Too much ice

#1,676
#1,676
NashVol11 said:
My post about intent was in response to luther saying the guy wasn't going to get run over, and SpaceCoast calling that idiotic because "you don't know what her intent was." I think it's pretty obvious that her intent wasn't to run him over.

You're raising a different discussion about "what then" if she "ran over" him unintentionally, and given the posts I was responding to, I'm not sure why. He seemed like he got grazed, not really "run over" and without any indication of broken bones or injury. I mentioned her intent (IMO) because someone else specifically mentioned intent, but saying "what if she ran him over" in response to luther saying she wasn't going to run him over seems to be rejecting the discussion entirely.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#1,678
#1,678
K-town Vol Fan said:
It's even worse. She was waving them by

Click to expand...


If you watch the longer video she’s not waiving ICE by but rather waiving the car by her that pulls out in a hurry before ICE show in the video. Because her entire intent is to block ICE so others can flee.

That’s why she’s in the middle of the road. That’s why her wife was filming
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,679
#1,679
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...
wrong-donald-trump.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#1,684
#1,684
I
NashVol11 said:
Pretty worthless question, given that there isn't an answer that says she deserved to die. And that's not how you spell reckless
Click to expand...
think it would serve you well to back up to the first post on the matter, apply some reading comprehension, and identify where one liberal or conservative in this forum said she deserved to die. Not one single person I’ve seen has said that including myself. I will vehemently stand by my posts saying her actions caused her own death. She had no business intervening. If she wanted to be an “observer” filming the activity she should have done it from a safe distance. Not the middle of the pack. That is how actions and intentions get interpreted by multiple people in as many ways.

Same as those protesters clashing now face up to LE. What happens to them in the course of their actions now is of their own doings.
 
#1,685
#1,685
bamawriter said:
Her intent is not relevant. Telepathy isn't real. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure she ever saw the guy in front of her car. Her focus may well have been on the two agents trying to drag her out. The issue is his response to events happening within just a few seconds. Trying to make this about what she was trying to do is a fool's errand.
Click to expand...
We've reached the point where it's just an ideological rorschach test. The idea that intent changes the actionable characteristics of an event doesn't apply to anything as it's happening. This is not remotely limited to this particular incident of course but it's become downright depressing how baked into the narrative that thought process has become with some.

Hell's bells if we're going to really dig in with positive knowledge of intent be established before determining justifiable action (regardless of what real time evidence is available) then the whole concept of self-defense for anyone/anywhere would be in real trouble.
 
#1,689
#1,689
EasternVol said:
You asked why she would have wanted out of there and I told you. You can pick it up from here.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You have yet to say what her business was to be in that spot in the middle of LE impeding their jobs that would cause them to order her out of her vehicle in the first place. Actions. Reactions. She was wrong to be there. Should have been at a safe distance instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#1,693
#1,693
EasternVol said:
It was terrorism, the same as 911 and the King David Hotel rolled into one. At least that's what I get from some X reposts.
Click to expand...
Fanatical. Irreverent. Stupid. Irresponsible. Brainwashed against LE. Likely illegal protesting. I’ll argue all that.

Personally, I’m not in the terrorism camp on this.
 
#1,695
#1,695
EasternVol said:
See the context of that reply. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not arguing the legal aspect.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the importance of the question. Whose standard are you going to enforce on the conversation? Or is it just an attempt to get a leg up on the discussion using emotion as opposed to facts?

EasternVol said:
Humanism as in giving a sh*t about human life.
Click to expand...

That's not the only philosophy that gives a **** about human life. But that aside, the question stands. Why should you expect humanism (or care for human life) to be the default? Why should anyone else care that you're establishing that as the standard?

You seem to be picking some very subjective lines in the sand, as opposed to "Was he legally justified?". Why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and Rickyvol77
#1,696
#1,696
EasternVol said:
Not really. He could have stepped out of the way and not even drawn. Or drawn, stepped out of the way and not fired.
Click to expand...
Or felt he had a split second to decide what was happening and defended himself.

