The police officer had the right to defend himself and that girl deserved to get shot because she tried to run over that other cop to kill him. And the Democrats are so stupid because now they protesting and blaming that cop. He was doing his job
I've been wrong about something and I'd like to show you what I've been wrong about. If you do not wish to see violence don't click the link I'll be posting below.
Due to recent discussions about ICE agents in Minneapolis (wearing masks, because that's somehow the worst part of the events... 🙄), I've been poking about the most infamous incident lately: the shooting of the woman driving the Honda pilot.
I broadly believed reports that the woman had hit the agent with her vehicle. If that was the case, it's clear cut self-defense.
However, on further review, this does not seem to be the case. As such, I have changed my opinion based on more facts and deem the actions of the agent to be outside the bounds of self defense and would label this as murder.
The video floating around, and that I've posted here on nostr showing a clear hit has been fairly certainly found to be a fabrication.
Below, you'll find a link to reddit. I know, I know... but it contains a video that is compiled and synced from videos that do seem to be legitimate, and they clearly show malice of forethought by the agent in question as he drew his weapon before the woman had turned her wheels to move her vehicle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q71k0w/all_angles_of_minneapolis_ice_shooting_synched/
As such, the agent broke with all known SOPs regarding firing at a "fleeing vehicle" thus, IMO, is guilty of murder, at least until I am presented evidence otherwise.
That being said, it doesn't change my opinion on:
-Agents wearing face coverings
-ICE is doing a job that is necessary as long as there are national borders and unwelcome, criminal miscreants
-Ending the welfare state will solve nearly all of these issues without the descent into martial law
-Agents of the government operating with carte blanche immunity will only be emboldened to do more of this
So, I was wrong, evidently, about this particular shooting which I will call a murder now. That's fine. (Me being wrong, not the murder.) I'm still open to discussing it and being presented with other evidence on either side. I'd even appreciate it.
Discussion
No. He committed murder. There is no justification for shooting an unarmed civilian by means of purposefully putting yourself in danger to give yourself an excuse to commit such a heinous crime.
Well it was not murder and you people can say all you want. But he was doing is job defending himself. You Democrats ans people are so sickening. Say all you want but that police officer won't get fired because trump is backing him up.
I do not support any political party. Period. And it was murder. You're just letting blind hatred cloud your already misinformed judgement.
Im just gonna mute you
Please do. You bring nothing of value to this conversation and by inference you bring very little to the table in other areas. Just wait until the thugs of the gubment come after you when the pendulum swings the other way. 🫡
What kind of murder was it? Because you seem to be a local legal expert on the term. Let's be thorough shall we?
Murder is when a person unlawfully kills another person. Murder is not the same as homicide because not all homicide is unlawful. Instead, murder is a category of homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder (first, second, and third). Some states use Model Penal Code to legally define murder and the subsequent punishments.
Common Law Murder
At common law, murder was historically defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:
"Intent-to-kill murder" - intentional murder
"Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodily harm.
For example, a defendant is still liable for murder, even if the defendant only intended to wound the victim.
"Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at English common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty.
For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. If a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
"Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life.
For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.
These historic definitions are valuable as they inform subsequent reforms of American criminal law.
The Pennsylvania Method
The Pennsylvania Method is a catch-all term for systems of classifying murder by degree. Certain, specified types of murder were first-degree murder, and carried the death penalty. All other types of murder were second-degree murder, which did not carry the death penalty.
First-Degree Murder includes:
Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.
Particularly heinous types of murder.
For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, this included poisoning or waiting to kill someone by ambush.
Felony-murder, but only for certain listed felonies.
For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, the only eligible felonies were arson, rape, robbery, and burglary.
Second-Degree Murder typically includes murder with malice intent, but not premeditated.
Third-Degree Murder encompasses all other types of murder that do not fall within first- or second-degree murder categories, such as unintentional murders. However, only three states recognize third-degree murder: Florida, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. At present, most states either use the Pennsylvania Method or a similar method to categorize murder.
