Sean Mooney

I already posted about this last week (and the thread seems to have been nuked). I gave her blame for things. I'm okay with her protesting ICE's actions. I think she should've chose different methods to do it.

Nobody could get around her? I mean look- if we are just going to ignore the video at this point...fine. Who car is the one in front of her's? Is it the girlfriend's? Cause she's blocking traffic more than Good was. I'm glad you posted sites that clearly point out things I've either outright said or alluded to in this discussion. You guys are hilarious at this point. Please keep arguing with yourselves. The short answer is- from all the videos it does not feel like at any point they had belief or proof she was violating immigration law or general concern's about their own safety. Again- I've only ever said the law is murkier about forcibly removing you from a vehicle.

The law on this is murkier than you and the others seem to want it to be. Case in point- what threat did she pose? What was she stopped for? (keep in mind the car was stopped)....like there is a lot of stuff here. Otherwise- while I appreciate your concern....I generally don't actively try to run afoul of the cops in any way. And if I ever decide to it sure as hell won't be for the reason Good was trying to. So I'll be good

You know you've done well when the gaggle of idiots activate their Wonder Twins power and yell "Form of, a dumpster fire" to try and come at ya.

You are essentially if Forrest Gump was a try hard and super unlikable.

So nothing? Good to know. It's amazing how the minute you are asked for evidence to support counter claims in any discussion you scurry away

More or less embarrassing than fake quitting a message board and having to come back when no one gives a sh!t about you leaving? And to be clear before you whine- this wasn't me "following you around"....you threw the first shot

So you have nothing is what you are saying? Got it No...it's a word in every dictionary. It's marked as non-standard because the argument is it implies a double negative. I just think it sounds funny versus regardless.

They don't have the right to answer her car door. That's the singular answer for the reasons I suggested. You have yet now on time 3 to provide anything counter to that. You are an unserious poster incapable of having an intelligent discussion. I will keep that in mind for future reference.

Yeah you left out the quote where I said the charges wouldn't have held up under any kind of defense. But it's what you do. Again- show your proof of individual things where I am wrong and we can discuss.

Prove it. Show me the things that prove individual pieces of what I said incorrect and we can discuss

Notably I didn't question the law. I questioned whether those charges would stick under a defense of some kind. EG would readily admit- I'd hope- the prosecutor has to make their case...and I'm saying with the ability for people to drive around her, with her being friendly towards the ICE agent (irregardless of what her partner was saying) and other ICE agents trying to breach her vehicle without cause (at least from anything they've said to this point) it's a harder case to make. Not to mention it ends with her shot 3 times from point blank range....and I know that isn't supposed to play into a jury's verdict but people are human and it will to some degree. But I know that is actually more nuanced than "This be good....This be bad" and you are a simpleton....so of course you missed that.

Have you not read the news or anything from either side related to this event over the past week? The long and short of it is: - We have the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment has an automobile exception. That exception allows a federal agent to search a car without a warrant if there is probable cause for evidence of a crime of if they believe there is contraband- like Good having a bunch of Somalians under a blanket in the car. But they didn't have that. - ICE has more ability to forcibly search within 100 miles of the US border (for obvious reasons I would hope) but even still- that requires probable cause of something.

Based off the law.

I'm not defending her. I've said from the start she bears some responsibility in this and handled her end the wrong way. I'm just saying- correctly- that ICE doesn't have the authority to forcibly enter your car under this particular circumstance. That's not defending, that's just stating a truth. It's also saying that there was a way to handle it differently and get the result of her out of the way and/or out of the car