It’s easy to arm chair quarterback what you think he should have done. Real life says he had a very short window to decide his possible fate and react.

All of the proposed reactions are fine and dandy and sensible. None were or would have been wrong. And not one single person in here can say they would or wouldn’t have done the same thing. Especially as a LEO in today’s world where the feeble have been conned into thinking fronting LE in the manner they do is legal and acceptable.


Not one single person in here with a lick of sense can say being in the street in the middle of an op disrupting LE is the advisable way to protest. This only happens because hate Trump. The politicians that have brainwashed these feeble minds are the ones truly responsible for these outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,697
#1,697
People need to stop hypothesizing about her intent, determining her path based on what we see after the shooting, or requiring the vehicle actually strike the officer.

The legal standard is whether the use of force was objectively justified, from the officer's perspective. Not her subjective thought process.

Where the path of the vehicle ultimately was is irrelevant to the officer having to decide in a split second how to react when it first moved forward. At best, one could say its not entirely clear where she is going to go. But from the officer's perspective he easily could, and reasonably could, believe he would be hit by it.

And whether he actually was hit, or received a glancing blow, is also irrelevant. In fact, that people are debating how serious it has to be to use deadly force is alarming. The officer doesn't have to wait until he is in the midst of being run over to fire.

I heard some numbskull last night on a call in show saying he could have shot her tires out. Ugh, these are the same people who say cops could have shot someone in the arm or the leg. No, just no. Cops are trained to use deadly force if justified in defense of self or others and to defeat the threat. Not wound them -- all that does is make the threat worse.

It has been really frustrating to see people post about this, and not take into account that the officer had to act in a fraction of a second, to decide what to do with a driver who was not complying with other officer's directions, and who lurched forward, at least generally in his direction. There is no requirement he be directly in the path of the vehicle to fire.

Don't misunderstand. Noem and Trump have handled this just as badly, blaming her and making it political. They are both morons who spoke way too soon. And these kinds of confrontations are a result of their policies. And they suck.

But that does not mean the officer has to stand there and hope he doesn't get run over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, Wireless1, jaybird_1981 and 5 others
#1,698
#1,698
lawgator1 said:
People need to stop hypothesizing about her intent, determining her path based on what we see after the shooting, or requiring the vehicle actually strike the officer.

The legal standard is whether the use of force was objectively justified, from the officer's perspective. Not her subjective thought process.

Where the path of the vehicle ultimately was is irrelevant to the officer having to decide in a split second how to react when it first moved forward. At best, one could say its not entirely clear where she is going to go. But from the officer's perspective he easily could, and reasonably could, believe he would be hit by it.

And whether he actually was hit, or received a glancing blow, is also irrelevant. In fact, that people are debating how serious it has to be to use deadly force is alarming. The officer doesn't have to wait until he is in the midst of being run over to fire.

I heard some numbskull last night on a call in show saying he could have shot her tires out. Ugh, these are the same people who say cops could have shot someone in the arm or the leg. No, just no. Cops are trained to use deadly force if justified in defense of self or others and to defeat the threat. Not wound them -- all that does is make the threat worse.

It has been really frustrating to see people post about this, and not take into account that the officer had to act in a fraction of a second, to decide what to do with a driver who was not complying with other officer's directions, and who lurched forward, at least generally in his direction. There is no requirement he be directly in the path of the vehicle to fire.

Don't misunderstand. Noem and Trump have handled this just as badly, blaming her and making it political. They are both morons who spoke way too soon. And these kinds of confrontations are a result of their policies. And they suck.

But that does not mean the officer has to stand there and hope he doesn't get run over.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all that. Good read from a legal perspective.

Trump will Trump but in their defense on this specifically, the mayor had already done the damage in yesterday’s interview. He struck preemptively and with gross public servant negligence. He also could have used better judgment in his words and the conclusions he threw out.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top