InVOLuntary
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top