by zahlman | 2026-01-13 20:12:10+00:00
> You made plenty of emotional appeals in your comments. You just made them as assertions of facts

Those are, as an objective matter of fact, not "emotional appeals".

They do reflect my subjective judgement.

I speak of the lack of a legitimate reason because a legitimate reason would be legally relevant if she had one.

I speak of belligerence because it is directly relevant to the question of who was escalating the situation.

I speak of serious threat of death or injury because it is explicitly part of the relevant legal standard.

> You even went so far as to bring up the fact that she was protesting as if this indicts rather than exonerates her!

No, I bring up the fact that she was protesting as part of the objective evidence needed to establish that she knew that the ICE agents were ICE agents.

Nothing in any of my posts seeks to "indict" her. I in fact was careful to agree that she did not appear to be intentionally trying to run over the officer. I have repeatedly pointed out, however, that such intent is legally not required to exonerate the officer.

None of this is about indicting or exonerating Good. It is about indicting or exonerating Ross.

Your characterization of my posts is clearly false. Please stop.

> rather than writing me off as one of the caricatures your media sources have told you to pigeonhole the opposition into

This is a baseless and false accusation. No "media sources" have told me to do any such thing, and I do not see you as "opposition". I simply see you as someone who is incorrect on matters of objective fact, based on my own assessment of the available evidence.

I have repeatedly told you that I have evaluated, and am evaluating, the evidence independently, doing my own research. This is true. You have repeatedly insinuated that it is false, without evidence. That is completely inappropriate.

> you can just read those threads in full

The main point of your first link is to repeat the un-evidenced assertion of "escalation" which I have already debunked. The lack of "mandate to police traffic infractions" is legally speaking a red herring. Your comment also makes a blatant emotional appeal to the situation where "a bunch of masked armed thugs are trying to carjack you". As objective matters of fact, she knew that these were ICE agents, and being told to "get out of the car" by LEO is not anything like "carjacking". And the argument that "the natural response is trying to get out of there as quick as possible" is incompatible with Good's partner encouraging her to do so ("drive, baby, drive").

In the second post you make an emotional appeal to the concept of being "tone policed". This misrepresents the criticism directed at you. You are not being prevented from using the word "murder", nor told that there is a moral problem with using such strong language (although the HN commenting guidelines do expect a certain level of decorum). You are being told that the evidence objectively does not justify the use of this term, which has an important and serious legal meaning. You again repeated the claim that "masked gangs" were involved in this shooting (I don't see a mask on Good; the officer approaching the driver's side window has some sort of face covering that doesn't really look like a mask to me and seems appropriate to the weather), and relied on more emotionally charged language ("gunned down in broad daylight"; "chickenshit"; "don't have an ounce of respect") based on your personal feelings about ICE general rather than anything actually in evidence. And you supposed that opposition to your point of view is driven by "reactionary propaganda" and that "anyone with half a brain" would otherwise agree with you.

I understand perfectly well where you are coming from. I am writing you off because you have consistently failed to show any argument beyond emotional appeal, and have repeatedly gotten simply verified facts wrong.

> But as I said, my only real question to you is how many more Americans need to be killed before

And as I said, it is clearly and obviously my interlocutors who are making emotional appeals here.