phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
3d ago
Even granting we are reading different narratives, I just don't see a difference between "I intentionally tried to run this guy over" and "I was trying to escape law enforcement and in my escape I was so negligent in my driving that I hit a man directly in front of my windshield"
phosphorus2
3d ago
The driver seems to be trying to leave, not run down an officer. He’s crossing in front of the car and nearly out of the way, and yet as soon as the car shifts to forward he has his gun out and is shooting.
The ICE agent was very clearly standing in a spot where the vehicle could not move forward without hitting him. You yourself agree with this assessment ("I think your analysis of the mechanics is fair, but doesn’t solve the issue."). How can you possibly determine the intention of her actions by what her actions were ? In both cases the results of either action would be exactly the same, she can't leave without hitting him. Trying to run down the officer looks exactly like trying to escape when the officer is a foot in front of your car!
She follows them around, gets ahead of them, parks in the street, waits for them to get out, waits until a guy is right in front of her, then hits the gas. That doesn't seem at all like she was trying to leave.
If a car begins accelerating towards you and your split second reaction is to go for your gun, I’m questioning your motives.
"Ah yes, you can see the woman has pure motives, she was just trying to leave, I can tell my a frame by frame analysis of her tire movements. But ICE agent, he reached for his gun while he was a foot in front of accelerated into him, that's suspicious!"
The fact that a car is dangerous isn’t relevant, because it’s not clear he was fearing for his life!
The dangerousness of a car hitting a person is irrelevant to that persons fear for their life? Really?
phosphorus2
4d ago
it manufactures a justification to escalate to deadly force to prevent an escape where one would not otherwise be present.
I don't think this is true at all. The justification in question is "my life was in danger so I had to use deadly force". Who actually manufactured this situation?
Woman:
- parks in the middle of the road and waits for ICE to arrive for the sole purpose of causing a confrontation
- waits til an ICE agent is directly in front of her car
- puts her car in gear
- hits the gas
- hits the ICE agent with her car
ICE agent:
- gets out of his car to make an arrest
- stands in front of a parked car
Standing in front of a parked car, which is what the ICE agent did, does not put a life in danger. He could have stood there all day, all year, until the end of time, and he still would not have been in danger from that car. The entire situation, and the entirety of the danger, was manufactured by the woman. She sought out confrontation, and when she got it she escalated with violence right up to the point where she got her brains blown all over her dashboard.
phosphorus2
5d ago
Also also note that based on Brenner's notes (loved that asspull) they could close the portal at any time.
"The Upside down is held together by an exotic matter sphere that we conveniently just found out about" is ridiculous, and I think a genuine plot hole. Not just bad writing.
Upside down Hawkins is destroyed almost instantly without an exotic matter sphere, but how could such a sphere get to upside down Hawkins in the first place?
You are reading
as
Which I don't think is a fair reading - the former is likely legal (likely life in danger based on just based on a common reading of the text) and the latter is likely not by the same standard.
More options
Context Copy link