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
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)
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.
the amount of shots actually has zero legal implications. They are trained to fire an excessive amount. 1 shot or 10 shots will not have any implications of prosecution as long as they were shot in secession. This is why the side shots when he was out of danger on the first shooting were less bad legally then most seem to think.
So whats the point of you bringing up the amount of shots? and it was multiple shooters? do their clips even hold 11 rounds? so 2 firing a clip is pretty standard if they thought he was going for his gun
the amount of shots actually has zero legal implications. They are trained to fire an excessive amount. 1 shot or 10 shots will not have any implications of prosecution as long as they were shot in secession. This is why the side shots when he was out of danger on the first shooting were less bad legally then most seem to think.
We can add "the law" to the things you don't understand as well as you imagine you do. Acting as you were trained isn't legally irrelevant, but it isn't a complete defense either. Shooting after a reasonable person would have believed he was out of danger would be legally problematic, no matter how you were trained.
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 wil
I watched it as soon as he posted it I asked why I wouldn't watch it . I agree the video broken down in slow motion isn't great life doesn't occur in slow motion . I am just saying not a chance you convict in that charge
I am curious to know whether this was an intentional misreading or whether Katie Miller is really this ignorant:
Katie Miller on Monday unwittingly betrayed her ignorance about one of the most basic ideas America was founded on, confusing “classical liberal democracy” with the supposed horrors of a “woke” and “deeply leftist ideology” in a failed attempt to dunk on someone.
That certain someone was Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah, who vowed on X that his artificial intelligence safety company remains committed to “the principles of classical liberal democracy” — and specifically freedom of speech, human dignity and the rule of law.
Katie Miller, wife of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, didn’t take it that way.
She wrote Monday on X, “Co-Founder of Anthropic: ‘My deep loyalty is to the principles of classic liberal democracy.’ If this is what they say publicly, this is how their AI model is programmed. Woke and deeply leftist ideology is what they want you to rely upon.”
The conservative podcaster, who served as deputy press secretary at the Department of Homeland Security under President Donald Trump during his first term, was brutally mocked on X for her apparent lack of understanding — or intentional misreading.
“I can’t tell what would be worse between Katie Miller not knowing what liberal democracy is or her admitting she thinks it’s a bad thing,” wrote one user on X, with another noting that Olah even “identifies what those principles are immediately after the colon” in his post.
the amount of shots actually has zero legal implications. They are trained to fire an excessive amount. 1 shot or 10 shots will not have any implications of prosecution as long as they were shot in secession. This is why the side shots when he was out of danger on the first shooting were less bad legally then most seem to think.
Lmao. You've got to be kidding. The DOJ policy on use of force forbids firing at a driver when getting out of the way is possible:
[QUOTE= Department of Justice Manual, Policy On Use Of Force, 1-16.200]
Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless...
...no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle[/QUOTE]
Not only was he able to get out of the way, but the shot that hit her in the head was the third shot when he was 3 feet away from the side window (i.e., facing zero threat). If that dude ever sees a courtroom, he's going to prison.
So whats the point of you bringing up the amount of shots? and it was multiple shooters? do their clips even hold 11 rounds? so 2 firing a clip is pretty standard if they thought he was going for his gun
The most common magazine capacity for a compact handgun is 15 rounds. Add one in the pipe, and you've got 16 rounds on a fully loaded compact handgun. A full size handgun mag will hold at least 17 but typically 19 or 20. The Sig the nurse had holds 21 rounds with another one up the pipe.
I'm sure now that you know he was carrying 64 rounds, you'll want to go back to the terrorist angle, eh?
I watched it as soon as he posted it I asked why I wouldn't watch it . I agree the video broken down in slow motion isn't great life doesn't occur in slow motion . I am just saying not a chance you convict in that charge
Watch it up to speed. Dude can still see a gun being taken from dude and he put four into his lower back. Then him and his buddy put six more in him - you know, for something to talk about over beers.
Lmao. You've got to be kidding. The DOJ policy on use of force forbids firing at a driver when getting out of the way is possible:
Not only was he able to get out of the way, but the shot that hit her in the head was the third shot when he was 3 feet away from the side window (i.e., facing zero threat). If that dude ever sees a courtroom, he's going to prison.
The situation with this particular agent is even worse but probably impossible to prove in court.
He'd been dragged by a car 6 months ago, so he got real on the job training. When something like that happens to you that requires 38 stitches, you have to think you would reflect what could I have done different? What will I do if that happens again? Seems this guy came to the conclusion if he's faced with the situation again, he's shooting.
