a car is a weapon when it intentionaly drives into someone;
ok. So the officer would have been within his rights to view the car as weapon if Good had intended to drive it into him i stead of turning to the side and trying to escape.
Except when she started forward she was headed directly at him. The video shows this. The bullet hole in the front window shows this. The fact she hit him shows this.
ok. So the officer would have been within his rights to view the car as weapon if Good had intended to drive it into him i stead of turning to the side and trying to escape.
watch the very first second of this video as the car starts moving forward. the front wheels are pointing LEFT. are you blind?
I see, so if I am drunk and run someone over the care I am driving is not a deadly weapon? Or if I am pointing a loaded gun at you with no intent to pull the trigger it is also not a deadly weapon?
But the whole question of intent raises a question. The "intent" as determined by who? Should/Could the shooter have called a halt to everything and asked Renee what her intent was? LOL. Or should/could he have read her mind? LOL. No the "intent" can only be what he thought it was based on her actions.
As far as which direction the car started in see the post I just bumped (#329)
A gun is a weapon; a car is not. It only becomes so where there is a clear intent to kill. That is shown by intentionally driving over a person. This didn't happen. Nothing in Renee Good's actions showed any such intent. She even declared to the ICE agent she had no anger towards him. His life wasn't threatened. He swore at her and killed her. That is murder.
Her suddenly accelerating forward with him feet from the front of the car shows what could certainly be interpreted as intent. Once again you buffoon, what he inferred as to her intent is all that matters. Asking her, reading her mind, taking a poll are not options when she is a second away from running him over.
ok. So the officer would have been within his rights to view the car as weapon if Good had intended to drive it into him i stead of turning to the side and trying to escape.
Except when she started forward she was headed directly at him. The video shows this. The bullet hole in the front window shows this. The fact she hit him shows this.
She didn't drive at him. She was driving away from him. She didn't hit him. She even said she had no ill will towards him. There was no threat to his life. He killed her because he is a thug, licensed by the criminal in the WH.
7
9
Speaking for the citizens of the United States of America
A gun is a weapon; a car is not. It only becomes so where there is a clear intent to kill. That is shown by intentionally driving over a person. This didn't happen. Nothing in Renee Good's actions showed any such intent. She even declared to the ICE agent she had no anger towards him. His life wasn't threatened. He swore at her and killed her. That is murder.
Her suddenly accelerating forward with him feet from the front of the car shows what could certainly be interpreted as intent. Once again you buffoon, what he inferred as to her intent is all that matters. Asking her, reading her mind, taking a poll are not options when she is a second away from running him over.
Intent doesn't require reading her mind. Her actions and her words to him show no intent to kill. The opposite. She didn't try to run him over. Killing was the agent's intent. He clearly showed this. It wasn't self defence. You have swallowed Trump's and Noem's lies hook, line and sinker.
A gun is a weapon; a car is not. It only becomes so where there is a clear intent to kill. That is shown by intentionally driving over a person. This didn't happen. Nothing in Renee Good's actions showed any such intent. She even declared to the ICE agent she had no anger towards him. His life wasn't threatened. He swore at her and killed her. That is murder.
a car is a weapon when it intentionaly drives into someone;
driving 'over' a person' is an unnecessary addition. she fully intended to drive where she was going, she was even told to by her wife. there was an ice person in front of her car, ergo she intended to hit him, which she succeeded in doing.
“Here, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘weapon’ includes not only those objects designed with the purpose of injuring or killing another, such as guns, clubs, or swords, but also any object used with the intent to cause harm,” Labarga wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Charles Canady and justices R. Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince, Ricky Polston and Alan Lawson. “This is evident in dictionary definitions, which consistently define ‘weapon’ to include objects used as weapons, even if they were not designed for that purpose.”
What makes your post irrelevant and shows you have been unable to understand this simple point is that she didn't try to run him over. That is a lie from Trump and Noem and is not demonstrated in any video footage. Instead we see video footage where she says directly to him she means him no harm. We then hear him swear at her and shoot three times. His life was not being threatened; he murdered her.
a car is a weapon when it intentionaly drives into someone;
ok. So the officer would have been within his rights to view the car as weapon if Good had intended to drive it into him i stead of turning to the side and trying to escape.
Precisely. The claim she was trying to run the agent down are lies.
What we see on this thread is how far gone Trumper supporters are now. Despite what witnesses saw and videos show Trumpers refuse to believe their lying eyes. They will defend anything the orange god/king does, including the murder of an American woman, a US citizen, exercising her democratic right to protest. They aren't smart enough to see they are applauding the death of their own democratic rights.
ok. So the officer would have been within his rights to view the car as weapon if Good had intended to drive it into him i stead of turning to the side and trying to escape.
Except when she started forward she was headed directly at him. The video shows this. The bullet hole in the front window shows this. The fact she hit him shows this.
You can hear the car hit him. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes. They were obstructing federal law enforcement. The officer asked her to get out of the vehicle. Instead she ran into another agent and sped away.
Her suddenly accelerating forward with him feet from the front of the car shows what could certainly be interpreted as intent. Once again you buffoon, what he inferred as to her intent is all that matters. Asking her, reading her mind, taking a poll are not options when she is a second away from running him over.
