Too much ice

#2,326
#2,326
Rickyvol77 said:
" I am ignoring all precedent legal and logical thinking because I am more interested in how you feel about something bad"
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen and EasternVol
#2,327
#2,327
Rickyvol77 said:
Fair enough I do get somewhat emotional about child abuse and hypocrisy, so on that point I will stand

However it doesn't change my point that "deserved to die" is a non-important emotional thing, one by which you as an attorney know has no basis in law
Click to expand...
So emotional that you forgot to provide a source, even.

The law accepts some bad shootings to give police the ability to shoot without hesitation in situations where we want them to shoot.

Doesn’t mean I have to accept a bad shooting as good just because it’s not criminal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BartW, DuckInAPen, EasternVol and 3 others
#2,328
#2,328
lukeneyland said:
I think the first shot was probably legal. Once he side stepped the vehicle the 3 or 4 he dumped through the passenger window is obscene and clearly an illegal use of force . I’m no lefty but I’m disgusted with the lack of objectivity coming from the Federal position.
Click to expand...
It was a standard defensive response as taught by every LEO firearms trainer out there...all within 2 seconds.
 
#2,332
#2,332
hog88 said:
What you keep ignoring is that by the law her death was probably 100% legally justified. She put herself in that position.

I'm not a back the blue guy, I think most cops are cops (federal LE included) because either they aren't smart enough to do anything else, have a bully or macho man complex or are just plain crooked. So why on earth would anyone in their right mind give someone like that the opportunity to legally kill them? Don't give LE a reason because they will take it.
Click to expand...
Humans are humans and when you have that many in one profession you will have crooks hiding behind a badge of honor. See the House, the Senate, and the beauracracy as an exmaple.

So, then we get to the point of regardless of that, you have to have checks and balances...equilibrium. Can't exist with all Tim McVeys. Can't exist with all Pelosi's and Clintons, and Soros'.

If you are going to eradicate a belief system in a higher being which is what we've been doing then those checks and balances will become more extreme and radical and opposed, which is where we are headed and seem to be arriving. Some might call it socialism or communism even.
 
#2,333
#2,333
Orange_Crush said:
I'm asking what benefit you expect from reducing it to your personal opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm not.
Orange_Crush said:
Someone who cares about human life. The strict definition of humanism is an ultimate value of humans, usually independent of metaphysical/religious/supernatural values. But if you want to use it as merely anyone who values human life, that's cool by me.
Click to expand...
I'll go with humanist since it doesn't exclude spiritual belief.
Orange_Crush said:
Or an honest atheist.
Click to expand...
Maybe an honest atheist sociopath. A lot of atheists, probably most, are humanist.
Orange_Crush said:
Or an honest atheist. And so what? In a world with no "ultimate" moral standard, why should I consider sociopathy as wrong?
Click to expand...
Sociopaths have their uses and being one can be advantageous in respects. But we'd have a backwards society if they were a large share of the population.
Orange_Crush said:
Explain? What makes your moral preferences "ultimate" moral reality? How do you "reason" "ultimate" right/wrong in a blind universe that doesn't concern itself with moral "ought" questions? Or how do you reason that it concerns itself with "ought" questions?
Click to expand...
It's not about my moral preferences. We've been using reason for millenia to determine right and wrong, fault or guilt and innocence etc. as generalities and in specific instances. For specific events, reason's just applying analytical thought to what's known so as to answer the question at hand.
 
Last edited:
#2,334
#2,334
Rickyvol77 said:
Fair enough I do get somewhat emotional about child abuse and hypocrisy, so on that point I will stand

However it doesn't change my point that "deserved to die" is a non-important emotional thing, one by which you as an attorney know has no basis in law
Click to expand...
So did you ever link that claim?

Or retract the claim?

It was a pretty vile accusation if untrue. (you should man up and do one of the two)
 
#2,336
#2,336
NashVol11 said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
#2,337
#2,337
RockyTop85 said:
So emotional that you forgot to provide a source, even.

The law accepts some bad shootings to give police the ability to shoot without hesitation in situations where we want them to shoot.

Doesn’t mean I have to accept a bad shooting as good just because it’s not criminal.
Click to expand...
The "written" source will come out....police reports and CPS reports aren't always public.
She didn't have custody of her two oldest children, and it will come out why

But YOUR opinion that it's "a bad shoot" means nothing, because you have no idea what was going thru the officer or HER mind. All we know are the facts which state that in the commission of a felony, she hit the officer with her vehicle and he shot her in self-defense
 
#2,340
#2,340
Rickyvol77 said:
When my children were little, they wanted to eat candy for dinner and dessert. I wouldn't let them and from their perspective, it wasn't an improvement at all
Click to expand...
Nominated for worst analogy of the week.

What is it you are saying? That people don't always know or want what is ultimately best for them.

That's quite the news flash, along with "the sun 'rises' in the morning".
 
#2,341
#2,341
InVOLuntary said:
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.
Click to expand...
They tried to restrain her because she was in the way of what they were doing.
You are surprisingly correct that killing her wasn't warranted.
 
#2,342
#2,342
Rickyvol77 said:
Not at all...it wasn't "their land" any more than it was the tribes lands that they conquered and stole from. No country anywhere in the world just existed out of nowhere.

A people or race or ethnic group conquered or settled every single country on Earth, and either defended it, created a working functioning government, or were conquered into oblivion.

But the United States DID become an actual country, recognized by every government on Earth and the Founders helped make the greatest and most powerful country there is.

The government does have checks and balances, its up to the people to use their votes to shape it how they want
Click to expand...
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.
 
#2,345
#2,345
luthervol said:
Nominated for worst analogy of the week.

What is it you are saying? That people don't always know or want what is ultimately best for them.

That's quite the news flash, along with "the sun 'rises' in the morning".
Click to expand...
I am saying trying to ask caveman level nomad war mongering tribes who practiced child sacrifice if they are "better off" than living in our free, modern society with laws, medicine, technology is a dumb thought. Their opinions don't matter. They were inferior societies who were conquered or bought out just like they did to the tribes before them.

Just like asking middle age serfs in Europe if they are better off because of democracy and the industrial revolution.

the US and our society improved the entire world and there is no actual logical debate otherwise
 
#2,346
#2,346
hog88 said:
What you keep ignoring is that by the law her death was probably 100% legally justified. She put herself in that position.

I'm not a back the blue guy, I think most cops are cops (federal LE included) because either they aren't smart enough to do anything else, have a bully or macho man complex or are just plain crooked. So why on earth would anyone in their right mind give someone like that the opportunity to legally kill them? Don't give LE a reason because they will take it.
Click to expand...
Both people put themselves in retarded positions. One died for it. How to prevent? Well, liberalism hard to cure. For cops, don't stand in the front of a ******* vehicle that can move on you..be 10% smarter than the obstacle you dummies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#2,350
#2,350
Rickyvol77 said:
It was a standard defensive response as taught by every LEO firearms trainer out there...all within 2 seconds.
Click to expand...
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
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top