• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's promised ICE raids have begun

Grizzly Bear said:
Because your [sic] experience involves a distinctly different set of circumstances that don't align with the circumstances of this case.
You [sic] experienced a hit and run by someone that wasn't paying attention to the road. You never had the time to react, and by the time you could the guy was already gone. Your circumstances also did not involve law enforcement activity, nor YOU intentionally inserting yourself into a situation where you might be detained.


I don't think it takes much time and patience to watch a 12 minute video. Much less skip through it to view the Minnesota law and statute citations that the video was posted for. But since you think argument by youtube is a conspiracy theorist's method, feel free to review the law:

Sec. 609.065 MN Statutes

www.revisor.mn.gov www.revisor.mn.gov

Sec. 609.06 MN Statutes

www.revisor.mn.gov www.revisor.mn.gov

Sec. 609.066 MN Statutes

www.revisor.mn.gov www.revisor.mn.gov


The law's verbiage addresses the crux of this issue.


This is just an excuse being made to avoid a fallacious argument being called out. But it's fine.... at least you're honest about your intent not to read any of my citations. So I can leave the rest of my Sunday to relax on my day off instead of wasting time here.
Click to expand...
He shot her through the passenger window opening.
 
Andy_Ross said:
'They' are training them to use vehicles as deadly weapons.

Noem: "People are using their vehicles as deadly weapons and training them on how to block streets ... All of these times you see these rioters out there doing that -- they've been trained to do that, they know they are training them to break the law."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010371631621829045
Click to expand...

Noem is either stupid or knows full well that even if blocking the street at any given time, even if ICE just happens to be in the area at the time, is against the "law", that it's not a law that DHS have any jurisdiction to enforce. So she's either stupid or intentionally dishonest, the latter is more egregious in my opinion. Either way it works for them so they keep doing it. The Grifter in Chief always asserts without evidence and is never held accountable, why would we ever expect anything else from his cabinet?
 
Lerxst said:
Noem is either stupid or knows full well that even if blocking the street at any given time, even if ICE just happens to be in the area at the time, is against the "law", that it's not a law that DHS have any jurisdiction to enforce. So she's either stupid or intentionally dishonest, the latter is more egregious in my opinion. Either way it works for them so they keep doing it. The Grifter in Chief always asserts without evidence and is never held accountable, why would we ever expect anything else from his cabinet?
Click to expand...
Respectfully, she's both, as she continually demonstrates. Also too, unqualified for anything, including dogcatcher. Especially dogcatcher.
 
Darat said:
He shot her through the passenger window opening.
Click to expand...
Mojo said:
'They' are training people to drive vehicles sideways.

ETA: I think it was the driver's side window, the Yanks have their steering wheels on the wrong side.
Click to expand...
Driver's side. But the first shot went through the windshield at an unknown angle. In a normal investigation that angle would be determined by a forensic examination of the vehicle by a crime lab, which would then determine where the officer was standing when he shot. That examination has been rendered impossible by DHS's inept activities to "secure" the scene. The two shots fired through the driver's side window are in no way credible as self-defense; they can have been made only when the officer was out of the path of the vehicle and self-defense no longer attaches. All the shots were forbidden by regulation, as deadly force against the driver of a vehicle is not authorized.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Driver's side. But the first shot went through the windshield at an unknown angle. In a normal investigation that angle would be determined by a forensic examination of the vehicle by a crime lab, which would then determine where the officer was standing when he shot. That examination has been rendered impossible by DHS's inept activities to 'secure" the scene. The two shots fired through the driver's side window are in no way credible as self-defense; they can have been made only when the officer was out of the path of the vehicle and self-defense no longer attaches. All the shots were forbidden by regulation, as deadly force against the driver of a vehicle is not authorized.
Click to expand...
Too bad there will be no repercussions, no re-examination of policies, no reflection on the event, just recriminations.

I've never been so eager to be proved wrong.
 
Andy_Ross said:
WELKER: Noem called it an "act of domestic terrorism." What's the evidence for that allegation?

HOMAN: If they didn't have sanctuary policies--

WELKER: To be clear, is anyone who protests ICE a domestic terrorist?

HOMAN: It's a case by case basis. If you look at the definition of terrorism, it certainly could fall within the definition

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010366210332934648
Click to expand...
To call you a lying, stupid, bloodthirsty ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ could fall within the definition.
 
JayUtah said:
Driver's side. But the first shot went through the windshield at an unknown angle. In a normal investigation that angle would be determined by a forensic examination of the vehicle by a crime lab, which would then determine where the officer was standing when he shot. That examination has been rendered impossible by DHS's inept activities to 'secure" the scene. The two shots fired through the driver's side window are in no way credible as self-defense; they can have been made only when the officer was out of the path of the vehicle and self-defense no longer attaches. All the shots were forbidden by regulation, as deadly force against the driver of a vehicle is not authorized.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if the car has already been run through a crusher or dumped into the sea.
 
shemp said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the car has already been run through a crusher or dumped into the sea.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but there's no chain of custody for it even if it still exists. No part of ICE training involves securing and processing a crime scene. Hence the scene was legally contaminated from the very first minute. A competent defense attorney could get the forensic evidence suppressed on those grounds alone.

And it would be a lot easier to dump the car in Lake Superior.
 
Last edited:
He watched her, indeed he videoed her, turning her steering wheel hard over to the right and away from him before moving off, then he shot her, initially through the windscreen, but later shots were through the open side window. As the shot through the front screen was low down it is very unlikely to be the reported head shot. So it appears he shot the woman in the head through the open side window of her car.

I really cannot see the Trump administration managing to gaslight everyone sufficiently to keep this obviously unlawful killing out of court.
 
JayUtah said:
Possibly, but there's no chain of custody for it even if it still exists. No part of ICE training involves securing and processing a crime scene. Hence the scene was legally contaminated from the very first minute. A competent defense attorney could get the forensic evidence suppressed on those grounds alone.
Click to expand...
Add that to the list of ICE actions that were illegal both before and after the fact. No amount of pointing this out will stop the nonsense claims that she was "committing a felony" or that "ICE has jurisdiction over a US citizen...because they say so?"

State Law Enforcement should have been immediately deployed to process the crime scene, evidence should have been collected....it's almost as if the State of Minnesota is being prevented from doing that by the Federal Government. Wild isn't it?
 
I know full well I’m on my knees, crying out to the heavens in vain, but could the Trump-fellating officeholders, media sycophants, and anti-American mob throughout the land please, please put a moratorium on the term “weaponize?”

Weaponize the Justice Department. Weaponize the vehicle. Weaponize the TV remote.

Pseudo-technojargonny. Meant to sound clinical and dry, but really just cloying and cutesy.

Please. I beg you. Don’t make me weaponize my stink eye and furrowed brow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom