Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Americans have much better food and teeth.Guns plus Americans.
How complicated is that?
Yes it is. But the US is not going to get rid of guns so we are going to have to go at it from another perspective. The problem, in my opinion, is that when an issue becomes politically polarized then the chances of finding middle ground goes out the window.Sure, but it is something of a US specific problem. So whatever the root cause is it seems to be an issue the US should try to fix.
The left has always resisted law enforcement.Crikey.
Right, different cultures, of course you find it hard to understand.How many people get shot and killed in the UK? We certainly have our problems but we value life far more than America does.
Then why are you so obsessed with what goes on here?How many people are killed per 100000 in our Nations?
America is a hellscape where deadly shootings are the price you pay for your poor quality of life.
The National Catholic Register should not attempt to judge the heart of Vance, pretending they know that Vance "doesn't care." Catholicism teaches that only God is all knowing and that God is our only judge. Hatred toward ICE or Trump or Vance or Charlie Kirk is not the way of Jesus. If you disagree with the law work with your representatives to change it. Don't demonize your neighbors who enforce the laws that are passed through the democratic process. Heed God's Word.In a blistering op-ed column on Thursday, the National Catholic Reporteraccused Vance of “justifying” Good’s killing, saying his comments are “a moral stain on the collective witness of our Catholic faith.”
Catholic Vice President Vance takes to social media to justify killing of Renee Good
The Trump administration was quick to demonize Good. Within hours of the event and before a formal investigation could even be launched, Homeland Security Director Kristi Noem labeled Good's actions as an "act of domestic terrorism." President Donald Trump on Jan. 7 labeled her as "disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer." Trump went on to say that the ICE officer was lucky to be alive and "is now recovering in the hospital."
Today, JD Vance has taken to social media to justify the shooting and blame Good for her own death.
At the time of publication of this piece, at no point has Vance tweeted any remorse, prayers or condolences regarding Good and her loved ones. Instead, Vance continued his storm of social media posts the morning after the shooting — this time leaning into divisive, tribalistic language to demonize Democrats.
[numerous examples of Vance doing so and continuing a very one-sided view of the incident.]
As a Catholic, Vance knows better than to peddle this brand of gaslighting and agitation. Vance knows that, by virtue of her humanity, Good was endowed with inherent dignity, made in the image and likeness of God. Vance knows that only God can take life. Vance knows that protesting, fleeing or even interfering in an ICE investigation (which there is no evidence that Good did) does not carry a death sentence. Vance knows that lying and killing are sins.
Vance knows. He doesn't care. Vance’s twisted and wrongheaded view of Christianity has been repudiated by two popes. His Catholicism seems to be little more than a political prop, a tool only for his career ambitions and desire for power.
The vice president's comments justifying the death of Renee Good are a moral stain on the collective witness of our Catholic faith. His repeated attempts to blame Good for her own death are fundamentally incompatible with the Gospel. Our only recourse is to pray for his conversion of heart.
If I had a nickel for every Christian who waved Romans 13 away when it was inconvenient, I'd be a rich man.Heed God's Word.
Romans 13: 1-7
If I had a nickel for every Christian who waved Romans 13 away when it was inconvenient, I'd be a rich man.
In this country the governing authorities are appointed by We the People, not God.The National Catholic Register should not attempt to judge the heart of Vance, pretending they know that Vance "doesn't care." Catholicism teaches that only God is all knowing and that God is our only judge. Hatred toward ICE or Trump or Vance or Charlie Kirk is not the way of Jesus. If you disagree with the law work with your representatives to change it. Don't demonize your neighbors who enforce the laws that are passed through the democratic process. Heed God's Word.
Romans 13: 1-7
Being Subject to Authorities
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. RSVCE
Ridiculous argument.At a rate slow enough for him to move out of the way.
His choice was: stay out of the way and not kill a mother and stay out of the way and kill a mother.
Your tinnitus? Seriously, the only sound I hear in that video at that point is the engine revving. Yes, the front left tire does break traction briefly, and in the video filmed from behind, you can hear a short scuffing noise, consistent with what a tire spinning a bit on a loose/wet/icy surface would make. There are no squealing tires.What's the high pitched sound that occurs between the officer saying "get out of the car" and "whoa!"?