The Model Penal Code
The Model Penal Code moved away from the traditional common law approach to murder, which typically involved "malice." Under the Model Penal Code, the following constitutes murder:
Purposefully or knowingly killing another human being. This functions much the same as the common law rule against intentional murder.
Killing another human being in circumstances showing extreme recklessness. This functions much the same as the common law's depraved heart murder rule.
When did i say i was an expert in what should be designated as murder? But, just to please your desire to know, I would personally define this incident as a first-degree murder.
Oh you have evidence of this being"willful deliberate and premeditated"? They knew one another before this incident? That's an INCREDIBLE development in this story. So a journalist and a legal expert in our midst. Wow. What an impressive resume you have.
😑Calm yourself. What is with the antagonism? Why is this matter so personal to you?
It's not. You're just spreading lies and calling someone a murderer with literally no evidence to back it up.
"Oh but I have videos from the internet"
Ok what about those videos lend to the notion of "willful, deliberate, AND premeditated"
Nothing.
But here you are accusing a person of first degree murder.
Sure wouldn't want you on a jury if I'm ever accused of something.
How am I spreading lies? And it was certainly willful and deliberate. You don't pop someone that many times at point blank range without it being so.
"First-Degree Murder includes:
Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.
Particularly heinous types of murder.
For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, this included poisoning or waiting to kill someone by ambush.
Felony-murder, but only for certain listed felonies.
For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, the only eligible felonies were arson, rape, robbery, and burglary.
Second-Degree Murder typically includes murder with malice intent, but not premeditated."
"I would personally define this incident as a first-degree murder."
"How am I spreading lies? And it was certainly willful and deliberate."
"Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder."
"Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder."
"Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder."
Well then it's second-degree. My mistake. Still murder, though.
I've explained why I think this is murder of the second degree on that scale.
We can disagree about that without resorting to silly histrionics, right?
No. Apparently certain individuals can't.
You can read right? So when you saw me accuse you of spreading lies what did you think it meant? Did you know that I meant that you were accusing a man of first degree murder even though by definition it's not what you were saying?
Are you going to continue to argue like a woman? The passive aggressive bullshit? The gaslighting? All while you act like my reaction is unwarranted?
It's an interesting tactic that's for sure.
Again with the antagonism. We can have a civil debate. No need for insults. If you saw my previous comment, i mentioned that it was my mistake to designate it as first-degree and that it is still murder.
I really don't give a shit what you think at this point. You're not a trustworthy person and you debate in bad faith. Why would I ever meet that neutrally? Why would I be coming from a position of neutrality toward someone who is positioning themselves as some authority on the subject but then when met with a clear and obvious discrepancy in their views doubles down and acts like a victim when it's called out.
You don't know what you're talking about. You're spreading lies and when challenged you cry victim.
I don't have any interest in being civil with a person like you.
I'm still not sure why you thought it mattered what kind of murder it was to begin with. It seems to me like you just felt the need to start some unnecessary drama.
"I should just be able to say what I want and accuse them of murder without being challenged. When I'm challenged I'll just label it 'unnecessary drama' cause that means I won"
I should be able to say what i want and i don't mind being challenged. You ARE causing unnecessary drama. Doesn't mean i won anything😑.
You clearly mind being challenged. So much so that you're inventing realities where you're right and weren't spreading lies.
Cry harder.
Now you're just being silly. Come on.
We're done here
Yes, you are certainly at the end of your rope.
Thank you for starting all this bullshit🫡
Quadrupling down on womanly argument tactics.
You aren't capable of articulating a point correctly so you resort to gaslighting and passive aggression.
There are other ways to vent your anger. Social media is never a good way to do so.
nostr:npub1q6ya7kz84rfnw6yjmg5kyttuplwpauv43a9ug3cajztx4g0v48eqhtt3sh and I have explained our points in a sensible manner. So stop.
