PSA For Progressives: A Vehicle Is A Weapon. Minneapolis Women Dead After Driving Towards ICE Agent

[canpakes]

.

[Some Schmo]

MAGAtes are so in the cult, they're excusing blatant murder now.

I will never accept morality related criticism from a right wingnut again; they don't believe in it. Hypocrisy and lies are their only strategy.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

If two police officers knock on a door, then step back 20 feet, the homeowner comes out with a gun, he raises the gun and points it 30 feet to the left of the officers, he's not shooting at the officers, he's shooting 30 feet to the left the officers, would the officers be justified in shooting the homeowner? Can you or one of your progressive buddies answer honestly? I bet not!

Good didn’t have a firearm. Your example is something that a ding dong would think up. “ ”

It needs a refresher on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Here you go:

https://youtu.be/Sb1zmkZLiNg?si=qrq6qVQXMTv65-Gc

Unfortunately, as has been shown over and over, it will think it’s the smart one surrounded by idiots.

There’s no fixing what ails it. Ever.

[Hound of Heaven]

Good didn’t have a firearm. Your example is something that a ding dong would think up.

Driving past somebody is not the same as shooting a gun past them. Once the car is past, no more danger (not that it seems from the video there ever was any). And yet the ICE agent fired two shots through the window of the side of her car, where he was standing.

I agree, the HoH post is simply a ridiculous comparison.

I didn't make that comparison, dumbass! Technically, if the homeowner comes out to the porch and shoots a gun 30 feet to the left of the police officers, they aren't in any "real" danger. But they would be fully justified in shooting the homeowner under law, because any reasonable person understands that raising a firearm and pointing it in any direction, even if it's not pointing directly at the police officer, the homeowner is going to get shot.

In the case where the federal officer shot the lady in the car. She had a choice. She could have listened to the officers telling her to exit the car. If they would have shot her for not exiting the car, I would be on your side. If she would have slowly pulled her past the officer and never touched him with her car, I would be on your side!! But that's not what happened. She hit the officer with her car, turning her car into a weapon, meaning, he is fully justified to shoot her.

Did she intend to hit the officer, no, not at all! But she did hit him, and he saw his life flash before his eyes so he shot her. That's self defense no matter how y'all idiots attempt to warp the actual facts.

[Dr. Shades]

Why didn’t the woman have right to be there? Use your words.

No need to be butthurt; I only said "use your words" to prevent you from posting one of your

Code: Select all

- -
 -
___

things (however you generate them), which don't advance the conversation at all.

One difference is that in the Rittenhouse case, he took an AR-15, traveled across state lines into a volatile situation, and chose to kill people with his weapon.

"Chose?" I'd say the people trying to kill him sort of forced his hand (literally).

Good lived in the neighborhood where she was murdered, had just dropped her 6-year-old off at school, and was unarmed when she was shot in the face three times.

By "shouldn't have been there," I was thinking along the lines of parking her car perpendicular in a road to prevent federal agents from doing their job.

It's true that one similarity is that the people who lost their lives would not have lost their lives if not for the agitators being where they should not be. . . In the case of Good, ICE agent Ross was an armed agitator who had no business being on that residential street in Minneapolis. . .

Ross had no business being where he needed to be in order to do his job?

harassing unarmed US citizens in their neighborhood.

ICE harasses U.S. citizens?

This is me rightfully pointing out that Person A (Rittenhouse) should not have been where he was and Person B (Ross) should not have been where he was.

Where should Ross have been in order to best do the job he was hired to do?

Another similarity is that neither instances of loss of life would've happened if the agitator hadn't been there.

Who is the agitator? ICE approached Good’s Honda, which was parked on the street in her neighborhood when they rolled up.

She was "parked" nearly perpendicular to the flow of traffic in order to prevent federal agents from doing their job, whether it was her neighborhood or someone else's. The people who told us that "Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there" should also, for consistency's sake, be saying that "Good shouldn't have been [parked in the street, perpendicular to the flow of traffic in order to prevent federal agents from doing their job]." Where "should" she have been, you might ask? Standing the sidewalk, perhaps holding a sign.

I'm wondering why the people on this board who rightly pointed out that the person in Incident A shouldn't have been there aren't also rightly pointing out that the person in Incident B shouldn't have been there, either.

“Shouldn’t have been there” isn’t really the question. Just about every death at the hands of another individual can be labeled as an example of someone who ‘shouldn’t have been’ somewhere.

Then why didn't they type those two sentences when discussing the Rittenhouse case?

Now, make no mistake: I'm not defending ICE. What happened is a tragedy. I'm just trying to sort out why people who said he "shouldn't have been there" aren't also saying she "shouldn't have been there" (i.e., parked in the road illegally to prevent federal agents from doing their job).

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dr. Shades JAQ’ing off, as usual.

[Dr. Shades]

Wow, that really advanced the conversation.

What, if anything, that I typed do you find to be untrue?

[canpakes]

If she would have slowly pulled her past the officer and never touched him with her car, I would be on your side!!

That’s what happened, ‘ding dong’.

ICE guy sure has a lot of room here between himself and a car going 5 mph past him. So much room that he can fully extend his arm to shoot at the side of her face, several times.

[canpakes]

Who is the agitator? ICE approached Good’s Honda, which was parked on the street in her neighborhood when they rolled up.

She was "parked" nearly perpendicular to the flow of traffic in order to prevent federal agents from doing their job, whether it was her neighborhood or someone else's.

How is she preventing any ICE officers from doing their job? She is parked to warn that ICE is in the neighborhood. But she literally waved them past at one point. ICE officers were freely moving around her. Unless she was driving a semi and possessed a paralyzing ray gun, I’m not seeing how she was preventing anyone from doing much of anything. She certainly couldn’t prevent ICE from shooting her in the face multiple times.

The people who told us that "Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there" should also, for consistency's sake, be saying that "Good shouldn't have been [parked in the street, perpendicular to the flow of traffic in order to prevent federal agents from doing their job]." Where "should" she have been, you might ask? Standing the sidewalk, perhaps holding a sign.

This claim still has the same problem that I noted before. The shooter in both cases made a bad decision. That’s a consistent conclusion, correct?

“Shouldn’t have been there” isn’t really the question. Just about every death at the hands of another individual can be labeled as an example of someone who ‘shouldn’t have been’ somewhere.

Then why didn't they type those two sentences when discussing the Rittenhouse case?

Because that’s merely an observation of the environment. It doesn’t excuse or explain the ultimate issue.

I don’t know who was making that claim nor for what reason, but consider what the actual issue was there, and is here. ‘Being in the wrong place’ isn’t necessarily a valid excuse for murder.

Now, make no mistake: I'm not defending ICE. What happened is a tragedy. I'm just trying to sort out why people who said he "shouldn't have been there" aren't also saying she "shouldn't have been there" (i.e., parked in the road illegally to prevent federal agents from doing their job).

I understand where you’re coming from, but the question being asked just feels like a distraction. Can you give more detail on how it should relate to the acceptability of the outcome?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Wow, that really advanced the conversation.

What, if anything, that I typed do you find to be untrue?

Wow, another question! Dr. Shades is just asking questions, gaiz!

You know what? You’re spot on. Rittenhouse showing up to a protest to “protect private property” with an AR-15 is totally the same thing as a woman getting shot in the face in her own neighborhood by an ICE who topped it off with, “damned bitch.”

It’s totally not a dumb comparison, and you’re 100% sincere when you’re JAQ’ing off. Great. Got any more of them similarities? Like, maybe, why is Ukraine fighting its Russian friends when it was liberated by them in WW2? Aren’t Nazis in Ukraine a bad thing?

- Doc