The Outrage Thread

[Smitty]

Exactly. I've said I don't agree with what he did, and I don't. But I also see how difficult it is in real time to draw that line. Does this mean people can drive their cars at you and turn away at the last second and you're to blame if you defend yourself? Or drive at high speeds a foot from you and you should do nothing? Because people will push that line as far as they possibly can.

She deliberately pushed that line because it was her goal to antagonize the officers and obstruct justice. It crossed over into severe felony conduct even if the affirmative decision she made had unintended consequences.

This isn't even a debate.

No one sentenced her to death, that's such a ridiculous straw man.

When you threaten the safety or life of others while committing a felony, you expose yourself to the possibility of lethal force. Sorry, that's how it works.

 

[Smitty]

The fact that two of his three shots went through the open driver's side window is what really bothers me.

We are talking about in about a second and a half.

 

[Smitty]

Yeah the shots through the drivers windows were wrong. I just have a hard time expecting any human to be able to go from shooting at a person to a split second later going no, don't shoot another shot. There is no time in between for your brain to process.

That makes them not wrong. The first shot was justified.

It's not like he walked up to her after and shot her again. Three shots in short succession are justified.

 

[Smitty]

that vehicle did NOT make contact with him.

Yes it did.

 

[Sheik]

I stand with ICE.

~raises fist~

 

[Smitty]

Exactly.

And you know how you have the right to protect your home and you can shoot somebody if they trespass but yet you can't walk over to them and finish them off?

A guy went to prison here in Texas for doing that a few years back and that's exactly what this is.

He used excessive force and executed her -- Plain and simple.

It won't matter in the end because he's fully protected, but it's not right.

That's NOT what this. If someone has been neutralized, yes, you can't go finish them off.

This guy was struck by an accelerating vehicle and within 2 seconds fired three shots.

This was all split second.

 

[Bipo]

I can only come to the conclusion that if you were outraged by Kirk getting killed, but not this woman, you are just a bad person. So caught up in your side of politics that it has warped your moral fiber.

 

[Smitty]

If you think this soccer mom with no criminal record was trying to run over an officer, you are just delusional imo. She was likely panicked, tried to drive away and was blown the fuck away by one of the sociopathic pieces of shit that infiltrate law enforcement at every level.

That's exactly what I think it was. I don't think she was trying to run him over. She was trying to be aggressive towards the officers, but in making a horrifically bad decision to flee, she turned her vehicle into a deadly weapon and struck the officer while accelerating.

She's still in the wrong. You cannot operate your vehicle in a way that it is a deadly weapon. That's what she did.

The way to prevent this isn't to tell officers they cannot shoot at people who hit them with their vehicles, or to try to institute some sort of insane "you must determine how fast they were going," standard.

The way to prevent this is to have protestors stop using their cars, which are absolutely DEADLY WEAPONS, to harass police officers during their dumb ass misguided protests. Don't use deadly weapons in your protest. Don't do it. You'll live.

 

[Smitty]

View attachment 697559

Thanks for proving our point.

2-2 is exactly the scenario that occurred.

He was struck by the vehicle. You cannot argue that he knew he could move out of the way when he was in fact actually struck.

 

[Smitty]

He was sliding because he was on a sheet of ice

There's video of him being struck.

 

[Bipo]

Thanks for proving our point.

2-2 is exactly the scenario that occurred.

He was struck by the vehicle. You cannot argue that he knew he could move out of the way when he was in fact actually struck.

You must have missed the part about moving out of the way.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I can only come to the conclusion that if you were outraged by Kirk getting killed, but not this woman, you are just a bad person. So caught up in your side of politics that it has warped your moral fiber.

You're out of your mind sometimes with things you say. So I'm supposed to be as outraged by by a women driving a car headed right at an officer and being shot and killed as a result, the same as a sniper assassination of a dude on a stage talking? You're out of your mind. These things aren't even in the ball park. Even if you believe the officer murdered that lady you can't possibly put these two things in the same category. One was a premeditated, planned out, murder of someone. The other was a heat of the moment situation at best.

Which I will say 100% legally speaking that officer did not commit murder. Not if you believe in self defense in any capacity.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

There's video of him being struck.

Which it's funny. So if it was icy out, this expectation that he should have just leaped out of the way sort of goes out the window as well. Clearly the dude didn't have secure footing or be that confident in his ability to jump out of the way of a moving vehicle. Lucky he didn't slip and fall and have his head popped like a watermelon.

 

[Smitty]

I'm saying no trained law enforcement is supposed to engage a vehicle from the front.

Let's assume you are right.

She's still wrong. He's not going to be convicted because he was authorized to use deadly force because of her idiotic actions.

 

[Smitty]

I can only come to the conclusion that if you were outraged by Kirk getting killed, but not this woman, you are just a bad person. So caught up in your side of politics that it has warped your moral fiber.

I can only come to the conclusion that if you are equivocating cold blooded murder to silence protected political speech with a person committing felony assault with a deadly weapon being shot, you're a stone cold moron.

 

[Bipo]

I can only come to the conclusion that if you are equivocating cold blooded murder to silence protected political speech with a person committing felony assault with a deadly weapon being shot, you're a stone cold moron.

You're not fooling anyone. You and a few others here don't give a fuck about that woman's life because you consider the officer that did it, "on your side"

 

[Smitty]

You must have missed the part about moving out of the way.

He was struck.

Your argument that he "could have moved out of the way," is completely defeated.

He's not standing there hoping to be struck so that he can open fire. If he's struck he could be killed.

Once he's actually struck, that defeats that argument that he had the ability to move out of the way. He obviously did not.

It's a retarded argument anyway. He's standing right in front of the car when she begins accelerating.

The guidelines you posed is if the distance is reasonable.

 

[Smitty]

You're not fooling anyone. You and a few others here don't give a fuck about that woman's life because you consider the officer that did it, "on your side"

I don't care that protestors who commit felonies are killed during the commission of their felonies.

I don't want anyone to die, let's be clear about that.

The question is, how do you prevent people from dying?

The answer isn't to tell officers they cannot shoot people who accelerate their cars into them.

The answer is to tell protestors that they expose themselves to lethal force when they use their car as a deadly weapon. That's what happened here.

The law has to be upheld. This woman committed a felony whether she was intentionally trying to commit that felony or not.

The legal mindset required for guilt is called "mens rea." It only requires you intended to do the action, not that you intended to commit the crime.

She intended to drive her car into proximity to the officers. She intended to disobey their lawful instructions. She intended to flee. She intended to accelerate her car in such a manner that it became a deadly weapon endangering an officer who was carrying out his lawful orders.

She is in the wrong.

Also it's hilarious, given the nature of the virtual message board screaming matches I used to get into with guys like TN Cowboy or VA Cowboy, that I'd be accused of only ever shilling for conservatives.

 

[Bipo]

It's a retarded argument anyway. He's standing right in front of the car when she begins accelerating.

Which is against all training how to confront a vehicle. So is the murderer just fucking stupid, or looking for confrontation?

 

[boozeman]