More gaslighting.
I'm clearly only talking to you.
You have not explained your points in a sensible manner and then when challenged on them you resort to gaslighting.
I'm not angry at all. You're just arguing like a woman.
And now you're just being dumb, too.
I really don't give a shit what either of you think.
That seems to not be the case, or you wouldn't spend so much time arguing.
I care just enough to keep this up for two reasons:
1. I am an idiot that loves this kind of argument.
2. You are providing enough entertainment to make me giggle the whole time, at least after you started to not make cogent points.
You have no idea what my motives are. I really couldn't possibly care less what you think.
You can scroll back in my posts where I outright make my motives known.
This is my art and I want to be alienated for my art.
I forgive you for being beholden to systems of oppression like the ideals of "equality" and the notions of mortal justice.
Well, I don't derive my morals on my own. They are pretty rooted in The Bible, though I am learning to slough off a lot of the grosser metaphysical secular modernist mumbojumbo that most in the US have been steeped in without knowing or understanding it.
But, if you wanna get into it, I am very curious as to how you think that equality under the law is oppressive. Either mortal or immortal justice. I can discuss both pretty well, I think.
The irony of your name calling while claiming others can't make a solid argument.
Oh now a woman has appeared to incorrectly assess the situation at hand. Shocking.
Oh, look! A misogynist has appeared to mock someone making cogent points.
You went full retard, my dude. Wow.
WOW!
I fucking hate misogynists. His argumemt is pathetic. nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl please put this asshole on his place.
"Send in the troops!"
K.
It's Nostr. If I put misogynists in their place, I'd never be done.
Nice Haiku
No one would. There isn't enough time. LOL!
So it's inherently misogynistic to insult a woman? Is it inherently misandrist to insult a man? Why or why not?
> More woman behavior
This is the part I didn't really appreciate. The word "woman" isn't a perjorative.
Otherwise, go back to verbally bashing each other's heads in. You all seemed to be enjoying it and I didn't want to interrupt.
Ok would "hyper feminized" be any better in your mind? Why or why not? I'm genuinely curious.
That is better, yes, as it's a reference to specific types of behavior, rather than to all members of one sex.
Stella, as usual beat me to it.
But it amuses me when we are in sync. LOL!
How does "woman behavior" not reference "types of behavior?"
Woman is the descriptor.
It's not a condemnation of women it's a condemnation of the behavior. Same as saying hyper feminized in my mind. But that's just difference in perception.
Yes. Because you aren't insulting all women with that, just men who are feminized.
I will totally accept that instead. Thank you for attention in this matter! 😄
The way you did it is pretty misogynistic. I insult women all the time, but I am very rarely called a misogynist except as a supposedly hurtful invective. I insult nearly everyone, so don't think you're special or anything. I mostly just bring that up because if *I* think you went to far with insults, it's probably pretty bad.
Does this position come with dental lol?
Meanwhile you're quoting a movie where a dude is doing blackface. Hilarious.
Yes. Because it is funny. And you are providing fine entertainment this day!
Don't turn you back on Q. He's gonna save you trust me bro
As for why I'm in this movie, maybe I just knew I had to represent. Cause the one good part in this movie for a black man and they gave it to Crocodile Dundee.
nostr:nprofile1qqsqdzwltpr635ehdzfd52tz947qlhq77x2c7j7yguwep9n258k2nusprdmhxue69uhk7unv0ykhyetvv9uju6tdwaskcepwv46j7qgmwaehxw309a6xsetxdaex2um59ehx7um5wgcjucm0d5hsz8rhwden5te0va5hgcmfw3skgetv9ehx7um5wgcjucm0d5hs7z7723 its like they addressed the blackface so the audience in context
This poor bastard has some personal issues that he's taking out on everyone else. So sad. I would've gave him some level of comfort if he didn't take this route.
How many logical fallacies can you count? At least 2. We could probably top it out at 5.
