US Politics

[DanH]

You're personal and rude when you get cornered, then cry about people who give you s*** back.

Student level debater

I see bully boy doesn’t like it when someone stands up to him. Just like the rest of you insecure fragile egos on here.

 

[DanH]

Given that he slides back about 3 feet, yeah. Unless he's that good he did a moonwalk just before shooting

So you can’t see any impact on the video then? Thanks.

Maybe as you can clearly see on the other videos he takes a big step/little jump back when she starts to move off and draws his weapon. Before firing it 3 times in her face.

 

[Badger11]

So you can’t see any impact on the video then? Thanks.

Maybe as you can clearly see on the other videos he takes a big step/little jump back when she starts to move off and draws his weapon. Before firing it 3 times in her face.

Pedant point.

This keeps coming up on here "he fired 3 times" as though firing less is somehow better. It's not really the issue. Officers are trained that when they fire they should use sufficient force to put somebody down.

So firing 3 times was probably the correct decision (to stop an offender).

The real issue is should he have fired in the first place and that's what needs to be investigated.

Once he made the decision to fire it's not Hollywood where the hero shoots the gun out of the villains hand. No you shoot to kill or to stop and one bullet may not be sufficient to do that.

 

[HKOwen]

So you can’t see any impact on the video then? Thanks.

Maybe as you can clearly see on the other videos he takes a big step/little jump back when she starts to move off and draws his weapon. Before firing it 3 times in her face.

Seriously, do you see yourself as some kind of keyboard warrior fighting against the forces of evil on this message board, outnumbered but bravely carrying on.

A more stupid version of Wisbech eejit so to speak.

 

[DanH]

Seriously, do you see yourself as some kind of keyboard warrior fighting against the forces of evil on this message board, outnumbered but bravely carrying on.

A more stupid version of Wisbech eejit so to speak.

Do you think you should be allowed to spout whatever you want on here unchallenged even if what you are saying is demonstrably untrue?

Just because I’m outnumbered doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

 

[DanH]

Pedant point.

This keeps coming up on here "he fired 3 times" as though firing less is somehow better. It's not really the issue. Officers are trained that when they fire they should use sufficient force to put somebody down.

So firing 3 times was probably the correct decision (to stop an offender).

The real issue is should he have fired in the first place and that's what needs to be investigated.

Once he made the decision to fire it's not Hollywood where the hero shoots the gun out of the villains hand. No you shoot to kill or to stop and one bullet may not be sufficient to do that.

The bit in bold is absolutely spot on. The Trump administration will not allow it to be though and that is what is so wrong about it.

 

[DanH]

Seriously, do you see yourself as some kind of keyboard warrior fighting against the forces of evil on this message board, outnumbered but bravely carrying on.

A more stupid version of Wisbech eejit so to speak.

You bully boys really don’t like anyone standing up to you, do you?

 

[Stirlingsays]

You bully boys really don’t like anyone standing up to you, do you?

Dan, it's a opinion forum, no one 'stands up to anybody'.

There's no negative consequence to posting, no one's being battered for disagreeing.

No one's a hero for clicking 'Post reply'.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Here's an opinion from a certain infamous right winger on some empathy on the right over this....Not saying I agree with everything he says here, but I'd agree with a reduced version of it.

'Honestly it needs to be said that a lot of supposedly based people were crying over this pumpkin head because they are pure simps for women and fundamentally do not believe that a woman can ever be held accountable for her actions.

This is a 37 year old grown ass woman with three kids who is larping as the resistance in another state in the middle of the work week. There is no "saving" a person like this. This is not a person who suffers from lack of a "good man."

Women like this are sabotaging our entire civilization and simps let them because they are weak.'

 

[Stirlingsays]

The left had zero sympathy for Ashley Babbit.

They gave the right nothing.

Nothing.

 

[HKOwen]

Do you think you should be allowed to spout whatever you want on here unchallenged even if what you are saying is demonstrably untrue?

Just because I’m outnumbered doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

Thank you for proving my point.

What is demonstrably untrue, and please demonstrate why

 

[HKOwen]

Dan, it's a opinion forum, no one 'stands up to anybody'.

There's no negative consequence to posting, no one's being battered for disagreeing.

No one's a hero for clicking 'Post reply'.

I can understand his frustration when almost everybody else on here is wrong and he is right. Medically called Wisbechitis

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

He's never been interested in the truth.

The truth here is that whatever went on earlier could not, and does not, justify anyone, especially a trained officer of the law, shooting someone three times. Anyone who suggests otherwise is lying.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Pedant point.

This keeps coming up on here "he fired 3 times" as though firing less is somehow better. It's not really the issue. Officers are trained that when they fire they should use sufficient force to put somebody down.

So firing 3 times was probably the correct decision (to stop an offender).

The real issue is should he have fired in the first place and that's what needs to be investigated.

Once he made the decision to fire it's not Hollywood where the hero shoots the gun out of the villains hand. No you shoot to kill or to stop and one bullet may not be sufficient to do that.

in a fast moving situation there is no opportunity to assess the effectiveness of each single shot. From what I gleaned from youtube etc, the 'double tap' , firing in small groups of 2 or 3 rounds gives the best statistical chance of hitting the target area. You also have to bear in mind that the driver is a moving target.

The USA is also seemingly prepping for some kind of action in Iran. I think 2026 is going to be an extremely profitable year for American arms companies. I wonder who the significant shareholders are ?

 

[Stirlingsays]

in a fast moving situation there is no opportunity to assess the effectiveness of each single shot. From what I gleaned from youtube etc, the 'double tap' , firing in small groups of 2 or 3 rounds gives the best statistical chance of hitting the target area. You also have to bear in mind that the driver is a moving target.

The USA is also seemingly prepping for some kind of action in Iran. I think 2026 is going to be an extremely profitable year for American arms companies. I wonder who the significant shareholders are ?

Yep, some shareholders will be filling their boots.

Especially if Trump gets his wish on raising the military budget by fifty percent.

Trump sees himself as rebuilding Rome.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The left had zero sympathy for Ashley Babbit.

They gave the right nothing.

Nothing.

Completely untrue. There was, and is, a huge amount of sympathy for anyone who loses their life in such circumstances. Especially someone who was caught up in the moment and wound up by lies and rhetoric, but not overtly political.

The contrast between what the two officers faced is the difference. One faced a mob of people trying to attack him and others. The other faced a single woman trying to flee from him and others. If the officer who shot Ashley Babbit had encountered her, unarmed, on her own, and been brushed by her as she ran away from him, but then shot her 3 times, killing her, he would have been prosecuted and would probably now be in jail.

 

[Stirlingsays]

The truth here is that whatever went on earlier could not, and does not, justify anyone, especially a trained officer of the law, shooting someone three times. Anyone who suggests otherwise is lying.

Coming from someone who spent a large part of his career selling lies that's really profound.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Here's an opinion from a certain infamous right winger on some empathy on the right over this....Not saying I agree with everything he says here, but I'd agree with a reduced version of it.

'Honestly it needs to be said that a lot of supposedly based people were crying over this pumpkin head because they are pure simps for women and fundamentally do not believe that a woman can ever be held accountable for her actions.

This is a 37 year old grown ass woman with three kids who is larping as the resistance in another state in the middle of the work week. There is no "saving" a person like this. This is not a person who suffers from lack of a "good man."

Women like this are sabotaging our entire civilization and simps let them because they are weak.'

He is entitled to his opinion as you are to your sympathy for it, no matter how distasteful it seems to others.

It is though completely irrelevant to the event. Whatever you think of anyone else does not justify them being shot.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Coming from someone who spent a large part of his career selling lies that's really profound.

I obviously need to remind you what I have said several times. Selling lies is a common, and completely wrong, preconception of the role of marketing. It’s certainly not what I did.

The role of marketing is to identify what people need and then to present it in ways so they want it. It’s the observation of trends and how technological developments are going to impact our lives.

 

[eaglesdare]

He is entitled to his opinion as you are to your sympathy for it, no matter how distasteful it seems to others.

It is though completely irrelevant to the event. Whatever you think of anyone else does not justify them being shot.

Comming from the guy who tried to rationalise the shooting of Charlie kirk and death wishes for Trump is a bit rich.