Nostr Web Client

The one I just boosted is a fabrication?

Which one did you boost?

https://cdn.nostrcheck.me/cb79422e4577cde3618226b6ae338e36e98cd70671024b8692e9e872a58bcb1c.webp

That video is misleading, whether intentionally or not. It is a cellphone video, for one, and he is holding it about a foot in front of him (standard cellphone video position). When the car comes at him, it looks like it hits him because it goes *under* where he is holding the phone.

You can see him standing 12 inches away and leaning forwards during the first and second shots in the picture attached. Also, if he was really hit, he probably would have dropped his phone and / or at least limped away, but neither happened.

It was an optical illusion. When you take a slightly closer look and see how the trick was done, you can call it out.

I can't zap you. Please fix that. This note is worth a chonky zap.

Ah, okay, interesting. Hmm.

. 4d ago

This is a retarded take. The shooting officer had his cellphone in his right hand as he walked around the vehicle. Less than five seconds pass from phone in right hand to pulling gun. Training on avoiding getting pulled under a car is to shift weight onto hood to not have feet pulled under. The other officer has his arm in the car and is swung around, he could have easily been dragged by the car. This officer reaponded to protect his life and his fellow officers life. The driver under no circumstance has the right to drive away with an officer standing in front and to the side with them ordering her out of the car. Officers have every right to use force when threatened.

K.

TheRupertDamnit 4d ago

What flavor leather is that boot? It must be your favorite to have it lodged so far down your throat.

🤷‍♂

Doesn't seem to be the case from what I've seen.

I don't see why so many want to make this dude a hero. Really... Why?

It was, at the least, an overreaction and unprofessional.

Sort of to be expected, tho, when a job is so difficult and unpleasant, that it becomes hard to find anyone willing to do it. The hiring standards sink and the employees feel like they work in a war zone and are constantly on edge. Sort of like being a cop in Baltimore. Or working for the fire department in Hamburg.

Working for ICE is now probably more dangerous than joining the Marines.

Yup.

. 4d ago

Not a hero, also not a murderer.

Agree on the first, disagree on the second.

Can we move along now?

Murder requires malice and aforethought. He didn't pick her out weeks ago and stalk her around and wait to attack her, or something.

This looks more like a lesser degree of manslaughter, at the most.

I don't agree. Second-degree seems like the most reasonable designation. He chose to pull out his sidearm and shoot her multiple times.

I think they're trained to keep shooting, if they start. But also to avoid starting.

The whole scene is a bewildering circus. And there were apparently run-ins with her before. Their apparent overreaction might be caused by some previous incident. These can be mitigating circumstances.

I'm withholding judgement. Only a jury will see everything.

Oh, I am certainly trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized, and, frankly will do just that if I am at the point where I have drawn my own weapon to defend me or mine.

You are right about it being a circus.

They are.

This entire situation was a perfect example of the poor security measures and incompetence within US law enforcement agencies.

https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1956077756854186191

We should expect it to get worse. They apparently doubled the size of the force and cut the training time, just this year, and immediately put the newbies in the fray.

And then there is all of that MAGA bling bling stuff, trying to look Tough on Crime, before the Midterms. Same as they've been doing with the National Guard.

*nods*

A perfect recipe for disaster. As planned. IMO.

I am attributing malice to the fact of when he drew his pistol.

But, if it came up in a court and he was tried and convicted of manslaughter, I would be satisfied with that outcome.

freemymind 🇨🇭 4d ago

This might helps understanding agents. But all this explanations would never change a thing that a murder has to go to prison.

Only because there is a logic, that has lead to murder, does not change something in the fact, that it is still murder.

No matter if he is afraid, stressed, bad educated or what preconditions a person has.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_0deac5ee-78c8-4ff7-9eb8-3c91603e8495.html

It is the law of the land, to take mitigating circumstances into consideration, when deciding the charges. That is the same, in Switzerland.

freemymind 🇨🇭 4d ago

For sure they are might able to lower the sentence, when it can be shown, that the murder does feel guilty and would not do it never again.

But those circumstances can not lead to be freed from the charges.

Ricemoon 4d ago

These kind of incentives can make the decision easier to get that job and then deal with the consequences...

"Incentives to become an ICE agent include a signing bonus of up to $50,000, student loan repayment and forgiveness options, overtime pay, and enhanced retirement benefits. The agency aims to hire 10,000 new personnel as part of its recruitment drive."

Yup. It is attractive until it isn't.

On top of all that the car is going like 2mph, and he has no authority as an ice agent to order a citizen to exit a vehicle or to enforce traffic laws.

Lying to yourself.

ihsotas 3d ago

Yes saw this video. fucking retard stood in front of a car and then leaned into it while he unholsteted his gun. He shouldn’t have been any where near the car you bootlicking statist cuck.

Suggestion : watch first-person footage.

The Beave 3d ago

I did. It doesn't clearly show what we want, when we want. The video and screen caps that I and another posted paint a more clear picture in my estimation.

There's still room and time for more information. I do hope we see more and better evidence brought to light soon.

Yeah the footage from his phone proves that it was a premeditated murder.

Calling the victim a "fucking bitch" right after shooting her face 3 times also shows a total lack of remorse.

She was literally just pulling out of her driveway to go pick her kid up from school.

There wasn't even a protest happening.

But pedophiles who support Trump won't let it go, they just keep making up excuses to justify the murder of American citizens as a way to distract from the Epstein files.

John Satsman 3d ago

https://video.nostr.build/ad31dcd23298027775199349893b9a05dbc042d9fd24fa4a10fa79a3000a739e.mp4

This?

No. That isn't the video I've posted before.

I don't want to post it again since it cannot be verified by anyone credible at this point.

It still looks like a modified video. I'm no expert, if I'm wrong, its not intentional. It just doesn't fit the other video where there was no dude where he is there.

It could be. I hate video, so I can't do any technical kind of analysis on the footage itself. This is what should come out of a thorough investigation, but I am beginning to doubt there will be one.

There's political stakes, so there will be no honesty

*sighs*

Yeah.

Yes, this one.

The guy filmed the murder himself..

Laeserin 3d ago

Yeah, it isn't a fabrication, but the angle might be misleading.

https://cdn.nostrcheck.me/cb79422e4577cde3618226b6ae338e36e98cd70671024b8692e9e872a58bcb1c.webp

This post is Proof of Work. 🫡 Massive respect to you, man. I came to the same conclusion, he saw her moving and leaned into the front of the vehicle to have an excuse to shoot. It was convincing, but with all the angles, it's quite obvious that he was clear of the vehicle when he opened fire.

Look, only God know what was in that man’s head.

he was dragged by another car earlier.

everyone trying to treat this as a clear cut this or that case should be sitting at the kids table and not contributing to the discussion.

She created a messy situation, and he responded to the messy situation.

That’s what being in the arena is about. laws are written for the man in the arena. if he clearly walked up to her and blasted when she wasn’t spinning her tires out, then yes, it’s clear and cut.

but it wasn’t .

it’s a mess.

i don’t like that it happened

i would not like a world where we hold men in the messy arena to a sterile standard.

in fact, if you try enforcing impossible standards, that just incentivizes people to abandon civilization and return to the law of the jungle

It seems to me like you are implying that not shooting a civilian in the head 3 times - two of them from the side of her vehicle when in zero danger - is an "impossible standard". I think it's a pretty basic standard, along with not calling citizens "fucking bitch" after you killed them. Along with allowing medics to provide aid to the person you just shot. And not leaving the scene immediately with your firearm. Along with the entire Federal government not dragging her name through the mud and calling her a terrorist before an investigation even began.

I think these should be considered bottom of the fucking barrel standards. And neither the agent nor the Federal government lived to to these basic standards. It's not just about the (senseless and evil) shooting, it's the entire shit sandwich.

