From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
   >>Mark Shaw  wrote:   
      
   Do not retain the quote without retaining the attribution line. Those   
   aren't your words.   
      
   >>>Details are still coming out, but it appears likely that he'd pulled   
   >>>a gun on them.   
      
   >>I'm going to require independent verification of that.   
      
   >As am I. But your Subject: line is ridiculous and inflammatory. If   
   >anyone paid any attention to USENET, it would be a pretty bad thing to   
   >post.   
      
   I am not in the mood to give you the benefit of a doubt. You know   
   better. "Homicide" is the killing of one person by another. I used   
   "murder" to suggest intent, so unless you would imply that the gun   
   somehow fired accidentally, you are full of shit.   
      
   Self defense is an affirmative defense against a criminal homicide   
   charge. Even if the jury acquittal is based on a finding of legal   
   justification, a murder still took place.   
      
   You know all this.   
      
   In any event, the Trump administration has been deliberately using   
   heavy-handed tactics and denying civil rights in order to provoke   
   extreme responses from protestors, hoping that they'll be riots,   
   vandalism, looting, arson, and the occasssional murder as we saw during   
   the "Summer of Love" at the end of Trump's first term, following the   
   murder of George Floyd. Trump wants an excuse to invoke the   
   Insurrection Act so he may deploy troops against Americans.   
      
   You know all this too. My word choice, although inflammatory, was not   
   ridiculous. You got it very wrong.   
      
   >>As I pointed out, they just got caught doctoring another video of an   
   >>earlier arrest   
      
   >Gonna require independent verification of that.   
      
   In the root article, I provided the URL to the news story that the woman   
   had provided raw video footage of her arrest. The Trump administration   
   had doctored the video.   
      
   >>and they are still calling Miss Good a terrorist. I think she   
   >>committed a traffic infraction.   
      
   >Driving forward while a law enforcement officer is in front of your   
   >vehicle is rather more serious than "a traffic infraction."   
      
   Too much video has come out for you to still claim this at this late   
   date. It's false.   
      
   She blocked the vehicle; that's a traffic infraction. She then panicked   
   when the first agent tried to open the driver's side door to pull her   
   out. Yes, she drove forward because she had not shifted into reverse.   
   But the second agent was slightly off to the side and had not planted   
   himself directly in her path. She was driving slowly enough that at no   
   point was he in fear for his life, and video shows him jumping out of   
   the way. With the driver dead, that guarantees that the vehicle will   
   crash, making it more likely that someone will be injured.   
      
   >(I think   
   >the ICE officer was dumb and engaged in very bad police work, and I   
   >think he ought to be fired for it. But even if you do something   
   >stupid, you are entitled to defend yourself when someone exploits your   
   >stupidity to try to harm or kill you.   
      
   That's completely inapplicable to shooting and killing Miss Good. He   
   didn't shoot in defense of his own life as she wasn't driving toward him   
   and sure as hell wasn't trying to injure anybody. Shooting her   
   guaranteed a crash and made it more likely that someone would be   
   injured, so he didn't shoot her in defense of another.   
      
   If it were a good shoot, would the Trump administration have told so   
   many lies about it?   
      
   You got this very wrong too.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)