Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Page 28 of 60 [ 954 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 60  Next

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

27 Nov 2021, 9:33 pm

The more I learn about this kid, the more I like him.
He sounds very credible in the Youtube video clip.
I suggest hyperpartisan progressives avoid watching. :P


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,689

28 Nov 2021, 1:30 am

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:

Yeah I did, This one is problematic because the 911 dispatch only has the motorcyclists call to go by and he could have lied.

What is known is the motorcyclist chased the 5 month pregnant woman to her house, The woman in this case was also a librarian in Volusia and everyone who knew her said the motorcyclists claims about her behaviour are completely out of character. When police checked the motorcyclist he was neither ejected from his bike or injured.

Why did he follow her? probably to threaten her for her driving. She panicked and came back with a gun to protect herself as she was alone. Should she have done that probably not. Should the motorcyclist have just filed a police report on her behavior after getting her car licence number plate and home address - probably.

When she came back with the gun he should have just left, Instead he played "Quick draw McGraw" and killed a pregnant woman and her unborn child.

I wonder how you would feel if this was your wife, girlfriend or sister and unborn kid. Probably sing a different tune then.

All that Rittenhouse's verdict does is send the wrong message to young men they can behave like Clint Eastwood shooting people claiming self-defence, even to Pregnant women (apparently you have no problem with that).


It's like you live in a parallel dimension, or are so pathologically incapable of ever admitting to being wrong that you'll spin ever more elaborate lies to try and cover up your original error. Your fantasy is impeached quite quickly with even a cursory google search for local news:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/vo ... story.html

Quote:

A Volusia County library assistant who was killed after an alleged road rage incident was the aggressor, police said.

The incident happened over the weekend. Sara Nicole Morales, 35, was fatally shot after a confrontation following a hit-and-run crash in Orange City, about 30 miles north of Orlando.

Orange City police said Morales, who was pregnant, was driving a blue Kia just after 5 p.m. Saturday when she allegedly hit a motorcycle and fled the scene.

Investigators said Morales “intentionally hit the motorcyclist,” Fox 35 Orlando reported.

The motorcyclist and other witnesses followed the woman home while contacting authorities.

When Morales arrived at her house, she went inside to retrieve a gun. She then pointed the gun at the motorcyclist.

A confrontation followed and she was shot multiple times.

Emergency responders with Orange City Fire Rescue were called to the scene and the woman was transported to Halifax Medical Center, where she later died.

Investigators say the motorcyclist, who had a concealed weapons permit, remained at the scene and has been cooperating with police.

Morales leaves behind an 11-year-old daughter and a fiancé.

The investigation is still ongoing, investigators said. No one has been charged.

Anyone with additional information should contact Orange City police detectives at 386-775-9999.

“Sara was well-liked by patrons and staff for her upbeat personality,” said Regional Librarian Ann Collins in a statement. “She was kind, hardworking, a team player and always ready to help.”


It wasn't just his word, there were other witnesses, and apparently they're backing up his story. So, unless you want to spin yet another elaborate conspiracy theory about how all of these people must have been in cahoots to get away with killing a poor innocent woman for no apparent reason, maybe you should give up on this one, just slink away like you always do when cornered.


Slink away? ha! you wish

I posed the question whether you would be as heartless about the woman and her unborn child if it was your girlfriend, sister or somebody you knew and you conveniently avoided answering it. Instead you call me names.

Do you know why I posted an image of those two old crazies who pointed their weapons at the BLM protestors? Because you and your ilk were supporting their right to i) bear arms and ii) stand their ground iii) exercise their right to shoot protestors if they felt threatened

Now how exactly is that so different to what Sara Morales did? She was on her property, she felt threatened and pointed a weapon at the motorcyclist, The motorcyclist chose to kill her and her unborn child instead of leaving the premises.
The morotcyclist had witnesses, licence plate and address. He could have filed a police report like a normal person. Did he really need to kill her?

