Trump 47

[CowboyJD]

What? So, if you fire a shot, whoever it hits is who you intended it to hit?

So, Dick Cheney was trying to kill Harry Whittington?

If you are near a gang home, and you get shot, you are now involved in gang activity? So, along with being injured, you are now involved in gang turf wars?

This isn't "whitewashing." What you said is simply false and a complete misuse of the English language.

There is a legal concept called “transferred intent”.

If you fire a gun intending to shoot a person (Person A) and you hit someone else, you can still be prosecuted for intending to shoot person B.

Your Cheney anaology isn’t great because he didn’t intend to shoot anyone. Reckless handling of a firearm (which is a crime in most states), sure.

 

[Rob B.]

What? So, if you fire a shot, whoever it hits is who you intended it to hit?

So, Dick Cheney was trying to kill Harry Whittington?

Look at this whitewashing by the right wing media. If the cop is aiming at a member of the family, the resulting injury is not "accidental." Right?

Cop Who Accidentally Shot 10-Year-Old When Aiming For Family Dog Can’t Be Sued, Federal Court Rules

Created by the Supreme Court, “qualified immunity” lets government officials dodge federal civil-rights lawsuits.

www.forbes.com

If you are near a gang home, and you get shot, you are now involved in gang activity? So, along with being injured, you are now involved in gang turf wars?

These missionaries "involved" in Haitian gangs. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ed-gangs-haiti-wife-daughter-misso-rcna153925

This isn't "whitewashing." What you said is simply false and a complete misuse of the English language.

What? You see no difference in a hunting accident and a shooting with intended malice?

 

[steross]

As far as I’m concerned, this guy easily and clearly meets deportation criteria as a violent offender.

It’s good that there has been rehabilitation while he was incarcerated, but he’s received the benefit of parole and early release already. I have no issue with him facing the immigration consequences of his crime.

Trying to make this guy a poster child for folks we shouldn’t be deporting is a little crazy to me.

He’s still entitled to his due process though.

He was pardoned.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-04-18/newsom-pardons-cambodian-immigrant-facing-deportation.

 

[CowboyJD]

He was pardoned.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-04-18/newsom-pardons-cambodian-immigrant-facing-deportation.

I understand that, but he should still face the immigration consequences of his violent crime.

A pardon doesn’t change his immigration status or the fact that he committed the crimes that could lead to his deportation.

 

[steross]

What? You see no difference in a hunting accident and a shooting with intended malice?

Of course, I do. But, I still think if you shoot into a house, and it hits someone who you didn't even know, that doesn't mean you intended to shoot the person. It isn't justifiying it or "whitewashing it" just explaining what happened. He did something criminal, and it hit the wrong person. Really, to me it is far worse than writing it as if it was just two gang-bangers going at it. He hit someone innocent and uninvovled. That is worse, IMHO.

There is a legal concept called “transferred intent”.

If you fire a gun intending to shoot a person (Person A) and you hit someone else, you can still be prosecuted for intending to shoot person B.

Your Cheney anaology isn’t great because he didn’t intend to shoot anyone. Reckless handling of a firearm (which is a crime in most states), sure.

Maybe the work "intent" in a legal framework is different from the way we commonly use the word. I can't see how you intended to hit a person that you did not know even existed when the shot was fired.

Would that apply if you didn't intend to hit anyone? Say, it is fourth of July and you shoot into the sky and the bullet coes down and kills someone. Is that reckless or is that intent?

 

[CowboyJD]

Of course, I do. But, I still think if you shoot into a house, and it hits someone who you didn't even know, that doesn't mean you intended to shoot the person.



Maybe the work "intent" in a legal framework is different from the way we commonly use the word. I can't see how you intended to hit a person that you did not know even existed when the shot was fired.

Would that apply if you didn't intend to hit anyone? Say, it is fourth of July and you shoot into the sky and the bullet coes down and kills someone. Is that reckless or is that intent?

That’s probably reckless….shooting into to the air.

That’s also very different from intending to shoot into an occupied dwelling. If you intentionally shoot into an occupied dwelling, you’re pretty much on the hook for intending to shoot anyone in the dwelling and there is a separate felony crime of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling even if you don’t hit anyone.

 

[steross]

That’s probably reckless….shooting into to the air.

That’s also very different from intending to shoot into an occupied dwelling. If you intentionally shoot into an occupied dwelling, you’re pretty much on the hook for intending to shoot anyone in the dwelling and there is a separate felony crime of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling even if you don’t hit anyone.

If it sounds like I am arguing that what he did is not horrible, that isn't what I mean at all. I'm just confused, or ignorant, of the use of the word "intent" as it applies here legally or journalistically. It seems to me that an article is saying he shot into a house trying to kill a gang member, and it ricocheted out and hit a neighbor or hit some other person in bed, and that wasn't his intent. When I read it, I wasn't thinking that it justifies it. It really seemed a little worse to me. If you want to kill Joe, man up, and go shoot Joe. If you just cowardly shot into a house thinking it might hit Joe, but you shot someone else, that is not intentional, but worse (steross thinking, obviously not the law).

