๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฒ ๐—š๐—ผ๐—ผ๐—ฑ ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฐ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—œ๐—–๐—˜ ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—น ๐—ฝ๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜€๐˜† ๐—๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—˜ ๐—ฅ๐—ผ๐˜€๐˜€.

They will be charged with murder because there was no legal right to approach or stop those women. Eye witnesses stated they were not obstructing the officers activities.
What they did was illegal, they had no probable cause and the women knew it. There was also testimony officers were giving conflicting commands.

I have challenged an officer who stopped me. It is our right to do so, if there is no probable cause.
Okay, first lets talk about this assumption that they had no right to approach the women. They can investigate, during an investigation they can detain, during detention they can ask you and your passengers to leave your vehicle so that you do not turn it into a weapon and they can see your hands, etc.

Second. Let's assume they had "no right"... My recommendation is to fight that in court, not in the street, solely because I want you and others to live. If a law enforcement officer (not one that is alone) surrounded by people and other officers ever asks you to exit your vehicle I recommend you leave your vehicle. If in the end you were "right" but you are still dead, it is a tragedy, if you follow the orders and you are right you will wind up with money.
 
Okay, Damo. We have a different perspective on how to handle the kind of situation with which she was confronted. She did not know there was an even worse animal in front of her ready to shoot her in the face...and in my estimation, she did what any frightened woman would do.

But I understand what you are saying.
Especially with the treatment people have received by ICE agents.
Pregnant women abused by ICE to the point they lose the pregnancy. Others taken to facilities and denied their rights to legal representation.
The American public has a right to fear ICE.
 
Understand the people arguing she threatened and was attacking cops with the vehicle have watched the video, see there was no justification in the video for the shooting and thus feel they need to come to the cops defense by trying to spread a lie and counter narrative in the hopes others do not watch it and just take sides.

No one who saw the video and thought they had real proof of a threat would feel the need to create the lie and would just show and stick to the truth, believing it vindicated what they are saying. So the worse they lie, the more you know, that they know they are lying.
 
At the point they order her to exit the vehicle it is a detention. The point to argue whether it is a valid detentiom is in court, not in the street.

I give this same advice to the guys doing first amendment audits. If they are going to "break the law" in your opinion, and you think they have no reason to say you are obstructing it does not change that they can order you out of the vehicle for their safety (they think you might drive the vehicle at officers), the ruling allows them to ask you, and your passengers to exit the vehicle during the interaction for that safety.

At that point we are at the beginning of that obstruction investigation... Regardless, they can ask you to exit your vehicle and once they do it will always be my recommendation you follow that order, because it is considered lawful and I have never seen anything good come from fighting it.
not exactly right.

you need to watch MORE first amendment audit videos.
 
Repost


Quote
Nobody was "rammed," meathead. That's the desperate narrative trumpers are peddling because they can't handle the truth. :rolleyes:

there was ramming.

So what? What kind of evidence can I give for something that happened during a conversation? And are you that ticked off that you have to lie about what happened to Good? There was no badgering, it's all in your mind. She wasn't screaming or threatening, as is clear. The white nationalist cop was angry at the demonstrators and was looking for a fight.

there was.

Link to pics.

Youโ€™re seeing things
View: https://x.com/LangmanVince/status/2009797714427687069?s=20

View: https://x.com/i/status/2009698657038442548
 
Okay, Damo. We have a different perspective on how to handle the kind of situation with which she was confronted. She did not know there was an even worse animal in front of her ready to shoot her in the face...and in my estimation, she did what any frightened woman would do.

But I understand what you are saying.
It was clear she saw him. We are at a point where we are going into the absurd.

My recommendation is to cover this before folks go out to protest. I would like these folks to be able to do this exact thing she did, but come away alive. It is effective. Less effective if we start talking about how she was shot, what was happening, whether cars are a weapon, etc.

My only goal in my recommendation is to get her out of this alive.
 
A mob attacking and beating cops have weapons via their sheer numbers, thus why they can over run and beat cops savagely, something they could not do otherwise.

So you are wrong on that point.

To your other point, you are correct. If not for Ashley's and her mobs actions and if she had only followed the law and not took escalating step after escalating step to get passed or beat the cops who got between them and the Congress people they were hunting and threatening, then she would not have died that day. She is at fault for what happened to her that day. Glad on that part we agree.
The officer who killed her overreacted.... Ashley was not armed.... The girl who Drove her car ... a large weapon...Into the ice agent was
following her wife's directions Instead of complying with the agents directions....Both lives lost were tragedies and unnecessary... A result of poor decisions....
 
