Federal judge tosses lawsuit claiming Trump can't run for office under 14th Amendment.

She wasnt armed. The officer not in threat of life. Splain justufication for leathal force???

1693739344845.png



He didn't know that at the time while facing a riotous mob. She also had a backpack which could contain explosives.

You know, like the one carried by the Boston Bomber into the marathon crowd.

JUSTIFICATION: Her actions presented a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to the law enforcement officer or others. A firearm being visible is not the only way to demonstrate this clear and present danger when the person is with physical distance of touching you or attempting to grab your own firearm. In other words once the perpetrator gets within arms reach.

WW
 
View attachment 824016

She was climbing through the door window the mob had broken out.

So I guess there could be a semantic discussion of "other side of the door" depending if you count shoulders through the opening at an instant in time while her butt was on the other side.

But the idea that the law enforcement officer shot a protester on through the window while the protester was completely on the other side of the barricade is not correct.

WW
So. Unarmed. Justify lethal force there. Ever heard of a tazer. Or push her back out.

Or take her down and cuff her.

There was no justification to shoot her dead.
 
So if you bus in Anarchist to my city and they burn and loot. They were not supposed to be there.

By your own rules Fascist rules for leftst we can open fire.

Ok
That's what they tried here until they saw all the guns side by side with the police.
 
View attachment 824020


He didn't know that at the time while facing a riotous mob. She also had a backpack which could contain explosives.

You know, like the one carried by the Boston Bomber into the marathon crowd.

JUSTIFICATION: Her actions presented a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to the law enforcement officer or others. A firearm being visible is not the only way to demonstrate this clear and present danger when the person is with physical distance of touching you or attempting to grab your own firearm. In other words once the perpetrator gets within arms reach.

WW
Balony. You are stretching it.

He was not in imminent danger. Regardless how you want to narrate it.
 
View attachment 824020


He didn't know that at the time while facing a riotous mob. She also had a backpack which could contain explosives.

You know, like the one carried by the Boston Bomber into the marathon crowd.

JUSTIFICATION: Her actions presented a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to the law enforcement officer or others. A firearm being visible is not the only way to demonstrate this clear and present danger when the person is with physical distance of touching you or attempting to grab your own firearm. In other words once the perpetrator gets within arms reach.

WW
Legally the police can't shoot you based on what you might do, vermin.
 
So. Unarmed. Justify lethal force there. Ever heard of a tazer. Or push her back out.

Or take her down and cuff her.

There was no justification to shoot her dead.

At this point I'll just repeat: "JUSTIFICATION: Her actions presented a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury to the law enforcement officer or others. A firearm being visible is not the only way to demonstrate this clear and present danger when the person is with physical distance of touching you or attempting to grab your own firearm. In other words once the perpetrator gets within arms reach."

Someone does not have to be arm to present a clear and present danger.

WW
 

Forum List

Back
Top