>https://x.com/dittiepe/status/2009034763722440827
If that video is accurate, he fired after the threat passed.
Biblical hailstorm's coming…
If the videos are accurate… it was a bad shoot. He was no longer in danger and the shot her for fleeing.
No matter what nonsense you come up with, if the videos are accurate the danger was past, if was a bad shoot.
He was to the left she was turning away from him, it looks clear he wasn't in danger.
I still think it's AI though, it too closely matches other cases of bad shots.
Not when steering away… look at other cases.
Like when cops drive down a sidewalk at a pedestrian for recording them.
No matter how much you repeat bullshit it's still bullshit.
Was he reasonable in fearing for his life… and in previous cases where the driver was fleeing and steering away from the cop…the answer was no.
So someone has the right to shoot and kill and officer accelerating their vehicle at them on the sidewalk correct?
See short vid here >>24089816
>if you don't go near the place where the officers are trying to fulfil their duties!
You mean don't exercise their right to verbally oppose and challenge them in their duties?
False. The US Supreme Court said otherwise in 1987 when they invalidated as unconstitution a Houston TX ordinance that read
>It shall be unlawful for any person to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty, or any person summoned to aid in making an arrest.
Our rights are above your feelings snowflake.
Justice William J. Brennan Jr., who authored the Court’s 8-1 majority opinion, wrote that “the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”
He added that the “freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”
Houston v Hill 1987.
It must enrage you that people have the right to follow and report on ICE huh?
>Comply
I don't like blanket statements like that. To be clear I'm not talking about the woman in the vehicle, but some "orders" should not be complied with, and sometimes one is justified in using force against an officer or "agent" acting outside the law.
>ALL of them arrested no matter what the law
Do you know what conspiracy against rights is?
I KNOW I have the right. It's an unalienable right, reserved and retained by the people.
Those who call for the arrest of people exercising rights are engaged in conspiracy against rights.
You said protesters, and you said no matter the law.
>enemy combatants
Like those who illegally enter someone's home, committing an armed home invasion and killing the family dog "for officer safety" when the dog should have mauled his ass? Domestic terrorists.
I'd rather die and take a domestic enemy with me than comply with illegal orders like a coward.
>Get to it….
Did you miss the "illegal orders"?
I don't agree with attacking cops… but I fully support defending yourself from them.
I never said it was. I wasn't talking about the shooting.
Better to give your life fighting for liberty than die a coward. Imagine if the founders had that attitude.
Let me guess, you believe government has authority to "weigh government interest" against the rights our constitution forbids government from infringing upon?
I was not talking about the shooting and the order to get out. I was talking about unlawful orders, not any specific order. Try to keep up with conversations. Reading is fundamental.
No actually protestors are free to verbally oppose and challenge them, not just hold up signs.
No I've said they're not all bastards, they have a Father… what they are is domestic enemies to the Constitution… every single one that wears the badge.
Such a good little subject of the crown. Anything but freedom. Safety! Safety!
Yes, they are. It's called protected free speech.
Not only are we free to verbally oppose and challenge them, but cuss them out too.
Good old freedom.
Look at you trying to attach free speech to "kill" kek.
Your denial of reality does not change reality. Protected free speech is protected free speech, and it's a myth that it only protects you from government. For example, two citizens conspiring to get someone fired from an unrelated job because they exercised free speech is a crime.
It's not speaking sinfully to tell them the Truth that they're domestic enemies.
Spoken like a true coward.
Sue? KMAO
The criminal cops don't pay the suits, so they have no incentive to stop violating rights.
Imagine if our founders had the cowardly attitude you do.
Who said that's "sinfully"?
YesCOWARD
I said unlawful orders.
Yeah tell all the innocents killed by police or unlawfully arrested and thown in with criminals how "safe" they are with domestic enemies.
WRONG
Neither do cops. We have laws, when cops violate those laws, we have no obligation to comply and actually have the RIGHT to use force against unlawful arrest. They really really want people to forget that right and to think it's "bad law" but it is a recognized right retained and reserved by the people.