ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11hr ago
It's only brought to court if a prosecutor doesn't think it's self-defense, and accuses you of something more serious.
(In)famously, the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case said that if the mob ended up killing him, he wouldn't have brought charges, for example.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
23hr ago
If you are saying that he did it but not intentionally,
He was in the way of the car, but not with the goal to block it.
I'd reply that creating an excuse for lethal force unintentionally is jabout as bad as doing it intentionally,
Every arrest is an excuse for using lethal force, if the suspect insists on acting dangerously.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
23hr ago
In this case it takes two to choose.
No, it doesn't He wasn't putting himself as a roadblock. You can argue he should have been more careful and thought about all the things that can go wrong, but the argument is pretty dubious. Arresting people is inherently dangerous, and they can fuck you up whether you're in front of the car or approaching it from the side. But setting it aside for the sake of argument, a tactical error does not negate your right to self defense.
She on the other hand had the actual choice of simply not putting anyone's life in danger.
Unless you're really aiming the car at the police intentionally
Whether you're doing it intentionally or not is irrelevant, thr police can't read your mind.
Even if they did, and in her mind she would pull off some badass maneuver to escape without hitting anyone, there's still the issue of thr car's actual trajectory which did hit the guy, and would hit him harder and sooner were it not for the ice on the road.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
They can shoot you if you drive at them, but they can't shoot you if you are just fleeing.
Right, which is the scenario relevant to the discussed case.
If not, don't have policies whose effect is that it's hard to distinguish between fleeing and driving at them
There's nothing to distinguish. It doesn't matter if you were "just" fleeing, if you do so by means of driving your car at the police. If you choose to do that, you are putting their life in danger, and they have a right to defend themselves.
The police are not permitted to shoot you if you floor your car to get away.
Yes they are, if you floor it at them. We've been sharing this video that shows what happens when they're not fast enough. Another poster mentioned they were watching police cam videos in thr wake of BLM and seen plenty of cases of policemen shooting cars driving at them, all of which were ruled justified.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The difference is that in that case the officer would be shooting people who are intentionally violent, not nonviolent people who looked violent because the officer set up the situation in a way that made it hard to tell.
The police arrests people for non-violent offenses all the time, you still don't get to floor it to get away from them, and flooring your car at them is violent in itself.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The officer was not in front of the car when she began backing up. Her reverse maneuver is what put him (barely) there.
Eh... the way I see it, it's kinda both, he was walking from the right to the left side of the car. Though funnily enough this also means he was putting himself out of harm's way, by doing exactly what everyone here is screaming at him about.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
negate or at least seriously make harder whether the agent can claim fear for his life, even if he did.
That's absurd. Even if you claim he should have seen it coming (which creates an interesting tension between the claims of how she was just a totally harmless mom, but should have been treated as a complete sociopath at all times), him not seeing the danger when he walked around the car does not negate the fear for his life once she decided to floor it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The video has to have the "with a car you can go anywhere you want" guy as the main character.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
It's my understanding that absent actually aiding a specific crime, it's perfectly legal albeit obnoxious to whistle and make people aware of police/ICE presence (lookout for a robbery no but generally warning people about ICE or a speed trap is fine) and is not sabotaging an arrest.
Blocking the road for ICE vehicles, on the other hand, absolutely is.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
As a big fan of technical correctness, I can only tip my hat to you, sir. However, that sentence doesn't read like he's expressing surprise at not being alone in the world, especially in the light of the rest of his post.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I don't know what to tell you, border turnarounds aren't deportations, and pretending that they are is lying.
Or are you saying you've blocked Obama?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Besides Obama deported more illegals for a fraction of the cost.
He didn't. He just lied about it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
"On some level" means exactly what it says on the tin, dude. Again I'm begging you to re-read before replying and apply some critical thinking skills.
"On some level" means to some degree, to a certain extent, or from a particular perspective, acknowledging something is partially true or valid without being entirely so, often used to qualify agreement or understanding.
Being "partially" shocked at someone for disagreeing with a claim, while not believing it yourself is downright schizophrenic.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I'm also not, and nowhere did, claim that we have indisputable proof that she was murdered
"This is so obviously a murder" means that it is, in fact, indisputable that she was murdered.
You seriously think the cop did nothing wrong?
