Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

mqt said:
We cannot just look at the direction of the car as irrefutable proof when it was also pointed toward her exit route. It doesn’t excuse her actions, but we cannot see where she was looking or prove anything definitively. To suggest she was doing a cold-blooded murder is absolutely speculating.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me I can try to run someone over and as long as I'm looking in a different direction I get off?
 
mqt said:
We cannot just look at the direction of the car as irrefutable proof when it was also pointed toward her exit route. It doesn’t excuse her actions, but we cannot see where she was looking or prove anything definitively. To suggest she was doing a cold-blooded murder is absolutely speculating.
Click to expand...
We can. That’s literally how it works
 
thethe said:
Are you telling me I can try to run someone over and as long as I'm looking in a different direction I get off?
Click to expand...
You might get charged with manslaughter instead of Murder 1, yeah. You’d also probably be less likely to go kill others in the community in this case, which is my only real point here. The officer did likely act in self-defense, but he wasn’t necessarily saving Minneapolis from an active threat to their safety.
 
mqt said:
You might get charged with manslaughter instead of Murder 1, yeah. You’d also probably be less likely to go kill others in the community in this case, which is my only real point here. The officer did likely act in self-defense, but he wasn’t necessarily saving Minneapolis from an active threat to their safety.
Click to expand...

This is an insane take mqt - It would be charged with murder 1 no question about it. THe car is no different than a loaded gun.
 
Let me be clear, I’m not asking anybody to believe she did nothing wrong or that the officer is a cold-blooded killer. I’m merely pointing out that you’re speculating regarding her motivations at the time of the incident and extrapolating based on that speculation to fit your narrative.
 
thethe said:
This is an insane take mqt - It would be charged with murder 1 no question about it. THe car is no different than a loaded gun.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that she was not so distracted by the officer to her left that she accelerated away from him without looking at the officer in front of her? Intent is a distinction that absolutely would matter in our legal system when it comes to what she’d be charged with.
 
mqt said:
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that she was not so distracted by the officer to her left that she accelerated away from him without looking at the officer in front of her? Intent is a distinction that absolutely would matter in our legal system when it comes to what she’d be charged with.
Click to expand...

So your position is she didn't see the officer in front of her?

This was a person who was agitating the ICE officers all day. She led protests. You can easily establish deep animosity towards the ICe agents.
 
thethe said:
So your position is she didn't see the officer in front of her?

This was a person who was agitating the ICE officers all day. She led protests. You can easily establish deep animosity towards the ICe agents.
Click to expand...
My position is that if you’re going to take the bold stance that the officer was obligated to shoot her to protect the community, you’re going to have to do better than “she had her wheels pointed toward both the officer and the direction she’d naturally go in a hurry.”
 
mqt said:
My position is that if you’re going to take the bold stance that the officer was obligated to shoot her to protect the community, you’re going to have to do better than “she had her wheels pointed toward both the officer and the direction she’d naturally go in a hurry.”
Click to expand...
Naturally go into the opposite curb? She wanted to drive onto the persons lawn?
 
thethe said:
Naturally go into the opposite curb? She wanted to drive onto the persons lawn?
Click to expand...
She had to clear the SUV to her right? I’ve watched the videos several times now and I have no earthly idea where you’re coming to the conclusion that the only action she could have possibly been taking was intentionally hitting the officer, especially when she could have gone further left to prevent him from dodging?
 
mqt said:
She had to clear the SUV to her right? I’ve watched the videos several times now and I have no earthly idea where you’re coming to the conclusion that the only action she could have possibly been taking was intentionally hitting the officer, especially when she could have gone further left to prevent him from dodging?
Click to expand...
She made a hard right after accelerating - Her original path was to hit hte officer and then try to make a getaway.
 
thethe said:
She made a hard right after accelerating - Her original path was to hit hte officer and then try to make a getaway.
Click to expand...

Or she drove forward at first toward the center of the road before turning toward the right lane, as people do, particularly when they’re in a hurry or there’s another vehicle to their right? There’s more than one possible explanation here.
 
mqt said:
Or she drove forward at first toward the center of the road before turning toward the right lane, as people do, particularly when they’re in a hurry or there’s another vehicle to their right? There’s more than one possible explanation here.
Click to expand...

No there isn't - You're the one who is inventing 'She didn't see the officer in front of her yelling at her to stop'

In reality what you see is her accelerating her car while the wheels are pointed directly at the officer.
 
thethe said:
My guess is that you are not:

It is standard practice and legally justified for a police officer to take action, including using force, to stop a person who is trying to hit them with a car [1].
When a driver attempts to strike a police officer with a vehicle, it is considered the use of deadly force by the driver. In response, an officer is authorized to use proportional force, including deadly force if necessary, to protect themselves and others from serious bodily harm or death [1].
Click to expand...
Your known cop friend, grok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top