I’ve already seen the videos. Calling those tragedies murder is extremely disingenuous. The man who defended himself against the vehicle ramming wasn’t even charged IN A BLUE STATE.
Shooting the gun carrying nurse was potentially preventable but he forced their hand. All those idiots blowing whistles should be charged as accessories if that ever went to court.
Thumbs down all you like. It changes nothing.
She did not. She was (admittedly dangerously) moving the vehicle with the ICE officer in potential harm’s way. Then, he got out of harm’s way, she started driving AWAY from him, and he shot her from behind. Watch the video.
You don’t have to be fleeing for your life to earn the right to not get shot lmao. She was no longer presenting an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death to the officer when he shot her. That is murder.
He didn’t shoot until after she ceased contact, and that’s what matters. If he had shot her while he was being dragged it would be justified. He waited until he was safe, so it wasn’t.
Your personal issues do not give you a pass to shoot someone after the threat has ended. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
Shockingly that doesn’t matter. If you don’t like what’s in the constitution, then gather enough support to pass an amendment. If you can’t, then it is working as intended. If you don’t like that, you can go to another country and stop fucking up mine please.
I’m not in the US but we have the same laws largely speaking.
Imagine if we applied this standard to sexual assault. She rammed him. If you can’t see that we have nothing more to discuss. I agree it may not have been her intent to hurt him. The legal standard is ‘what would a reasonable person in that situation do without the benefit of heindsight.’ She forced his hand and I’m sad her three children were left without one of their mothers.
Then your opinion matters even less than the illegal immigrants you viscerally hate for some reason.
Unless you live in Liberia you probably don’t actually. The US’s constitution, for better or worse, is extremely unique.
We do??? You can’t kill someone in self defense after they assaulted you, sexually or otherwise.
The legal standard is generallg actually if a reasonable person would be in fear for their life, and as a non-American you clearly don’t know the precedent in most jurisdictions is that a reasonable person would not be in fear for their life after the threat has ended.
This isn’t true. There are (or were) three primary videos in circulation. One of them clearly shows her vehicle made contact with his torso. He wasn’t even charged with an offence. The governor of Minnesota signed a law permitting law enforcement to shoot threatening drivers even if they don’t make physical contact.
‘Murder’ is and incorrect and misleading term with legal ramifications. So is ‘execution.’ None of these terms are applicable, unless you are trying to convince more crazy people to attack law enforcement officers. Don’t do that.
Funnily enough US common law is based upon my countries laws.
I don’t hate immigrants. I don’t even hate criminals. I just don’t want them around me commuting crimes.
He didn’t shoot her in the back. At least one of his bullets went through the windscreen and he couldn’t have anticipated her next movements like a Jedi.
If you knew what you were talking about you would know:
But Tommy Robinson probably doesn’t talk about that stuff does he?
I agree. An independent body should decide what penalty is warranted after a jury of the offender’s peers determines their culpability. I was referencing the act of ‘moving a vehicle’ to point it at another human being before accelerating into him. “I’m sorry officer but she didn’t move out of the way as I moved towards her with an erect penis.” “Therefore I’m not guilty.”
I wasn’t talking about common law there. My comments were in reference to anchor babies. US law was largely based on British laws and values minus the monarchy.
What does Tommy Robinson have to do with anything? If you’re implying he is the source of my worldview then you’re wrong.
You were, actually. You say so yourself in about two sentences.
Birthright citizenship has even less to do with common law than self defense does, so not sure what point you’re making.
Delusional. Even if true, the keyword there is “was”
You’re a Brit who hates immigrants and can’t stop talking about US politics. What doesn’t Tommy Robinson have to do with it? If I were wrong, you’d have said you don’t follow or support him instead of incredulously asking what he has to do with anything.
Hence the reason I used WAS. Past. Tense.
Tommy Robinson has nothing to do with this and I DON’T HATE IMMIGRANTS. Stop making things up.
I don’t follow or support Tommy Robinson. He did good work exposing the grooming gangs and advocating for children but that’s it. I don’t even know where to find him online.
Also, this is an international forum where a staff member introduced the topic of US politics. Stop pointing fingers at me. I don’t think this is the place either.
I agree. But we must also recognise law enforcement officers are HUMAN. He didn’t commit murder. Your assertion that facts don’t care about feelings is correct. Unless he is charged and convicted of committing a murder in broad daylight with multiple witnesses then claiming MURDER is a lie.
Do you realise this is the same logic used to imprison the innocent in totalitarian societies? I didn’t adequately address your assertion / accusation that I’m a Tommy Robinson supporter so I must be one. And thus I must hate immigrants. Which makes me wrong about another unrelated issue somehow in your mind. Then I get thumbs down and bot emojis to reinforce the point. I shouldn’t have believed my lying eyes. Please don’t report me to the evil authorities you hate so much.
Damn, pulling out the Wikipedia policy for death categorization. You’re correct it’s a “killing”.
I actually assessed that you hate immigrants based on your words and desire to spend hours arguing about the state of another country’s immigration system in defense of mass deportations and state-sanctioned murder in support thereof and thus concluded that you’re a fan of Robinson, not the other way around. Keep up.
The same way consensual sex and rape are two different activities. Words really matter in this context. Stochastic terrorism is wrong. We live in a civil society and false claims of rape, murder, insurrection, etc gets people killed. We must use words in a responsible manner when reporting real events.
It’s funny how you don’t afford the same privilege to ICE’s victims.
Why are you only arguing for the due process of the murderer and not his victim?
You might notice I’m not saying that he should be locked up without a trial, I think that like all accused criminals he should be put on trial. Unfortunately, his victim was deprived of that same right when he extrajudicially executed her.
@Man bro give it a rest. You are alone here. The last 25 comments on this thread are you vs everyone else
The PrivacyGuides community evidently disapproves of your politics en masse. Reflect on that & move on
I often talk about MY countries immigration system. Both the US and UK have a southern border with immigration challenges. I am highly critical of my own government.
There is no such thing as ‘state sanctioned murder.’ That is a contradiction, unless you are referring to assasination, which I consider immoral. The US government doesn’t officially sanction assasinations. Although Obama did kill a US citizen in a drone strike on foreign soil so maybe they do.
Faulty conclusion. Assumptions can be dangerous.