President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
You can't be that stupid. You just can't.
Was one of those a choice? Think about this one carefully dumbass.
Just when I think you can't get worse, too.
k lets add in a choice for some victim blaming.
If George Floyd didn't choose to go to Cup Foods that evening, he wouldn't have been killed.
omg, i am victim blaming so hard.
k lets add in a choice for some victim blaming.
If George Floyd didn't choose to go to Cup Foods that evening, he wouldn't have been killed.
omg, i am victim blaming so hard.
I'm afraid you long ago disqualified yourself from this conversation my guy.
You're only trying to convince yourself here, and it's pathetic to watch. Back to ignore you do.
The gun simply gave them the excuse to do what they wanted to do. That much is very clear. No idea why something that obvious is being ignored.
oh ya people just wake up wanting to ruin their lives by killing people. LMAO If it was intentional its much more likely second or third degree murder having to listen to ****** karens whistling and getting in the way of his job all day.
Premeditative murder is a bold claim cotton lets see if it works out
It doesn't support your gotcha attempt. Like I said, it's probably 50/50 or better they shoot him anyway.
Thanks for making it clear you aren't trying to be intellectually honest, which everyone already knew anyway.
50/50... either they do or they don't.... remember when this was an intellectual forum about a math game. Like where are you pulling this number from.
Him having a firearm increased the chance of him getting unlawfully shot probably by x100 thats certainly an estimation but its a lot better then FIFTY FIFTY or are you saying it increased the chance of him getting shot by only 2x? if so your delusional. you should get out on the street and fight the police! its our only hope!
Ignore everyone that has a different opinion Gorgonian!
Anyway trump totally sharted. lmao
No one is victim blaming me and housenut are just clearly anti gun. Just because he brought a legal gun doesn't mean he was not unjustly killed. but it does mean he did a thing to increase his chances and people should probably learn form his mistake so he didn't die in vein? don't bring a gun to a protest guys you have no idea how insane that sounds to a non american. We generally call that a rebellion
Agree that it's greater than 0% he's shot if he's unarmed. Also greater than 0% that aliens come from outer space and abduct him if he's unarmed.
I think the better question, if our goal is to have less people shot by officers in America, is to ask about all the variables that increase your odds of being shot and how important are they.
Obviously being armed drastically increases your odds of being shot, but what all those other variables?
Are you resisting arrest
Are you driving towards an officer in an attempt to hit him
Are you threatening him
Do officers recognize you as someone who has attacked officers in the past
Has a whole political party encouraged people to disrupt the police (like we are seeing now and during blm riots) and therefore you are surrounded by angry and violent people that are creating a louder and more dangerous scene for an officer
It is tough to assign which variable is the worst but when you have a combo for nearly all of them then your odds go from near zero to almost 1%.
Including sitting presidents?
oh ya people just wake up wanting to ruin their lives by killing people. LMAO If it was intentional its much more likely second or third degree murder having to listen to ****** karens whistling and getting in the way of his job all day.
Premeditative murder is a bold claim cotton lets see if it works out
Premeditation can legally occur seconds before a crime. Drawing a gun and shooting an unarmed person while they're on the ground restrained is pretty much premeditation. Whether they'll get charged with that, assuming they're even charged is another issue, but premeditated murder in this instance isn't a bold claim at all.
This is also true.
Premeditation can legally occur seconds before a crime. Drawing a gun and shooting an unarmed person while they're on the ground restrained is pretty much premeditation. Whether they'll get charged with that, assuming they're even charged is another issue, but premeditated murder in this instance isn't a bold claim at all.
You would have to prove that the two shooters had known the officer had removed the illegally carried firearm. From all the videos one officer yelled gun while another was removing it while two of them shot him .
They were trying to detain him for interfering in a federal officers duties.
At best you get manslaughter and not a chance you prove premeditation
These events were not simultaneous and the shooters were not facing split second decisions for their lives. Like the Goode case, they were trying to restrain a protester who wasn’t listening to them.
Firing 10 (I heard 11, but I'll go with 10) shots into someone's back while they are restrained, pepper sprayed, disarmed, and facedown on the ground can never be defended.
Ever.
Even if you could somehow justify the first shot (nope), there is no possible explanation for the next 9.
Firing 10 (I heard 11, but I'll go with 10) shots into someone's back while they are restrained, pepper sprayed, disarmed, and facedown on the ground can never be defended.
Ever.
Even if you could somehow justify the first shot (nope), there is no possible explanation for the next 9.
Of all the times law enforcement/military decides to engage, 1 shot is very uncommon. 2-3 rounds is normal. Yes 10-11 is egregious.
Anti-gun dudes don't support people being murdered with a gun in broad daylight. You're clearly pro-gun when the gun is used by a guy (anonymous or not) with a badge (even if that badge is not visible to the public).
