Ya these studies that cut down intermittent fasting always have an 8 hour eating window which is not intermittent fasting. Junk science probably sponsored by the food industry
Homeland security is saying "Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Homeland Security Department, had said that Gibson has “a lengthy rap sheet (that) includes robbery, drug possession with intent to sell, possession of a deadly weapon, malicious destruction and theft.” She did not indicate if those were arrests, charges or convictions."
So the man may have still been dangerous. People who own firearms legally are the less dangerous than those who possess them illegally. Although it's not clear what type of dangerous weapon the man had.
You can’t take anything this administration says at face value. They have a pattern of blatant lies.
Below the section you chose to quote:
‘Court records indicate Gibson’s legal history shows only the one felony in 2008 (later dismissed by the court), along with a few traffic violations, minor drug arrests and an arrest for riding public transportation without paying the fare.’
Most of those are shorts clips that do not show the context of the situation. These sorts of clips are what is causing people to believe the actions of federal agents are not justified when they actually are. When the initial clip of Renee Good came out people thought that the she did not drive into the agent but now that other angles have come out it is clear that she did hit the federal agent. It is always important to find the whole clip and not just propaganda clips
I'm not understanding your point either, so here's how I'm interpreting what you're saying, in good faith: "she was in the way, so it was worth shooting her. fullstop".
So I'm struggling to understand why you seem to be okay with shooting someone for being in the way. So please explain to me why you think "obstruction" was worth shooting her.
She wasn't shot for obstructing federal agents. The series of events are as follows:
1. She obstructed federal agents
2. She resisted arrest/detainment
3. She accelerated into a federal agent
4. She was shot
I don't think that she deserved death. It's unfortunate that you are misrepresenting my comments. I believe that she made a series of bad decisions and was solely responsible for what occurred. I understand that we are living in emotional times but arguing in bad faith does not improve the situation. We should maybe stop this discussion as it doesn't seem that we are getting anywhere. I hope that you have a good day
My mom's dad was shot and killed by police. Absolutely nobody in my family knows anything about it, but the default is "he was a bad person and deserved it" or, "he probably did something wrong." The coroner's report shows his death as a suicide, despite police shooting and killing him. This was a time before cameraphones and before I was even born, so it's impossible for me, let alone anyone else to know what happened.
A lot of how you approach this discussion reminds me of the side of my family that defaults to thinking that the police did nothing wrong, or that their actions were justified or within policy, even without knowing the full facts (or, any; it's willful ignorance out the wazoo), plus a handful of assumptions. And, just -- a person died and that's all you can muster? Callousness and an air of benevolence?
So can you. Your past experience was terrible, but that's no reason to ignore or misrepresent what others are saying.
What GP and I are both seeing in the Renee video is assault with a deadly weapon on a law enforcement officer. Lethal force is a valid response. That doesn't mean she deserves it, but that she was doing something stupid without realizing just how stupid it was. Most of these protestors are the same, they're new to this and being tricked by anti-ICE activists into thinking it's completely safe without getting all the information.
"Deserved" is a stronger word than "earned" or "merited", there's a sense of satisfaction or entitlement (though negative) behind that word. Something like, to say that she deserved death means saying she should have died for what she did, that it was the right outcome. That's not what we're saying. It's more like, the actions the officer took weren't in the wrong despite the bad outcome. She made really bad choices, and she was the one at fault, but there were better possible outcomes given the exact same series of events and she didn't deserve to die. But it's not a surprising outcome either.
Another quick aside since I suspect this is a second point of confusion, "lethal force" does not mean "with the intent to kill", it means "force that is likely to cause severe injury or death".
> Another quick aside since I suspect this is a second point of confusion, "lethal force" does not mean "with the intent to kill", it means "force that is likely to cause severe injury or death".
It.. is not. I suspect that you have some fundamental misunderstandings of firearm safety and I would not feel safe at a range with someone who thinks this way.
It has been well established that ICE agents are intentionally stepping in front of slow moving cars to justify a claim of self defense.
They also intentionally bump into people and then claim they are being assaulted. Their superiors have made it clear that will face no consequences for this, and they have aggressive quotas to meet.
In what world do you think it's acceptable to knee someone in the face repeatedly when they're on the ground and not resisting? You clearly didn't watch the videos at all.
Saw the video that you are referring to and it looks like the person is in fact resisting. Also I would not call that good law enforcement and don't agree with the officer doing that
Resisting? Where? Can you point to me in the 44 second clip where he is resisting? Because when the ICE agents move out of the way he's sitting there, completely still. He's so still that they lift him up entirely, with zero resistance or movement. What the fuck do you think he should do in order to not be resisting arrest, given that he's already completely still? You can see between the officers legs the only movement he's doing is when he's being kneed in the face.
It seemed like he was resisting to me because the agents were struggling to get him in handcuffs. Without a full video it is difficult to tell for sure though. The video is missing a lot of context. What happened before that video clip would make all the difference in determining whether or not he was resisting and how much force was necessary. Again I don't condone the agent kneeing the man in the head
Every time, the excuse is 'I need more context' when confronted with evidence because you do, in fact, condone it. Or else you wouldn't start your argument with 'he was resisting arrest'. And don't think I didn't see what you posted originally, you originally didn't even watch the damn clips and I had to tell you which one specifically to watch. Go back and watch any of the other clips I posted. Watch them very carefully.
The prompt did not include the fact that Trump declared them to be terrorists which I believe is what makes that kind of attack legal. If they are enemy combatants you are allowed to follow up and ensure they have been killed
> If they are enemy combatants you are allowed to follow up and ensure they have been killed
Not true. Launching an attack on shipwrecked enemy is a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions. [1, Chapter II Article 12] It's also prohibited by DoD's own guidelines. [2, page 1071, section 17.14]
It's not a question of whether or not what happened was illegal, it's a textbook example of a war crime. It's a matter of whether or not the justice system still has enough power to identify who is responsible and hold them accountable.
How is that different than the Nuremberg defense in combination with Hitler declaring Jews subhuman? One can claim Trump knowingly committed an international crime by declaring someone a terrorist when it would result in the US' criminality but the people involved are also guilty.
reply