Good boy.Zeets2 » 19 Jan 2026, 2:17 pm » wrote: ↑I knew you were ignorant, but bla bla bla bla bla
That is for a JURY to decide, not for a queer to decide, fruitcake.Beekeeper » 19 Jan 2026, 2:18 pm » wrote: ↑ There was REASAONABLE belief that he would be harmed and shot to take away the threat.
Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2026, 10:19 pm » wrote: ↑ I won't tell you what the conclusion was. You'll have to watch the video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwN_FCANtY
So, busy work. Because if he stuffs your "call out", your opinion will not change.
I made your dishonest post honest with a single edit.ROG62 » 19 Jan 2026, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑ she did the stupid *** thing...she tried getting the **** out of there to avoid arrest without waiting to ensure Ross was clear of her trajectory...even if THOUGH the wheels were turned 90 degrees to the right, she hit him...
Roshambo summed it up quite neatly, dealing with all seven questions.
Far be it from me to disagree. And she wasn't giving up any ****** to men, so I can't accuse the guy of creating a ****** shortage.Vegas » 19 Jan 2026, 3:01 pm » wrote: ↑ She was a woman driver. They can't drive for **** anyway. This is what happens when women are allowed out of the kitchen.
Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2026, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑ Far be it from me to disagree. And she wasn't giving up any ****** to men, so I can't accuse the guy of creating a ****** shortage.
But I do believe he intentionally set up a mouthy broad to be murdered. And that is not what he is paid to do.
He needs to trade spots with Derek Chauvin.
She WAS manifestly in default on the Sandwich Contract.Vegas » 19 Jan 2026, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑ Maybe he just wanted a sandwich. That is his right as a man. I see no injustice.
GroundbreakingCannonpointer » 19 Jan 2026, 3:07 pm » wrote: ↑ Roshambo summed it up quite neatly, dealing with all seven questions.
You should pm him and ax him for tips on posting.
Compared to your weak offerings?
But I was on this DAYS ago....without the aid of a YouTube prompt.
We were all on it, dummy. You were not early to the party, so spare us.Blackvegetable » 19 Jan 2026, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑ But I was on this DAYS ago....without the aid of a YouTube prompt.
Sure, Schatzi..Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2026, 4:59 pm » wrote: ↑ We were all on it, dummy. You were not early to the party, so spare us.
You were on it ineffectually, stupidly. The youtube vid gave us the seven LEGAL questions at play.
Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2026, 3:01 pm » wrote: ↑ That is for a JURY to decide, not for a queer to decide, fruitcake.
It's like you WISH you could confute me, WISH you could bring it - but have to settle for bitch speak.Blackvegetable » 19 Jan 2026, 5:05 pm » wrote: ↑Sure, Schatzi..Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2026, 4:59 pm » wrote: ↑ We were all on it, dummy. You were not early to the party, so spare us.
You were on it ineffectually, stupidly. The youtube vid gave us the seven LEGAL questions at play.
Enough about your time of the month, fruitcake.Beekeeper » 19 Jan 2026, 6:45 pm » wrote: ↑ Nope. It's for a PROSECUTOR to read the law and apply it as written.
It's likely NEVER to get to any courtroom, much less to a jury. That's how the legal system works. PERIOD!!
I watched the entire video, I don’t agree with many of his points.Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2026, 2:18 am » wrote: ↑ Well, if you had watched the video, you would know that a bit more goes into deciding accountability than only that.
For example, we could ask WHY he was in front of her car. Did you know that he had to get OUT of a different car in order to get in front of hers? And that the car he got out of could have blocked hers in? The other two agents likewise debarked a perfectly serviceable SUV that could have prevented the thespian from using her vehicle as a nuclear device intended to blow up the entire city - a fate from which society was narrowly spared by the courageous, life-on-the-line derring-do of that fine, heroic policeman who shot the unarmed soccer mom.
If he put himself in harm's way as a pretext to murder - understandable though it may be, - then he is culpable under the law.
So your "He got an actual bruise" defense is not the iron-clad trump card you might have thought a bruise to be.
Well, tear the lawyer a new ***, then. Make your case for where he got it wrong.Cedar » 19 Jan 2026, 7:58 pm » wrote: ↑ I watched the entire video, I don’t agree with many of his points.
You mean a ton of FREE SPEECH from billionaires.ROG62 » 19 Jan 2026, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑ Agreed...the politicians do it because it's against Trump...
the protesters are pure patsies...with a ton of funding from billionaires egging them on...