Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh wow, have you become "Stripe" all of a sudden? Otherwise, that little mantra got old loooong ago....
The New York Times; Feighk and Gheigh
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Oh wow, have you become "Stripe" all of a sudden? Otherwise, that little mantra got old loooong ago....
Telling people to bear false witness makes you just as guilty.
I doubt it originated with my friend.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I wasn't. Renee Good was murdered and Ross should face trial for his crime along with plenty others and not just within ICE.
Yeah, it probably didn't originate with Stripe but wow, it was peurile and boring then and it is now. Some people are homosexual, get over it already.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hmm, well, setting aside that this current administration and it's commander in chief are a global laughing stock (not that it's funny) then what in blazes has happened to the security forces lately?
commonsense
Active member
I guess the good news is that the Republicans do have firm control of their terrorists. Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, all dutifully obeyed orders on Jan 6.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
And one of them "at least" is a member of ICE. "Funny" how having criminal convictions in America are practically a bonus these days as regards employment in the upper echelons...
Right Divider
Body part
Don't forget the many FBI agents of the Dem administration.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh hey, some of us aren't naive enough not to consider that there's been plenty nefarious machinations from any side of the aisle, but the radical right and MAGA? The current loony tune administration and apologists for it? When's Trump gonna post another deranged "Truth Social" outburst? Heck, maybe he already has, they're pretty much every day. Out there and then some, along with those who can't even recognize the ongoing insanity.
commonsense
Active member
I really feel bad for Charles....I mean, he must be wondering if it's worth it...
Saying it doesn't magically make it so.
What crime did he commit?
What crimes did these "plenty others" commit?
It's not okay to be gay.
And you are there in the top left:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, the evidence says it's so.
He shot her three times with no justification. He's guilty of murder and should be held accountable for his actions - else what sort of precedent does it set for others?
Neither of those graphics, nor anything written in them apply to me thanks. Some folk are just gay with no abuse having happened to them. Deal with it, it's not like they're affecting your life is it?
No, your conclusion says it's so.
The evidence may show that Ross shot her. That is not the same thing as proving murder.
You keep saying "no justification" without establishing it.
What specific crime did Ross commit?
Was he not lawfully present?
Was he not authorized to use force?
Was Good not using the vehicle in a way that could reasonably be perceived as a deadly threat?
Was Ross required to wait until he was actually run over before defending himself?
"Murder" is not a magic word. Saying it over and over doesn't prove the killing was unlawful.
A homicide can be tragic without being murder. That is precisely the issue you have to prove, not merely assume.
I didn't say every homosexual was abused.
But there is evidence of a correlation between childhood sexual abuse/maltreatment and later same-sex attraction, behavior, or identity.
Does Maltreatment in Childhood Affect Sexual Orientation in Adulthood? - PMC
Epidemiological studies find a positive association between physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence in childhood and same-sex sexuality in adulthood, but studies directly assessing the association between these diverse types of ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
That doesn't prove every homosexual was abused, nor that every abuser was homosexual. But it does show that "some folk are just gay" is far too simplistic.
And either way, "I didn't choose it" does not mean "therefore it is morally good." Plenty of sinful desires are not consciously chosen. That doesn't make them righteous.
Nor does sin become righteous merely because you think it is private or because it doesn't personally inconvenience me.
The issue is not whether I am affected by it. The issue is whether it is right or wrong.
And it is not okay to be gay.
commonsense
Active member
Yes, Good was not using the vehicle in a way that could reasonably be perceived as a deadly threat? She was clearly just trying to drive away. If Ross didn't already have a gun in his hand, nothing would have happened and we would have never seen the footage at all. He did have a gun in his hand and so cowardly shot Good unnecessarily. Closer calls happen in parking lots every day of the week. If he was in fear for his life in that instance, he's more of a mouse than a man. Like the Squeaker of the House.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God....
Right Divider
Body part
"Just driving away" into the officer is a threat to the officer.
That's asserted, not established.
She was being detained. She was not free to leave. One officer was already at the driver-side door, and Ross was mostly in front of the vehicle.
And the first round went through the windshield, which strongly supports the point that Ross was in front of the vehicle when she started trying to drive away.
A detained suspect attempting to flee in a vehicle while officers are at the doors and in front of the vehicle can absolutely create a deadly threat.
Driving away and creating a deadly threat are not mutually exclusive.
If you drive away through a person, or in a way that can reasonably be perceived as likely to strike, pin, drag, or run over someone, then "I was just trying to drive away" doesn't answer anything.
Or if she had complied with a lawful detention instead of trying to flee in a vehicle, nothing would have happened.