 

[CowboyJD]

Would that apply if you didn't intend to hit anyone? Say, it is fourth of July and you shoot into the sky and the bullet coes down and kills someone. Is that reckless or is that intent?

Additionally, if you committed the misdemeanor crime of reckless discharge of a firearm and it directly resulted in someone dying, (in Oklahoma) you could and likely would be charged with first degree manslaughter.

 

[CowboyJD]

If it sounds like I am arguing that what he did is not horrible, that isn't what I mean at all. I'm just confused, or ignorant, of the use of the word "intent" as it applies here legally or journalistically. It seems to me that an article is saying he shot into a house trying to kill a gang member, and it ricocheted out and hit a neighbor or hit some other person in bed, and that wasn't his intent. When I read it, I wasn't thinking that it justifies it. It really seemed a little worse to me. If you want to kill Joe, man up, and go shoot Joe. If you just cowardly shot into a house thinking it might hit Joe, but you shot someone else, that is not intentional, but worse (steross thinking, obviously not the law).

I get it.

It didn’t sound like you minimizing what he did (to me).

 

[Big Huck]

Prime example of the leftist media whitewashing to fit the narrative.

If you point a gun at a rival gangs home and pull the trigger no resulting injury is "unintentional" and the victim is not "uninvolved".

I mean the guy has completely rehabilitated himself and is now helping others do the same. This is what we should be hoping all violent offenders would turn into. Also I don't believe that was written by any media outlet, found it on a local Long Beach sub.

 

[milehighpoke]

I mean, it even looks photoshopped. Incredible that nonsense like this is coming from our president.
Too bad the congressman didn't know this was coming and could have gotten a pic of his hands. Sadly, that would not matter, we are at the point where people believe what they want to believe rather than search for reality.

But, it's got electrolytes!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1913358867708493982

Reddit has figured out what his tattoos actually mean!

Weed = W
Crooked smiley face (Wasted) = W
Cross (Jesus) = J
Death = D

WWJD

What would jesus do?

 

[PJ-OSU]

So some people in my little MAGA friendly corner of the woods decided to join the weekend protest movement.

One of the comments online about it:

View attachment 11053

 

[CowboyJD]

Reddit has figured out what his tattoos actually mean!

Weed = W
Crooked smiley face (Wasted) = W
Cross (Jesus) = J
Death = D

WWJD

What would jesus do?

Just as plausible as marijuana, smilie, a covered up one and covered up 3.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Ahh a message to promote the resurrection of Christ and the story of Jesus

 

[Polds4OSU]

Joe Rogan explains to his audience why due process is important and quotes Benjamin Franklin — "it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.”

He argues that we should not become monsters because we’re trying to fight monsters by shipping people to a prison in El Salvador without trial because we think they’re gang members.

Dare Obasanjo (@carnage4life) on Threads

Joe Rogan explains to his audience why due process is important and quotes Benjamin Franklin — "it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.” He argues that we should not become monsters because we’re trying to fight monsters by shipping people to a...

www.threads.net

 

[Polds4OSU]

 

[Rob B.]

I mean the guy has completely rehabilitated himself and is now helping others do the same. This is what we should be hoping all violent offenders would turn into. Also I don't believe that was written by any media outlet, found it on a local Long Beach sub.

My comment wasn't directed at his marvelous rehabilitation. Lots of convicted people turn their lives around, and that's great. I thought it was quite clear I was referring to making it sound like what he did was quasi-innocent because he didn't shoot who he was aiming at.

As far as intent, he clearly intended to fire his weapon into an inhabited structure, he intended to pull the trigger and intended to hit someone.


Calling someone who ate his bullet "uninvolved" is b.s..

 

[Rob B.]

Joe Rogan explains to his audience why due process is important and quotes Benjamin Franklin — "it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.”

He argues that we should not become monsters because we’re trying to fight monsters by shipping people to a prison in El Salvador without trial because we think they’re gang members.

Dare Obasanjo (@carnage4life) on Threads

Joe Rogan explains to his audience why due process is important and quotes Benjamin Franklin — "it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.” He argues that we should not become monsters because we’re trying to fight monsters by shipping people to a...

www.threads.net

A lot of MAGA's don't like Rogan, they should probably listen to him sometime.


I have a question. Did Bin Laden receive due process? I mean did we convict him of crimes before we assassinated him?

 

[Polds4OSU]

Official White House social media

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[steross]

A lot of MAGA's don't like Rogan, they should probably listen to him sometime.


I have a question. Did Bin Laden receive due process? I mean did we convict him of crimes before we assassinated him?

You are comparing an overseas military operation to justice in the US court system? Bin Laden died in a US military operation approved by the president and congress with the AUMF. There is no requirement for due process in overseas combat against an enemy combatant. if there was combat would be completely ineffective.