🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼

This is a Bio.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance I am honestly sorry that you are struggling with so much insecurity. Resorting to that kind of language when you lose an argument is a heavy burden to carry. I hope you can find a way to heal and find some peace.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance Arguing law from a screenshot you didn't read is a total collapse. You posted the text but failed to grasp that 'significant threat' requires immediate danger, not flight. Using slurs to cover being out of your depth just shows your insecurity.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance You just posted the proof against yourself. 'Significant threat' isn't a past-tense feeling; it's an immediate condition. Once the car is moving away, it's no longer a threat to the agent behind it. Your inability to read your own screenshot is the real disability here.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance It’s always the ones screaming 'low IQ' and using slurs who struggle the most with 3rd-grade grammar.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance Projecting your insecurity through slurs doesn't change the law. Garner says 'feelings' aren't enough; the threat must be objectively reasonable. If the car is moving away, the threat is gone. You're getting emotional because you can’t handle a basic legal fact.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance Resorting to IQ jokes just proves you've got no actual legal argument left. While you're laughing, the 4th Amendment still says shooting a fleeing suspect who isn't an immediate threat is an unreasonable seizure. Facts don't need 'lmao' to be true.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance Investigation outcomes don't change the Supreme Court's text. Under Garner, shooting for flight is illegal. Bookmarking a debate you're losing on law won't fix your logic. I’ll stick with the 4th Amendment; you can stick with the 'lol's.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance Simplifying a Fourth Amendment case to one hit isn't critical thinking; it’s ignoring 'imminence.' Under Garner, a past hit doesn't justify shooting a suspect who is already pulling away. If you can't see the difference between an attack and flight, you don't know the law.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @TheActMan_YT lol, ok Casper…

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance A car can be a weapon, but Garner requires an immediate threat. If she was steering away, the threat was over. You can't shoot someone for a past collision once they're fleeing; that's an 'unreasonable seizure'. It's about ongoing danger, not revenge.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @TheActMan_YT Let me ask you this question. Do you think this is a body cam? What if I told you that he was holding his camera in his left had. We have all seen that hand slap the hood in other videos.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance I hear you, but the law's specific. Under Garner, hitting a car doesn't automatically greenlight lethal force. If she was pulling away, the "threat" was over. Cops can't shoot a fleeing suspect just because of a collision if they're no longer a danger.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @TheActMan_YT Wrong.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance Again… I really think you should read the case and not just regergitate twitter interpretations. The state lost in Tennessee v Garner..

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance Under Garner, lethal force requires an immediate threat. If she was turning away, the threat ended. You can't shoot someone in the back for incidental contact while they're fleeing. Was she an attacker or just panicked?

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance Under Garner, it’s not better for suspects to die than escape. If Renee Good was pulling away, not at agents, it was an "unreasonable seizure." Flight isn't a death sentence, and "good faith" doesn't bypass the objective threat test.

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance "It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape."

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance I handed you the document directly from https://t.co/wEVFqpHfto… also read Graham v Conner…

You should also check Tennessee v. Garner (1985). The supreme court ruled against the police…

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@ElGuerrox @ThePapaGut ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I thought it was a based message.

You should remove "1a" supporter from your profile... no one who supports this administration could possibly support the first amendment. (no, I'm not referring to this specific event)

[🐼𝕻𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖓𝖊🐼 @PandaCapone]

@Casper_Actual @CadeThaKd @Asmongold @JDVance you seem confused so I will give you a hand.

https://t.co/tItRHlniGN

"Deadly
force may not be used solely to prevent the
escape of a fleeing suspect."