Guns: how much longer will it take ....

No joy.

Disgust that you keep enabling massive fatal violations of people's civil rights. You must get great joy from that, you do it so often, and I can see no other reason for you to do it.

That's pure opinion and a malicious opinion at that.

Context is always important to interpreting the message. Numerous body language experts say it is around 70-85% of the message. Tone is a large percentage of the remaining message. Each of the things I mentioned related to body language and tone. Where the words are vague, the context becomes even more important. Any interpretation that ignores such context is flawed...or a really lucky guess.

But in any event, the only people who want to ignore context are those with an agenda.

Like your agenda driven bias.

Incorrect.

Here is the link where you said "He did make a move towards her."

This was patently wrong, which you continue to ignore.

Your desire to ignore context,

and your desire to ignore any other possibility than the one you assign,

and your desire to ignore when you are wrong is driven by deep seated bias.

The only thing that is relevant is the fact that Amy Cooper genuinely feared for the safety of her and her pet.

The move that he made towards her was to try to lure her pet away from her.

Biden calls on Congress to 'enact commonsense gun law reforms'
on third anniversary of Parkland shooting

"Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring
background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,
and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our
streets," Biden said in a statement.

"This administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call," the statement
reads. "We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and
communities safer..."

Do you know the meaning of the word paranoia?

If not look it up. It might be informative.

Anybody who fantasizes about pissing on the piled corpses of victims of gun violence is getting great glee from it. QED

They're not defending themselves, they're assaulting someone black.

You're assigning nonexistent malignant motives which you're just making up,

factless nonreality is your stock in trade.

Which depends on her interpretation - which if reasonable - used context.
- Irrational interpretations
- biased / agenda driven interpretations
- racist interpretations
- etc
Are not valid.

And they are certainly not grounds to shoot someone.

Context is always relevant. Your laws that enable someone to shoot another person agree with this - context is relevant to whether or not a fear for your life is reasonable (otherwise you can shoot anyone you like and claim you were in fear for your life, reasonable fear or not)

You are making a judgement. The only way you can know if she was reasonable, is to look at the context....not ignore 3/4's of it. Your argument ignores what is reasonable because it is driven by your desire to be biased.

It is perfectly rational for someone to feel threatened when a thug threatens them and then tries to lure their pet away from them.

As I previously said - there are different sorts of threats, including:
- legal threats (ie lawful actions, such as calling law enforcement)
- threats of exposure (to ridicule on social media, which is why people start filming, like Mr Cooper did),
- threats of violence (which are accompanied by threatening behaviour, not calm behaviour where he never approaches her, and tells her to stay away from him)
- etc
...And when the threat is vague, the only way to know which category it falls into, and the degree of the 'threat' (which can be very minor), is through applying context (actions, tone, bodylanguage), which you refuse to apply,. You choose to ignore all context (except him calling her dog to him with a treat) in judging whether or not her reaction was reasonable.

This is agenda driven on your part.

It definitely in no way justifies shooting him (as you claim it would),

which shows just how extremely disproportionate your bias is.

Any concession you've made to a black person involved in conflict with a white person - you've barely admitted a single iota to any black persons side (and usually it has been the black person who ended up dead). Context that favours the black person, you've virtually always called irrelevant. Context that favours the white person, you focus on, no matter how unreasonable it is in the known context.

Your racism has been on display for everyone here to see.

Only you deny it.

One of the things that humans are quite capable of doing, is justifying to themselves anything they want to justify to themselves. No amount of argument is capable of changing the minds of such people.

No I did not.

Your opinion is flawed, as usual.

What you think is a violation of civil liberty is purely your opinion

and if SCOTUS doesn't back you up, as they don't, it exists only in your mind,

a barren place for it to be.