Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

thethe said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just because you openly reject one of the possibilities doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s why we have court cases when someone runs into a person and don’t just take the run-over person as the only evidence.
 
mqt said:
Just because you openly reject one of the possibilities doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s why we have court cases when someone runs into a person and don’t just take the run-over person as the only evidence.
Click to expand...
You are inventing a scenario. My scenario is the facts. Where the tires were pointed at the time the gas was hit.
 
thethe said:
You are inventing a scenario. My scenario is the facts. Where the tires were pointed at the time the gas was hit.
Click to expand...

Your scenario does not account for the entirety of the situation. You’re taking one data point and using it as the basis for your own speculation. My scenario is speculative as well, but I’m not declaring it the *only* possible explanation.
 
mqt said:
Your scenario does not account for the entirety of the situation. You’re taking one data point and using it as the basis for your own speculation. My scenario is speculative as well, but I’m not declaring it the *only* possible explanation.
Click to expand...
You're creating how she felt and what she saw. You're adding things to get the result you want.
 
thethe said:
No - Its a fact.

Are you going to tell me that this isn't true just like you said chauvin didn't used an approved police tactic on floyd?
Click to expand...
There goes thethe moving the goal posts.

If someone almost hits a pedestrian but doesn't. Hell even clips them to the point they're not hurt, They're not in possession of a deadly weapon, they're in a car.

So tell me how that relates to

"Zito - if a random person shoots their gun at a police officer and they run away do the police officers chase them or let them go?"

and how is that related to

"Once she accelerates towards the officers she becomes a risk to the whole community and it’s their obligation to stop her."

Tell me how is someone accelerating "towards the officers" a risk to the whole community and it's their obligation to shoot her dead?
 
zitothebrave said:
There goes thethe moving the goal posts.

If someone almost hits a pedestrian but doesn't. Hell even clips them to the point they're not hurt, They're not in possession of a deadly weapon, they're in a car.

So tell me how that relates to

"Zito - if a random person shoots their gun at a police officer and they run away do the police officers chase them or let them go?"

and how is that related to

"Once she accelerates towards the officers she becomes a risk to the whole community and it’s their obligation to stop her."

Tell me how is someone accelerating "towards the officers" a risk to the whole community and it's their obligation to shoot her dead?
Click to expand...

If someone almost hits a pedestrian as they are speeding their car at them they are in possession of a deadly weapon. Thats the law zito.
 
thethe said:
If someone almost hits a pedestrian as they are speeding their car at them they are in possession of a deadly weapon. Thats the law zito.
Click to expand...
No they're not. .
.
That's called leaving the scene of the crime, I've never known anyone who's been charged in a hit and run to be charged with possession of a deadly weapon.
 
Tapate50 said:
I laugh a lot lately.

But nah people can easily get killed by a Pilot or a Beetle or a van or a UTV. All can be a weapon. This guy was just getting back from getting drug by another vehicle this year
Click to expand...
Maybe he should have been on leave as the Trauma of that scenario clearly clouded his judgement to kill someone who was trying to get away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top