metaphysicalyes

> In the case at hand, however, there is no mistaken identity.

No mistaken identity of no-name masked gunmen picking and killing random people in neighborhood. Clearly they must be the 1984 government!

> their authority should never be challenged in the streets

Interesting that you chose to emphasize that instead of having limits on their authority of actions like killing citizens in this case.

A stern reprimand will have to do because government would go bankrupt before finish settling for the scale of human rights abuse happening on the daily basis.

You claim to have no information about the shots fired yet you assert "I suspect most never watched the video in detail or interpreted it with hindsight."

This kind of asymmetric warfare soliciting unequal effort from others during a discussion is a pattern of troll bots or their human equivalent. I am not willing to engage further if you are unwilling to do a web search.

Do you recognize the freedom and comforts you enjoy is due to the tiny brave and unhinged section of population willing to take actions against their self-interest? It is reasonable you yourself won't take the risk but discrediting those who do is another low.

What leverage do the citizens have when government can illegally constraint their rights including the right to justice in the courts which you speak of?

How would you challenge these masked gunmen when they have legal immunity conferred by the fascist in charge? How successful is your approach for the sitting president with criminal history and redacted links to Epstein? Are you willfully feigning ignorance of how fascism works?

> And also she did hit the officer

She made contact with the officer. And that is only because he had to put down his recording phone and take out the gun instead of focussing on stepping out of the way. This framing feels even more egregious when you consider that he casually strolled to take a glance at dead mother and escape the scene.

> only reason it was a slight hit was because she lost traction on the ice.

> only because the icy road caused her wheels to lose grip

It is winter season and all roads are layered with ice. Ice was not a lucky coincidence at the spot she was shot. When you drive in ice for months every year you gain the intuition of vehicle motion. Before being killed, she had reversed in that spot and had a good idea how much gas creates how much traction like any other person driving in snow does. You can not claim her intent to hit based on how fast the wheels are spinning. Grip is immaterial, what matters is how fast the vehicle was actually moving.

> This is confusing to me and I don’t really know what to say about that

> deciding that she is a non-threat in the split second after his first shot

If you can make a decision to step aside and fire subsequent shots from side window instead, your intention is no longer own safety but to kill, in common parlance, murder. A woman driving in different direction, clearly escaping is somehow more of a threat than the masked gunmen surrounding her.

> when she accelerated, she still had her wheels pointing just left of center

Do you drive? If you did you would know that it is not a discrete process of turning and forward motion. It is easier to turn when you are moving. Whatever the direction of wheel at the moment, the rotation towards right while the masked gunman is on left corner makes her intent clear.

> she was looking directly at the officer when she accelerated

Because he is a masked gunman with ability to leave her child motherless which he actually did.

> If anything, it indicts Gruber for wanting to bandwagon

I am all for bandwagoning if it makes a dent in spread of fascism. I am all for bandwagoning behind keeping mothers alive. I am all for bandwagoning for the right to human dignity.

> She accelerated against the officer, hit them, he defended himself

By that standard all drivers in Manhattan will be dead within couple of months. Standing in front of a car which is clearly trying to move and on contact shooting two times from the side window is not the cheat code to kill you think it is.

Why do you feel the need to make disingenuous claims?

I have been curious about this as well. So far what I have discovered, for a significant section, it is schadenfreude borne out of their past injustice. It roughly translates to: nobody was on my side when I was kicked down and this is my moment to rejoice where others like the victim do not have privilege to human dignity either and therefore assuaging the previous resentful assumptions to the contrary.

I hope you are not claiming perception of intent is enough to claim a life. It is the actual intent that counts.

Appeal to mental ineptitude is not a defense of murder. If a person can't distinguish between intention of person to kill others vs escaping when driving in a completely different direction then that person does not have right to posses a weapon which can take human life.

Also interesting that you do not address the 2nd and 3rd shot at all.

Very convenient because right around the moments of shooting the video goes blank and the viewer can confirm the below preconceived notions:

1. The masked gunman was in grave danger when in fact he had stepped aside.

2. The car accelerated rapidly before the shots instead of after the driver was in immeasurable agony.

3. All three shots by masked gunman were in self defense. Not that the next two shots were in the driver's face from side window while standing well clear of the vehicle.

Would you support shooting the ICE driver who made vehicle contact with the protestors when trying to make way?

Another scenario, imagine your family member pulling out her parked car when a group of masked gunmen with "POLICE" in very honest-to-god letters printed on their jacket emerge and surround the car. Your family member feels scared as couple of them approach her side door shouting to come out. She finds an opening to escape but makes contact with one of the masked man with gun who just walked in front of car. Does that justify the driver being shot? What about the 2nd and 3rd shot in the face when the masked man is clearly on side? And then the government calls that masked gunman very brave because the person in car was very clearly a terrorist.

Welcome to fascism. End of another great empire has begun.

It is incomprehensible to me how the 2nd and 3rd shot from side window would not count as murder. A neighborhood isn't war zone where a sign of disobedience is a fair kill. Blasphemy of 1st amendment.

First shot is a red herring. It might be legal in the US to shoot the driver trying to hit you when are already out of the vehicle's way.

The more condemnatory are the 2nd and 3rd shot from the side window. This is pure cruelty and disregard of human life which in a parallel universe could be one of your family member. Anyone justifying this deserves no sympathy from rest of the human populace.

The current administration has made clear that right or wrong is the question of which side has more power. And appeal to human morals has lost its power in dopamine addled society rife with mental issues. To assert their will people resort to alternative means.

Lets assume you are right. How do you justify the 2nd and 3rd shot from the side window? Very curious how your mind works.