Too much ice

#2,426
#2,426
Still waiting on the liberals to say the Ashil Babbitt shooting wasn't justified either... And... It....Was... Murder...

mr-bean-mrbean.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, CagleMtnVol, SubVet676 and 1 other person
#2,428
#2,428
appvol said:
Well there is one problem he never shot in the passenger window. Pretty sure most of the shots are in the windshield
Click to expand...
Rewatch the video. And then look at images of the windshield. There’s only one bullet hole in the windshield. Seriously rewatch the video from multiple angles. If I’m wrong please post the evidence. I’d genuinely love to be wrong about this.
 
#2,429
#2,429
Rickyvol77 said:
He's right it's immaterial.

The shooting follows both constitutional law and standard LEO firearms training.

It only would be an issue if he fired two shots, she wrecked and he ran up to shoot a third shot a minute later in her head.

He shot exactly how and where you are supposed to, whether he missed or how long doesn't come into play with the shooting being over in less than 2 seconds
Click to expand...
You don’t think the position of the officer is a material fact. Once he’s out of the path of the vehicle are is rules of engagement not different?
It’s not so much the timing but the position of the officer relative to the vehicle that I’m concerned about.
 
#2,430
#2,430
Arguing whether this shooting was morally justified is pointless as each of us had our own moral code. Hence why we have laws which is societies moral standard.. Legally it's justified.. Morally they both acted like idiots imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#2,432
#2,432
Orange_Crush said:
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?



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 legal, but uncalled. You said that it was illegal. There is a major difference, which is why I quoted both posts to point out the difference.

And it's OK to @me if you want to discuss further.
Click to expand...
He makes it up as he goes along, that's why when pinned down he either goes for the ole "it's a continuum" BS so he can avoid any REAL personal convictions or outright pretend to be ignorant when it doesn't fit his narrative (i.e. "I never even heard of Michael Brown, Charlie Kirk, Trayvon Martin, etc.")
 
#2,433
#2,433
hog88 said:
I'm not up on ICE firearm training but I'm guessing they are trained to fire in rapid succession until the threat is neutralized so no, which shot killed her doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Neither am I, but in my view the threat posed to the officer changes once he’s stepped out of the vehicles path. Which then makes me doubt the legality of the follow up shots
 
#2,434
#2,434
GVF said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is 100% the correct answer
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#2,435
#2,435
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If course the next question is, if her wife can't sue the government, and by some indices it appears they were being rewarded/compensated for for their actions, can she file a workman's comp claim, OSHA violation against whoever was training and "rewarding" them.
 
#2,436
#2,436
luthervol said:
Seriously?

That's like saying that everyone who has a car accident intended to have a car accident....which is obviously STUPID!!!
Click to expand...
I didn't say she intended to or didn't intend to. Only she knows that and your not smart enough to know which it was. All I said was she did hit him. And why did she hit him? Cause she was somewhere she shouldn't have been putting herslef in something that wasn't her busienss.
 
#2,437
#2,437
lukeneyland said:
You don’t think the position of the officer is a material fact. Once he’s out of the path of the vehicle are is rules of engagement not different?
It’s not so much the timing but the position of the officer relative to the vehicle that I’m concerned about.
Click to expand...
He was "out of the path" because the vehicle knocked him that way, and no the rules of engagement aren't different until the officer perceives the threat has been stopped.

2 seconds isn't it
 
  • Like
Reactions: appvol
#2,438
#2,438
hog88 said:
Come on now. We've all done dumb stuff never intentionally wanting a bad outcome but were still responsible for the bad outcome.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the point of the post you quoted was that saying "why would she do this" about something she did unintentionally doesn't really make sense. I'm not really talking about responsibility so much as saying that for there to be a "why", it kind of has to be intentional
 
#2,440
#2,440
Vol8188 said:
Need to look into the claim more but Rep Gill made the claim that 81% of Somali households receive welfare. 78% of those that have been here for 10 years, receive welfare.

Welfare and open borders don’t mix. I 100% support work visas, but I 100% oppose welfare for those here on visas (or illegally). I realize that’s different than the Somali situation (they’re not here on work visas nor to work at all apparently)
Click to expand...

They discovered instead of ship piracy they could come to America and steal much more.
 
#2,443
#2,443
Rickyvol77 said:
He was "out of the path" because the vehicle knocked him that way, and no the rules of engagement aren't different until the officer perceives the threat has been stopped.

2 seconds isn't it
Click to expand...
Are the rules of engagement not directly associated with the level of threat that the officer is under at each moment in time? I don’t know the ins and outs of Minnesota and Federal law for law enforcement but I do know that’s how it typically works in civilian self defense situations. I know those aren’t the exact same things but I’d expect some commonalities
 
#2,444
#2,444
lukeneyland said:
Are the rules of engagement not directly associated with the level of threat that the officer is under at each moment in time? I don’t know the ins and outs of Minnesota and Federal law for law enforcement but I do know that’s how it typically works in civilian self defense situations. I know those aren’t the exact same things but I’d expect some commonalities
Click to expand...
It was 2 seconds so one time....while the officer is responsible for each round he fires, a standard defensive response (2 shots center of mass, one to head) is the preferred method taught in every LEO agency in the country for a threat, now again if he had cleared the car after firing those 3 shots and she wrecked and he ran up and put a bullet in the back of her head a minute after, that is different (barring some other scenario)
 
#2,445
#2,445
NashVol11 said:
We know that her wheels were pointed away from him when he shot her, and that he wasn't seriously injured at all
Click to expand...
I don’t think the orientation wheels are the right way to make this argument. Once she hits him that becomes a moot point. As I’ve been going on about my issue is with the follow up shots from the side of the car
 
#2,446
#2,446
NashVol11 said:
Sure, but the point of the post you quoted was that saying "why would she do this" about something she did unintentionally doesn't really make sense. I'm not really talking about responsibility so much as saying that for there to be a "why", it kind of has to be intentional
Click to expand...
How did she "unintentionally" become part of a group specifically tracking and harassing ICE agents and then blocked them in purposefully so her wife could video it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GVF
#2,448
#2,448
lukeneyland said:
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
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt he was counting 1..2..3. Ok that's enough and my 2-3 seconds are up anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#2,449
#2,449
Rickyvol77 said:
It was 2 seconds so one time....while the officer is responsible for each round he fires, a standard defensive response (2 shots center of mass, one to head) is the preferred method taught in every LEO agency in the country for a threat, now again if he had cleared the car after firing those 3 shots and she wrecked and he ran up and put a bullet in the back of her head a minute after, that is different (barring some other scenario)
Click to expand...
I think our difference of opinion is based on you using time as the determining factor while I’m using the position of the officer relative to the threat.
 
#2,450
#2,450
Rickyvol77 said:
How did she "unintentionally" become part of a group specifically tracking and harassing ICE agents and then blocked them in purposefully so her wife could video it?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Cause and Effect.

The liberal argument in here is painting it as though she stepped out of a bar on 9th street and he popper her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top