Too much ice

You really can’t understand how examples of famously peaceful but illegal protests dating back nearly 100 years applies to you saying that minimally and seemingly incidentally obstructing traffic is not peaceful protest because it breaks a law?
She wasn't shot because the car was sitting still in the street. Just want to make that clear for everyone. It was just the opposite, actually.
 
Yep. This this is where it was going. lol
Yep
You're claiming that a slow car can't harm you? Maria Sue Chapman. Killed when she was run over in her driveway while standing behind the car her brother started backing out of the driveway.
I never claimed a slow car couldn't hurt you...that's stupid
I claimed a slow car is easy to step aside from....

At least we can put the "barreling" toward him nonsense to rest.
Tomorrow some of you guys should go out and stand next to a car accelerating form 0 to 3mph in one second.
Get a little perspective.
The court will see that video and the decision-time he was given, and rule it a justified shooting. Would it have been reasonable for him to believe in that time that he was in imminent danger, seeing a couple of tons of vehicle accelerating at him?

I will bet you 1000 VN dollars.
I've already said numerous times that I believe the authorities will rule it justifiable homicide...but I strongly disagree.
 
Yep

I never claimed a slow car couldn't hurt you...that's stupid
I claimed a slow car is easy to step aside from....

At least we can put the "barreling" toward him nonsense to rest.
Tomorrow some of you guys should go out and stand next to a car accelerating form 0 to 3mph in one second.
Get a little perspective.

I've already said numerous times that I believe the authorities will rule it justifiable homicide...but I strongly disagree.
That's why I concentrated on reaction/decision time. The law says that we can't judge him with the benefit of our leisure and hindsight. The court will not ask him to have run computations in that less-than-second decision matrix. It will see just how rapidly and chaotically it went from a stopped car to staring at the sky and say, "Yah. Next case? Get this mess off my desk."

Hell, any rational person without an agenda to grind would see it that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
That's why I concentrated on reaction/decision time. The law says that we can't judge him with the benefit of our leisure and hindsight. The court will not ask him to have run computations in that less-than-second decision matrix. It will see just how rapidly and chaotically it went from a stopped car to staring at the sky and say, "Yah. Next case? Get this mess off my desk."
And OJ was acquitted.

Tens of millions will always know better.
 
I've already said numerous times that I believe the authorities will rule it justifiable homicide...but I strongly disagree.
You've actually said that it was an illegal shot. You may still not know that the definition of "illegal" is not "offends my sensibilities"... That was pointed out to you, and you tripled down.

No one cares about your opinion. Your mighty morphing moral code precludes any discussion of that at all. So, we'll stick to the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
She was peaceful until she wasn’t.

The freedom riders stayed peaceful even while getting their asses beat.
Yeah I think that’s a fair assessment. Not trying to make a one for one comparison to freedom riders, just pointing out that breaking laws doesn’t mean it’s not a peaceful protest.

I tend to be more accepting of actions motivated by fear of the police, but I’d guess that even if we could read her mind and found out she just panicked, a majority would say she stopped being peaceful when she threw the car in reverse.
 
You've actually said that it was an illegal shot. You may still not know that the definition of "illegal" is not "offends my sensibilities"... That was pointed out to you, and you tripled down.

No one cares about your opinion. Your mighty morphing moral code precludes any discussion of that at all. So, we'll stick to the law.
I didn't say it was an illegal shot.

I said "I think she was illegally killed".

I said what happened to her meets my definition of murder........and by definition, that makes it illegal.

I have to continually remind myself that nuance is lost on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
Yeah I think that’s a fair assessment. Not trying to make a one for one comparison to freedom riders, just pointing out that breaking laws =\= non-peaceful protest.

I tend to be more accepting of actions motivated by fear of the police, but I’d guess that even if we could read her mind and found out she just panicked, a majority would say she stopped being peaceful when she threw the car in reverse.
I think it's as fool an errand to try to attribute her motives when she moved the car as it is to try to attribute his when he stood in front of it. And both completely irrelevant. So few people want to look at this with anything but agenda and political vitriol.

It's OK to say that it's incredibly sad for everyone involved; the shooting was justified; she also didn't deserve to die.

This political vitriol was a huge reason this happened. People hate it so much they're using it to amp up the political vitriol. SMDH
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
Yeah I think that’s a fair assessment. Not trying to make a one for one comparison to freedom riders, just pointing out that breaking laws doesn’t mean it’s not a peaceful protest.

I tend to be more accepting of actions motivated by fear of the police, but I’d guess that even if we could read her mind and found out she just panicked, a majority would say she stopped being peaceful when she threw the car in reverse.

I’ve said from the beginning the cop had every opportunity not to shoot but chose to be a POS. But her actions gave him the opportunity he’s probably been waiting for since he joined the force.
 
I didn't say it was an illegal shot.

I said "I think she was illegally killed".

I said what happened to her meets my definition of murder........and by definition, that makes it illegal.

I have to continually remind myself that nuance is lost on you.
No. It doesn't. Even posting the definition of "illegal", you still can't comprehend it. In your opinion, it makes it an immoral murder. For it ot be an illegal murder, it would have to break laws. That's literally the definition of "illegal". I pointed that out and gave you the opportunity to correct, but you doubled down by proving the point with a strange facemask example that reinforces the reality that the NCAA rules are independent of your personal opinions.

The point being that no one cares about your personal sensibilities per this case, seeing that you've proven for years how malleable and weaponized your moral code is against those you dislike. You excuse actions by those you approve of, and condemn them in those you dislike.

So, let's understand the definition of "legal" and keep it to that.

Illegal:
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law:


Legal:
  1. relating to the law:
    "the European legal system"

    Similar:​

    • appointed or required by the law:
      "a legal requirement"

      Similar:​

    • law
      recognized by common or statute law, as distinct from equity.
    • relating to theological legalism.
  2. permitted by law:
    "he claimed that it had all been legal"
 

Advertisement



Back
Top