Current events discussion

Keep in mind this is the state that convicted Chauvin despite Floyd's toxicology report.
So it's not possible to murder someone if they test positive for drugs?

Cool. So if someone did that to Musk, they would not be convicted due to Musk's ketamine habit.
And you as a jury member would not convict.
 
You tell me to answer while you're not answering...wtf man.

ICE wasn't breaking the law, they're enforcing it, the lady blocking the road was breaking the law, wtf are you talking about? You've gone all Humpty Dumpty on me, put yourself together man.
So your own beliefs and your NPC cartoons is the best you can offer, while completely disregarding the facts.

Are you too busy to offer anything of substance?

Show me the DOJ rules regarding discharge of a firearm, that support your feelings.
Show me the court decisions in the US that support your feelings.
Show me the COTUS Amendments that those court cases regard.

Step up to the plate, and debate like an adult.
 
That’s the million dollars question. Cali always brags about how much revenue they more generate more money than red states? But how much is the state takes in state and federal tax dollars but always goes into red even tho they constantly raise taxes.
Highest tax rate and biggest deficit. I'm pretty sure they have the biggest tax base to tax too.
 
Brilliant move, Texas.
1767914529626.png
 
My guess is they would try him for murder or manslaughter in the state. I don't think the fact he's a Fed has anything to do with it. "They" have been accusing him of murder, so it would make sense that they might try him for murder.
Idk how there's so much precedent supporting the officer in this exact situation of use of deadly force. It would just be corruption if they did.
 
Last edited:
Idk how there's so much precedent supporting the officer in this exact situation of use of deadly force. It would just be corruption if they did.
"Precedent supporting the officer"?
You mean the very rules listed on the DOJ website?
  1. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.
Or do you mean Supreme Court decisions?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/ Tennessee v. Garner
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/ graham v. Connor
 
Idk how there's so much precedent supporting the officer in this exact situation of use of deadly force. It would just be corruption if they did.
Drug addicts who swallow their stash upon arrest with a cocktail of 3-4 different drugs used to assumed to have died from as overdose. 1
 
Last edited:
Idk how there's so much precedent supporting the officer in this exact situation of use of deadly force. It would just be corruption if they did.
Ask Derek Chauvin who was trying to handle a 6 foot something crackhead on fentanyl. Look up Derek on Wikipedia and he's a murderer. Nevermind the criminal who was high as a kite.

The trial was in the court of public opinion with flawed facts and spawned "Black lives matter" no less.

Clown world.
 
Ask Derek Chauvin who was trying to handle a 6 foot something crackhead on fentanyl. Look up Derek on Wikipedia and he's a murderer. Nevermind the criminal who was high as a kite.

The trial was in the court of public opinion with flawed facts and spawned "Black lives matter" no less.

Clown world.
From what I've seen just today I don't think that's the route it's going to go. I think the attitudes are changing
 
From what I've seen just today I don't think that's the route it's going to go. I think the attitudes are changing
Hopefully, or its going to trigger something larger imo. Remember "some people you just can't reach" sayeth Axel Rose.

But cooler heads will prevail I'm sure of that, which side of the issue do you think the cooler heads represent?
 
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

Similar threads

About this thread

Jimi77

Premium Member
CarAudio.com VIP
Thread starter
Jimi77
Joined
Location
Denver, CO
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
32,749
Views
451,129
Last reply date
Last reply from
ThxOne
IMG_20260513_214311575.jpg

ThxOne

    May 13, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
IMG_20260513_213956814.jpg

ThxOne

    May 13, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top