Definition of stupid, taking a gun and confronting law enforcement

[Frenchaigle]

Good luck with that, when the facts don't suit the narrative, make up some

Yes 7 sitting on him is incorrect, 7 around him and 3 maybe 4 holding/ Kneeling on him while one removes his weapon and another ( now two apparently) shoots him 10 times in the back .

In the OP Phil barber reckons one of the shooters is ‘alarmed at something’ not sure how he comes to this conclusion. Sounds like he is trying to justify this killing .
It’s also possible to theorise that the officer waited till the victim was disarmed before shooting ,you can see a shiny object being removed before shots ring out .

Arguing about how many people are sitting on him is splitting hairs and really is beside the point in the grand scheme of things .
If 3 /4 agents with another 3 circling can’t restrain someone on the ground belly down ,then perhaps they do need some training .

If some on here are happy with how this whole incident went down that’s for their conscience.
Mine is fine I sleep well .

 

[HKOwen]

Yes 7 sitting on him is incorrect, 7 around him and 3 maybe 4 holding/ Kneeling on him while one removes his weapon and another ( now two apparently) shoots him 10 times in the back .

In the OP Phil barber reckons one of the shooters is ‘alarmed at something’ not sure how he comes to this conclusion. Sounds like he is trying to justify this killing .
It’s also possible to theorise that the officer waited till the victim was disarmed before shooting ,you can see a shiny object being removed before shots ring out .

Arguing about how many people are sitting on him is splitting hairs and really is beside the point in the grand scheme of things .
If 3 /4 agents with another 3 circling can’t restrain someone on the ground belly down ,then perhaps they do need some training .

If some on here are happy with how this whole incident went down that’s for their conscience.
Mine is fine I sleep well .

At least you admit your error unlike many on here.

In the grand scheme of things in such a tragic and avoidable incident detail is very important.

The proximate cause was him going to a protest with a gun and confronting law enforcement doing their job.

What followed is of course tragic but there was a degree of contribution to his own demise.

You have no idea how others think but thanks for being a better human. 🙄

 

[Stirlingsays]

If some on here are happy with how this whole incident went down that’s for their conscience.
Mine is fine I sleep well .

Bit melodramatic.

This is an event happening half a world away.

The guy got himself involved in a dangerous situation, had a gun on him and something may or may not be dodgy about how he met his end.

Not sure how American law enforcement works is meant to disturb us over here.

The guy who shot and killed Ashley Babbit.....who was walking up stairs, unarmed and not struggling with anyone....that guy was awarded a medal.

From their reaction the left celebrated, justified it fully and slept very soundly.

So don't expect any disturbed sleep.

 

[Frenchaigle]

Bit melodramatic.

This is an event happening half a world away.

The guy got himself involved in a dangerous situation, had a gun on him and something may or may not be dodgy about how he met his end.

Not sure how American law enforcement works is meant to disturb us over here.

The guy who shot and killed Ashley Babbit.....who was walking up stairs, unarmed and not struggling with anyone....that guy was awarded a medal.

From their reaction the left celebrated, justified it fully and slept very soundly.

So don't expect any disturbed sleep.

Are you taking the piss ?

Ashley Babbit was trying to force her way through a door that was being smashed to pieces by a mob ,trying to gain access to the house of reps .

Walking up stairs ! Seriously !

Maybe the officer fired at Babbit because he became ‘ alarmed ‘ 😂

You are so far down the rabbit hole you might pop up in Australia.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

At least you admit your error unlike many on here.

In the grand scheme of things in such a tragic and avoidable incident detail is very important.

The proximate cause was him going to a protest with a gun and confronting law enforcement doing their job.

What followed is of course tragic but there was a degree of contribution to his own demise.

You have no idea how others think but thanks for being a better human. 🙄

I'd suggest the 'proximate cause' of his death was the officer(s) deciding to unload bullets into an unarmed man on the floor.