You would have to prove that the two shooters had known the officer had removed the illegally carried firearm. From all the videos one officer yelled gun while another was removing it while two of them shot him .
They were trying to detain him for interfering in a federal officers duties.
At best you get manslaughter and not a chance you prove premeditation
I posted a video today that clearly shows the first shooter see the other agent pull the gun out of his holster. He then nudges him out of the way (by pushing the arm that is holding Pretti's gun) so that he can shoot him.
I'll post it again even though you won't click it because you don't like the truth, especially if it's presented by the NYT. Also, it's not paywalled, so you'll have to use a different excuse for why you refuse to watch it.
An argument can be made that his shades and face mask (you know, garb criminals wear during the commission of crimes) made it difficult for him to see the other agent grabbing the gun (even though he was looking right at the gun) and instead thought his pinned arms were holding a gun when he heard agents yell that he has a gun. Btw, I've never heard of cops yelling "He's got a gun" when the suspect's gun is not in their hands.
Two of them didn't shoot immediately. The guy who was looking right at the gun being removed nudged the guy with the gun out of the way, and shot him once. When his body moved, he repositioned himself and fired another 3 shots. Then the other guy decided to join him and they both fired another six shots together.
Anti-gun dudes don't support people being murdered with a gun in broad daylight. You're clearly pro-gun when the gun is used by a guy (anonymous or not) with a badge (even if that badge is not visible to the public).I posted a video today that clearly shows the first shooter see the other agent pull the gun out of his holster. He then nudges him out of the way (by pushing the
Why wouldn't I watch it . I clearly think the agents are in the wrong I just do not believe you get a premeditated murder conviction.
You would have to prove that the two shooters had known the officer had removed the illegally carried firearm.
This is false, lozen. Please stop posting using this argument.
Even the Gestapo has said he was legally carrying.
This is false, lozen. Please stop posting using this argument.
Even the Gestapo has said he was legally carrying.
I tried to find where he got that he was illegally carrying. Here is the Minnesota police chief affirming that he was legally carrying, and that even if what the administration is alleging about the magazines he had is true, it wouldn’t cause any violation to Minnesota concealed carry laws.
He had a license and he was not a convicted felon, so him having it on him at a protest was not illegal.
Also when it comes to whether it’s a good idea to have guns at a protest, it’s obviously not in my opinion. The parallel to KR isn’t great, because KR wasn’t there to protest, he was there to try to protect the car dealership from rioters. But what the KR situation does show is that police don’t automatically react to people having guns, even open carrying.
ICE is really not trained to do crowd control. So when there are issues that involve crowds, it’s not surprising to me that without the cooperation of local law enforcement they would escalate situations unnecessarily. I’m not saying they should cooperate, but it’s something to keep in mind when engaging directly with ICE.
Why wouldn't I watch it . I clearly think the agents are in the wrong I just do not believe you get a premeditated murder conviction.
You tell me why you will not watch it. You clearly still haven't since it's really, really, really, thin to suggest that the guy who nudged a guy away with his hand right next to the firearm somehow didn't see that the gun was removed despite looking right at it the entire time.
I don't think you get a premeditated either because he hasn't even been arrested and likely never will be.
Lol I don't even get what they are trying to say about magazines. Of course if you're carrying a weapon, you're probably going to have at least one mag. Would be odd to carry a weapon, but have no ammo. Very weird conversation.
Lol I don't even get what they are trying to say about magazines. Of course if you're carrying a weapon, you're probably going to have at least one mag. Would be odd to carry a weapon, but have no ammo. Very weird conversation.
Weird conversation on the part of the msnbc host or weird conversation on the part of the White House?
Weird conversation on the part of the msnbc host or weird conversation on the part of the White House?
The fact they are even bringing up magazines. Like who cares. Seems irrelevant. Probably trying to push a narrative that must've had something else in mind with so many rounds.
The fact they are even bringing up magazines. Like who cares. Seems irrelevant. Probably trying to push a narrative that must've had something else in mind with so many rounds.
The only reason anyone brings up magazines is because the White House brought it up to call him a terrorist; ergo, rational minds have to bring it up to refute the tardoness.
Premeditation can legally occur seconds before a crime. Drawing a gun and shooting an unarmed person while they're on the ground restrained is pretty much premeditation. Whether they'll get charged with that, assuming they're even charged is another issue, but premeditated murder in this instance isn't a bold claim at all.
You would have to prove that the two shooters had known
No you wouldn't have to prove that and the agents were in very close proximity to Pretti and could see he didn't have a weapon in his hands and very probably saw him being disarmed. Nor am I saying they'll be charged with this anyway. I'm saying that legally and factually a case can be made for premeditated murder without having to prove what you claim.
But your almost gloating tone is duly noted. (Not that you approve of Pretti getting shot of course blah blah etc)
