The Minnesota killing

It is another case liberals are dismissing, they are unable to face it as it happened. As usual, liberals demand submission and provide blatantly outrageous claims to gauge it.

1. **Race:** Race is an important factor. If the woman had been a black person, it would have been easy to suspend many principles involved in the resolution of the situation. Yet she is a white person. Which means that the rationalisation must be done based on ideology, or stuff like that. Remember, lately, liberals have shown an accrued leaning to label their opposition the enemy. By default design, in a liberal government, there must be a faction in power and a faction in opposition. This means that the struggle over the control of the state apparatus will get even fiercer. When you label the political opposition the enemy, it is better to have the power of the State apparatus at your disposal.
2. **The collision:** The collision happened. Yet liberals, as expected, can not deal with the consequences. For what they keep wanting to do, it would have been better if the collision did not happen as it would have left room to speculate. Yet the collision did happen and it is clear that the consequences were non lethal or severely damaging. Precedents show that pushing a police officer, shoving down a police officer, even when fleeing, is not enough to warrant the use of lethal force. Many white dudes did it and they were kept alive. The collision negates invoking a lethal threat on the life of the police officer.
3. **Life preservation:** Supposedly, in a liberal society, police forces operate under the directive of life preservation. First, their own life and then the life of anyone else (Sometimes, in a liberal society, it is claimed that preserving the life comes before the life of the police officer yet this version is very pointless in this case) As it is claimed, the driver tried to run over the police officer. When watching the videos, it appears the police officer could have stepped out of the way. Instead, he chose to draw his weapon. Service weapons rarely have the stoppage power to stop a vehicle on the spot. It is illusory to try to preserve one's life by staying on the path of a vehicle. The bullets will not stop it before collision. So the option taken by the police officer would simply not have worked. By training, police officers are demanded to get themselves out of harm's way to assess the situation. It is a primary directive to ensure their own life. So this decision killed one person, the driver and the police officer life was saved because the vehicle never had the speed to provoke a lethal collision. Compare: police officer stepping out of the way, police officer safe and driver safe. Police officer not stepping away trying to stop a car with enough speed to kill him, two dead people.
4. **The legality:** It is unclear if that woman was under arrest. At some point, she announced she was pulling out. At this moment, a police officer lunged forward to try to open her car door (potential illegal move without a search warrant) If she was not under arrest, she had the right to move as she wanted.
5. **The intention:** A very funny thing. Because on this board, liberals had already shown how they think in terms of intention (see for the example the eye gouging by the thug they managed to consider as non intentional) It is weird they managed to achieve that in this case, the driver intentionally collided with the police officer. But not surprising. Her pulling out is clearly intentional, her trying to collide with the police officer much less.

There are more things but no time. It is very funny.

As is the d!ck who shot Ashli Babbitt...the USA is way too polarized.

Trad, stupid should hurt...if she was black the whole of America would be burning....PS fcall of any of this is remotely funny arsehole.

It would be burning as the terms for suspending the principles are very different. Is there something misleading in the formatting or the phrasing that led to that non understanding or is it another big urge to deny? Liberals want race to be permanent, an invariant to structure their society. As shown by the very previous comment, this woman is treated differently, her case must be dealt through ideology or stuff. People can change their ideologies, They can switch sides. Race in a liberal society is a very different kind of beast. Remember, peeps, it is enough to have one black skinned ancestor to no longer be white. Even though, by structure, there must be a faction in power and a faction in opposition. This a a permanent divide in the white race. And in a time when liberals have come to name their opposition the enemy...

Liberals lament the good old days of slavery because of this, the abolition of slavery took away from them the falsehood of unity: any white person, rich or poor, men or woman, was protected from slavery. And there are demonstrations in Minneapolis, agitators and stuff. Even though the problem is much less acute for a white person as it is for Blacks.

Of course, it is funny. Liberals make it funny. They claim it is a tragedy, it is atrocious yet they keep distorting it, they want to reframe the whole case. Liberals themselves treat the situation as a joke, something to be mocked...As liberals are mocking the very killing itself, how comes people could not find funny liberals mocking the very killing itself? A human being is a human being or do liberals have special rights in this kind of situation?

Liberals, as empty as they are, nothing in store as usual.

PS; liberals are also kind of addicted to claim the moral high ground. It is over now. So pointless to try to call for it. Will write multiple pieces on this if time.