The problem is you cant get your story straight when defending gun nuts who soot first and ask questions later.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,689

28 Nov 2021, 1:50 am

It's a fact.

When you give guns to people like Rittenhouse or the motorcyclist who gunned down a pregnant woman and her unborn child it supports what policy makers have been saying for years.

Giving civilians guns does not reduce crime or reduce murders
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nce-shows/

The police involved in the Sara Morales killing don't even follow their own advice where they encourage citizens not to use guns in conflict or against criminals

why?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... ggests-no/



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,653
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Nov 2021, 4:03 am

cyberdad wrote:
Slink away? ha! you wish


You realize that I do this for my own entertainment, right? That by popping up and saying stupid things that I can dunk on, you're doing me a favor? Not to mix metaphors, but this is like skeet shooting fish in a barrel, with fish that are just asking for it so I don't even need to feel bad about the lack of challenge.

cyberdad wrote:
I posed the question whether you would be as heartless about the woman and her unborn child if it was your girlfriend, sister or somebody you knew and you conveniently avoided answering it. Instead you call me names.


I didn't answer it because it was a stupid question that Pepe already addressed by pointing out that it was an appeal to emotion, but since you insist, if someone close to me was dumb and reckless enough to deliberately hit someone with their car and then point a gun at them, I might be sad that they were gone, but it wouldn't change my feelings about the righteousness of what happened. It's called being consistent, you should try it some time.

I also didn't call you any names, I've said you're dishonest and stubborn and your posts are delusional, but those are all observations based on your behavior, not mere insults. You could easily avoid the labels by being honest and reasonable, but that seems to be beyond you, so here we are.

cyberdad wrote:
Do you know why I posted an image of those two old crazies who pointed their weapons at the BLM protestors? Because you and your ilk were supporting their right to i) bear arms and ii) stand their ground iii) exercise their right to shoot protestors if they felt threatened


Was I? Seeing as how my posting history shows a break from 2017 up until August of this year and that incident happened last summer, it would seem that you're lying yet again. I could ding you for more lies for putting words in my mouth, but that feels gratuitous at this point, you're a liar, you make things up about people because you can't argue very well and also can't admit when you are wrong, and everyone knows it, you just make it clearer and clearer with every post.

cyberdad wrote:
Now how exactly is that so different to what Sara Morales did? She was on her property, she felt threatened and pointed a weapon at the motorcyclist, The motorcyclist chose to kill her and her unborn child instead of leaving the premises.


You're really not leaving me much choice short of questioning your intellect if you really think that someone who commits a hit and run assault on someone, flees to their house, and then emerges with a gun pointed at the guy who's just there directing the cops is at all similar to Rittenhouse being attacked during a riot, or the McCloskeys standing on their porch with weapons while a large groups of protestors trespasses nearby, you'd have to be dumb or dishonest to make that claim. The chain of events is she hits the guy, she flees the scene, he and some witnesses follow her while phoning in the police report, and she comes out with a gun pointed at them; she is the aggressor at every point in the incident, and is the one who escalates it from people standing outside her house with phones into a gunfight, baring new evidence it's completely on her.

cyberdad wrote:
The morotcyclist had witnesses, licence plate and address. He could have filed a police report like a normal person. Did he really need to kill her?


Well, since she had a gun pointed at him and had already acted extremely aggressively, a reasonable person might say he did. Following someone who tried to run you down with their vehicle, a potentially fatal attack, to make sure the police are able to swiftly apprehend them, is not a particularly reckless action, nor one that you would expect to escalate into gunfire, and that is completely on her, had the man not been armed it may have been he or one of the bystanders who was killed had she opened fire, she might have even shot at the cops given how erratically she was behaving.

cyberdad wrote:
The problem is you cant get your story straight when defending gun nuts who soot first and ask questions later.


L O L.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,653
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Nov 2021, 4:09 am

cyberdad wrote:
It's a fact.

