Fascist…

Jarod said:
A person who will (reluctantly) admit, when pressed that they believe the government has the right to kill you if you disobey instructions from a government agent.

@TOP
@FastLane
@Tobytone
@Yakuda
Click to expand...
In no way, I mean no way, could you be a lawyer. :nono:
www.britannica.com

Fascism | Definition, Meaning, Characteristics, Examples, & History | Britannica

Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and was characterized by extreme militant nationalism, hatred of communism and socialism, contempt for democracy, and belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites.
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
 
Jarod said:
Resisting arrest doesn’t give the government any right to kill you! Only fascist believe that !
Click to expand...
It does if you assault a LEO with a deadly weapon. No one shot her when she refused to get out of the car. No one shot her when she put her car in reverse . But when she decided to put her car in forward and spun her wheels and accelerated straight into a LEO she got shot. I wish she had not decided to do that but the facts are she did and now she is dead.

Those are the facts and you know it. All your pretending otherwise is just dumb and trolling. I ashed you to find where I said anyone should get shot just for not following government LEO orders. Have you done that yet? If you can't find me saying that you need to apologize if you are a man.
 
Damocles said:
Only if you "reluctantly admit" that leaving someone armed after they aimed a weapon at you and tried to kill you is leaving others in danger. In that "split second" what did the Agent believe? Can you be sure he didn't think she may ram others with the vehicle, after she had already demonstrated a wish, ability, willingness, and motivation to hit someone with the car?

I don't "reluctantly admit" that he shot at the vehicle as it passed, I count three shots one as the vehicle hit him, two as it passed... I simply disagree with what you say he was thinking when he fired the shots.

I have predicted that this will be called justified. I reluctantly continue to predict that.
Click to expand...
No evidence that he was ever hit.

He placed himself in danger and then will claim “I was in danger” to justify shooting her.

Her ramming other vehicles so he puts two more shots in her head so she’s TOTALLY out of control?

What fucking alternative universe do you live in?
 
domer76 said:
No evidence that he was ever hit.
Click to expand...
Now that's BS, even the Mayor notes that he was injured. He says it was "no worse than hitting your hip on the refrigerator" but he certainly recognizes the guy was hit.
domer76 said:
He placed himself in danger and then will claim “I was in danger” to justify shooting her.
Click to expand...
It's his job to place himself in danger, he's in law enforcement.
domer76 said:
Her ramming other vehicles so he puts two more shots in her head so she’s TOTALLY out of control?
Click to expand...
No, her driving her vehicle into people. He puts two more shots to ensure she isn't just turning around and coming back at 90 MPH. She's already demonstrated her willingness to hit law enforcement with her car, leaving her armed and dangerous is not "procedure". If I shot and winged you, barely injured you (like Trump's ear), then ran past you, just because I passed you and was running does not mean you (as a law enforcement agent/officer) would let me go because you were no longer "in danger". That's idiotic.
domer76 said:
What fucking alternative universe do you live in?
Click to expand...
Not the one you reside in. I tend to stand in reality squarely. I also understand the subjective nature of the idea of the "split second" and the judgement we use which is "what did he believe" not the objective... It's been explained several times. Now, again. It's possible that during the investigation he'll say the gun went off the first time in error and two more times he was covering up the sound of his own poo filling his pants and it won't be justified.. but I doubt that.
 
FastLane said:
It does if you assault a LEO with a deadly weapon. No one shot her when she refused to get out of the car. No one shot her when she put her car in reverse . But when she decided to put her car in forward and spun her wheels and accelerated straight into a LEO she got shot. I wish she had not decided to do that but the facts are she did and now she is dead.

Those are the facts and you know it. All your pretending otherwise is just dumb and trolling. I ashed you to find where I said anyone should get shot just for not following government LEO orders. Have you done that yet? If you can't find me saying that you need to apologize if you are a man.
Click to expand...
Your legal analysis is correct. I disagree with your version of the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOP
Jarod said:
Your legal analysis is correct. I disagree with your version of the facts.
Click to expand...
What facts do you disagree with? And we're still waiting for those links we asked for.... to your original allegations...
 
TOP said:
What facts do you disagree with? And we're still waiting for those links we asked for.... to your original allegations...
Click to expand...
She was not threatened or causing any danger to the police officer.

She was driving away. Fleeing, not threatening.

Clearly unjustified shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top