—> ICE / Immigration / Video from ICE shooter POV released, firestorm ensues

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 139K
  • Politics 
He’s referring to a different officer. The reason the police opened fire was because the first officer through the door got dropped by Taylor’s boyfriend.
Yes, I know. And that was the crux of the "debate" between us. Can an officer shoot blindly into an apartment in an apartment building because another officer was shot. Start a new thread if you want to do this again. I will cite the same statutes and cases I did last time, and you will probably ignore them as you did last time and insist on your opinions without support, and it will go nowhere.
 
I
Yes, I know. And that was the crux of the "debate" between us. Can an officer shoot blindly into an apartment in an apartment building because another officer was shot. Start a new thread if you want to do this again. I will cite the same statutes and cases I did last time, and you will probably ignore them as you did last time and insist on your opinions without support, and it will go nowhere.
I’m totally fine not rehashing this discussion.
 
Do not let anyone bring "he was previously dragged" into this conversation.

That is **maybe** a mitigating factor, but it would never get him off a murder charge. It might lower to manslaughter at the most if he could prove that he was somehow psychologically injured by the experience and not in control of his actions at the time.

However, that would be a shitty defense because at no point does he give any sign of being scared, traumatized, or anything. He holsters his gun like it was just business as usual.

But most importantly it is not at all relevant and they are going to try to use this as the new justification -- they never mind shifting their story three or six or infinity times.
 
As sad as the murder was, it's so disheartening to see so many people justifying the murder by openly lying about what happened.

The fact that so many people are completely fine with what happened in this heinous act is so disturbing. It just really reinforces the divide in this country.
Not lying so much as seeing what they want to see. The angle from the front makes it look much worse than the angle from the rear.

It is a bit like instant replay in sports. Fans will argue with crystal clear video evidence and insist that it shows the opposite of what it actually shows. They are not necessarily lying; they simply use their bias to filter video evidence in a way that conforms to those biases.
 
So JD is referencing the killer, Jonathan Ross, as being dragged by a car after an "operation" back in June as an excuse for why he killed this American 37yo mother.

Here is a report about what happened in June and compare that to this incident. I hope mainstream media will pursue, confirm, and contextualize the June incident as reported.

 
Do not let anyone bring "he was previously dragged" into this conversation.

That is **maybe** a mitigating factor, but it would never get him off a murder charge. It might lower to manslaughter at the most if he could prove that he was somehow psychologically injured by the experience and not in control of his actions at the time.

However, that would be a shitty defense because at no point does he give any sign of being scared, traumatized, or anything. He holsters his gun like it was just business as usual.

But most importantly it is not at all relevant and they are going to try to use this as the new justification -- they never mind shifting their story three or six or infinity times.
And if they argue the previous dragging affected his judgment, then the agency was negligent in keeping him in the field with a gun near vehicles.
 
And we all know the truth: If this happened under a Dem administration, the exact same cowards sitting on their hands in silence now would be clutching their pearls while screaming to the high heavens about the "evil radical left." To hell with them all.
No need to hypothecate. Just look at Ashley Babbit. Even though that technically happened under Trump, the conservatives insist that she was “unarmed” and “murdered”.
 
Not lying so much as seeing what they want to see. The angle from the front makes it look much worse than the angle from the rear.

It is a bit like instant replay in sports. Fans will argue with crystal clear video evidence and insist that it shows the opposite of what it actually shows. They are not necessarily lying; they simply use their bias to filter video evidence in a way that conforms to those biases.
What about the part about the officer being grievously injured when he clearly was not? And the part about the woman being a domestic terrorist? And the part about how this was a lawful exercise of ICE authority?

You are giving them way too much credit. At best, they are seeing what they want to see and then lying to complete the circle. At best.
 
So JD is referencing the killer, Jonathan Ross, as being dragged by a car after an "operation" back in June as an excuse for why he killed this American 37yo mother.

Here is a report about what happened in June and compare that to this incident. I hope mainstream media will pursue, confirm, and contextualize the June incident as reported.

Yes. He was engaged in criminal conduct at the time. He was literally carjacking.
 
What about the part about the officer being grievously injured when he clearly was not? And the part about the woman being a domestic terrorist? And the part about how this was a lawful exercise of ICE authority?

You are giving them way too much credit. At best, they are seeing what they want to see and then lying to complete the circle. At best.
You can easily get domestic terrorist with a MAGA brain without lying. You just perceive the video as the woman aiming for the officer. If that is how you see the world, that is how you will see the video.

Try arguing on a gamethread when the video shows whether the receiver had possession or whether it was targeting.

Doesn’t matter how clear the video evidence is. People see what they want to see.
 
He definitely did not coin the term. In fact, Gorsuch used it multiple times at oral argument in the tariff case.
I'm fairly confident he didn't coin the term, but I'm pretty sure French has been using the term as applied to the Trump admin for at least a few months (at least since before that tariff oral argument).
 
You can easily get domestic terrorist with a MAGA brain without lying. You just perceive the video as the woman aiming for the officer. If that is how you see the world, that is how you will see the video.

Try arguing on a gamethread when the video shows whether the receiver had possession or whether it was targeting.
Sure. How often does the possession question get followed by, "and then the receiver had to be carted off the field on a stretcher"?
 
I'm fairly confident he didn't coin the term, but I'm pretty sure French has been using the term as applied to the Trump admin for at least a few months (at least since before that tariff oral argument).
Sure. I don't know, I read his columns but not that carefully.
 


No politician is as loathsome as Vance. He makes Trump look more likable by comparison. Trump reviewed the footage of the shooting and called it “awful.” Vance saw it and thought himself, “How can I talk about this in a way that titillates the online right?” I think it’ll be much harder for him to come back from this when it’s over because unlike others, Vance can’t feign ignorance. He can’t say he didn’t know better. The original premise of Vance was that he offered a smarter, thoughtful version of Trumpism. Instead he managed to serve up an uglier, dumber version of it, covered in Millennial Snot. Generationally unlikable person.
 
Back
Top