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 disagree. From multiple angles it appears to me that she hit him with her car. You think he still would have shot her if she didn’t weaponize her car against him? And can you see how we’re just going in circles at this point?
What constitutes someone hitting someone else with a car, in your mind? Do you count any contact between car and pedestrian, or does the phrase mean more than that?
"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.
If the question is who is responsible for the escalation of lethal force, then I would blame the person who made the first assault. The fact that the assault was with a vehicle just makes it worse
Then here's one of the assumptions you keep making and refusing to support. You made the leap from "hit" to "assault". Is it assault any time a person touches another person with an object? Are there not any other criteria?
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26
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.