Correct. I think avoiding this situation on his part would require either superhuman abilities, risking his own life in order to save the life of a suspect which already showed herself to be acting with malice, or luck, which was out of his control.
there has to be a higher standard for the people in masks with guns that have been trained than the mom in the car".
Do you believe this, yes or no?
I do believe it, and I think those higher standards were met in this case.
...the idea that this there can't be any ICE officer who went too far. There's not one fuckin guy who didn't follow the training that this guy can't suffer some consequences for killing a woman. That's the bare minimum
Do you believe this, yes or no?
You honestly can't tell what I'm going to say? The answer should be obvious, I don't believe "there can't be any particular officer that went too far", I believe, upon reviewing available evidence, that this particular officer didn't.
Please explain to me why you thought this is a good question to ask, or that defending my position would imply a non-zero chance of answering "yes".
The idea that there's just no accountability, you can't they can wear plain clothes or have a mask and they can kill people and then the vice president will say they have absolute immunity is not a reasonable path for for America.
Do you believe this is a reasonable thing for the VP to say?
Mostly, yeah.
Let's clear up some factual stuff first: there objectively is accountability - Rene's wife or the Dems can just take ICE to court. They weren't wearing plain clothes, and masks are irrelevant since she knew they were ICE when she got involved. To be clear, I consider these things negotiable, and I think it's fine if you want to advocate for them, but you don't get to act like anyone who disagrees is unresonable or immoral.
As for Vance, I think it's fine for him to say that, and in fact it's throwing the agent who obviously did nothing wrong under the bus, to appease a mob acting in bad faith, that would be unsustainable.
And then, as I'm making my way down the thread, it's incredibly revealing that so far no one has engaged with this quote by Trump at all, which is a fucking insane thing to say:
Because everyone knows that the specific content of what politicians say is useless. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's true, and just because they don't say it doesn't mean it isn't. After at least a century of the Constitution being pissed and shat on through actual government actions (most of which you fall under your "the system works, everything is fine" shtick), I'm not about the get my fainting couch over words.
I answered your questions now it's your turn. Contrast the ICE incident to the video I linked above. Contrast Good to Babit, and explain to me why only Good warrants the amount of outrage you're showing.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
I swear to god so many people have brainworms that any potential foreign intervention must be directly compared to the interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are other ways to do things than occupying and nation building.
It's not just Iraq and Afghanistan, it's also Syria and Libya (that I remember off the top of my head). Also I'd be more ok with your idea if anyone was punished for these blunders, and gave the current batch of pro-intervention people something to think about.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
It crossed my mind, but it's been so long ago I hardly remembered anything about it. Completely forgot anyone got shot there, for example.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
That seems to expand the word terrorist beyond all usefulness.
Yeah, hence the "non-central fallacy". I never said I liked it or that I agree with it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
The only groups in Europe that come to mind that are remotely comparable to what the anti-ICE people are doing, are the climate activists that glue themselves to highways. Most of everyone else files for a protest permit at the town hall.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Which is why the ICE death rate is critical to the argument - it shows that ICE are not detaining violent criminals in large numbers, unlike local police.
No it doesn't. If the entire police force were deployed as nothing but SWAT teams, their death rate would go down too. Further, arresting someone, even a normal person, is already a violent action on par with a bar fight, so excluding those in favor of "murder by a stranger" makes no sense.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
That would be a good point, if that door / window / whatever was all that stood between the protestors and the lawmakers, but I was under the impression Congress was safely evacuated at that stage?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Yes, so, people may indeed be backing their tribe and justifying actions on that basis
Well again, should I take what he said seriously, or devolve into questioning his motives? (Which, in hindsight I guess I kinda did anyway, so feel free to spank me for that one).
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
presumably because she was trying to kill Ross
Sort of. As much as I hate the concept, it's just the "non-central fallacy". A terrorist is someone who uses violence for political ends, driving a car at someone is violent, and she did it at an anti-ICE protest, ergo: terrorist. Inaccurate and lame, especially since that a businessman like Trump probably has access to talented marketers that could come with a better term conveying the same message.
We were patting themselves on the back about our social safety nets and how they lower criminality for decades. Then we imported 7 zillion Middle-Easterners and Africans. We don't pat ourselves on thr back so much anymore.
More options
Context Copy link