Always seemed that he drew his gun so quickly, like damn, that guy has cat like reflexes but no, I'm going with in his mind he was already, if this b***h puts this car in drive I'm going to shoot her in the ****ing face. He was just waiting for his opportunity.
a screenshot belongs in the Louvre. every deplorable should keep a copy framed in their kitchen. their shatty hero
Lmao. You've got to be kidding. The DOJ policy on use of force forbids firing at a driver when getting out of the way is possible:Not only was he able to get out of the way, but the shot that hit her in the head was the third shot when he was 3 feet away from the side window (i.e., facing zero threat). If that dude ever sees a courtroom, he's going to prison.
Right that's not what im talking about tho I was pointing out the deranged person using the amount of shots to win an argument . not every single round is scrutinized so in that instance if the first shot is deemed fine the following shots are as well since its the same instance your trained to fire untill they stop . So saying "omg he fired 10 shots omg what a nazi" is just a silly uneducated argument all that matters is the first shot
I donno man guns are stupid I always thought it was 6 or 8 in a clip. bring me back to a time where we used spears that was the ****
hey man i hate trump more them most people as he's trying to annex my country but that could have just been a huge fart! I really hope your hero **** his pants tho. The lady in reds reaction tho LMAO. I bet there's a good chance he wears diapers now if he didn't already
Right that's not what im talking about tho I was pointing out the deranged person using the amount of shots to win an argument . not every single round is scrutinized so in that instance if the first shot is deemed fine the following shots are as well since its the same instance your trained to fire untill they stop . So saying "omg he fired 10 shots omg what a nazi" is just a
When you said first shooting I thought you meant incident and not first shooter of this incident.
In either case, you have no idea what you're talking about. They are trained to stop the threat with as little force as necessary. Saying there is no difference between 1 and 30 shots so long as the 30 shots were in quick succession is ridiculous.
He was wearing diapers as far back as The Apprentice. There are numerous accounts from multiple crew working on the show.
The most common magazine capacity for a compact handgun is 15 rounds. Add one in the pipe, and you've got 16 rounds on a fully loaded compact handgun. A full size handgun mag will hold at least 17 but typically 19 or 20. The Sig the nurse had holds 21 rounds with another one up the pipe.I'm sure now that you know he was carrying 64 rounds, you'll want to go back to the terroris
A court, should it ever consider the case, might reasonably ask itself what he was packing such an excessive amount of deadly ordnance for exactly.
not every single round is scrutinized so in that instance if the first shot is deemed fine the following shots are as well
You could not be more wrong.
A court, should it ever consider the case, might reasonably ask itself what he was packing such an excessive amount of deadly ordnance for exactly.
Whether dude had 64 rounds, 1000 rounds, or 4 rounds makes no difference when dude never drew his weapon and was killed with no firearm on him. Minnesota has no restriction on magazine capacity nor any restriction on how many rounds you can carry with you.
I'm sure the defense team would make the claim that he had nefarious intentions by carrying 64 rounds, but the prosecution would probably point out that mind reading based on information that wasn't even available at the time the shooting took place isn't a legitimate defense and stick to the facts.
A court, should it ever consider the case, might reasonably ask itself what he was packing such an excessive amount of deadly ordnance for exactly.
I honestly am amazed at how some people here believe the law works. Legally, it doesn't matter how many rounds he was carrying or what he planned to do. As I said before, even if you could prove that he planned to shoot a dozen toddlers, it wouldn't matter. Why? Because he didn't threaten the officers and because they wouldn't have had any knowledge of his plan to shoot toddlers at the time they shot him.
Imagine that I walk outside and shoot someone. Do you believe that I would be acquitted if I could prove to a 100% certainty that, unbeknownst to me, the person I shot was planning to go home that very evening and shoot his wife? Do you imagine that my lawyers would even be allowed to mention that fact to a jury? For reasons that should be blazingly obvious, that isn't how the law works.
There's some stunning (and oddly loud) ignorance of the law around here lately.
bitcoin bros after making oversized returns
A court, should it ever consider the case, might reasonably ask itself what he was packing such an excessive amount of deadly ordnance for exactly.
Not sure if it would in a state which allows for concealed carry and he was disarmed anyway. The concept of concealed carry is pretty alien to me, but be that as it may, it was perfectly legal for him to carry a weapon, which again he had concealed anyway. He wasn't threatening the agents with it and was restrained on the ground. I'd imagine a court would be sticking with what was within the law and if it did ask such things, that might not be seen as a reasonable thing to ask, again within the context of the legality of concealed carry.
but the prosecution would probably point out that mind reading based on information that wasn't even available at the time the shooting took place isn't a legitimate defense and stick to the facts.
sometimes we can mind read, sometimes we can't
wouldn't be staying at a holiday inn express tho