Is this what arguing in good faith looks like?
No. You've devolved into (pretty terrible and unfunny) ad hominems.
You're the one who is breaking a good faith discussion. 🤷♂
Oh it was good faith when your buddy was lying about what first degree murder was for the sake of exaggerating his position? That was good faith? I started the bad faith. Hmmmmm should we rewind the tape? Or should we leave it where it is so you both can feel morally superior for some odd reason?
Now you're crying victim.
You're a coward or a troll. Grow up.
"You're a coward...."
"Excuse me ma'am can you fight my battles for me?"
Same guy within three minute span of time.
I'm not a victim. I'm am a nearly professional pot-stirrer. 😁
Sure. He exaggerated. Who doesn't from time to time? You've latched on to that pretty hard. But you can't claim that about me since I've been pretty consistent that I don't think this was premeditated based on what is currently known.
I'm not morally superior. I'm simply being, IMO, consistent. I'm not even attaching any morality to a majority of my statements since that's a mess to discuss and a morass to argue.
He is my buddy, but we disagree often. But, we're still friends, or at least pretty decent faceless internet acquaintances. You pointed out his degree inconsistency. He accepted that, if you'll care to remember.
So what's your beef?
Ok so his exaggerations are excusable and mine are some egregious assault on the art of debate as a whole? The contradictions are insane.
I've latched onto that because it's clearly contradictory in the nature of both of your arguments.
You're not being consistent.
And the misogynist shit proves it. I said it to another guy that you're lambasting over his take on the entire situation. You're both just doing halo effect bullshit because it's a woman that got shot and it's plain as day.
I really don't care about any of this at all. I just want the hundred million people that are in my country that shouldn't be out. If some retarded dyke is going to park her car in the way of that and then drive toward someone trying to get them out then I mean my advice is probably going to be shoot her.
This shit has gone on long enough. I don't care that it's a woman. I don't care that she has kids.
And I certainly don't care about you guys playing white knight about some woman that would exchange your life for some cotton candy.
Yes.
Because I know him and I don't know you so I am able to overlook that based on prior history and see that he is still, IMO, mostly correct.
I don't know you. I will certainly give the benefit of the doubt to those I know before those I don't.
And you are just off into ad hominem land when you had started off with a perfectly cogent debate. it devolved into arguing and now it is personal attacks. Bro, stop. They will not work on me. I have been a keyboard warrior for far too long to be goaded or upset by that. I probably have a lower opinion of myself than you have of me. Just stahp!
How is it contradictory?
I am being so consistent it isn't even funny. Just because my foundation of my arguments is not one you would like to accept, and that multiple horrible things can be true at one time is a fact of life doesn't mean that I am inconsistent.
You calling someone a misogynist is comical. That is a perfect example of an ad hominem. I like to point that out as it is funny to me. I am certainly mocking your use of that tactic, as it should be mocked.
Hey! We agree. I am all for physical removal, so to speak. (HHH reference FTW!)
Here is another thing that sucks, but is also true: The retarded dyke has every right to protest government action she sees as incorrect. That is her right to free speech, assembly, and of association at action. She played the game badly and lost. The leftists are going to make her a sainted martyr. The right is going to make the agent a sainted hero. That story has already been crafted and disseminated. You are still missing the further point: Who set this up? For what purpose? Without asking that, you are never going to understand what is going on now and what will happen next.
I am also not white knighting her. She's a horrible woman. Period. I honestly can't stand leftist women the most. They are ugly, twisted creatures who can't even see basic facts through years of delusion being blown up by years of circle fartsniffing other leftist delusion.
But guess what? She was still human. She still had rights. You are human. I am human. We still have rights. And if I cannot stand up for a fellow human's rights, then I am not being consistent with my own beliefs. Just because you hate someone doesn't mean you are allowed to strip them of their humanity to be able to justify murder or worse. (There is always worse . . . )
You saying that kind of thing shows that you have no consistent belief, just that you want to be rid of whatever you hate. I reject that mode of being. It is awful and leads to the worst kinds of attrocities, the kind that are happening all over the world right now. It is sad to see someone decently intelligent and articulate so sucked into to political "sides" when that is the worst way in which to view the world. IMO.