These statements are not conflicting. You do understand the sequence of events, right? He walks in front of the vehicle (twice), and then, by the time the vehicle accelerates and he shoots, he is at the side of the vehicle. The first part is relevant because the danger that he perceived himself to be in was of his own creation, against general law enforcement policy (granted, I do not know if ICE specifically has a policy against this). The second part is relevant because it shows that he was not in any actual danger, and therefore was in violation of the federal use of force policy.So to recap the previous posts (because there's some conflicting information happening)
There was one person insisting he was at the side of the vehicle
Another that's citing criminology professor saying "why would he put himself in the front of the vehicle like that?"
Which he should not have done. Again, you don't walk in front of a running vehicle - especially with a driver at the wheel.As noted, the vehicle was stationary at the time he started walking around the front of the vehicle. She backed up after he was already "in-stride".
(I posted the captures showing when the backup lights were off and on, relative to the timing of his walk around the front)
She did not "jump out of the vehicle" in the course of his interaction. She was already out of the vehicle when he exited his vehicle at the start of his video footage. Also, she doesn't yell "Come at me." She says (doesn't yell, either) "You wanna come at us?" Not quite so aggressive as you're making it out to be. If that level of confrontational behavior is enough to put someone on a hair trigger for violence, then they should not have a gun. Period.Saying the situation was "non-confrontational" would be a stretch, once the passenger has already jumped out and yelled "come at me", I think that goes out the window... but that aside.
Because there are always safety concerns about walking in front of a running vehicle with a driver at the wheel. You don't ignore safety rules just because you think you have the situation under control - complacency gets people killed.If the driver was indeed calm and non-confrontational, then why would he have had any particular safety concerns about walking around the vehicle while it was stationary?
Her choice was to obey law enforcement and get out of the car or listen to her wife and drive forward. Her three children will suffer for HER poor choice.At a rate slow enough for him to move out of the way.
His choice was: stay out of the way and not kill a mother and stay out of the way and kill a mother.
No it doesn't. When all things taken into consideration it can only process so much information in a certain length of time, make a decision based upon the input it receives and tells the body what to do and how to respond. Thats why training is done to help the mind and body react quicker under certain circumstances.Don’t be stupid. Of course it can.
Yeah there are plenty of court rulings that indicate that if you don't comply with lawful commands and rhe officer decides to take you into custody you cannot just suddenly comply and everything is null and void. If you fail to give the officer your ID as required and then rhey decide to take you into custody, you cannot suddenly produce your ID and get off Scott free. The charges will stick.Only once it became clear that she was about to be apprehended despite failure to comply for several minutes leading up to it while she was actively committing a crime.
That's not how it works.
If I'm actively engaged in an offense for several minutes, and ignore all other requests to just "get outta here, don't cause trouble", and only once I've pushed and pushed to the point of an officer saying "You know what, okay, you had your chance to leave, now I'm detaining you, please exit the vehicle", it's no longer the opportunity to say "well, gee, I'm just going to remove myself from the situation now"
As far as "evidence shows her intent was not to hit the agent"... if an agent is standing mere inches from her front bumper, and you hear tires squealing, and everyone yelling "whoa!!", I don't know how you'd expect that agent to be able to differentiate.
The time frames in the video are nowhere near putting a thought process under that kind of time pressure. Sure things can go too fast for people but clearly this is not one of them. Only fast action is Tex drawing his iron.No it doesn't. When all things taken into consideration it can only process so much information in a certain length of time, make a decision based upon the input it receives and tells the body what to do and how to respond. Thats why training is done to help the mind and body react quicker under certain circumstances.
It is also why the courts have recognized that officers often have to make split seconds decisions based upon rapidly evolving situations and that people like you cannot use hindsight as a criteria for determining if it was the correct course. What the officer saw, felt and perceived at that moment of time in dangerous rapidly evolving situations is what matters.
Look, Ive actually taken some courses on this, so I have some understanding how this works.
I think you missed this:Likewise, the woman in this situation had ample opportunity to say "my bad, I'll move my car and get out of here" and that likely would've been the end of it.