Intent doesn't require reading her mind. Her actions and her words to him show no intent to kill. The opposite. She didn't try to run him over. Killing was the agent's intent. He clearly showed this. It wasn't self defence. You have swallowed Trump's and Noem's lies hook, line and sinker.
This body language expert has a different opinion than you.
driving 'over' a person' is an unnecessary addition. she fully intended to drive where she was going, she was even told to by her wife. there was an ice person in front of her car, ergo she intended to hit him, which she succeeded in doing.
“Here, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘weapon’ includes not only those objects designed with the purpose of injuring or killing another, such as guns, clubs, or swords, but also any object used with the intent to cause harm,” Labarga wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Charles Canady and justices R. Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince, Ricky Polston and Alan Lawson. “This is evident in dictionary definitions, which consistently define ‘weapon’ to include objects used as weapons, even if they were not designed for that purpose.”
What makes your post irrelevant and shows you have been unable to understand this simple point is that she didn't try to run him over. That is a lie from Trump and Noem and is not demonstrated in any video footage. Instead we see video footage where she says directly to him she means him no harm. We then hear him swear at her and shoot three times. His life was not being threatened; he murdered her.
the simple point is that she actually hit him. what more clear indication of intent can there be from the shooter's perspective? if you drive off with a lamp post in front of you, clearly visible, then what do you intend to do?
if you drive off with an ICE in front of you such that you cant avoid hitting him, what is your intent?
if she had missed him, at the very least it would still have been reckless endangerment. you cant just drive off unless it is clear and safe to do so. where did oyu learn to drive?
what she said to the shooter before he walked around the car is irrelevant. the wife had already escalated it by taunting him, and then the wife escalted it further and shouted 'drive 'drive', despite the shooter clearly being in front of the car.
Intent doesn't require reading her mind. Her actions and her words to him show no intent to kill. The opposite. She didn't try to run him over. Killing was the agent's intent. He clearly showed this. It wasn't self defence. You have swallowed Trump's and Noem's lies hook, line and sinker.
This body language expert has a different opinion than you.
It doesn't take a "body language expert" to understand a person saying they aren't angry and mean no harm. But as for body language - she was seated in a car, not moving or gesticulating, there was nothing threatening in her movements or in her facial expression, she wasn't shouting or screaming abuse at him (whereas he called her a "f*cking b*tch" - now that is aggressive), she didn't produce a weapon of any kind and she didn't even appear to realize the imminent danger she was in. Attempting to drive away is not an act that shows an intent to kill - the reverse.
But tell me how your "body language expert" votes without telling me how he votes.
What makes your post irrelevant and shows you have been unable to understand this simple point is that she didn't try to run him over. That is a lie from Trump and Noem and is not demonstrated in any video footage. Instead we see video footage where she says directly to him she means him no harm. We then hear him swear at her and shoot three times. His life was not being threatened; he murdered her.
the simple point is that she actually hit him. what more clear indication of intent can there be from the shooter's perspective? if you drive off with a lamp post in front of you, clearly visible, then what do you intend to do?
if you drive off with an ICE in front of you such that you cant avoid hitting him, what is your intent?
if she had missed him, at the very least it would still have been reckless endangerment. you cant just drive off unless it is clear and safe to do so. where did oyu learn to drive?
what she said to the shooter before he walked around the car is irrelevant. the wife had already escalated it by taunting him, and then the wife escalted it further and shouted 'drive 'drive', despite the shooter clearly being in front of the car.
If she hit him with the intent to kill he would have had to be in front of the car and actually run over - and not merely bumped as the car passed him.
You might complain about her driving but his life wasn't in danger - he wouldn't have been able to get out of the road if he had been and he certainly wouldn't have had time to unload his gun at her. Her driving away didn't give a masked thug the right to fire a bunch of shots into the car with the intent of killing her - which he did.
'from the officer's perspective the car was heading straight at him'
Justification after the act. If it had been true the easiest thing would have been to get out of the road not fire a bunch of shots into the car - which he couldn't have done if it was headed straight at him. It had to be passed him to do that. It was.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
You Trumpers will accept murder now because your leader requires it. You are trying to turn the victim into an attempted killer and the murderer into a victim. There's no end to the lies of your cult.
'from the officer's perspective the car was heading straight at him'
Justification after the act. If it had been true the easiest thing would have been to get out of the road not fire a bunch of shots into the car - which he couldn't have done if it was headed straight at him. It had to be passed him to do that. It was.
No, an independent assessment by an expert based on what he observed was going on real time.
But yes, after she hit him and after he had fired once she did turn.
As I have posted a few times I think the shooting was an over reaction - but easier for me to say not being there. The expert clearly concludes he likely felt threatened and was somewhat on autopilot (in "fight or flight" mode).
You Trumpers will accept murder now because your leader requires it. You are trying to turn the victim into an attempted killer and the murderer into a victim. There's no end to the lies of your cult.
what do you do, wake up every day and drink a cup of "I hate Trump" coffee? Sounds to me like you are in a cult yourself.
You Trumpers will accept murder now because your leader requires it. You are trying to turn the victim into an attempted killer and the murderer into a victim. There's no end to the lies of your cult.
self defense lawyers also seem to disagree with you (and me - at least with the first shot). The second and third shots seem far more questionable.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.