MovieChat Forums > beermonkey70 > Replies
beermonkey70's Replies
"I gave you a chance to prove me wrong about my claim that you are inconsistent and so far all you've done is deflect and run away like a coward. I totally own you.
"
You have not ESTABLISHED any inconsistency. What have done is make assumptions and then present ridiculous hoops to disprove these assumptions that were never established. That is the opposite of ownage. You "own" the straw man that you constructed nothing more
"Whether it's a secure area or not is IRRELEVANT"
Its not IRRELEVANT thats utter fucking nonsense. The area is secure for a reason. Breaching that area would put lives in danger as it would be too late too control them. The window and beyond was a strategic point that had to be held
"You are clearly part of the DemoKKKrat cult, your behavior makes it obvious. Then show me evidence of you calling out other DemoKKKrats who called the cop racist for killing her."
This is you admitting to making baseless assumptions. NO I will not jump through your specific hoops just to make a point. I've already made a statement about that incident.
"ohh you have to jump through this hoop I constructed or you're in a cult" .. fuck off with that bullshit
"you assumed that Ashli Babbit was going to kill someone so therefore it's OK to kill her."
NOPE never said that.
First the "assumptions" are about how I would react in other incidents made by you about me , not about the people involved in the actual incidents. What kind of bs logic is that??
"You are clearly part of the DemoKKKrat cult, your behavior makes it obvious. Then show me evidence of you calling out other DemoKKKrats who called the cop racist for killing her."
There was an imminent threat to human lives. Should they have waited until the entire mob breached the secure area and had members of congress surrounded???
You have a childish view of this incident
sorry I'm 100% consistent and the law agreed with me not you.
Was he charged ?????????
You're assumption of "inconsistency" is based on your assumption on how I judge other incidents but those assumptions are wrong.
You even admit they are assumptions.
You haven't owned anything. You are arguing against a straw man.
"And all she did was WALK INTO A BUILDING"
Flat out WRONG. She was BREACHING A SECURE AREA. You keep ignoring this critical fact.
I'm not in any cult. That looks like a legit kill but I don't remember hearing outrage over this particular incident. Not saying there wasn't
But more importantly you have no idea what I've ever said about that or any other incident. You just talk out of your ass and make baseless assumptions.
I have, you idiot, You dont know me
You live in a bubble and have a distorted view of what anyone outside of your bubble talks about.
I talk to people on the left right and middle.
Most on the left do NOT support the violence associated with the protest and riots. In fact I've only talked to ONE perspn who admitted to being OK with SOME of the violence.
But will you jump out of your glass house and denounce those that call Chauvin a hero?
She was leading a mob into a SECURE AREA where elected officials were near. Those lives were clearly threatened.
No matter what you lose this exchange. The fact is that his kill was reviewed and declared a legal use of deadly force.
I didn't fucking stutter . Yes they can shoot anyone who is posing an imminent threat to human lives, whether they are actual "BLM/Anifa" or they are part of operation boogaloo or they are just opportunists taking advantage of a previously peaceful protest.
more bullshit . It's not just "assuming" . They have to act based on the available information. The mob was attacking law enforcement all over the capital. There is plenty of video supporting this. There is plenty of testimony supporting this.
By you bullshit logic if an unarmed mob (also, they didn't know if she was unarmed) was surrounding a lone police officer he couldn't shoot any of them since no individual member of the mob posed a deadly threat.
The link literally says "generally speaking" it is not the be all end all doctrine of when a LEO can use deadly force.
You would fail as a lawyer because you a simple minded interpretation of the law of have no clue as to the complexity of the American legal system
You repeatedly misrepresent the pertinent facts and ignore key facts
She broke a fucking window and was attempting to breach a secure area, She disobeyed a legal order.
She fucked around and found out.
"Actually that’s not wrong, I know what I’m talking about and just saying “any lawyer will tell you that’ is not a convincing rebuttal."
Not the main point which is why I didn't rehash it but again its way more complicated than your simplified version
this directly refutes your over simplified rule of self defense https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
If they pose imminent threats of serious bodily harm then law enforcement can absolutely use deadly force. Sorry that attempted gotcha didn't work out the way you'd hoped
so much wrong in your post its probably futile here but this
"Ashli didn’t initiate anything,"
How could anything you say be taken seriously with such an idiotic statement?
Were they at HER house?? Did they pull HER over?? Of course she fucking initiated the confrontation. Did you forget that SHE broke a fucking window and was trying to breach a secure area?
"you can only use deadly force to protect against deadly force, that is how self defense laws work " '
First, this is wrong any lawyer can tell you that.
also, that is beside the point since I never said "self defense". This was a case of law enforcement legally using deadly force which isn't limited to "self defense" It's far more complicated than that
https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/when-can-police-use-deadly-force
"what the majority of Republicans say (and FYI most of them did denounce Chauvin) is a non sequitur and 100% irrelevant."
Except you literally did the same in you hypothetical.
", if the person shot is a BLM thug who is trying to kill a cop in the process then the BLM thug is automatically a victim while the cop who used their right to self defense is some kind of oppressor, "
complete bullshit made up scenario. Most of the controversial killings where situations where law enforcement initiated the actual confrontation, either serving a warrant or making a traffic stop.
Ashli Babbit initiated the confrontation and was in the process of attempting to breach a secure area.
"she wasn’t armed, she wasn’t hurting anyone"
You're missing one VITAL fact .. she wasn't ALONE. She was part of a mob with presumably bad intentions. Law enforcement must assume the worst in this chaotic scenario. Her killing was one million percent justified. If she was unarmed and by herself you might have a point but they didnt know if she was unarmed and she sure the hell wasn't alone. A mob could have easily overpowered the law enforcement officers that were there if they did not respond with deadly force and they had no reason to believe that that would not be the outcome.
"You need to learn how to debate, junior. Right now you are not debating honestly."
If you can't see the glaring hypocrisy on display by you then I cant help you
Restaurants don't pool tips to benefit the servers. They do it to increase efficiency of service, (although there are better ways to do that than just pooling all tips). In other cases servers will "tip out" food runners.
That's why often your food will be brought to you by someone other than your own server. Usually that person was incentivized by tip sharing or some other tipping scheme.
"Actually my assertion was based on typical libtard behavior"
still baseless (based on your faulty perception rather than the individuals history) AND inaccurate (the Cauvin incident is not remotely similiar to the shooting of Ashli)
"Actually my assertion was based on typical libtard behavior"
Sure it can . I can just base it off of typical RWNJ behavior (also most DID praise Chauvin) like you did to him rather than looking up your personal history (why should you get that benefit when you did not give it?)
if my assertion was baseless then so was yours. Which was the point.
"oesn’t matter, you can only use deadly force to protect yourself against deadly force and if she had been a BLM thug you would be demanding the cop spend the rest of his life in prison. Don’t even try to deny it."
If she were BLM you would be declaring the cop a hero. Don't even try to deny that
I couldnt watch the original Star Wars after I found out it wasn't filmed on Tatooine
Weird that her character in Adaptation was Susan Orlean
who's your favorite Little Rascal?
"The impeachment was the will of the people carried out by the very people that we the people voted into office. "
"I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for"
Anyone with a brain can see those two statements contradict each other.
In no way shape or form do they contradict each other
You are just badly and/or intentionally misinterpreting the second statement
My previous post explained it but you are too stubborn to admit it