Too much ice

#2,603
#2,603
This 37 year old woman, with several small children at home, made the choice to intervene and disrupt an immigration enforcement operation. Clearly, she didn’t think this through and made poor choices that contributed to the loss of life.

Any rational person understands you do not intentionally put yourself in harms way, especially as a parent of young children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL, BreatheUT, TrumpedUpVol and 2 others
#2,605
#2,605
Rickyvol77 said:
What were they? I'm curious.

And what country did they represent? Do you think their "laws" that also permitted child sacrifice should have been followed also?
Click to expand...
Tribes were nations, nations have laws. Do you think they lived in lawless communities? We accepted their standing as nations when we made treaties with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#2,608
#2,608
swampfoxfan said:
Like Saint Ashli Babbitt ? Who was peacefully asking permission to enter capital building?accompanied with a couple hundred friends?
Whose family was paid 5mil for her murder murder murder?
Click to expand...
Was unecessary to ask. Though it proabably would have been wiser to walk through the doors that Pelosi's posse opened for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,611
#2,611
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...
Great post. Appreciate the thought and effort that went into this.

It seems like we pretty much agree about the big picture conclusions and you/we are just discussing what secondary conclusions and inferences we can draw from the facts and you’re not saying that “these things she did apply to the moral calculus or the legal calculus.” I gotcha.

I do think her fight or flight probably took over and the front-on video I saw today makes it seem plausible that she never saw the officer she hit because he’s crossing her path as the other officers are yelling at her.

But I agree that in going down there blowing whistles and following these guys around, like her wife said today, then she’s inserted herself into something that is potentially dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GVF
#2,620
#2,620
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
You view it as illegal bc it involves your disgusting Dem party's narrative to call it so
Click to expand...
He views it as illegal because this happened under Trump's Admin, and we know Luth is hate orange man or else.. Had this happened under Obama/Clinton/Bush Admin while they were deporting even more millions than Trump has, he would be arguing our viewpoints. Fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, WeeohdeeWood, W.TN.Orange Blood and 1 other person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top