The suggestion on here seems to be that if you do something illegal and/or dangerous it is reasonable for the state to shoot you, but this is just fundamentally untrue. The criteria for the state to shoot someone is an imminent risk of death or serious harm; there is no reasonable argument that an unarmed man on the floor, with multiple offers restraining him, is an imminent threat to anyone.

The threshold for justifying a shooting is surely tied to the threat level, not just illegal or disruptive behaviour.

 

[DanH]

I'd suggest the 'proximate cause' of his death was the officer(s) deciding to unload bullets into an unarmed man on the floor.

The suggestion on here seems to be that if you do something illegal and/or dangerous it is reasonable for the state to shoot you, but this is just fundamentally untrue. The criteria for the state to shoot someone is an imminent risk of death or serious harm; there is no reasonable argument that an unarmed man on the floor, with multiple offers restraining him, is an imminent threat to anyone.

The threshold for justifying a shooting is surely tied to the threat level, not just illegal or disruptive behaviour.

I have it on good authority his death certificate has ‘attended a protest’ as cause of death.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Autocracies around the world have, for many years, employed a sound method of engaging ready and willing psychos to do their dirty work, like death squads, torture etc. Release willing nutters from prison and give them a uniform, immunity and a very wide license.

Of course, this is not ICE. But ICE has trappings of it. Dumb arse rednecks with a deep routed racist ideology and obsession with firearms. Those qualities had them rejected from police and even military applications (the latter of which being notoriously lax on psychometric testing) but where ICE opened their arms wide. The best they could get till Trump came along was a security guard at a shopping centre.

And it is these useless, prejudiced nothings who have been handed a badge, a gun and next to zero training and been tasked with crown control.

Did the USA learn nothing from Kent State?

The Land of the Free??

Does it take special glasses to view things the way you do?

Here we have the government trying to arrest some of the ruthless criminals that Joe Biden allowed into his country and being met with resistance by rent a crowd loony leftists being used to create friction for political gain. They are already victims without being shot. They are brainwashed cannon fodder being manipulated so that some congressman can get more votes.

Are there some poorly trained or trigger happy individuals in ICE? Quite possibly. Something you could say about any law enforcement agency. Would this have happened if the self serving Democrat mayors had not banned the police from assisting? Probably not.

The Biden administration caused this situation, not Trump. He is doing what a President is supposed to do, protecting his people.

So why don't you want to talk about the serious damage that mass immigration has done to just about every Western country? ICE isn't really the problem is it.

It's amazing how many apparently intelligent people are indoctrinated into believing that removing murderers, thieves and rapists who arrived illegally is a bad thing.
It means that they actually side with radicalised swivel eyed leftists who probably have mental health issues in many cases. This is the level to which people will stoop to make Trump the bad guy.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I'd suggest the 'proximate cause' of his death was the officer(s) deciding to unload bullets into an unarmed man on the floor.

The suggestion on here seems to be that if you do something illegal and/or dangerous it is reasonable for the state to shoot you, but this is just fundamentally untrue. The criteria for the state to shoot someone is an imminent risk of death or serious harm; there is no reasonable argument that an unarmed man on the floor, with multiple offers restraining him, is an imminent threat to anyone.

The threshold for justifying a shooting is surely tied to the threat level, not just illegal or disruptive behaviour.

Another one who wants to focus on the symptom and not the cause.

Where was your bleeding heart for the victims of Iran?

We have your number.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Another one who wants to focus on the symptom and not the cause.

Where was your bleeding heart for the victims of Iran?

We have your number.

I want to focus on what happened.

You want to zoom out from what happened and start rambling about everything but, which I think says it all.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I want to focus on what happened.

You want to zoom out from what happened and start rambling about everything but, which I think says it all.

How many people were shot in Iran? Not a word from you.

You are transparent.

The guy who got shot went there to agitate. It's all about politics. Their string are being pulled by people who most likely hope some of them get shot.