Especially with the treatment people have received by ICE agents.
Pregnant women abused by ICE to the point they lose the pregnancy. Others taken to facilities and denied their rights to legal representation.
The American public has a right to fear ICE.

No one who saw the video and thought they had real proof of a threat would feel the need to create the lie and would just show and stick to the truth, believing it vindicated what they are saying. So the worse they lie, the more you know, that they know they are lying.

AMEN to both of those posts.

I understand what Damo is saying...and probably last week I would have agreed with him totally on what to do...but after watching that video and assessing the conduct of the ICVE guy...I now disagree with him and agree with you two.
 
AMEN to both of those posts.

I understand what Damo is saying...and probably last week I would have agreed with him totally on what to do...but after watching that video and assessing the conduct of the ICVE guy...I now disagree with him and agree with you two.
We have let police become far too powerful.

We have to stop the idea that they have a right to mistreat citizens. The idea that we have to follow illegal orders or we face being assaulted or killed by officers if we stand up for our rights.
 
It was clear she saw him. We are at a point where we are going into the absurd.

My recommendation is to cover this before folks go out to protest. I would like these folks to be able to do this exact thing she did, but come away alive. It is effective. Less effective if we start talking about how she was shot, what was happening, whether cars are a weapon, etc.

My only goal in my recommendation is to get her out of this alive.
Clearly yours and Good's "wife's" goals do not align.
 
The question is why was the gun drawn? He drew his gun because a woman in a car "was just being a sarcastic hypocrite"? She's dead because the gun was drawn. Otherwise when she started to drive away there wouldn't be time to put a bullet through the window, let alone three.
You'd think that would be a clue to sit there very still, maybe even turn off the engine, put your hands up and tell the cops you're complying... After all, we know she was looking at the one with the gun out. When things get that serious, the last thing you want to do is give the cops any--ANY--reason to shoot you.
 
The officer who killed her overreacted.... Ashley was not armed.... The girl who Drove her car ... a large weapon...Into the ice agent was
following her wife's directions Instead of complying with the agents directions....Both lives lost were tragedies and unnecessary... A result of poor decisions....
no he didn't

this is a clean kill all the way.

its crucial to get this right.
 
yeah i mean if I have been ramming cops, I will not try first amendment audit shit.

damo is right.
You start rammin' cops, it's a good way to get dead. Just about everywhere.
I say her "partner" is an accessory to her death, too. I'd be checkin' if she had a life insurance policy.
You don't tell your partner to amp up when cops are moving to arrest them with guns drawn. :nono:
You calm them down and tell them to comply and don't fight the police.
 
We have let police become far too powerful.

We have also treated often violent protesters with kid gloves.
We have to stop the idea that they have a right to mistreat citizens. The idea that we have to follow illegal orders or we face being assaulted or killed by officers if we stand up for our rights.
We have to stop the idea that citizens can mistreat authorities and flaunt the law. It isn't an illegal order for a police officer to ask or tell you to get out of a vehicle once they've made a traffic stop. It is pushing your luck to taunt the officer or argue with them about it.
 

I have a friend who was charged with disorderly conduct after flipping off a cop, and the judge dropped the charges... free speech.

Your Right to Expressive Conduct​

The act of โ€œflipping the birdโ€ at a police officer is considered a form of expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Courts have consistently affirmed that criticism of government officials, including law enforcement, is a component of free speech, even when conveyed through a gesture many find disrespectful. This legal shield means that the gesture alone, without other escalating factors, is not a sufficient reason for an arrest or police stop.

The legal reasoning for this protection is that police officers are expected to show a higher degree of restraint than an ordinary citizen. Federal courts, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, have ruled that an obscene gesture by itself does not constitute a criminal act or provide a lawful basis for detention. In the case of Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard, the court noted that while rudeness may violate social norms, it does not make the act illegal or punishable by law.

This protection prevents authorities from suppressing distasteful expression to ban unpopular viewpoints. A simple, non-threatening gesture toward an officer is recognized as a form of communication that falls under constitutionally protected speech.

Trumptards are the biggest pussies. Notice how trumptards cry like bitches when there tiny dicked god king is criticized?

Talk abou needing safe spaces.
 
Back
Top