4th&long Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 6 hours ago, JFKjr said: Yeah we all remember you admitting that in 2024. Right. Look if up sh it for brains.
Homelander Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I think the first time you worried about law enforcement officials being in danger, or assaulted and beaten was when there was a political reason to do so. I think your posting history reveals, in fact, that you support an assault on a police officer so long as certain conditions are present. I supported the police officer who shot Ashli Babbit, you moron. I tried to put myself in his shoes, understand on whatever level the type of emotion, fear and adrenaline he was feeling as some lunatics were smashing through a glass barrier in attempt to gain access to a restricted area with officers on the other side with guns drawn. My general rule of thumb is as follows: 1. The officer’s job is to go home at night; 2. The officer has no idea the intent of the other party, or what weapons they may/may not have; 3. Facts leading up to the incident influence the outcome; 4. It’s extremely unlikely, and very rare, for an officer to want to shoot anyone in the chest and end their life; Still, you fools crowed about the outcome of civil cases like E Jane Carroll, completely oblivious to the things that impact the outcome of civil suits. Now, you don’t like the outcome. Venue matters. Emotion matters. What’s reasonable behavior is judged looking backwards and considering outcome. The relative likelihood of a positive or negative outcome is considered. When all is said and done, an unarmed female was dispatched without a warning shot fired, and during a time when multiple political figures talking about how things like warning shots, restraint and leg shots should be the default. The officer has at least one incident of reckless behavior in leaving a loaded firearm in a bathroom, and it’s impossible to know what else may be in his personnel record. My assumption is that the concern was political sentiment would influence the outcome, and whatever they decided to pay resulted in a preferable outcome to taking a chance pursuing that a jury might return an award of $0, or $100,000,000. Autopsy photos/report of a 30-something year old female dead on a table alone could swing people toward an award, rationalizing that the shooting was not criminal but perhaps excessive force was used. Beyond that, it’s just the way things go. Your assumptions about my views are as lazy as they are wrong. I’ve consistently supported law enforcement making difficult, split-second decisions, including the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt. That support isn’t based on politics; it’s based on understanding the reality officers face - chaos, uncertainty, and the constant risk to their own lives. You, on the other hand, seem more interested in spinning narratives than dealing with facts. Your attempt to link this to civil cases like E. Jean Carroll’s is a weak distraction. Civil cases are decided on a preponderance of evidence, not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal cases. Venue, emotion, and other factors are always part of the equation - this isn’t some groundbreaking insight you’ve uncovered. But trying to use that to undermine a justified use of force is a transparent, bad-faith tactic. You also bring up the officer’s past - as if leaving a gun in a bathroom somehow changes the fact that he was confronted by a violent mob trying to breach a restricted area. It doesn’t. It’s a desperate attempt to discredit him because you can’t argue against the facts of the situation itself.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 7 minutes ago, Homelander said: Your assumptions about my views are as lazy as they are wrong. I’ve consistently supported law enforcement making difficult, split-second decisions, including the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt. That support isn’t based on politics; it’s based on understanding the reality officers face - chaos, uncertainty, and the constant risk to their own lives. You, on the other hand, seem more interested in spinning narratives than dealing with facts. Your attempt to link this to civil cases like E. Jean Carroll’s is a weak distraction. Civil cases are decided on a preponderance of evidence, not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal cases. Venue, emotion, and other factors are always part of the equation - this isn’t some groundbreaking insight you’ve uncovered. But trying to use that to undermine a justified use of force is a transparent, bad-faith tactic. You also bring up the officer’s past - as if leaving a gun in a bathroom somehow changes the fact that he was confronted by a violent mob trying to breach a restricted area. It doesn’t. It’s a desperate attempt to discredit him because you can’t argue against the facts of the situation itself. Bro, show us on the doll where trump hurt you. You're pathetic.
njbuff Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 6 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Bro, show us on the doll where trump hurt you. You're pathetic. I think BillSlime had relations with his Trump voodoo doll.
Recommended Posts