Wake up. This is a dirty game, and useful idiots make it easy for them. Are you one of them?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

How many people were shot in Iran? Not a word from you.

You are transparent.

The guy got shot went there to agitate. It's all about politics. Their string are being pulled by people who most likely hope some of them get shot.

Wake up. This is a dirty game, and useful idiots make it easy for them. Are you one of them?

Not even hiding the whatabouttery these days - and you call me transparent.

Do you think people who 'agitate' deserve to be shot by the state?

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Not even hiding the whatabouttery these days - and you call me transparent.

Do you think people who 'agitate' deserve to be shot by the state?

The best way to avoid being shot is not to be there.

If you interfere with the arrest of illegal immigrant criminals then I have little sympathy.
I have even less sympathy for Jew hating leftists masquerading as humanitarians.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The best way to avoid being shot is not to be there.

If you interfere with the arrest of illegal immigrant criminals then I have little sympathy.
I have even less sympathy for Jew hating leftists masquerading as humanitarians.

That's a logic you could apply to every single shooting in history - if they weren't there, they wouldn't have been shot.

An intellectual powerhouse.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

That's a logic you could apply to every single shooting in history - if they weren't there, they wouldn't have been shot.

An intellectual powerhouse.

But we aren't talking about every single shooting.

We are discussing the rank stupidity of people who are trying to stop the removal of ruthless criminals because they are indoctrinated with the loony leftist sickness.

 

[Phil’s Barber]

Yes 7 sitting on him is incorrect, 7 around him and 3 maybe 4 holding/ Kneeling on him while one removes his weapon and another ( now two apparently) shoots him 10 times in the back .

In the OP Phil barber reckons one of the shooters is ‘alarmed at something’ not sure how he comes to this conclusion. Sounds like he is trying to justify this killing .
It’s also possible to theorise that the officer waited till the victim was disarmed before shooting ,you can see a shiny object being removed before shots ring out .

Arguing about how many people are sitting on him is splitting hairs and really is beside the point in the grand scheme of things .
If 3 /4 agents with another 3 circling can’t restrain someone on the ground belly down ,then perhaps they do need some training .

If some on here are happy with how this whole incident went down that’s for their conscience.
Mine is fine I sleep well .

Yes 7 sitting on him is incorrect.

So now it’s two people who fired shots? That’s interesting because armchair experts have previously been saying just one person fired shots (It’s amazing what waiting for the facts to be established can do).

I absolutely did NOT say that one of the shooters is alarmed at something. I said one of the agents appeared to be alarmed at something and drew their side arm. I cannot say who actually fired shots and nor would i try to from the footage I’ve seen.

One of the agents trying to restrain Pretti reacts spontaneously to something they have seen or heard. His actions are very apparent and he suddenly draws his sidearm, steps away and covers the subject with his weapon, whilst stepping around him to remain in a position to cover the subject.

No one is arguing about how many people are sitting on him. Beak initiated it by saying 7 people were sitting on him. Others, including me, pointed out that immediately prior to the shooting a maximum of two people could be described as being on top of him. It is not splitting hairs (or besides the point in the grand scheme of things) when someone says 7 and the actual truth of the matter is 2. Facts matter, especially when you are talking about trying to restrain someone. The difference between Two people and Seven people is NOT splitting hairs!

You mention in relation to restraining someone ‘perhaps they do need some training’. Well perhaps you can enlighten us as to what training ICE agents have actually had in relation to restraining someone?

If you are drawing an inference that I am one of those ‘happy with how this whole incident went down’, then you are wrong. I have merely been correcting some shocking misinformation or misleading claims made by some ‘armchair experts’ and adding some balance where required. I have said throughout that it is unwise to draw conclusions or make proclamations until the full facts are established and the outcome of the investigation is known.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

But we aren't talking about every single shooting.

