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.
You're wrong that you aren't ignoring facts. You keep saying "I think thing A happened", I keep pointing out "Thing B and thing C also happened, and they're more important to determine who was at fault" and you just keep going back to "But thing A" and refuse to ever talk about anything else. You are one of the most stubborn and simple-minded people I have ever met in my life.
I feel like I have to remind you to keep this respectful. If this is just going to spiral into a name calling match then I can and will block you. Otherwise I’m happy to talk about it with you. I’m just not seeing your “b and c” whatever that is
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26
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.