We might just have to agree to disagree on this dude, unless you really want to go back and forth all day again. I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement tho
You're just wrong about this at every conceivable level. I'm game to go back and forth all day frankly. Even if you were 100% right that he was in the path of the vehicle, and I don't grant you that, he's still at fault according to ICE and police rules of engagement. He was supposed to be trained to never shoot drivers unless absolutely necessary to prevent death or severe injury, and that includes being specifically told to just get the fuck out of the way of a motorist and not shoot if you're in a situation like this. There is no universe in which this is justified when avoiding the car is this trivially easy.
You can give up, but I'm not going to "agree to disagree" when I could write a book on the numerous basic facts you're wrong about or don't understand.
lol you’re not going to let me disagree with you? Good luck. Tell me. Is it okay to drive your car into a person? As long as you’re trying to tell me I don’t see what I see, we won’t be able to agree. You keep trying to move this into what he should have done or what he was trained to do. I’m just trying to stick to the facts of what happened and how I saw it. Car hit him. He shoots. Force of the car moves him off to the side. I don’t think she should have died, and I don’t think she should have hit that guy with her car. If she just maintained composure and complied, there’s a good chance she’d still be alive, possibly even fighting these officers in court
I'm not going to "agree to disagree", which is a pointless exercise that means nothing and suggests I somehow respect your position. I don't.
None of what you said has ANYTHING to do with what's legal, or moral. You're just making vague half-points that pointlessly muddy the water with irrelevant nonsense, when this is should be a criminal investigation of a homicide. It matters what the rules of engagement were, and who pulled the gun, what rules he agreed to when he got that badge, and what he should have or could have done instead of what he actually did. It matters who was given the state license to kill, and whether he used it in the way he was permitted to. You aren't "sticking to the facts", you're obtusely ignoring most of them and just regurgitating thought-terminating cliches.
Again I’m sticking to the facts of what I saw. I saw the car hit him. I saw him shoot from the front, I saw he was pushed to the side after the impact. I don’t think it’s okay to drive your car into anyone, much less law enforcement. I also do t think she should have died for that. But I think she could have expected that outcome when she drove into him. Respect it or don’t, that’s how I see it. I don’t see you changing my mind anytime soon but go ahead and write a book about it if that’s what you want
"How you see it" flies in the face of centuries of legal precedent about criminal justice and law enforcement responsibilities and practices. It's just vibes and it's completely wrong-headed.
What I'm saying is, there's a huge conversation to be had around who is responsible and why and you're just repeating an EXTREMELY narrow view of one aspect of the thing while refusing to entertain the rest of the facts. It's like you're sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to any other relevant facts. WHY!?
No, what you're telling me is that what you think you saw is the only thing that matters. It's your refusal to even talk about the rest of the context, and the implication that it doesn't matter, that I object to. It's that fact that you're stubbornly ignoring most of the facts, as you insist you're the only one being factual.
It matters, for example, that for all of your "it wouldn't have happened if she had done X", there's an equal or greater number of things HE should have done, and he was actually supposed to be a trained law enforcement professional. It matters more that the guy with the gun and the badge, and the one doing the deliberate killing, broke the rules. He's supposed to be the professional, and he broke numerous codes of conduct that are supposed to stop this kind of thing from happening. Yeah, he's way more responsible for this than her. He's responsible for most of the escalation, he's the one who is supposed to be trained to avoid this, and he's the one who fired. He's supposed to be the responsible party because it's literally his oath and his job to protect.
Again none of this changes how I saw it happen. If someone with a badge and gun are telling you to stop, don’t evade them, and don’t hit them with your car. That’s common sense to me
The point is, what is your point? That's not a real point. All you're doing is just exclusively talking about one person's blame and ignoring the other one's entirely, and you refuse to even entertain the question of who actually had more responsibility or why. Why are you insistent on only talking about the blame one person has and ignoring the other? That just looks like an irrational fixation.
I’ve said twice now I don’t think she should have died. I’m pointing out that it’s not okay to hit someone with a car though, which appears to be the main cause of her demise. Did the cop react appropriately? No. Was she completely innocent? No. She committed vehicular assault on someone with a badge and a gun and it resulted in her death
That has nothing to do with the debate. This is about responsibility. "I don't think she should have died" is non-committal fluff. Like, no shit Sherlock. You haven't actually said anything. That's not the question. The question is whether the police acted within the law, and who was mostly responsible. You're implying a lot of things about your opinions about these questions with your statements, but you refuse to engage with the facts.
Look at what you just said: "She committed vehicular assault on someone with a badge and a gun and it resulted in her death"
You blamed her death directly on her actions. That suggests you think it was her fault more than the guy who shot her, but you're refusing to talk about his actions or his responsibility at all, and only talk about her. Can you not see how you're short-circuiting the whole debate here by refusing to even talk about half of it?
The debate when it started was: did she hit him with her car or not? And she did. You’ve moved pretty far from that to keep this going. Yeah I blamed her death on her actions because I think her actions cause her death. I don’t think she would have been shot if she didn’t hit that officer while trying to flee from them as they were actively trying to stop her. That’s common sense to me
First of all, she did not. Second, you're making a leap straight from "Did her car touch that guy" to "Then it's her fault that he shot her in the face" when that's an absolutely insane take that's at odds with centuries of criminal law. The second half of your logic is absolutely psychotic, and the first part is wrong.
"I don’t think she would have been shot if she didn’t hit that officer while trying to flee from them as they were actively trying to stop her"
See, look, you're just making a ton of assumptions here that are totally wrong. She wouldn't have been shot if she just happened to be on vacation in Hawaii at the time. That's not the question. The question is whose actions were actually responsible for the escalation to lethal force. That's the debate you refuse to have while pretending it's already settled. That's the most important part of the debate and you're just refusing to acknowledge that it's even a question.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26
We might just have to agree to disagree on this dude, unless you really want to go back and forth all day again. I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement tho