<< I am not familiar with the case under discussion,
Hmm. I see.
My personal recommendation is that you at least few videos before commenting then. It may make you reconsider your support of this particular 'cause'.
Hmm. I see.
My personal recommendation is that you at least few videos before commenting then. It may make you reconsider your support of this particular 'cause'.
And again, your argument is illogical: you can say exactly the same about the ICE agent (they did not acted carefully enough). Why is the victim guilty of not have considered the aggressor as unhinged, and the aggressor not guilty of avoiding the situation that they use to justify their behavior.
Because the 'aggressor' is not aggressor, but a governmental employee mandated to be violent when necessary AND we do have a verb ( and corresponding crime ) for people who choose to stand in the way of such an employee: obstruction of justice ( edit: replaced duty -- other thread was on my mind ).
Your whole world is mildly warped, because you think you can simply apply victim/perpetrator filter to make the whole concept somehow flip. But reality does not work that way.
You were saying that the onus is on her for putting herself in a situation where she should expect to be shoot. But by your own admission, even if we accept that what she has done properly constitute obstruction of duty (which I doubt is the case, and at best is highly arguable) she was putting herself in a situation where she should never be in any real danger.
But again, you did not answer: she was at the wrong time at the wrong place, she did not go out of her way to be in this situation. Pretending that she "looked for it" is just twisting the facts.
> Your whole world is mildly warped, because you think you can simply apply victim/perpetrator filter to make the whole concept somehow flip. But reality does not work that way.
No, your "whole concept" is just highly subjective. You decided that "the onus is on her" because you decided that when she has responsibility over the fact that the ICE agent was unhinged, while the ICE agent had zero responsibility on the fact that she might be unhinged.
Ok. I think we got to stop for one simple reason. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Just a short overview for you and the -- apparent -- audience:
While it is possible for obstruction to be small enough that it will not matter, it can easily move to felony with actual punishment also highly dependent on specifics of a given case. Therefore, your assertion is, at best, your opinion.
That said, my point stands. Had she not been in US illegally none of this would have transpired including this ridiculous conversation.
When it involves weapons, evidence tampering or higher crime, which is clearly not the case here.
> Had she not been in US illegally none of this would have transpired including this ridiculous conversation.
What are you talking about? Who was illegally in US? I thought we were talking about Renee Good, who was a US citizen, was never a migrant (even legal), and dropped her son 7 minutes ago and was on her way home.
'Guy' in the anglosphere is often para-gender (e.g. Australia).
> nonsense
Unfortunately, that is not the telling difference between LLMs and human specimens...
> I thought
Ooooh finally, I have been insisting in a handful of replies to the poster "what (case) /exactly/ are we talking about". Is this confirmed, poster?!
> at least few videos
Sure, but I objected to the general principle: prudence has a limit - the value of one's life has limits. Justice comes before life, Dignity comes before life, etc.
No. Most of the stuff out there. I am already wasting time on HN. I won't also google this stuff for you ( or w/e equivalent you use ).
<< Sure, but I objected to the general principle:
That is reasonable objection, but absolutely not how actual cases work. Minute details matter in how they contribute to a given defense. And it seems you know this.
<< the value of one's life has limits
Sadly, it seems in US it is even quantified.
<< Justice comes before life,
Justice. I hate to go all HS on you, but.. what does justice mean to you.
I cannot understand how you cannot understand. ___Which___, of the many cases I may have heard of, is the one you are talking about.
> not how actual cases work ... And it seems you know this
Yes. But within general principles, you cannot present a principle of prudence as primary when it is suggested that others may be at play. It is a true statement that prudence does not override other factors. If we went into details still within the general principles, if a suggestion were made about "power as would-be giving more freedom", it required a strong rebuttal - very much not (power to potentially exercise violence does not confer a legitimacy for further freedom). In actual cases, discrimination in judgement is required - but that will happen in front of actual cases.
> I hate to go all HS on you, but.. what does justice mean to you
What is "HS"? "Hismajesty Socrates the maieutist"?!
Within what I said earlier, "you do what you have to do". Do it prudently, reason it properly within the constraints you are given, but if it is what you have to do you do it (not "but going away is safer"). (Still the general principles.)