POV footage from the ICE agent who was RAMMED by anti-ICE activist Renee Good in Minneapolis has been released

She wasn't "armed". She was using a vehicle to try to flee danger that *she* perceived. He might have killed her because he perceived that she was a danger to him, but no one with two intact brain cells thinks she was a danger to unnamed "others". You're grasping at straws, and it's so beneath the person that you used to be that I can't help but wonder if you ever quietly admit to yourself that you sound insane. Ross is not a "cop", but you've tripled down on that mistake, so you're obviously determined to be wrong. Yet again. Lastly, if Ross had unresolved mental issues about a prior incident, then he shouldn't have been on active duty. His mental state obviously left him incapable of doing his job. He and his commanders put the public's safety in danger. A woman is dead and 3 children have lost a mother as a result. Good didn't attack anyone.
She was armed. Pretending that a vehicle is not a deadly weapon is just nonsense and blather. A desperate dodge and holds no merit.
 
She was armed. Pretending that a vehicle is not a deadly weapon is just nonsense and blather. A desperate dodge and holds no merit.
Oh please. You have dodged everything I have presented to you in this thread. You don't understand Tennessee v. Garner. You don't understand Graham v. Connor. You're so dishonorable and dishonest that you have to make up my positions in what true debaters call strawmen. Does this sound familiar? Don't tell me what I think so you can tell me that it's wrong. You're flailing. You don't have the balls to admit when you're wrong. You're also so saturated in Kool-Aid that you're radioactive red.
 
Oh please. You have dodged everything I have presented to you in this thread. You don't understand Tennessee v. Garner. You don't understand Graham v. Connor. You're so dishonorable and dishonest that you have to make up my positions in what true debaters call strawmen. Does this sound familiar? Don't tell me what I think so you can tell me that it's wrong. You're flailing. You don't have the balls to admit when you're wrong. You're also so saturated in Kool-Aid that you're radioactive red.
I have dodged nothing. I have informed you what they will use to determine this and why. I've explained to you why I predict what I predict. I have told you why he would have shot her as she passed, and even why a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon.

None of that is "dodging" anything at all. While I predict an outcome I am not sure of an outcome and do not have all the evidence. It's possible the guy is in the room telling them his gun went off accidentally and he shot two more times to cover a fart. I don't think he is, but it is possible.
 
I have dodged nothing. I have informed you what they will use to determine this and why. I've explained to you why I predict what I predict. I have told you why he would have shot her as she passed, and even why a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon.

None of that is "dodging" anything at all. While I predict an outcome I am not sure of an outcome and do not have all the evidence. It's possible the guy is in the room telling them his gun went off accidentally and he shot two more times to cover a fart. I don't think he is, but it is possible.
If he does get off, I think you have not listed all the reasons that would be.
 
If this woman was not killed by the officer's bullet, then she would have to be arrested, prosecuted and executed for her for Attempted Murder.

She was dead either way. Good Riddance.

Next!
-
 
I have listed the ones that I believe will be the central core of the reasoning behind it.
And I've explained to you that your reasons don't satisfy the case law, but I've never claimed that I can get a horse to drink. After all, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
 
Back
Top