• 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

Darat said:
He shot her through the passenger window opening.
Click to expand...
Yes, a human being died and it's tragic. But if you're trying to make a point you're not doing a good job at it.

kookbreaker said:
My point is that even when at full acceleration and with minimal warning the car was not the deadly weapon that would only be stopped by using lethal force on the driver.
Click to expand...
Citing a personal experience is fine. But for it to be relevant it needs to have overlap with what you're trying to argue. The law is about the perceived imminence of danger. Had the officer been 30 yards away with more ample warning, maybe you would have an argument. But this guy was right next to the vehicle.

Case in point as to why your downplay doesn't cut it (skip to 25 seconds):

I don't think you'd be making these statements to me if you were in this officer's shoes. Then again... who knows.

Regardless, the difference between him getting knocked down and sideswiped vs getting crushed underneath the car boiled down to less than 2 feet and one second of time to respond. You'll need to come up with something better than downplaying the danger of someone driving recklessly if you want to argue his perception of danger wasn't justified.
 
Last edited:
Is there some kind of office competition in this administration to see who can be the most comically incompetent, pathetically moronic, and stomach-curdlingly repulsive member each month? Is there a prize? A gold-colored, plastic-plated trophy and a 10% off certificate to the local car wash? Whatever it is, they all seem to strenuously and endlessly clamor for it.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Yes, a human being died and it's tragic. But if you're trying to make a point you're not doing a good job at it.

...snip...
Click to expand...
I'm doing a great job of it, if you stop and think about what that means. (And I do apologise for mistaking the side but my point does not rest on it being any particular side window.)
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Is there some kind of office competition in this administration to see who can be the most comically incompetent, pathetically moronic, and stomach-curdlingly repulsive member each month? Is there a prize? A gold-colored, plastic-plated trophy and a 10% off certificate to the local car wash? Whatever it is, they all seem to strenuously and endlessly clamor for it.
Click to expand...
If there is any prize to be given it has to be to Trump...
 
On the bright side, if you can say that, accross the country there are people protesting Good's execution. Let's hope some other trigger-happy icehole doesn't get triggered watching freedom in action. ◊◊◊◊, I hate where this country is, all because the U.S. couldn't stomach electing a woman. ◊◊◊◊!
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Regardless, the difference between him getting knocked down and sideswiped vs getting crushed underneath the car boiled down to less than 2 feet and one second of time to respond.
Click to expand...
Which is why it’s important to follow the rules of engagement, which this officer didn’t. Twice. The first time he ended up injured. The second time he panicked and shot an innocent person in the face.
 
Resume said:
On the bright side, if you can say that, accross the country there are people protesting Good's execution. Let's hope some other trigger-happy icehole doesn't get triggered watching freedom in action. ◊◊◊◊, I hate where this country is, all because the U.S. couldn't stomach electing a woman, and went apoplectic over the price of eggs, which Biden had nothing to do with. ◊◊◊◊!
Click to expand...
FTFY
 
Resume said:
On the bright side, if you can say that, accross the country there are people protesting Good's execution. Let's hope some other trigger-happy icehole doesn't get triggered watching freedom in action. ◊◊◊◊, I hate where this country is, all because the U.S. couldn't stomach electing a woman. ◊◊◊◊!
Click to expand...
But the meanies say nasty things to them, they have to shoot people in the face It's not their fault.

Homan: "There will be more bloodshed unless we decrease the hateful rhetoric"


https://twitter.com/x/status/2010391710254366982
 
It's only gaslighting the millions of people who don't already believe the nonsense we are hearing that is contradicted by our own eyes. Millions of other people already believe everything that Noem, et al say.

"They were being meanies to us ALL DAY so by 9:37am we had grown tired of this and just had to shoot her". - Irrelevant even if it's true that they were being meanies to them. But let's see the evidence of said meanness...I doubt we ever will.
"She was a criminal (this is assumed for some reason) and was in the process of being detained (for what reason?) and tried to use her car as a deadly weapon (she did not, she was attempting to leave which she has every right to do). - She was a US citizen who had committed no crime and ICE had no authority to order her to get out of her car anyway.

And then every video contradicts every single thing they try to say. Ross' own video actually makes it patently worse for him as if calling her a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bitch means she deserved it for some reason?

I have yet to hear an argument that justifies this that does not hinge on an assumption that ICE is somehow not subject to the law and can do whatever they want because they are "federal agents". They are federal agents with a very limited scope of enforcement and very limited authority, under the same law that they claim she was breaking but they weren't.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2010439009147949378
Click to expand...
Funny, but whyTF was this icehole even responding to these people? Because they were taunting him? Tough ◊◊◊◊ fake tough guy. Didn't an icehole slip on the ice and discharge his weapon today too? These ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ are ill-equipped psychologically, ill-trained physically and just all around incompetent.
 
Andy_Ross said:
But the meanies say nasty things to them, they have to shoot people in the face It's not their fault.

Homan: "There will be more bloodshed unless we decrease the hateful rhetoric"


https://twitter.com/x/status/2010391710254366982
Click to expand...
He's promising it. They fully intend to execute more human beings just because they oppose facist icehole tactics. Don't like "hateful rhetoric?" Don't be hateful ass holes. As I, and everyone else, have noted, they want violence, they want chaos, and they want to intimidate; executing civilians is just a bonus.

This is evil.
 
Andy_Ross said:
But the meanies say nasty things to them, they have to shoot people in the face It's not their fault.

Homan: "There will be more bloodshed unless we decrease the hateful rhetoric"


https://twitter.com/x/status/2010391710254366982
Click to expand...
Whole bunch of hateful rhetoric from Mr. Homan himself in that video. It's nauseating but echoes what we have been hearing from them from the start. They don't believe they have to prove someone is a criminal, just that they declare it so that they are...so please get out of our way so we can round up these criminals and if you get in our way you are ALSO a criminal and we will kill you.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Citing a personal experience is fine. But for it to be relevant it needs to have overlap with what you're trying to argue. The law is about the perceived imminence of danger. Had the officer been 30 yards away with more ample warning, maybe you would have an argument. But this guy was right next to the vehicle.
Click to expand...

First of all: He was in front of the vehicle, where he placed himself while the car was not moving - in violation of his agencies own procedures.
Secondly: That he wasn't 30 yards away is my freaking point! In my case, as well as the agent's case, the car was starting from a standstill and had minimal time to accelerate before reaching me or the agent! I bring up my circumstances because to call a car barely able to get moving a "deadly weapon" is ridiculous. You can get out of the way in most cases, and in the few cases I was struck it wasn't anywhere near deadly.
Grizzly Bear said:
Case in point as to why your downplay doesn't cut it (skip to 25 seconds):

I don't think you'd be making these statements to me if you were in this officer's shoes. Then again... who knows.
Click to expand...
The situation in that video was completely different in the the car was already moving from quite a distance away and had time to gain a lot more speed - something the car in our situation did not have.

Grizzly Bear said:
Regardless, the difference between him getting knocked down and sideswiped vs getting crushed underneath the car boiled down to less than 2 feet and one second of time to respond. You'll need to come up with something better than downplaying the danger of someone driving recklessly if you want to argue his perception of danger wasn't justified.
Click to expand...
No, on the contrary, you need to prove why a deadly response was required when at the very most he may have been bumped by the car, and then maybe you can tell us why he needed to fire 2nd and 3rd shots from the side of the vehicle.

The agent did the screwing up here, and you want to give him a pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom