• 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

Resume said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's a long running parody account..note the spelling of Nissan.

Edit for my stupidity.

Because he's an insecure bully who doesn't think the consequences of his actions
 
Last edited:
Krusti Noemskull makes things worse for herself every time she flaps her
yap. You have to feel a (very little) bit sorry for her.

But the Hoeman, now there's a more interesting object. He looks and threatens
like a hardened thug. He utters menacing talk. He's not struggling at all: He's just
waiting to be released -- and then we'll see firing into the crowds and vehicular homicide
like Third World Carnival.

And following that, when state police and National Guards move to contain him, we'll have civil war.
 
kookbreaker said:
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,
Click to expand...
The justification he will use in his defense is the fact that she maneuvered the car towards him and made contact while resisting detainment.
THAT IS the justification for his use of force. And my assessment is you'll be hard pressed to find an objective jury that will regard that defense as weak.

Lerxst said:
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.
Click to expand...
TBH Noem and them are full of **** calling the lady a terrorist. She committed a felony trying to run off. But that's nowhere near the same level. That IS one thing I don't agree with from them. It's no more helpful to the cause than people who label all ice officers as nazi's and gestapo's.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
The justification he will use in his defense is the fact that she maneuvered the car towards him and made contact while resisting detainment.
THAT IS the justification for his use of force. And my assessment is you'll be hard pressed to find an objective jury that will regard that defense as weak.
Click to expand...
but we see in his own video she out the wheel over to the right away from him.
We see him fire shots in to her head through the driver's window when he was stood at the side of the vehicle.
After he fires we hear gim say "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Bitch"

It was an execution. He lost his temper and was frustrated so he decided to shoot her in he head to assert his authority.

You know this, you can see the same video as us.
Are you just trying to get a reaction from other posters? I won't say trolling because it's not allowed.

What will be your excuse for the next person that gets shot because someone has a fragile ego?
 
Texas man dressed up to impersonate ICE agent threatens to sexually assault young girl—local police stand around and do nothing.

"He walked up with a gun!" pleads woman. "Y'all aren't going to do anything?"

"She could be your daughter's age, your kid's age, or your grandkids."

The man was armed with multiple weapons—including brass knuckles.

The incident occurred at an anti-ICE protest in Austin, Texas.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010429100159054189
 
Stephen Miller
@StephenM
Americans voting overwhelmingly for mass deportation.

Congress passed laws requiring it and then passed new legislation to fully fund it.

The response of the Democrat Party and its activists has been to support and orchestrate violent resistance against federal law enforcement
 
Andy_Ross said:
It was an execution.
Click to expand...

At this point I can only tell you that it's unlikely a jury is going to agree with this. But if that's what you think I won't try to convince you otherwise. I've said my piece on this more than enough. We'll be going around in circles on this forever. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Texas man dressed up to impersonate ICE agent threatens to sexually assault young girl—local police stand around and do nothing.

"He walked up with a gun!" pleads woman. "Y'all aren't going to do anything?"

"She could be your daughter's age, your kid's age, or your grandkids."

The man was armed with multiple weapons—including brass knuckles.

The incident occurred at an anti-ICE protest in Austin, Texas.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010429100159054189
Click to expand...
Andy_Ross said:
People impersonating ICE agents is becoming a common thing it Texas it seems.
From a few days ago

https://twitter.com/x/status/2007973871543025856
Click to expand...
Just more ◊◊◊◊ you can lay at the feet of this corrupt administration: They let loose a mob of masked cowards who have no accountability, and the results speak for themselves.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The justification he will use in his defense is the fact that she maneuvered the car towards him and made contact while resisting detainment.
THAT IS the justification for his use of force. And my assessment is you'll be hard pressed to find an objective jury that will regard that defense as weak.
Click to expand...
He put himself in front of the car, in violation of DHS protocols. He fired into a moving vehicle, another violation of protocol. He caused the entire issue by himself - She did not put him in front of her car. The DHS rules are written in blood to prevent exactly the situation that just happened and he showed utter contempt for those rules. Furthermore, once he was on the side of the vehicle he was no longer facing any threat but still continued firing - don't whine about this because the court cases have already decided that's a no-no.

This doesn't factor in his contempt for the victim, fleeing the scene, and utter failure to de-escalate

Several lawyers, including those who defend police shootings have weighed in on this case and they have stated at the most generous for the agent is that it would be manslaughter for the first shot and Murder II on the second and third. Most defense lawyers were saying under most circumstances they would say to start plea bargaining now.

