Was she being lawfully detained?
Yes.
What was she being detained for?
Impeding law enforcement investigations.
Yes we know Ross passed directly in front of the active vehicle, contrary to all training. But he was far enough away to pass untouched as Good pulled hard right to drive away down the street.
If the footage shows him being struck by her vehicle and pushed several feet, would that change your verdict?
Because that's what the footage shows.
Timestamp: 16:49
So no, he did not “pass untouched.”
And if your conclusion depends on Ross not being struck, then your conclusion is wrong.
If he was experiencing some psychological problems, they shouldn't have let him run around with a loaded gun.
That is not an argument.
The point is not that Ross was psychologically unstable. The point is that Ross already had personal experience with a fleeing suspect using a vehicle as a deadly threat during a law-enforcement stop.
So when a detained suspect starts driving forward with him in front of the vehicle, the idea that he perceived a deadly threat is not irrational.
I guess so, people misperceive things all the time.
Exactly.
And that matters, because murder requires more than “Ross shot her.”
You have to establish that his use of force was unlawful, not merely that you disagree with his split-second judgment after watching the video from your chair.
You did watch all the footage, right? Not just the angle that makes your argument easiest?
Around here, with our laws, I'd say 2nd degree murder. Intentional but not planned. He'd probably get off with manslaughter.
That is naming a charge, not establishing the crime.
What made the shooting unlawful?
As far as i know he was. Are there any challenges in the courts?
Good. So Ross was lawfully present.
Again, you are just restating your conclusion.
The question is why the force was unlawful if Ross was lawfully present and Good was not free to leave. One officer was already at the driver-side door trying to open it. The officers had activated their lights, stepped out in uniform, and told her to get out of the vehicle. Ross was in front of the vehicle, and when she accelerated forward, the vehicle struck him and pushed him several feet.
So again: what made Ross’s use of force unlawful?
He wasn't run over and wouldn't have been even if he didn't shoot.
He was struck.
As the timestamp above shows clearly.
The fact that he was not killed, crippled, or fully run over does not prove there was no deadly threat.
By that logic, every failed assault was never a threat because the victim survived.
Not if it was a lawful detention.
Correct.
So she was not free to drive away.
Nah, it wasn't a threat by evidence of their continuing good health.
That is absurd.
A man can be threatened without being hospitalized. A man can be endangered without dying. A man can be struck by a vehicle and still remain on his feet.
Their “continuing good health” does not prove the vehicle was not a threat.
I already answered this 47 questions ago.
No, you didn’t.
You admitted Ross passed in front of the active vehicle, and the footage shows him being struck and pushed several feet.
That supports my point, not yours.
Maybe not enough stress therapy for the snowflake.
More chest-thumping.
Calling him names does not change the footage.
I did.
You have shown that Ross shot her. (Not in dispute.)
You have shown that you do not like his decision.
You have not shown murder.
The core question remains:
How do you get from “Ross shot her” to “Ross murdered her”?
Until you establish that the shooting was unlawful, “murder” is still just a slogan.
I never said homosexuality is a sin. I said all have sinned. I guess I expected a little introspection. But...no.
You replied “all have sinned” to my statement that homosexuality is sin.
Thanks for conceding the category.
All have sinned. Correct.
Homosexuality is one of those sins.
It's not okay to be gay.
He shot her needlessly, his life wasn't under any threat and he murdered her.
That is not what the footage shows.
The footage shows Ross being struck by the vehicle and pushed several feet.
Timestamp: 16:49
So this was not “no threat.” This was a detained suspect driving forward while an officer was in front of the vehicle and another officer was at the driver-side door.
A vehicle being driven into an officer is a deadly threat. The fact that Ross was not killed or severely injured does not mean the threat did not exist.
I've seen the footage several times, from different sources (corroborated news sources and not by some dingbat on YT)
The “dingbat” is Richard Hy, better known as Angry Cops. He is not just some random internet account, but that is beside the point.
I am not citing him as the authority. I am pointing to the footage he is showing.
Dismiss his commentary if you want. The question is whether the footage at that timestamp shows Ross being struck by Good’s vehicle and pushed several feet.
Because if it does, then your “his life wasn’t under any threat” claim collapses.
and from different angles.
Including this one?
Timestamp: 16:49
Heck his life was as much in danger as yours is by your fridge suddenly going rogue...
A refrigerator is not a detained suspect attempting to flee in a vehicle while officers are at the doors and in front of it.
That comparison is ridiculous.
Oh, I could care less about your pompous hangups with folk being gay. Fact is, several are and through no 'fault' of their own.
“Through no fault of their own” does not make it righteous.
Plenty of sinful desires are not consciously chosen. That does not make them morally good.
I realize that you "think" it's a big deal but it really isn't.
“I don’t think sin is a big deal” is not an argument.
It is just a confession.