When you give guns to people like Rittenhouse or the motorcyclist who gunned down a pregnant woman and her unborn child it supports what policy makers have been saying for years.

Giving civilians guns does not reduce crime or reduce murders
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nce-shows/

The police involved in the Sara Morales killing don't even follow their own advice where they encourage citizens not to use guns in conflict or against criminals

why?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... ggests-no/


Whiff, you're engaging with an argument that no one is making, it's not even a strawman as no one is actually arguing gun policy here.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,689

28 Nov 2021, 4:11 am

Dox47 wrote:
Well, since she had a gun pointed at him and had already acted extremely aggressively, a reasonable person might say he did. Following someone who tried to run you down with their vehicle, a potentially fatal attack, to make sure the police are able to swiftly apprehend them, is not a particularly reckless action, nor one that you would expect to escalate into gunfire, and that is completely on her, had the man not been armed it may have been he or one of the bystanders who was killed had she opened fire, she might have even shot at the cops given how erratically she was behaving..


I feel we don't know the events leading to her "deliberately" hitting the motorcyclist . The police are happy that she was the aggressor but I don't know what the motorcyclist hoped to achieve by following her and confronting her in her home?

Her library co-workers have supported her in saying this is completely out of character for her so something doesn't sit quite right in just assuming she went bonkers.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,653
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Nov 2021, 6:08 am

cyberdad wrote:
I feel we don't know the events leading to her "deliberately" hitting the motorcyclist . The police are happy that she was the aggressor but I don't know what the motorcyclist hoped to achieve by following her and confronting her in her home?

Her library co-workers have supported her in saying this is completely out of character for her so something doesn't sit quite right in just assuming she went bonkers.


Why do you believe her co-workers and not the witnesses to the crime? Maybe she had a hormonal imbalance that caused her to act erratically, maybe she was a psycho all along and had been hiding it up till now, we can speculate all day, but nothing is going to change the fact that this case has nothing to do with what you claimed it did, and you're being too stubborn to admit it as you desperately seek a face saving escape hatch yet again.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,075
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

28 Nov 2021, 8:40 am

I wonder why the traffic accident is being called a "road rage"?

She called police and reported the men were threatening her, and harassing her, was this part of the "road rage" earlier or when they showed up at her home later?

I wonder how anyone can know that she *intentionally* hit the motorcycle?

I am assuming all the witnesses are motorcycle buddies of the killer? (As it's abnormal, for a group of witnesses to follow someone home like that. However, it would make sense if they're all together).

I also find the 911 call interesting because the caller says, "... she tried to pull her gun on him" ..". So she didn't actually pull her gun on him, but made a motion that made him think she would? Did they both have their guns out and he was the faster draw? Why is a witness using the word "tried"?


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,936
Location: canada

28 Nov 2021, 10:33 am

A lot of people who are against Rittenhouse being acquitted I noticed, will often point how how he crossed state lines, and carrying an illegal weapon, but in court, the judge ruled that there was no law against carrying this particular weapon across the state lines.

So it doesn't count as him breaking those particular laws if people are just going to make laws up, including the prosecution. And this also goes to show what kind of government the people who are against him being acquitted seem to want to live under, is that they want to live in a world, where you have to show papers and be searched as you go from state to state it seems, or at least it seems to send that message.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

28 Nov 2021, 1:14 pm

Dox47 wrote:

cyberdad wrote:
I posed the question whether you would be as heartless about the woman and her unborn child if it was your girlfriend, sister or somebody you knew and you conveniently avoided answering it. Instead you call me names.


I didn't answer it because it was a stupid question that Pepe already addressed by pointing out that it was an appeal to emotion, but since you insist, if someone close to me was dumb and reckless enough to deliberately hit someone with their car and then point a gun at them, I might be sad that they were gone, but it wouldn't change my feelings about the righteousness of what happened. It's called being consistent, you should try it some time.


People may be both emotional *and* rational at the same time.
Others seem to be incapable of that and let their emotions dominate their thinking.

Dox47 wrote:
I also didn't call you any names, I've said you're dishonest and stubborn and your posts are delusional, but those are all observations based on your behavior, not mere insults. You could easily avoid the labels by being honest and reasonable, but that seems to be beyond you, so here we are.


Some people have trouble differentiating observations from insults or personal attacks.
We are not "some people". 8)

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Do you know why I posted an image of those two old crazies who pointed their weapons at the BLM protestors? Because you and your ilk were supporting their right to i) bear arms and ii) stand their ground iii) exercise their right to shoot protestors if they felt threatened


Was I? Seeing as how my posting history shows a break from 2017 up until August of this year and that incident happened last summer, it would seem that you're lying yet again. I could ding you for more lies for putting words in my mouth, but that feels gratuitous at this point, you're a liar, you make things up about people because you can't argue very well and also can't admit when you are wrong, and everyone knows it, you just make it clearer and clearer with every post.


Well, cyber can't be referring to me.
I'm not an "elk", let alone an "ilk".
I am a skunk. 8)

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Now how exactly is that so different to what Sara Morales did? She was on her property, she felt threatened and pointed a weapon at the motorcyclist, The motorcyclist chose to kill her and her unborn child instead of leaving the premises.


You're really not leaving me much choice short of questioning your intellect if you really think that someone who commits a hit and run assault on someone, flees to their house, and then emerges with a gun pointed at the guy who's just there directing the cops is at all similar to Rittenhouse being attacked during a riot, or the McCloskeys standing on their porch with weapons while a large groups of protestors trespasses nearby, you'd have to be dumb or dishonest to make that claim. The chain of events is she hits the guy, she flees the scene, he and some witnesses follow her while phoning in the police report, and she comes out with a gun pointed at them; she is the aggressor at every point in the incident, and is the one who escalates it from people standing outside her house with phones into a gunfight, baring new evidence it's completely on her.


I have *observed* that "logical thinking" is not cyber's strong point.

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The morotcyclist had witnesses, licence plate and address. He could have filed a police report like a normal person. Did he really need to kill her?


Well, since she had a gun pointed at him and had already acted extremely aggressively, a reasonable person might say he did. Following someone who tried to run you down with their vehicle, a potentially fatal attack, to make sure the police are able to swiftly apprehend them, is not a particularly reckless action, nor one that you would expect to escalate into gunfire, and that is completely on her, had the man not been armed it may have been he or one of the bystanders who was killed had she opened fire, she might have even shot at the cops given how erratically she was behaving.

cyberdad wrote:
The problem is you cant get your story straight when defending gun nuts who soot first and ask questions later.


L O L.


I concur. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

28 Nov 2021, 1:16 pm

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
It's a fact.

When you give guns to people like Rittenhouse or the motorcyclist who gunned down a pregnant woman and her unborn child it supports what policy makers have been saying for years.

Giving civilians guns does not reduce crime or reduce murders
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nce-shows/

The police involved in the Sara Morales killing don't even follow their own advice where they encourage citizens not to use guns in conflict or against criminals

why?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... ggests-no/


Whiff, you're engaging with an argument that no one is making, it's not even a strawman as no one is actually arguing gun policy here.


cyber is known for his non-sequiturs.


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

28 Nov 2021, 1:19 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Well, since she had a gun pointed at him and had already acted extremely aggressively, a reasonable person might say he did. Following someone who tried to run you down with their vehicle, a potentially fatal attack, to make sure the police are able to swiftly apprehend them, is not a particularly reckless action, nor one that you would expect to escalate into gunfire, and that is completely on her, had the man not been armed it may have been he or one of the bystanders who was killed had she opened fire, she might have even shot at the cops given how erratically she was behaving..


I feel we don't know the events leading to her "deliberately" hitting the motorcyclist . The police are happy that she was the aggressor but I don't know what the motorcyclist hoped to achieve by following her and confronting her in her home?


I believe the person she attacked wanted her apprehended.


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

28 Nov 2021, 1:23 pm

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
I feel we don't know the events leading to her "deliberately" hitting the motorcyclist . The police are happy that she was the aggressor but I don't know what the motorcyclist hoped to achieve by following her and confronting her in her home?

Her library co-workers have supported her in saying this is completely out of character for her so something doesn't sit quite right in just assuming she went bonkers.


Why do you believe her co-workers and not the witnesses to the crime? Maybe she had a hormonal imbalance that caused her to act erratically, maybe she was a psycho all along and had been hiding it up till now, we can speculate all day, but nothing is going to change the fact that this case has nothing to do with what you claimed it did, and you're being too stubborn to admit it as you desperately seek a face saving escape hatch yet again.


The thought had crossed my mind, but I didn't want to bring it up.
I'm no hero. 8O

I will admit when I am wrong.
It adds to my "credibility coinage". 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

28 Nov 2021, 1:29 pm

ironpony wrote:
A lot of people who are against Rittenhouse being acquitted I noticed, will often point how how he crossed state lines, and carrying an illegal weapon, but in court, the judge ruled that there was no law against carrying this particular weapon across the state lines.

So it doesn't count as him breaking those particular laws if people are just going to make laws up, including the prosecution. And this also goes to show what kind of government the people who are against him being acquitted seem to want to live under, is that they want to live in a world, where you have to show papers and be searched as you go from state to state it seems, or at least it seems to send that message.


A lot of people aren't interested in the facts.
Some people have a narrative to service.

BTW, some people still think Rittenhouse killed 2 black people.
Some people think this was a race-based trial.
I tend to ignore "some people". 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,689

28 Nov 2021, 3:24 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
I wonder why the traffic accident is being called a "road rage"?

She called police and reported the men were threatening her, and harassing her, was this part of the "road rage" earlier or when they showed up at her home later?

I wonder how anyone can know that she *intentionally* hit the motorcycle?

I am assuming all the witnesses are motorcycle buddies of the killer? (As it's abnormal, for a group of witnesses to follow someone home like that. However, it would make sense if they're all together).

I also find the 911 call interesting because the caller says, "... she tried to pull her gun on him" ..". So she didn't actually pull her gun on him, but made a motion that made him think she would? Did they both have their guns out and he was the faster draw? Why is a witness using the word "tried"?


And this is exactly why I compared this to the Rittenhouse case. The circumstances leading to the woman's death is extremely blurry and not clear. Ahmed Arbery supposedly attacked McMichael after he "followed" Arbery and in the altercation discharged his weapon killing Arbery. McMichael was charged with murder, how exactly is that different to the death's of Huber and Rosenbaum (or Travon Martin for that matter)? All of these cases involve very ambiguous situations that lead to unnecessary deaths that stemmed from civilians being allowed to carry loaded weapons.

When you start normalising vigilante action then its a really slippery slope. The rules are not as clear and precise as the pro-gun, pro-stand your ground people are making out. All of these incidents I mentioned resulted in innocent people getting killed for no reason.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,689

28 Nov 2021, 3:26 pm

Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Well, since she had a gun pointed at him and had already acted extremely aggressively, a reasonable person might say he did. Following someone who tried to run you down with their vehicle, a potentially fatal attack, to make sure the police are able to swiftly apprehend them, is not a particularly reckless action, nor one that you would expect to escalate into gunfire, and that is completely on her, had the man not been armed it may have been he or one of the bystanders who was killed had she opened fire, she might have even shot at the cops given how erratically she was behaving..


I feel we don't know the events leading to her "deliberately" hitting the motorcyclist . The police are happy that she was the aggressor but I don't know what the motorcyclist hoped to achieve by following her and confronting her in her home?


I believe the person she attacked wanted her apprehended.


Last time I checked that's the job of the police, not vigilantes.