But of course normal circumstances wouldn't mean the Federal agencies doing everything to protect his murdering ass and demonize the victim.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The justification he will use in his defense is the fact that she maneuvered the car towards him and made contact while resisting detainment.
THAT IS the justification for his use of force. And my assessment is you'll be hard pressed to find an objective jury that will regard that defense as weak.


TBH Noem and them are full of **** calling the lady a terrorist. She committed a felony trying to run off. But that's nowhere near the same level. That IS one thing I don't agree with from them.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. As a former public defender who tried numerous jury trials in a Republican district in NY, led by a Republican DA, where most of the jury pool had family members who were police officers, defending minority clients in a mostly white jury pool (which means I had to be careful choosing a jury) I can assure you that any jury in *any* district that is walked through that video frame by frame will have no doubt that there was no justification for the shooting. The video evidence is about as clear as it can get. And I have to disagree mildly with JayUtah that he "panicked'--I don't think he was scared at all. Even after the car pushed him, he shuffled his feet and was able to stand easily on the icy road; I don't think he was in the least bit worried about being run over. The car, as been pointed out many times in the *opposite* direction from where he was, and this enabled him to fire 2 more shots through the open window. He was certainly angry, and that was his motivation; his choice of insult after he killed his victim make it pretty clear that he was angry and not afraid. He is supposedly trained to react to make split second decisions. If his reaction is to keep shooting at close range despite being clear of a vehicle that is moving AWAY from him (not towards, as you repeatedly lie about) then he should not be carrying a weapon, because that is at the very least reckless behavior.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
At this point I can only tell you that it's unlikely a jury is going to agree with this. But if that's what you think I won't try to convince you otherwise. I've said my piece on this more than enough. We'll be going around in circles on this forever. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Courts have already ruled on cases like this, and it didn't go well for the murderous agent/officer. So I will simply say you would be wrong if circumstances were normal.
 
kookbreaker said:
Several lawyers, including those who defend police shootings have weighed in on this case and they have stated at the most generous for the agent is that it would be manslaughter for the first shot and Murder II on the second and third. Most defense lawyers were saying under most circumstances they would say to start plea bargaining now.
Click to expand...
Yep, and the key word here is 'generous' Were it not for this administration trying their best to muddy the waters by lying and mischaracterizing the facts, this would be about as easy a conviction it could be for a prosecutor thanks to the numerous videos. The only real legal issue is whether you could call it intentional homicide or some sort of manslaughter--that is where the details of the first shot and where exactly he was in relation to the vehicle when it was fired would come into play.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
Yep, and the key word here is 'generous' Were it not for this administration trying their best to muddy the waters by lying and mischaracterizing the facts, this would be about as easy a conviction it could be for a prosecutor thanks to the numerous videos. The only real legal issue is whether you could call it intentional homicide or some sort of manslaughter--that is where the details of the first shot and where exactly he was in relation to the vehicle when it was fired would come into play.
Click to expand...
I think the second and third shots, the coup-de-gras if you will, pretty much telegraph the icehole's intentions.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The justification he will use in his defense is the fact that she maneuvered the car towards him and made contact while resisting detainment.
THAT IS the justification for his use of force. And my assessment is you'll be hard pressed to find an objective jury that will regard that defense as weak.


TBH Noem and them are full of **** calling the lady a terrorist. She committed a felony trying to run off. But that's nowhere near the same level. That IS one thing I don't agree with from them. It's no more helpful to the cause than people who label all ice officers as nazi's and gestapo's.
Click to expand...
Please cite the felony that she committed.

ETA: They have to call her a terrorist or their whole narrative (and yours) falls apart because as stupid as they are they at least appear to understand that is the only way DHS can justify even interacting with this woman at all.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
The justification he will use in his defense is the fact that she maneuvered the car towards him and made contact while resisting detainment.
Click to expand...
A claim easily rebutted by looking at where she was steering, using the officer's own evidence, and noting that it's the officer doing the moving.

Grizzly Bear said:
THAT IS the justification for his use of force. And my assessment is you'll be hard pressed to find an objective jury that will regard that defense as weak.
Click to expand...
Attended many jury trials, have you?

Grizzly Bear said:
TBH Noem and them are full of **** calling the lady a terrorist.
Click to expand...
You were quite happy as a fellow victim-blamer.

Grizzly Bear said:
She committed a felony trying to run off.
Click to expand...
What felony? Cite to an actual statute. Then when you're done, point to where in the statute it says the penalty for "trying to run off" is being shot in the face summarily by the arresting officer. You simply can't help but continue to blame the victim. Somehow she got what was coming to her because [waves hands generally at the air].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom