By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
konnichiwa said:
SvennoJ said:

What do you think?

They have her on camera, she did nothing threatening, she's just being a nuisance. They have the license plate, everything.

So should they have let her drive away and file a police report or execute her on site? 

Stop her right away, they literally demanded her to get out of the car 3 times.  This could have let into a chase with a possible threat to bystanders. 

You keep saying "stop her" but also said you don't agree with killing so what should they have done?



...

Around the Network
konnichiwa said:
Torillian said:

So if police stop someone for speeding and they try to drive away is your understanding that they should shoot to kill. Because I don't think that's how it goes or how it should go. 

I don't agree with the killing but you have to stop them; the moment she drove away she also became a threat for bystanders.  Before the Garner case you could shoot anyone who commited a Felony and run away but now only if they are possible a threat.

Why do you have to stop them? Do they look like they're about to blow up a neighborhood?

Why do you think she became an imminent threat for bystanders for trying to get out of the way?

Are any people driving cars imminent threats to bystanders?

Since when is disobeying orders a felony or threat to bystanders?

Have some sense. In most civilized countries police chases are illegal or highly regulated as a last resort (let alone drawing a gun on people), that's what is a threat to bystanders. Yet in the US they put it on TV for entertainment. Here you get suspended when you chase a suspect at high speeds.
https://www.cp24.com/local/toronto/2025/11/12/toronto-police-officer-charged-with-dangerous-driving-in-high-speed-pursuit-of-stolen-vehicle/



"She got a sentence that was harsh. It was a 9 year sentence. So we always look at people's sentences. And when you have people that are elderly, and we're looking at this across a number of many people -- people in their 70s or 80s in our system -- how much of a threat to society are they and how do we balance that in a way that makes sure they can spend their last year few years at home." - Jared Polis, governor of Colorado

So it looks like Polis is going to cave in to Trump's threats. Trump vetoed funding for a water bill for Colorado that was passed by both houses of Congress, though not through veto-proof majorities. Peters tried to tamper with the election and got caught. Trump has been on a huge campaign to get her released, including demanding her to be transferred to federal control and even issuing a pardon for her, even though she was convicted of state charges, not federal, and the Tenth Amendment should prevent this. Although the headlines are only saying that Polis is "considering" a pardon, we all know what's going to happen.

Another criminal goes free, and threats from an out-of-control lunatic in Washington once more win the day. Tina Peters smirked her way through her trial and her lack of remorse was noted by the judge. Another bad precedent is set. It's also election year in Colorado, and Polis is term-limited. The Republicans will use Polis's pardon of Peters as ammunition in the election.

Gov. Jared Polis calls Tina Peters' prison sentence 'harsh,' renewing clemency conversation - Colorado Public Radio



Torillian said:
konnichiwa said:

I don't agree with the killing but you have to stop them; the moment she drove away she also became a threat for bystanders.  Before the Garner case you could shoot anyone who commited a Felony and run away but now only if they are possible a threat.

But they did kill them, so did the policeman do a bad or not? Because the president and his administration says this was all good and I would say that the policeman should be investigated for an illegal use of force. What's your view on that?

I don't agree with it being 'Good' An investigation certainly should happen and thats for the judge to decide. 

But I would never say to a Friend/Family even enemy 'when Police ask to get out of the car, you should drive away' and I think anyone agrees on it.

This is one of those situations that if he/they did not shoot and she hit someone while driving away the officer(s) could have been blamed aswell.






konnichiwa said:
Machiavellian said:

As shown by multiple videos.  We see that Good was waving for the Ice agents to go ahead of her as the first vehicle went through with no problems.  She was not blocking their way but looking to move out of the way as she clearly is shown waving the second vehicle to go.  First encounter with her the office that moved in front of her vehicle did so but all protocols say that is incorrect.  You are not suppose to put yourself in harms way to then justify using lethal force. Not only did he move in front of the vehicle, he also drew his gun which is also against protocol since Good at this point has not done anything to justify pulling his gun on her. Second, Good backed up, turned her wheel and moved forward.  When the officer shot her he was on the side of the vehicle, clearly out of harms way.  Even still, the 2 more shots to the face were him making sure she was dead.  Meaning his intent was to kill her not self defense since the 2 other shots were when he was clearly at the side of the vehicle.

There are plenty of situations where police officers have been shone when not following protocol it usually ends up with someone dying.  There is a reason for such protocols because the situation isn't just stressful for the officer but also for the civilian.  When people are stress, illogical decisions can be made, lethal force isn't the answer and the majority of times like this situation someone dies when it should not have ever got to this point.

The fact that its political is because everything can be made political.  

Video of the POV of the ICE agent just released (it is this one or the ten minute versions of any news station on youtube)

- Get out of the car...!    Get out of the car...!!   GET OUT OF THE CAR...!!!   What's their to not understand?

Especially when it says POLICE on the uniform



They should have let her just drive away? Personally I think her (wife?) is also to blame in pushing her to drive way. Drive Baby Drive!!!

Are you trolling, or are you actually running apologetics for murder?

Last edited by Jumpin - on 09 January 2026

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
mZuzek said:

Amazing how the right-wing is never political.

Yeah. I am sick of this motherfucking double standard. Pardon my language.



konnichiwa said:
Torillian said:

But they did kill them, so did the policeman do a bad or not? Because the president and his administration says this was all good and I would say that the policeman should be investigated for an illegal use of force. What's your view on that?

I don't agree with it being 'Good' An investigation certainly should happen and thats for the judge to decide. 

But I would never say to a Friend/Family even enemy 'when Police ask to get out of the car, you should drive away' and I think anyone agrees on it.

This is one of those situations that if he/they did not shoot and she hit someone while driving away the officer(s) could have been blamed aswell.

I wouldn't suggest that to friend/family either but that's because I know that sometimes police make mistakes and shoot people when they should not have. 

I have yet to see any evidence of this idea that every time people are driving erratically if police don't take the chance to kill them they get blamed. Closest you got was saying that people would have preferred if someone shot the dude who ran over protesters at Charlottesville but I don't recall anyone saying the police should've killed that guy. 



...

konnichiwa said:
Torillian said:

But they did kill them, so did the policeman do a bad or not? Because the president and his administration says this was all good and I would say that the policeman should be investigated for an illegal use of force. What's your view on that?

I don't agree with it being 'Good' An investigation certainly should happen and thats for the judge to decide. 

But I would never say to a Friend/Family even enemy 'when Police ask to get out of the car, you should drive away' and I think anyone agrees on it.

This is one of those situations that if he/they did not shoot and she hit someone while driving away the officer(s) could have been blamed aswell.

I’m no expert, but I’m fairly certain that discharging three rounds from a firearm in a crowded street in the middle of the day is like 5 million times more likely to hurt bystanders than driving a car on a road.



konnichiwa said:
Torillian said:

But they did kill them, so did the policeman do a bad or not? Because the president and his administration says this was all good and I would say that the policeman should be investigated for an illegal use of force. What's your view on that?

I don't agree with it being 'Good' An investigation certainly should happen and thats for the judge to decide. 

But I would never say to a Friend/Family even enemy 'when Police ask to get out of the car, you should drive away' and I think anyone agrees on it.

This is one of those situations that if he/they did not shoot and she hit someone while driving away the officer(s) could have been blamed aswell.

So instead of accepting the very small risk of her injuring someone while driving away and simply filing a report for disobeying a police officer, they should use any force necessary to stop her?

Are you actually excusing the officer for firing point blank range 3 times at her, just because he could possible be blamed in case she might have possibly hit someone while driving away? Actually the officer shooting her did cause her to lose control and could very well have caused another accident if the car hadn't hit a pole. 

Not in any possible scenario would there have been a less dangerous outcome than simply letting her get out of the way.



SvennoJ said:
konnichiwa said:

I don't agree with the killing but you have to stop them; the moment she drove away she also became a threat for bystanders.  Before the Garner case you could shoot anyone who commited a Felony and run away but now only if they are possible a threat.

1)Why do you have to stop them? Do they look like they're about to blow up a neighborhood?

Why do you think she became an imminent threat for bystanders for trying to get out of the way?

Are any people driving cars imminent threats to bystanders?

Since when is disobeying orders a felony or threat to bystanders?

Have some sense. In most civilized countries police chases are illegal or highly regulated as a last resort (let alone drawing a gun on people), that's what is a threat to bystanders. Yet in the US they put it on TV for entertainment. Here you get suspended when you chase a suspect at high speeds.
https://www.cp24.com/local/toronto/2025/11/12/toronto-police-officer-charged-with-dangerous-driving-in-high-speed-pursuit-of-stolen-vehicle/

From the moment they ask you to get out of a car and you drive away you are evading the police, even if they stop you for a broken rearlight..

Are people driving cars potentially a threat well technically yeah but are people who drive away from the police potentially a threat? Yes they are for sure.

Disobeying an order to leave your car can lead to jail time even in Europe.