"I'm consistent"
Goes on to explain in detail how and why you're biased
Ok. Don't care about the rest of the stuff you said.
My view on this situation is consistent.
My view on my friends in consistent.
My view on you has changed.
If you can't parse bias, you are not fit to have anything worth sharing with others. Everyone is biased. We are human. Bias/judgement is how we function. Applying it correctly is hard. Maybe you don't understand that.
From what I've seen, I'd peg this at murder in the second degree with malice but no premedition.
I don't think he thought or acted like he was going to kill the woman when he exited his vehicle.
But seeing when he drew his pistol makes me think that there was malice (by legal definition) and not a clear enough threat to justify pulling the trigger. To be honest, the shooting itself was, technically, excellent. Most LEOs can't hit the broad side of a barn and he scored three deadly hits rapidly in a very dynamic situation. This also adds credence to my claim that he is trained extensively. That was my luck.
Neither myself or Lucas are a Democrat. Or republican. That kind of rhetoric just gets you laughed at.
Both Lucas and myself are actually better qualified to judge training and outcomes than most here, but you probably wouldn't care about that.
How about this:
Can their not be bad agents? Bad as in quick to shoot at the wrong time? Given how many agents there are, this is a certainty. Why can this not be one of those? Why are you holding one person in one group less accountable for their actions?
There is no room for truth in your ideology. Please mature a fraction of a bit. You are making a mockery of yourself and it is sad.
The only sick ones are the statist cucks who are begging the state to violate them harder.
The job of ice is not to fuck with citizens are shoot at moving vehicles. If the agent felt threatened by this vehicles motion he should have his gun taken away and the person who approved his hiring should be fired.
Yes.
Well, no. Some citizens want to be difficult douchecanoes and make bad situations worse. Those citizens are within their rights to do so, by that doesn't change angry mob mentality from taking hold (of both sides).
Who is going to take his gun away? The very same State that hired and assigned him there? 😑 That would require a modicum of consistency from the government that has not been exhibited for an unfortunately long time.
This is not at all logically consistent, sound thinking.
He has the right to keep his gun because he was defending himself and that girl try to run him over she deserve to get shot for what she did. You people are so sickening and you people who are sickening will be judged by God
"1.Deadly force defined. For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section"
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066
The debate about this is over. It was a killing. It wasn't a murderer.
"(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm."
Anyone trying to say that they know what was going through the agent's mind is a hyperfeminized lunatic who thinks they can read minds.
It wasn’t self defense. The agent had no business approaching the vehicle or attempting to detain her. She was fleeing a kidnapping attempt if you want to get pedantic. He murdered her because he didn’t like her politics. He wasn’t acting within the scope of his duties and she wasn’t doing anything where he had the authority to impede her. You don’t know jack shit about the law and you are just trying to cope as you realize you are an authoritarian. Good luck with that.
You are a sick person
And apparently you are retarded.
It's truly not worth engaging with any of you.
I really hope your anarchist multicultural society comes to fruition. I just hope it's as far away from me as humanly possible.
It'll be a real rude awakening for you guys.
Yea ok buddy because im not and you Democrats are so sickening
Democrat? Is that what you get from this. Retard was over estimating you. I don’t accept the state murdering people. I don’t accept the state harassing people. I don’t accept untrained armed masked agents of the state running around being dicks. Fuck the state.
You Democrats keep saying what you want but in the end you will be judged by God.
You will, too, buddy. You might not want to forget that.
I detect no Democrats in this discussion.
At all...
You're obsessing over something that doesn't, in this direct context, exist.
It mostly makes you look even more delusional.
Read em and weep.
Why are you lying?
