04 May 2023, 10:06 pm
Recidivist wrote:
Here is a snapshot from my minds eye
Nice photoshopping!
<joke> 
04 May 2023, 10:07 pm
04 May 2023, 10:07 pm
DanielW wrote:
Its not the system that fails...humans are and will always be the weakest link...
As in the average American voter wouldn't know their ass from their elbow.
As in the average American voter wouldn't know their ass from their elbow.
Agreed...
As a species, humanity is a f*****g joke.
04 May 2023, 10:11 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Recidivist wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
but this video shows that her car was touched, someone bangs on the window and someone tries to open the door before she lost the plot.
It's very touch and go and the margin is very very slim. I think what saved this Karen is she used her daughter being in the car as validation for driving into protestors. Keep in mind if just one of the injured died she would be in jail.
I see it more that she drove away in panic after someone tried to open the car door rather than targetting ppl.
I have seen something like this before when a POC was surrounded by a bikie gang.
What would YOU have done if you had your family in the car and someone would have tried to enter?
04 May 2023, 10:18 pm
Pepe wrote:
To me, it looked as though the woman nudged one of the protestors before he retaliated.
I'd be pissed off, also...
Something definitely happened off camera to that guy, which is maybe why it escalated to what looks like a lynch mob?
Quote:
But assuming you are correct, I'd be in fear of being physically attacked also.
It seems to be a case of stupidity all around.
It seems to be a case of stupidity all around.
f**k living in America, that's all I say.
04 May 2023, 10:28 pm
04 May 2023, 10:33 pm
Pepe wrote:
Mowing PEOPLE down?
I only saw one person pushed to the ground.
Obviously, if the evidence is in the video, it is in the video.
I might check later, if I have the "spoons".
I only saw one person pushed to the ground.
Obviously, if the evidence is in the video, it is in the video.
I might check later, if I have the "spoons".
The video I posted doesn't show her just after the intersection actually hitting people (that is visible in Cybers link)
04 May 2023, 10:48 pm
Pepe wrote:
What would YOU have done if you had your family in the car and someone would have tried to enter?
I already posted this. I would have reversed out and left the area the moment I saw the protest.
04 May 2023, 10:55 pm
04 May 2023, 11:03 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Recidivist wrote:
I'd like to think I would act calm and rationally in a situation like this, but it's America and anything goes. If I was in my car with my daughter in America and I thought I was about to get jacked and my daughters life was in a danger I wouldn't even hesitate running f*****s over to potentially save my daughters life - I'm not even joking. I'd rather go to jail than risk her life.
I disagree. It demonstrates her arrogance. She felt entitled to drive into a crowd because she felt her rights > than the mobs
As I mentioned twice now, If a normal person witnesses a protesting mob, they would reverse and take a different route.
I also strongly believe she was more worried about damage to her BMW > safety of her daughter or protestors. In order to avoid protestors damaging her car she made a split second decision to potentially kill a few. Her intent is what she has been trying to conceal. And she has been successful in suckering the judge.
She's a female Kyle Rittenhouse, except she used her vehicle to kill whereas Rittenhosue used his AR15. Both of them used a dangerous weapon and claimed self-defense and both of them were in a place they should not have been,
I would be very very interested if she drove past barricades or chose to endganger her everyone because she was trying to make a short cut. All of this was never investigated under cross-examination
This theory is nonsense and I will tell you why:
Do you know how much damage a car would take when hitting a person (or a wombat)?
And what of the legal consequences?
It sounds more like a panic reaction to me.
Perhaps we should just "agree to disagree"?
04 May 2023, 11:31 pm
Recidivist wrote:
I'd like to think I would act calm and rationally in a situation like this, but it's America and anything goes. If I was in my car with my daughter in America and I thought I was about to get jacked and my daughters life was in a danger I wouldn't even hesitate running f*****s over to potentially save my daughters life - I'm not even joking. I'd rather go to jail than risk her life.
I'll send you some steak knives.
05 May 2023, 12:18 am
Pepe wrote:
Do you know how much damage a car would take when hitting a person (or a wombat)?
And what of the legal consequences?
It sounds more like a panic reaction to me.
Perhaps we should just "agree to disagree"?
And what of the legal consequences?
It sounds more like a panic reaction to me.
Perhaps we should just "agree to disagree"?
I'd prefer a psychologist make that decision and not a judge. In my view a judge is no more qualified to make this interpretation on her intent any more than Joe Bloggs randomly picked off the street.
05 May 2023, 12:37 am
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Do you know how much damage a car would take when hitting a person (or a wombat)?
And what of the legal consequences?
It sounds more like a panic reaction to me.
Perhaps we should just "agree to disagree"?
And what of the legal consequences?
It sounds more like a panic reaction to me.
Perhaps we should just "agree to disagree"?
I'd prefer a psychologist make that decision and not a judge. In my view a judge is no more qualified to make this interpretation on her intent any more than Joe Bloggs randomly picked off the street.
Psychologists can be brought into the court to give their expert advice
05 May 2023, 1:04 am
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Do you know how much damage a car would take when hitting a person (or a wombat)?
And what of the legal consequences?
It sounds more like a panic reaction to me.
Perhaps we should just "agree to disagree"?
And what of the legal consequences?
It sounds more like a panic reaction to me.
Perhaps we should just "agree to disagree"?
I'd prefer a psychologist make that decision and not a judge. In my view a judge is no more qualified to make this interpretation on her intent any more than Joe Bloggs randomly picked off the street.
Psychologists can be brought into the court to give their expert advice
In this case one wasn't called in
05 May 2023, 1:16 am
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Do you know how much damage a car would take when hitting a person (or a wombat)?
And what of the legal consequences?
It sounds more like a panic reaction to me.
Perhaps we should just "agree to disagree"?
And what of the legal consequences?
It sounds more like a panic reaction to me.
Perhaps we should just "agree to disagree"?
I'd prefer a psychologist make that decision and not a judge. In my view a judge is no more qualified to make this interpretation on her intent any more than Joe Bloggs randomly picked off the street.
Psychologists can be brought into the court to give their expert advice
In this case one wasn't called in
Blame the prosecution for not doing their job, I guess.
05 May 2023, 1:32 am
