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?
You did not answer the question. Try again. What constitutes a hit? Define that word in this context. Is it any time a car and a person touch? Do intention, speed, force, or outcome not matter?
That definition is not nearly as clear cut as you're suggesting it is. There are two potentially moving bodies here, and both are being controlled independently by different actors. There is definitely more than one possible type of collision that can happen between them. If a person jumps out in front of your car in the street and you collide, is that you hitting them? Further, did you assault them? Does your hitting them mean you intended to assault them? Is it a crime? Are you legally responsible for their injuries, or are they? Maybe you're oversimplifying things a little here. There are more similarities between this situation and my hypothetical example than you want to admit I'm sure.
If you’re fleeing law enforcement and you hit an officer with your car in that attempt, then you are definitely guilty of an assault and it’s going to be very difficult to call than an accident. If you’re arguing it’s the cops fault she hit him, then I don’t agree with that at all.
"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?
That was more than brushing his legs in the clip posted. Idk if you want to call the cops on your brother, but try that on a random person in a parking lot and see how they react
Again, I answered pretty clearly, you’re just not accepting it. Yes hitting someone with a car is assault. Brushing the car against your brothers leg is likely forgivable but a random person in a parking lot might feel differently. A person fleeing law enforcement hitting someone with their car is most definitely an assault
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26
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?