She was detained. She might have been arrested. Or they might have released her. She chose to start driving in a forward direction with an officer in front of her. That's a problem.
You are putting all the causal weight on the gun while ignoring the attempt to flee.
Calling him a coward is not an argument.
And you are ignoring the fact that Ross had reportedly been seriously injured just months earlier after being dragged by another fleeing suspect’s vehicle during a law-enforcement stop. So the idea that a vehicle can become a deadly threat during an attempted detention was not some fantasy in his head. He had already experienced it.
That does not automatically prove the shooting was justified. But it absolutely undercuts this chest-thumping nonsense about him being “more of a mouse than a man” for recognizing the danger of a fleeing vehicle while officers were at the doors and in front of it.
Ordinary parking-lot close calls are not the same as a detained suspect trying to flee while officers are positioned at the doors and in front of the vehicle.
And bravado is not the legal standard. Officers are not required to play chicken with a moving vehicle to prove they are men.
The question remains whether the vehicle could reasonably be perceived as a deadly threat in that moment.
And the earlier questions still have not been answered, plus some new ones:
What specific crime did Ross commit?
Was Ross not lawfully present?
Was Ross not authorized to use force?
Was Ross required to wait until he was actually run over before defending himself?
If Good was being detained, was she free to drive away?
If an officer was at the driver-side door and Ross was mostly in front of the vehicle, why is fleeing in the vehicle not reasonably perceived as a deadly threat?
If the first shot went through the windshield, doesn’t that support the claim that Ross was in front of the vehicle when she began to drive away?
Does Ross’s prior experience being dragged by a fleeing suspect’s vehicle make it unreasonable for him to recognize a vehicle as a deadly threat during a detention?
The core unanswered question is still:
How do you get from “Ross shot her” to “Ross murdered her”?
Until those questions are answered, "murder" is just a slogan.
Thanks for conceding my point.
It's not okay to be gay.
commonsense
Active member
Was she being lawfully detained? What was she being detained for?
Yes we know Ross passed directly in front of the active vehicle, contrary to all training. But he was far enough away to pass untouched as Good pulled hard right to drive away down the street.
If he was experiencing some psychological problems, they shouldn't have let him run around with a loaded gun.
I guess so, people misperceive things all the time.
Around here, with our laws, I'd say 2nd degree murder. Intentional but not planned. He'd probably get off with manslaughter.
As far as i know he was. Are there any challenges in the courts?
Not unlawful force.
He wasn't run over and wouldn't have been even if he didn't shoot.
Not if it was a lawful detention.
Nah, it wasn't a threat by evidence of their continuing good health.
I already answered this 47 questions ago.
Maybe not enough stress therapy for the snowflake.
See all of the above.
I never said homosexuality is a sin. I said all have sinned. I guess I expected a little introspection. But...no.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, your conclusion says it's so.
The evidence may show that Ross shot her. That is not the same thing as proving murder.
You keep saying "no justification" without establishing it.
What specific crime did Ross commit?
Was he not lawfully present?
Was he not authorized to use force?
Was Good not using the vehicle in a way that could reasonably be perceived as a deadly threat?
Was Ross required to wait until he was actually run over before defending himself?
"Murder" is not a magic word. Saying it over and over doesn't prove the killing was unlawful.
A homicide can be tragic without being murder. That is precisely the issue you have to prove, not merely assume.
I didn't say every homosexual was abused.
But there is evidence of a correlation between childhood sexual abuse/maltreatment and later same-sex attraction, behavior, or identity.
Does Maltreatment in Childhood Affect Sexual Orientation in Adulthood? - PMC
Epidemiological studies find a positive association between physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence in childhood and same-sex sexuality in adulthood, but studies directly assessing the association between these diverse types of ...
That doesn't prove every homosexual was abused, nor that every abuser was homosexual. But it does show that "some folk are just gay" is far too simplistic.
And either way, "I didn't choose it" does not mean "therefore it is morally good." Plenty of sinful desires are not consciously chosen. That doesn't make them righteous.
Nor does sin become righteous merely because you think it is private or because it doesn't personally inconvenience me.
The issue is not whether I am affected by it. The issue is whether it is right or wrong.
And it is not okay to be gay.
He shot her needlessly, his life wasn't under any threat and he murdered her. I've seen the footage several times, from different sources (corroborated news sources and not by some dingbat on YT) and from different angles. Heck his life was as much in danger as yours is by your fridge suddenly going rogue...
Oh, I could care less about your pompous hangups with folk being gay. Fact is, several are and through no 'fault' of their own. I realize that you "think" it's a big deal but it really isn't.