We are discussing the rank stupidity of people who are trying to stop the removal of ruthless criminals because they are indoctrinated with the loony leftist sickness.

We're talking about your ongoing struggle with logic - if you could apply the statement to every single shooting, it's just meaningless noise - it's adding nothing to the conversation and it's certainly doing nothing to justify the actions of the officer(s).

Again, if being stupid was a justification for being shot, that might matter. That's probably not a policy I'd be encouraging if I were you.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Yes 7 sitting on him is incorrect.

So now it’s two people who fired shots? That’s interesting because armchair experts have previously been saying just one person fired shots (It’s amazing what waiting for the facts to be established can do).

I absolutely did NOT say that one of the shooters is alarmed at something. I said one of the agents appeared to be alarmed at something and drew their side arm. I cannot say who actually fired shots and nor would i try to from the footage I’ve seen.

One of the agents trying to restrain Pretti reacts spontaneously to something they have seen or heard. His actions are very apparent and he suddenly draws his sidearm, steps away and covers the subject with his weapon, whilst stepping around him to remain in a position to cover the subject.

No one is arguing about how many people are sitting on him. Beak initiated it by saying 7 people were sitting on him. Others, including me, pointed out that immediately prior to the shooting a maximum of two people could be described as being on top of him. It is not splitting hairs (or besides the point in the grand scheme of things) when someone says 7 and the actual truth of the matter is 2. Facts matter, especially when you are talking about trying to restrain someone. The difference between Two people and Seven people is NOT splitting hairs!

You mention in relation to restraining someone ‘perhaps they do need some training’. Well perhaps you can enlighten us as to what training ICE agents have actually had in relation to restraining someone?

If you are drawing an inference that I am one of those ‘happy with how this whole incident went down’, then you are wrong. I have merely been correcting some shocking misinformation or misleading claims made by some ‘armchair experts’ and adding some balance where required. I have said throughout that it is unwise to draw conclusions or make proclamations until the full facts are established and the outcome of the investigation is known.

What information do you think an investigation could uncover that would justify the shooting?

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

We're talking about your ongoing struggle with logic - if you could apply the statement to every single shooting, it's just meaningless noise - it's adding nothing to the conversation and it's certainly doing nothing to justify the actions of the officer(s).

Again, if being stupid was a justification for being shot, that might matter. That's probably not a policy I'd be encouraging if I were you.

My logic tells me that you are Jew hating hypocrite who can't grasp the concept that putting yourself in danger by opposing law enforcement is a foolish idea.

You focus on the symptoms of these situations because you won't face the cause.
None of the idiot left will because it messes with their deluded sense of moral and intellectual superiority.


You do have previous for siding with murderers and terrorists, so we shouldn't be surprised.

I expect you have a Venezuelan flag in your window at your mum's house.

 

[eaglesdare]

My logic tells me that you are Jew hating hypocrite who can't grasp the concept that putting yourself in danger by opposing law enforcement is a foolish idea.

You focus on the symptoms of these situations because you won't face the cause.
None of the idiot left will because it messes with their deluded sense of moral and intellectual superiority.


You do have previous for siding with murderers and terrorists, so we shouldn't be surprised.

I expect you have a Venezuelan flag in your window at your mum's house.

And that really is the cusp of it. I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to impede law enforcement operations, resist arrest and bring a gun (legally or not).

 

[CPFCSaturn]

My logic tells me that you are Jew hating hypocrite who can't grasp the concept that putting yourself in danger by opposing law enforcement is a foolish idea.

You focus on the symptoms of these situations because you won't face the cause.
None of the idiot left will because it messes with their deluded sense of moral and intellectual superiority.


You do have previous for siding with murderers and terrorists, so we shouldn't be surprised.

I expect you have a Venezuelan flag in your window at your mum's house.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that foolish ideas are not a justification for being shot.

Off you go rambling again - can't land a blow on the topic so you're talking about Venezuela and Jews 🤣.

So easy.