I will agree with this take a bit more than the nym you are responding to's take.

Think more, emote less.

Until then, just 🤫

Get fucked.

😂

The only emotion I have emoted is vast amusement.

How about you just hush yourself if you have nothing either amusing or interesting to say. heh

I understand why this is difficult for you: you don’t understand the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, passion and principle, thinking and feeling.

Read Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”

You will find it a most helpful first step to treat your state of ignorance.

good news, it’s curable!

Your aloofness is laughable.

I have rather fun with my ignorance, you arrogant twit.

Go find another classician to pick the bones of the long dead with.

Or do I need to say that in Latin for you to figure out that I actually might know about all that but don't choose to bother with it.

You speak incoherently.

Out both sides of your mouth.

The load bearing joists of society aren’t something to “have rather fun with.”

Stick to your lane.

If he was, in fact, dragged by another car earlier, then he is, in fact a really bad kinda retard for getting in front of another vehicle. That is a hugely stupid thing to do and one of the most basic faux pas anyone in a stupid, tense, angry situation can make. Geez.

It isn't super clear cut, but I am not going to give him that much benefit of the doubt.

I hope if you ever have to respond to an absolutely absurd situation, the standard you advocate holding him to is not applied to you.

It’s an odd type of hypocrisy you are displaying.

Good lord you guys are gay.

Kip Ashlynn 4d ago

I really appreciate your self-analysis, critical thinking, and ability to own being wrong. Nuanced thinking is uncomfortable, but very necessary. Thank you for diving into this, it's something I can't bring myself to look at closely. But it important that we do, so thank you 🫂

You're most welcome.

I'm good at being uncomfortable with the things. Not everyone needs to be.

BE 4d ago

Thank you for this.

The agent doesn’t have the right to even approach the woman’s car in the first place. He is not a police officer he has no authority over traffic or anything other than pursuing people who they have probable cause or a warrant for in regards to their immigration status. He started by exceeding his authority and ended by murdering a citizen.

Props for owning you earlier mistake, but please don’t think for a second that ICE running amok is an acceptable means to an end.

Federal agents do have authority in cases where their appointed assignments are being impeded. I don't think you are correct about that.

But the rest? Yes. I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.

The video footage doesn’t support this narrative. You are in fact allowed to record federal law enforcement.

What authority does ice have to command a citizen to exit a vehicle?

Actual footage reveals the reality: psycho street larper rammed ICE with her SUV, ended unsurprisingly. 🥱

https://www.troddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q71k0w/all_angles_of_minneapolis_ice_shooting_synched/

ihsotas 3d ago

Nah the dude literally leans into the car like a low iq retard. Made a situation he could try to Justify shooting someone. Try less cop dick in your diet it will be better for your soul.

Elon’s Link Reaper Bot 4d ago

Reddit alternative link(s)

🔗 troddit:

🔗 redlib.privacyredirect (FIN):

https://redlib.privacyredirect.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q71k0w/all_angles_of_minneapolis_ice_shooting_synched/

🔗 redlib.catsarch (US):

https://redlib.catsarch.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q71k0w/all_angles_of_minneapolis_ice_shooting_synched/

kidwarp 4d ago

Wasn’t the person driving the suv attending meetings on how to disrupt ice agents?

Weren’t they purposely blocking the street?

Did they not fuck around and find out?

It’s a completely fucked up situation…

Yes.

But the agent was clearly NOT in danger and drew and fired against very clear and basic SOP.

Yes, it is terrible all around.

kidwarp 4d ago

Agreed…

Being rude and aggressive to _anyone_ pointing a deadly weapon at you might get you killed. I think it's part of adulting, to take that seriously and to carefully wiegh whether it's the hill you want die on. The protestors in this video are clearly used to dealing with armed ICE agents, while acting like a total arse, and walking away, laughing about it on social media. But, they picked the wrong guy on the wrong day.

Does that necessarily make it okay, or legal, that she got shot? Nope. But it effects how much outrage I feel about it and how much attention I am willing to pay to it.

Not much.

Yes. Exactly.

Also, if you look at the protests that have broken out, after this, you see:

1. Some of the protestors are completely unhinged and prone to violence. You don't protest government violence by breaking stuff and terrorizing everyone.

2. They don't appear to be people from Minneapolis. Are they bussing in protestors, _again_, to destroy the local neighborhood, _again_?

3. The local politicians are relieved to have something to talk about, other than daycare fraud, which encourages them to hype this all up and be like George Floyd 2.0! ✊🏾

While this is true no one should be licking the states ass. This agent adds no value to the stated goal of enforcing immigration laws. His actions are a step backwards, if that is the goal. They are a step forward if the goal is to normalize a paramilitary death squad controlled by the executive branch.

The whole point of all of this situation is to usher in martial law and digital ID.

What's your solution?

That's also not the point of the discussion at hand.

We stop allowing false narratives to cloud this situation. If the admin was serious about immigration they would jail corporate executives that employee illegal immigrants. For the criminal immigrants who don’t have employment they would use the vast financial surveillance network to target these people directly.

The use of goon squads on the streets of cities is a means to enrage the majority of people and provide the more radical and racist MAGA loyalists something to get hyped about.

Throwing out due process and creating rage bait is what a government who doesn’t care about individual freedom would do.

Well, it is easy to prove citizenship or properly documented resident status. If they can't or won't, due process is, IMO, to boot them as fast as possible. It's just that simple.

You are correct about goon squads. And, they are also using the surveillance apparatus to target where to do the must effective work.

And yes, please let's jail the execs and politicians involved with this, too!

If you enter the country illegally, you should at least be required to pay a fine and deportation is a reasonable response. And you should be barred from applying for citizenship, since your disregard for the rule of law is apparent.

The police should be the ones finding and arresting them, but the local government has refused to do that job, so the federal government has taken over. The federal government is only in this position because previous admins refused to control the border.

If you open your external borders, you eventually finish the border fight in your residential areas.

There has been consistent deportations every year for decades. Obama was more aggressive than trumps first term and Biden used title 42 expulsions to remove 3 million which puts his single term numbers up to around 4 million people which is over 4x greater than trumps first term.

The entire current immigration drama is theater to normalize federal paramilitary in our cities it has very little to do with the business of deportations. Even with a massive budget the trump admin will likely not beat Bide’s number.

I have no problem with the forced removal of illegal immigrants, people should respect our laws. I have a problem with the narrative that what ice is doing currently is the only way or is the preferred way.

This is a choice being made to hype up the maga retards and piss off the city dwellers who have to feel the weight of a federal force. This force is laughably bad at their job and mostly just the dregs of the unemployable in the traditional law enforcement and military circles.

The play book is simple. Make the process of deportations visible and violent. Make the holding pens inhumane and despairing, and make the final destination arbitrary and without due process. This creates fear and resistance and correctly crafts a narrative that ICE is to be resisted(all government over reach should be). Trump gets his conflicts with the radical left and can distract everyone from his Epstein issues and the rapidly shrinking importance of the US on the world stage .

I'll agree with all of this.

You skipped over my argument, that nobody would need to deport them, if they had never been imported.

They did this in Germany, too. Insisted we let everyone in, and they would sort through them and then deport — pinky-swear. Then it came time to deport and they were like, Oh, it would be too mean to deport!

Turns out that it is much harder to deport 1 person than import 100k persons. And they knew that, from the beginning.

Yup.

The push across both political party’s has been to restrict immigration but then the foreign policy has been to create chaos that breeds the conditions we are seeing. the migrant crisis has been in the making for decades thanks to the drug war, us spurred political instability in central and South America. The bankers and financial players that control our political system want to push as many migrants north as possible. This will provide the excuse for increased militarization and surveillance.

Yes.

Exactly so.

That may be the case, but American citizens aren't required to tolerate the chaos in their cities, regardless of what the cause was.

I don't know if that is the case, tho. The idea that every shitty foreign government is the fault of Evil White Men is too simplistic for me.

The history of the CIA is the history of doing the work of the military industrialists and bankers to fuck up countries to enable resource extraction. The side effect of this neo colonialism is a migrant crisis. It’s also the history of the drug use crisis.

This is not about blaming white men. The sex and skin color of these vampires is immaterial.

Yes. 100% yes.

It's not immaterial. The entire argument is incredibly racist and sexist, as it assumes that migrants are all helpless victims, and that Americans and Europeans deserve to live in terror to atone for the sins of their ancestors, forever.

There are plenty of really horrible people in the countries of origin, and there always have been. And they've _always_ had shitty governments. That is normal. Having a non-shitty government was what made places like the USA and Germany so wealthy: it is a rare advantage (that we are losing). They are not superior humans, free of sin and justified in invading and conquering foreign lands, merely by grace of being born poorer and tanning faster. Just as we aren't justified, merely for being richer and paler.

And, yes, the CIA has been up to some seriously shady shit for as long as I can remember, but our countries are crawling with foreign agitators and spies, and everyone claims that they have no success here. Only the CIA works. Because we have Magic White People dust, that we sprinkle over ourselves, to make us immune to the bullshit they are saying and that keep us from taking their money to be sell-outs. Sure. Okay. Tell that to the people in New York and Minnesota, who currently have crazy commies rampaging across their front yard.

No, it isn't just White Man issues. It's beyond that. It is bigger than humanity, even.

Being able to make sound decisions and keep your cool under pressure are part of the job, and this was definitely a fail. I disagree that this agent should be assumed to be acting according to some prepared strategy, to go shoot all the Karens.

I also know that many of these protestors are experienced agitators and go out of their way to create these sort of situations, so that they have an excuse to protest and get good video material for the Social Media Outrage Machine. This situation escalated too quickly, so that they couldn't control it, and they all made a surprised face, but this is their (paid) hobby. They do this shit all day and it's usually fun for them.

ICE agents are an easy group to point fingers at, but they also attack firefighters, teachers, cops, nurses, ambulance personnel, bus drivers, trash collectors, etc. It's getting harder and harder to hire for essential services, and to retain staff, in urban areas, as you end up constantly under attack. Islamists, Marxists, environmentalists, illegal immigrants, radical feminists, Transactivists, Antifa...

It's all the same club and I am not in it.

No one makes sounds decisions when they are afraid of dying. We go through a lot of training to prepare for that moment, and even then, a lot of people fuck it up and die. That woman had a right to protest. Training for a minimum of one year before entering a combat zone should not be a prerequisite for a citizen protesting.

That said, she was partially murdered by her "wife," who goaded the officer. She should stand trial too, though I don't think she should be judged in the same way as the officer who responded to her by moving his phone to his other hand, pulling his weapon and executing the woman out of spite.

Look, I don't like leftists, either. Let's move past that. They can be stupid, we can call them stupid, but murder isn't acceptable.

CR45H 0V3RR1D3 4d ago

Compared to MAGA, democrats look like geniuses.🤣

Accidental geniuses, and still utterly untrustworthy. But I'll give them a marginal increase in opinion compared to a couple years ago.

Yup.

Murder is bad for everyone.

Leftists and rightists are delusional. It would be nice to move on from the myth of the state, too.

I think the idea that he wasn't in danger is the main idea that I disagree with. How would one objectively be able to determine that?

I don't think this is "standard" so I think the notion of it falling under "standard operating procedure" is a bit of a stretch.

Why should we believe heavily left leaning assessment of the situation from redditors but not believe when the officer says himself that he feared for his life?

Sure. The standard is "in fear of grievous bodily harm."

The issue I have with that is that AS a public agent and AS someone presumably trained in the case law regarding situations like this, the agent/officer/JotP is (and should be) held to a higher standard since they are trained and supposedly know what the standards are.

Also, that defence has been used to dismiss some utterly disgusting cases of otherwise obvious incorrect and culpable behavior from police in general.

And no, this is a fairly ubiquitous standard across most LEO/Agent training I'm aware of. Could I be wrong? Yes. I don't think I am on this point.

I'm neither left or right. The video on reddit seems to be a correctly implemented and highlighted compilation of the events that took place. So why should I not accept it as correct? The videos used in it are readily verifiable, unlike the other I have seen.

If that turns out to be legit, I will, again, change my opinion based on facts.

This situation would be simpler if officers were not covered by *qualified immunity* (a legal precedent repugnant to good law, IMO) and a grand jury or even insurance investigation (to revoke or not cover the officer's conduct under insurance contracts) swiftly conducted to asses as many of the facts as possible after a proper thorough investigation as possible. But that's all idealism and not what we are dealing with.

"The issue I have with that is that AS a public agent and AS someone presumably trained in the case law regarding situations like this, the agent/officer/JotP is (and should be) held to a higher standard since they are trained and supposedly know what the standards are. "

Ok? What does an objective "higher standard" constitute? How can you say? You're trying to make momentary judgement a binary or at very least some calculable thing you can plug into an excel spreadsheet to HR or even convict a person that for all intents and purposes believed in that moment that they were defending themselves from a lethal threat.

"Also, that defence has been used to dismiss some utterly disgusting cases of otherwise obvious incorrect and culpable behavior from police in general. "

Ok how is that relevant? Or is it just used to demonize the defense? "All cookies are bad all the time cause they made my cousin fat!"

"And no, this is a fairly ubiquitous standard across most LEO/Agent training I'm aware of. Could I be wrong? Yes. I don't think I am on this point.

I'm neither left or right. The video on reddit seems to be a correctly implemented and highlighted compilation of the events that took place. So why should I not accept it as correct? The videos used in it are readily verifiable, unlike the other I have seen."

Do you believe in personal accountability? Please explain to me why or why you don't believe that this woman is or isn't responsible for her actions that got her shot? If she is- then these are just the consequences of her actions right? Like it's not great. It's not the desired outcome for someone. But it is what it is. If she's not then what? We call this a murder and what? Leave all the illegals here and end ICE and allow anyone from anywhere into our country because borders are oppressive cause one lady got shot for doing something stupid? I don't see the argument.

"If that turns out to be legit, I will, again, change my opinion based on facts."

Fair

"This situation would be simpler if officers were not covered by *qualified immunity* (a legal precedent repugnant to good law, IMO) and a grand jury or even insurance investigation (to revoke or not cover the officer's conduct under insurance contracts) swiftly conducted to asses as many of the facts as possible after a proper thorough investigation as possible. But that's all idealism and not what we are dealing with."

And we never will be. In any society. Even without qualified immunity. I don't agree with qualified immunity. And I don't like the blue code shit where cops basically won't narc on one another. BUT. That doesn't stop me from understanding where these things stem from.

I get that there are definite issues with policing. I'm not defending the idea of policing or law enforcement at all.

My issue comes in where we have to remove the choices of this woman and then because this guy is wearing a uniform and doing a job we have to say to ourselves "I have no idea how he could do that" while if we were put in a scenario we believed contemporaneously was life or death we would act in a way that we believed was going to keep us alive.

That's a fair rebuttal of some points. Thank you.

Whereas a citizen involved in a questionable shooting should be given a very generous interpretation of the "I was in fear of my life" defense, an agent of the state should be able to justify their actions by a reading of that precedent that requires a higher burden of proof.

I agree that moving car can constitute deadly force. However this also does not jive with "minimal necessary force." Also, a reasonable person, IMO, would have placed himself in a tactically untenable position in front of a vehicle that is moving. He could have sidestepped it (and, from what I've seen and others have pointed out, did), which goes against the defense of "I was in fear of my life."

For these reasons, I will start to assume malice or incompetence. Either of which makes him culpable for charges of murder or manslaughter.

I do believe in personal accountability. Which is why I rant about qualified immunity needing to be completely rescinded across all levels of "law enforcement."

As far as the woman goes, she made a string ofbad choices. Doesn't mean she deserved to be shot. (Again, based on what I've seen so far. I'm very open to new evidence.)

The result is that that agent is charged and tried and the rest of life goes on. I've been actively defending the precept that "if we still have national boarders, then ICE has a job to do." I'm also still not a fan of government thugs being given free reign. Both of those things are not incongruent.

I do think that every criminal of foreign origin should be returned to sender, by force, and in some cases sans parachute. But again, the easiest way to deal with this is to end all welfare programs at all levels immediately. Once the free money spigot is turned off, then people will either leave on their own, find jobs, or show how awful they might truly be. At which time, they should be booted or shot. (Not necessarily by gubment thugs.)

Exactly. This officer clearly did not abide by acceptable security measures. Shoving your sidearm through someone's window is an action that lacks any sense, at all. In his situation, it should've been common sense to step further away and do your best to catch the license plate.

At a certain point I just can't care. There are probably around a hundred million people in my country that shouldn't be here. I want them out. I either want them out of my country or out of this plane of existence. I don't care how that sounds. I don't care about coming off like a monster or insensitive. My country and culture has a right and many reasons to be preserved. If we continue to walk that idea back every time something makes us feel a little queasy then you may as well be signing a death warrant on our way of life.

If you have children or grandchildren you should be prepared to be apologizing for giving their country away while you're laying on your deathbed.

The boomers are currently in this position. GenX is on the same trajectory.

I'm sick of the compassion for people who are actively trying to destroy the country. This woman would've likely pissed on your grave if it would've been you dying at the hands of your enemies.

This woman was actively involved in replacing people like you in your country. I have no sympathy for her.

When the people in the peanut gallery get to insert their arbitrary standards and definitions into the arena, that’s bad for all people.

Rules have to be written for the man in the arena, or else men just abandon the society all together and we go back to the law of the jungle.

Just because one says their arbitrary standard is “common sense” doesn’t make it so.

Logic is hard, and rigorous consistency is even harder, but that’s what it takes to have a society, and exactly why we are fragmenting.

I say this with love and respect because i owe u the truth.

the principles you are espousing in this thread are arbitrary.

Oh I like you.

captjack 🏴‍☠️✨💜 3d ago

thugs cover their faces - u r thug supporter

The Beave 3d ago

In that rather simplistic and idiotic logic, yes.

I believe him, but occasionally putting your life on the line is part of his job and we are to hold him to a higher standard than a normal citizen.

Every person on the face of the planet was given the right to defend their own life by God. You can take that up with Him.

Yes.

You don't have to exercise it in all circumstances. Just saying.

How and when you do that matters. This is not clear cut, which is why we have been discussing and arguing about this for hours. From my view, there was malice evident in his actions. Less so in hers. He also placed himself poorly, showing bad judgement. He drew his weapon when he could have sidestepped the car just as easily (even while drawing "just in case"). All of this is woulda-coulda-shoulda, though. What happened happened, and we are all going to have to deal with the consequences of it. None of it will be good.

If you're jay walking and someone almost hits you with you're car, you aren't justified in shooting them. Get the fuck out of the street if you don't want to get hit by a car.

False equivalency.

Just saying that doesn't make it true. Demonstrate how they are different. He was in the road where cars drive and their goal was to get her to move the car so they could pass.

Their goal was to remove her from the vehicle for committing the crime of obstructing and impeding.

She was attempting to flee the scene of a crime.

Here's something idk why no one has brought up. The man is standing in the middle of the street while he and his partners attempt to enforce laws that are not under their jurisdiction (state traffic laws). They were in the wrong as soon as they walked up to the car so anything after that point, they are operating outside of their duties and should have called the local cops.

She was obstructing and impeding. This wasn't enforcement of traffic laws this was her being told to get out of the car for obstructing.

You're finding a clever way to argue your point but it's still wrong.

Can you cite the federal statute then that covers impeding and obstructing bc the language matters.

• 18 U.S.C. § 111 – Assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer

• 18 U.S.C. § 1501 – Obstruction of a federal officer

• 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to obstruct (in some contexts)

Yeah I can use ChatGPT as well as the next guy.

From the video I've seen, the road is open, is there other video where it's not?

https://video.nostr.build/2dc9d3a927266556bda4740be0a5347bc3bb65f4236e474b7ed99a5c136bd1be.mp4

Weren't you just talking about how it wasn't their job to enforce traffic violations? And now you're saying the road was clear? I'm having trouble following now.

Either way. Here's a video where she's parked perpendicular across the road laying on her horn.

If the road is clear, she's not obstructing. Your video shows multiple cars passing by her, which to me means she's not obstructing, so her being parked in the middle of the road is a traffic violation and outside of their jurisdiction.

If the car:

• Blocks their vehicle

• Prevents execution of a warrant

• Impedes surveillance or pursuit

• Creates a safety hazard during an operation

Then the legal characterization changes.

At that point, federal agents do have authority to act, because they are no longer addressing “parking” — they are addressing interference.

Possible lawful actions:

• Ordering the driver to move the vehicle

• Temporarily detaining the driver

• Physically moving the vehicle if necessary

• Using force proportional to the need to clear the obstruction

The authority comes from:

• Federal obstruction statutes

• Implied authority to carry out lawful duties

• Officer safety doctrines

They still would not issue a parking citation, but they can neutralize the obstruction.

Doesn't look to me like she is blocking traffic. Look at the moment the truck pulls up to her, there is a whole other lane. Also, right before that truck pulls up, another car goes by. It also looks like she even waves them on.

I think this and why the fuck would you stand in front of a car are what the entirety of the argument lie upon.

I wasn't there. Were you? All we are going off of are videos that are all from undesirable angles.

Also everything you're saying essentially comes down to officer discretion.

Is this woman not responsible for her own actions? Or does she get a pass for some reason? She was ordered to get out of the vehicle. She didn't comply. She attempted to flee and or strike the agent with her vehicle.

"Why the fuck would you stand in front of a car"

Why wouldn't she just get out of the car when ordered?

Think she would still be alive if she just complied? Why do you believe she doesn't have to comply with orders given by a federal agent?

Definitely would agree on complying leads to her being alive, doesn't make shooting her the right move. Could have just got her plate and issued a warrant. But you can't answer my question with a question. Highway patrol doesn't start in the middle of the street while writing tickets. Why? Because that is retarded. Just because you're a federal agent doesn't mean you get to act retarded and are exempt from the consequences of your actions.

Your Officer Discrection point is valid until he uses unnecessary deadly force. Even the laws you cited say using proportional force, it's very obvious that he is escalating, not using proportional force OR he is intentionally using his body as a barrier of which the possible consequence is getting hit.

The woman was ordered to get out of the vehicle. She didn't comply. She attempted to flee and potentially attempted to strike the officer with her vehicle. It is up to the discretion of the officer how they choose to handle that.

"Unnecessary force" is not an objective statement. Again this is decided by the officer.

Your argument is that the woman should've just been allowed to flee a crime by federal agents. Pretty certain that's not what the title of Law Enforcement is generally paid to do on a conceptual level.

It really doesn't matter IF you agree with it.

What crime did she commit? If you're gunna say obstruction, watch the video, there are dozens of cars passing her.

Do you honestly believe when I'm saying "obstruction" I mean that she's obstructing traffic? Is that a serious take?

I already posted this once I guess you didn't read it the first time so maybe you should take the time to read it aloud to yourself so you can grasp the content better.

If the car:

• Blocks their vehicle

• Prevents execution of a warrant

• Impedes surveillance or pursuit

• Creates a safety hazard during an operation

Then the legal characterization changes.

At that point, federal agents do have authority to act, because they are no longer addressing “parking” — they are addressing interference.

Possible lawful actions:

• Ordering the driver to move the vehicle

• Temporarily detaining the driver

• Physically moving the vehicle if necessary

• Using force proportional to the need to clear the obstruction

The authority comes from:

• Federal obstruction statutes

• Implied authority to carry out lawful duties

• Officer safety doctrines

They still would not issue a parking citation, but they can neutralize the obstruction.

Here's more information that you could be looking up all on your own but I guess you need your hand held.

Criminal obstruction:

Intentional or knowing conduct that materially interferes with a law enforcement officer’s lawful duties, beyond mere speech or presence.

Impeding surveillance:

Purposeful acts that materially disrupt or expose lawful law enforcement monitoring activities.

Impeding pursuit:

Conduct that physically or practically prevents officers from lawfully chasing or apprehending a suspect.

This is all just out there and you can read I think so? I guess you should be taking the time to do that instead of throwing a hissy fit cause you don't like that some dumb lady got killed? I don't know? Maybe you just really like immigrants or something?

Do you honestly believe when I'm saying "obstruction" I mean that she's obstructing traffic? Is that a serious take? (No)

If the car:

• Blocks their vehicle (see video, does not apply)

• Prevents execution of a warrant (not applicable)

• Impedes surveillance or pursuit (not applicable)

• Creates a safety hazard during an operation (not applicable)

Possible lawful actions:

...

• Using force proportional to the need to clear the obstruction (shooting the driver is not proportional)

Criminal obstruction:

Intentional or knowing conduct that materially interferes with a law enforcement officer’s lawful duties, beyond mere speech or presence.

^^^

This point right here disproves your whole argument even-if she was blocking the road.

In your opinion.

Your opinion doesn't matter. You know the only person whose opinion really matters in this case?

The agents that were there.

Wanna know why?

It's up to their discretion.

You just don't like that. And that's fine. But it doesn't change anything.

Also I really like the cherry picking you did to make your point as if your entire argument wasn't also made moot by this-

"Impeding surveillance:

Purposeful acts that materially disrupt or expose lawful law enforcement monitoring activities.

Impeding pursuit:

Conduct that physically or practically prevents officers from lawfully chasing or apprehending a suspect."

This combined with officer discretion pretty much just ends this entire debate.

Those agents clearly believed that she and her wife were preventing one or both of those things and they needed to be removed from the equation. They were told to exit the vehicle. They didn't. At which point they attempted to flee after committing what was then criminal impeding/obstruction.

It's just completely pointless to talk about any of this because you're going to see what you want to.

Lucas M 3d ago

Very good point

Just read that she and her partner moved to Canada, to escape Trump, and then came back.

Well, they kinda kept their word about leaving over Trump.

They only reason they got in was because they are gay, then, in my wild speculation, because they seem pretty useless otherwise and Canada has rather strict (otherwise) immigration laws for white people.

Wonder why they came back?

Pretty sure it was to do exactly what they did.

Of course I don't know. But that is my wild speculation.

kidwarp 4d ago

Oh geez…

She pulled out of her own driveway and was on her way to go pick her kid up from school.

Why are you spreading lies to justify murder of citizens?

kidwarp 3d ago

I asked questions…

How am I spreading lies?

This is atrocious. Is it known if the officer received any kind of penalty for this?

Penalize deez nuts.

The police officer had the right to defend himself and that girl deserved to get shot because she tried to run over that other cop to kill him. And the Democrats are so stupid because now they protesting and blaming that cop. He was doing his job

No. He committed murder. There is no justification for shooting an unarmed civilian by means of purposefully putting yourself in danger to give yourself an excuse to commit such a heinous crime.

Well it was not murder and you people can say all you want. But he was doing is job defending himself. You Democrats ans people are so sickening. Say all you want but that police officer won't get fired because trump is backing him up.

I do not support any political party. Period. And it was murder. You're just letting blind hatred cloud your already misinformed judgement.

Im just gonna mute you

Please do. You bring nothing of value to this conversation and by inference you bring very little to the table in other areas. Just wait until the thugs of the gubment come after you when the pendulum swings the other way. 🫡

You are getting muted to

Cool. 😁

TheRupertDamnit 4d ago

I'm like 99% sure Morgan is a troll.

He or she is a very funny one. That's for sure.

What kind of murder was it? Because you seem to be a local legal expert on the term. Let's be thorough shall we?

Murder is when a person unlawfully kills another person. Murder is not the same as homicide because not all homicide is unlawful. Instead, murder is a category of homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder (first, second, and third). Some states use Model Penal Code to legally define murder and the subsequent punishments.

Common Law Murder

At common law, murder was historically defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

"Intent-to-kill murder" - intentional murder

"Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodily harm.

For example, a defendant is still liable for murder, even if the defendant only intended to wound the victim.

"Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at English common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty.

For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. If a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.

"Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life.

For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.

These historic definitions are valuable as they inform subsequent reforms of American criminal law.

The Pennsylvania Method

The Pennsylvania Method is a catch-all term for systems of classifying murder by degree. Certain, specified types of murder were first-degree murder, and carried the death penalty. All other types of murder were second-degree murder, which did not carry the death penalty.

First-Degree Murder includes:

Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.

Particularly heinous types of murder.

For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, this included poisoning or waiting to kill someone by ambush.

Felony-murder, but only for certain listed felonies.

For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, the only eligible felonies were arson, rape, robbery, and burglary.

Second-Degree Murder typically includes murder with malice intent, but not premeditated.

Third-Degree Murder encompasses all other types of murder that do not fall within first- or second-degree murder categories, such as unintentional murders. However, only three states recognize third-degree murder: Florida, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. At present, most states either use the Pennsylvania Method or a similar method to categorize murder.

The Model Penal Code

The Model Penal Code moved away from the traditional common law approach to murder, which typically involved "malice." Under the Model Penal Code, the following constitutes murder:

Purposefully or knowingly killing another human being. This functions much the same as the common law rule against intentional murder.

Killing another human being in circumstances showing extreme recklessness. This functions much the same as the common law's depraved heart murder rule.

When did i say i was an expert in what should be designated as murder? But, just to please your desire to know, I would personally define this incident as a first-degree murder.

Oh you have evidence of this being"willful deliberate and premeditated"? They knew one another before this incident? That's an INCREDIBLE development in this story. So a journalist and a legal expert in our midst. Wow. What an impressive resume you have.

😑Calm yourself. What is with the antagonism? Why is this matter so personal to you?

It's not. You're just spreading lies and calling someone a murderer with literally no evidence to back it up.

"Oh but I have videos from the internet"

Ok what about those videos lend to the notion of "willful, deliberate, AND premeditated"

Nothing.

But here you are accusing a person of first degree murder.

Sure wouldn't want you on a jury if I'm ever accused of something.

How am I spreading lies? And it was certainly willful and deliberate. You don't pop someone that many times at point blank range without it being so.

"First-Degree Murder includes:

Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.

Particularly heinous types of murder.

For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, this included poisoning or waiting to kill someone by ambush.

Felony-murder, but only for certain listed felonies.

For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, the only eligible felonies were arson, rape, robbery, and burglary.

Second-Degree Murder typically includes murder with malice intent, but not premeditated."

"I would personally define this incident as a first-degree murder."

"How am I spreading lies? And it was certainly willful and deliberate."

"Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder."

Well then it's second-degree. My mistake. Still murder, though.

I've explained why I think this is murder of the second degree on that scale.

We can disagree about that without resorting to silly histrionics, right?

No. Apparently certain individuals can't.

You can read right? So when you saw me accuse you of spreading lies what did you think it meant? Did you know that I meant that you were accusing a man of first degree murder even though by definition it's not what you were saying?

Are you going to continue to argue like a woman? The passive aggressive bullshit? The gaslighting? All while you act like my reaction is unwarranted?

It's an interesting tactic that's for sure.

Again with the antagonism. We can have a civil debate. No need for insults. If you saw my previous comment, i mentioned that it was my mistake to designate it as first-degree and that it is still murder.

I really don't give a shit what you think at this point. You're not a trustworthy person and you debate in bad faith. Why would I ever meet that neutrally? Why would I be coming from a position of neutrality toward someone who is positioning themselves as some authority on the subject but then when met with a clear and obvious discrepancy in their views doubles down and acts like a victim when it's called out.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're spreading lies and when challenged you cry victim.

I don't have any interest in being civil with a person like you.

I'm still not sure why you thought it mattered what kind of murder it was to begin with. It seems to me like you just felt the need to start some unnecessary drama.

"I should just be able to say what I want and accuse them of murder without being challenged. When I'm challenged I'll just label it 'unnecessary drama' cause that means I won"

I should be able to say what i want and i don't mind being challenged. You ARE causing unnecessary drama. Doesn't mean i won anything😑.

You clearly mind being challenged. So much so that you're inventing realities where you're right and weren't spreading lies.

Cry harder.

Now you're just being silly. Come on.

We're done here

Yes, you are certainly at the end of your rope.

Thank you for starting all this bullshit🫡

Quadrupling down on womanly argument tactics.

You aren't capable of articulating a point correctly so you resort to gaslighting and passive aggression.

There are other ways to vent your anger. Social media is never a good way to do so.

nostr:npub1q6ya7kz84rfnw6yjmg5kyttuplwpauv43a9ug3cajztx4g0v48eqhtt3sh and I have explained our points in a sensible manner. So stop.

More gaslighting.

I'm clearly only talking to you.

You have not explained your points in a sensible manner and then when challenged on them you resort to gaslighting.

I'm not angry at all. You're just arguing like a woman.

And now you're just being dumb, too.

I really don't give a shit what either of you think.

That seems to not be the case, or you wouldn't spend so much time arguing.

I care just enough to keep this up for two reasons:

1. I am an idiot that loves this kind of argument.

2. You are providing enough entertainment to make me giggle the whole time, at least after you started to not make cogent points.

You have no idea what my motives are. I really couldn't possibly care less what you think.

You can scroll back in my posts where I outright make my motives known.

This is my art and I want to be alienated for my art.

I forgive you for being beholden to systems of oppression like the ideals of "equality" and the notions of mortal justice.

Well, I don't derive my morals on my own. They are pretty rooted in The Bible, though I am learning to slough off a lot of the grosser metaphysical secular modernist mumbojumbo that most in the US have been steeped in without knowing or understanding it.

But, if you wanna get into it, I am very curious as to how you think that equality under the law is oppressive. Either mortal or immortal justice. I can discuss both pretty well, I think.

TheRupertDamnit 4d ago

The irony of your name calling while claiming others can't make a solid argument.

Oh now a woman has appeared to incorrectly assess the situation at hand. Shocking.

Oh, look! A misogynist has appeared to mock someone making cogent points.

You went full retard, my dude. Wow.

WOW!

I fucking hate misogynists. His argumemt is pathetic. nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl please put this asshole on his place.

"Send in the troops!"

K.

It's Nostr. If I put misogynists in their place, I'd never be done.

inpc 4d ago

Nice Haiku

No one would. There isn't enough time. LOL!

So it's inherently misogynistic to insult a woman? Is it inherently misandrist to insult a man? Why or why not?

> More woman behavior

This is the part I didn't really appreciate. The word "woman" isn't a perjorative.

Otherwise, go back to verbally bashing each other's heads in. You all seemed to be enjoying it and I didn't want to interrupt.

Ok would "hyper feminized" be any better in your mind? Why or why not? I'm genuinely curious.

That is better, yes, as it's a reference to specific types of behavior, rather than to all members of one sex.

Stella, as usual beat me to it.

But it amuses me when we are in sync. LOL!

How does "woman behavior" not reference "types of behavior?"

Woman is the descriptor.

It's not a condemnation of women it's a condemnation of the behavior. Same as saying hyper feminized in my mind. But that's just difference in perception.

Yes. Because you aren't insulting all women with that, just men who are feminized.

I will totally accept that instead. Thank you for attention in this matter! 😄

The way you did it is pretty misogynistic. I insult women all the time, but I am very rarely called a misogynist except as a supposedly hurtful invective. I insult nearly everyone, so don't think you're special or anything. I mostly just bring that up because if *I* think you went to far with insults, it's probably pretty bad.

Does this position come with dental lol?

Meanwhile you're quoting a movie where a dude is doing blackface. Hilarious.

nostr:nprofile1qqsd9zc84qptalmzkse4skr383afq0rhxj3knup0vxftu09063kqp6qpzemhxue69uhkzarvv9ejumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqgmwaehxw309a382cmtv46zucm0wfskxmr99eek7cmfv9kquchedq has been 4cucked

Yes. Because it is funny. And you are providing fine entertainment this day!

kyle-moore 4d ago

kyle-moore 4d ago

Don't turn you back on Q. He's gonna save you trust me bro

6e

Joe 4d ago

As for why I'm in this movie, maybe I just knew I had to represent. Cause the one good part in this movie for a black man and they gave it to Crocodile Dundee.

6e

Joe 4d ago

nostr:nprofile1qqsqdzwltpr635ehdzfd52tz947qlhq77x2c7j7yguwep9n258k2nusprdmhxue69uhk7unv0ykhyetvv9uju6tdwaskcepwv46j7qgmwaehxw309a6xsetxdaex2um59ehx7um5wgcjucm0d5hsz8rhwden5te0va5hgcmfw3skgetv9ehx7um5wgcjucm0d5hs7z7723 its like they addressed the blackface so the audience in context

This poor bastard has some personal issues that he's taking out on everyone else. So sad. I would've gave him some level of comfort if he didn't take this route.

How many logical fallacies can you count? At least 2. We could probably top it out at 5.

Is this what arguing in good faith looks like?

No. You've devolved into (pretty terrible and unfunny) ad hominems.

You're the one who is breaking a good faith discussion. 🤷‍♂

Oh it was good faith when your buddy was lying about what first degree murder was for the sake of exaggerating his position? That was good faith? I started the bad faith. Hmmmmm should we rewind the tape? Or should we leave it where it is so you both can feel morally superior for some odd reason?

Now you're crying victim.

You're a coward or a troll. Grow up.

"You're a coward...."

"Excuse me ma'am can you fight my battles for me?"

Same guy within three minute span of time.

I'm not a victim. I'm am a nearly professional pot-stirrer. 😁

Sure. He exaggerated. Who doesn't from time to time? You've latched on to that pretty hard. But you can't claim that about me since I've been pretty consistent that I don't think this was premeditated based on what is currently known.

I'm not morally superior. I'm simply being, IMO, consistent. I'm not even attaching any morality to a majority of my statements since that's a mess to discuss and a morass to argue.

He is my buddy, but we disagree often. But, we're still friends, or at least pretty decent faceless internet acquaintances. You pointed out his degree inconsistency. He accepted that, if you'll care to remember.

So what's your beef?

Ok so his exaggerations are excusable and mine are some egregious assault on the art of debate as a whole? The contradictions are insane.

I've latched onto that because it's clearly contradictory in the nature of both of your arguments.

You're not being consistent.

And the misogynist shit proves it. I said it to another guy that you're lambasting over his take on the entire situation. You're both just doing halo effect bullshit because it's a woman that got shot and it's plain as day.

I really don't care about any of this at all. I just want the hundred million people that are in my country that shouldn't be out. If some retarded dyke is going to park her car in the way of that and then drive toward someone trying to get them out then I mean my advice is probably going to be shoot her.

This shit has gone on long enough. I don't care that it's a woman. I don't care that she has kids.

And I certainly don't care about you guys playing white knight about some woman that would exchange your life for some cotton candy.

Yes.

Because I know him and I don't know you so I am able to overlook that based on prior history and see that he is still, IMO, mostly correct.

I don't know you. I will certainly give the benefit of the doubt to those I know before those I don't.

And you are just off into ad hominem land when you had started off with a perfectly cogent debate. it devolved into arguing and now it is personal attacks. Bro, stop. They will not work on me. I have been a keyboard warrior for far too long to be goaded or upset by that. I probably have a lower opinion of myself than you have of me. Just stahp!

How is it contradictory?

I am being so consistent it isn't even funny. Just because my foundation of my arguments is not one you would like to accept, and that multiple horrible things can be true at one time is a fact of life doesn't mean that I am inconsistent.

You calling someone a misogynist is comical. That is a perfect example of an ad hominem. I like to point that out as it is funny to me. I am certainly mocking your use of that tactic, as it should be mocked.

Hey! We agree. I am all for physical removal, so to speak. (HHH reference FTW!)

Here is another thing that sucks, but is also true: The retarded dyke has every right to protest government action she sees as incorrect. That is her right to free speech, assembly, and of association at action. She played the game badly and lost. The leftists are going to make her a sainted martyr. The right is going to make the agent a sainted hero. That story has already been crafted and disseminated. You are still missing the further point: Who set this up? For what purpose? Without asking that, you are never going to understand what is going on now and what will happen next.

I am also not white knighting her. She's a horrible woman. Period. I honestly can't stand leftist women the most. They are ugly, twisted creatures who can't even see basic facts through years of delusion being blown up by years of circle fartsniffing other leftist delusion.

But guess what? She was still human. She still had rights. You are human. I am human. We still have rights. And if I cannot stand up for a fellow human's rights, then I am not being consistent with my own beliefs. Just because you hate someone doesn't mean you are allowed to strip them of their humanity to be able to justify murder or worse. (There is always worse . . . )

You saying that kind of thing shows that you have no consistent belief, just that you want to be rid of whatever you hate. I reject that mode of being. It is awful and leads to the worst kinds of attrocities, the kind that are happening all over the world right now. It is sad to see someone decently intelligent and articulate so sucked into to political "sides" when that is the worst way in which to view the world. IMO.

"I'm consistent"

Goes on to explain in detail how and why you're biased

Ok. Don't care about the rest of the stuff you said.

My view on this situation is consistent.

My view on my friends in consistent.

My view on you has changed.

If you can't parse bias, you are not fit to have anything worth sharing with others. Everyone is biased. We are human. Bias/judgement is how we function. Applying it correctly is hard. Maybe you don't understand that.

Did you mean the wrestler?

I really don't understand what you typed.

You mean cry with laughter? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

More woman behavior

From what I've seen, I'd peg this at murder in the second degree with malice but no premedition.

I don't think he thought or acted like he was going to kill the woman when he exited his vehicle.

But seeing when he drew his pistol makes me think that there was malice (by legal definition) and not a clear enough threat to justify pulling the trigger. To be honest, the shooting itself was, technically, excellent. Most LEOs can't hit the broad side of a barn and he scored three deadly hits rapidly in a very dynamic situation. This also adds credence to my claim that he is trained extensively. That was my luck.

*not luck

That's because he is a National Guardsman, who served in Iraq. It's a major and widespread problem, using military and ex-military to do state-side policing.

Yes. It's a different mode of operation. warfighter vs. Justice of the Peace.

Neither myself or Lucas are a Democrat. Or republican. That kind of rhetoric just gets you laughed at.

Both Lucas and myself are actually better qualified to judge training and outcomes than most here, but you probably wouldn't care about that.

How about this:

Can their not be bad agents? Bad as in quick to shoot at the wrong time? Given how many agents there are, this is a certainty. Why can this not be one of those? Why are you holding one person in one group less accountable for their actions?

There is no room for truth in your ideology. Please mature a fraction of a bit. You are making a mockery of yourself and it is sad.

The only sick ones are the statist cucks who are begging the state to violate them harder.

The job of ice is not to fuck with citizens are shoot at moving vehicles. If the agent felt threatened by this vehicles motion he should have his gun taken away and the person who approved his hiring should be fired.

Yes.

Well, no. Some citizens want to be difficult douchecanoes and make bad situations worse. Those citizens are within their rights to do so, by that doesn't change angry mob mentality from taking hold (of both sides).

Who is going to take his gun away? The very same State that hired and assigned him there? 😑 That would require a modicum of consistency from the government that has not been exhibited for an unfortunately long time.

This is not at all logically consistent, sound thinking.

Clearly the state wants poorly trained agents on the streets with guns. This is exactly the situation they are hoping for. More violence and fear and anger. Then comes the crack down.

He has the right to keep his gun because he was defending himself and that girl try to run him over she deserve to get shot for what she did. You people are so sickening and you people who are sickening will be judged by God

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066

"1.Deadly force defined. For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section"

The debate about this is over. It was a killing. It wasn't a murderer.

"(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm."

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-X/part-1047/subject-group-ECFR8a339f643c51a41/section-1047.7

Anyone trying to say that they know what was going through the agent's mind is a hyperfeminized lunatic who thinks they can read minds.

It wasn’t self defense. The agent had no business approaching the vehicle or attempting to detain her. She was fleeing a kidnapping attempt if you want to get pedantic. He murdered her because he didn’t like her politics. He wasn’t acting within the scope of his duties and she wasn’t doing anything where he had the authority to impede her. You don’t know jack shit about the law and you are just trying to cope as you realize you are an authoritarian. Good luck with that.

You are a sick person

And apparently you are retarded.

It's truly not worth engaging with any of you.

I really hope your anarchist multicultural society comes to fruition. I just hope it's as far away from me as humanly possible.

It'll be a real rude awakening for you guys.

I hope you find a sufficiently powerful

Daddy to spank you when you are naughty and make you feel safe.

Are you a teenager? Am I talking to a teenager?

Triggered?

https://video.nostr.build/a55e6fb654af7b2e967a6d28c5a4c2c0cabbf961cd62de6b37c53a1c2ec68342.mp4

Yea ok buddy because im not and you Democrats are so sickening

Democrat? Is that what you get from this. Retard was over estimating you. I don’t accept the state murdering people. I don’t accept the state harassing people. I don’t accept untrained armed masked agents of the state running around being dicks. Fuck the state.

You Democrats keep saying what you want but in the end you will be judged by God.

The Beave 1d ago

You will, too, buddy. You might not want to forget that.

ihsotas 1d ago

God will judge you for being obsessed with a bunch of dudes is spandex fighting over a ball while the precious state you worship murders children.

Morgan 1d ago

You are getting muted

Scrotus 1d ago

If liking dudes in spandex is wrong, I don't want to be right.

🚬

I detect no Democrats in this discussion.

At all...

You're obsessing over something that doesn't, in this direct context, exist.

It mostly makes you look even more delusional.

Read em and weep.

Why are you lying?

https://www.404media.co/dhs-is-lying-to-you-about-ice-shooting-a-woman/

If I'm j walking and almost get hit, do I get to shoot the person who almost hit me?

Liberty Farmer 3d ago

If they stopped for you, then their wife who was just agitating and harassing you yes drive baby drive! Suddenly floors it at you and hit you? Absolutely

nami 4d ago

FYI

https://files.sovbit.host/media/0689df5847a8d3376892da29622d7c0fdc1ef1958f4bc4471d90966aa1eca9f2/3f22310c683472ba20feb0a044e01b6e5be3fd57c252f737f2b5407c9a1714e2.webp

Really hard to argue about ICE.

Because everyone needs secret police with unlimited powers that prosecute people based on their skin colour.

Not

What is secret about ICE?

They aren't prosecuting people on their skin color. They are prosecuting them on fraud and other criminal charges. In some areas, the people committing fraud en masse happen to have the same skin color. Oh no. Anything but that. 🙄

Well I guess they must be running out of excuses to meet the arrest quota.

What arrest quota?

I think it’s 3k daily or something like that

But you probably know more about ICE than I

In some ways I might.

If they are behind on 3k a day, they certainly are slacking. It doesn't have to be that hard to bag and tag that many people a day with the amount of resources available to them. So we will see, as time always tells.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15449879/federal-agents-guns-swarm-jonathan-ross-home-hiding-minneapolis.html

ICE is also one of the few agencies where a lot of the staff are from racial and ethnic minorities. The ICE agent is being painted as some sort of rabid white supremacist, in the media, but he's married to a Filipina.

Imagine that . . . He must be so racist. heh

So?

*shrugs*

Just an aside in this. Nothing of true import except to those that view race as a driving factor in . . . well, anything, I suppose.

His whole family has had to go into hiding. So much for "peaceful protestors".

Yup.

Hence the masks.

Which is why that doesn't make me mad, as I would do the same thing.

*sighs* This all sucks.

Sucks

I agree

I am all for deporting from all americas all immigrants and their children

Starting form year 1500 (just for the round number)

It’s all fucked up

(I would maybe exempt those brought by force)

Cool but I get to bring my guns and reconquer my homelands, right?

You mean to steal it again?

By the way - are the guns not meant to protect people from stupid government?

Kind of don’t see this piece of construction working

Kajoozie Maflingo 4d ago

its important to be able to admit when you've made an error in judgement, and not double down (like the makeheroism moron here in the comments)

Yes. It really is.

I think I frustrate a lot of people who attempt to put me in a political box because my positions are consistent since they aren't framed by politics. Plus, I know I'm retarded so that doesn't bother me in the least. 🤣🤣🤣

Celata 4d ago

It takes real courage to reexamine your own opinions and I applaud you for that.

I still think it's not even as clear cut as that: she was there specifically to cause trouble and conflict.

I have every reason to be partisan here but I'm really trying to keep an open mind.

Thanks.

She us not a good person who went there with the intention to make a bad situation worse. Adding fuel to the fire, she got burned. Sad, but ultimately inevitable. She's now a martyr to the delulu leftists and he's being sainted on the right.

Morons, the lot of them. They are being led down a path that leads to the destruction of both and they will go in happily besting each other over the head until they realize, too late, the chains that have been prepared for so long are locked on both sides with equal harshness. 🤷‍♂

Seeing this gives me hope. You're one of the few who are capable of changing their minds. Its a rare and remarkable thing.

YODL 4d ago

Well said, was my thought too, but didn't wanna weigh in on the particulars of this situation.

I wish it wasn't so. Truly.

R 4d ago

I think your wrong about being wrong. He didn’t draw his weapon until the vehicle started accelerating towards him (obscured by the officer on the side of the car in the video you posted). Drawing his weapon and firing was a single motion. To later analyze it in fractions of a second expecting a new decision to made in each fraction of a second is disingenuous. Then to jump all the way to calling it murder is I think a gross misrepresentation of what happened.

That is a mostly fair assessment.

I don't agree for a few reasons I've outlined in this massively stupid and complex thread, but I can at least understand why you can come to that conclusion based on the same evidence.

Thank you, though.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Hasan_Piker/comments/1q7lsos/she_signaled_them_to_pass_by/

Why are you lying?

lkraider 4d ago

The previous moments are as important or more:

I am not sure this has much bearing on the issue. Who was she waving by? It seems like she stopped when the truck with the agents that got out rolled up. If she was letting fellow agitators go by, that makes sense. It doesn't make sense if she was waving ICE agents by.

Also, She could have backed up a lot more. I've driven a Pilot and it has a not great turning radius, but you can still manage a three point turn in that wide of a road if you use all of it. And also . . . if a car is slowly backing towards you, you can, like, move out of the way. (Like the agent probably should have done. In my after the fact armchair quarterbacking.)

lkraider 4d ago

Yes, in general I mean we have a limited context window to base any decisions on. If the previous moments were of heightened tension it could mean something.

In any case, my general view is that online opinion polls cannot produce a valid justice system as their outcome, the medium simply doss not allow it, so any discussion in trying to determine guilt is only ever inflammatory anyway.

That is also fair assessment. It is all a mess.

Luxas 4d ago

In the new body cam footage you can hear her hitting the agent with her car as he shoots her and he wife yelling “drive baby drive”. It’s fucked all around.

Jeff 4d ago

If you walk into a knife did you get stabbed or was your lack of training around knives that fucked you?

Making up excuses about fake bodycam footage?

Ice don't wear bodycams.

But pedophiles are known for making up lies as excuses to support Donald Trump

https://youtu.be/viGhZkrbXjY

Seriously, the fact these scum are still lying and saying that non existent bodycam footage justifies killing citizens.

When everyone has already seen the footage that the agent filmed on his phone.

The Beave 3d ago

I have. It isn't conclusive at the exact moment needed for clarity.

It does open the possibility that she did hit him, but it sure doesn't look like it from the other videos

Either way, this sucks.

Luxas 3d ago

This guy?

Your source is an asmongold reaction video?

Jim Craddock 4d ago

She backed up so she could go around him. He drew his weapon before that. He had no reason to draw.

He's trained by the IDF.

He is wired for violence. She wasn't.

His fault. Not hers.

He's trained by the IDF?

Her reason for backing up is conjecture; the officer did not know why she was backing up.

Totally fucked up that ICE is trained by the IDF. Personally I haven't verified this but I've heard that it's true, and it would make sense.

What other reason would she be backing up for? If she was looking to get a running start, then she pointed her wheel in the wrong direction. Not conjecture, common sense.

I guess the videos I've seen are not so clear with the wheel direction, and in general it's much easier from the outside, in retrospect, to come to a conclusion.

I can't imagine in the moment how either of them were making split-second decisions.

Not defending him, by the way; I'm horrified by this shooting. I just don't know that we can ever know for sure what was going through everyone's head.

I could agree that we will probably never know exactly what her intentions were, but that’s not the most disgusting part. That would be dress up Barbie Noem and Cheeto Hitler’s blatant defamation of this woman before they even had all the facts. Trump said, and this is the fucked up part, that she drove over him and dragged him down the street. If this isn’t clear evidence of the narrative they are trying to push, I don’t what it is.

yeah, lots of narratives from various directions.

It's super partisan, with MAGA seeing one set of facts and Libs seeing another.

It's discouraging to watch. Outrage on both sides makes sense given what they're seeing.

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqs9sdhmg0kqwz6aucmwjmh6e0n28pw8yyjly8uggjdclqavy6k8z0qqcdkw3

There are two narratives, she was either trying to get away, which all of the evidence, at the very least, suggests.

Or, she was intent on trying to run down the agent, which absolutely no evidence corroborates.

By all means, if there was any evidence, outside of their subjective opinion, that proved her intent was to kill him, I would back that asshole up 100%, even if he did violate numerous ICE policies. However, since none has been brought forward and local authorities have been cut out of the investigation, that’s pretty damning if they are still trying to push the self defense narrative.

This is why it’s partisan, because those that oppose their disgusting narrative, have been cut out of the loop that would allow them to prove as much. It also guarantees that evidence can’t be tampered with when all parties have access to it.

Jim Craddock 3d ago

Her last words (smiling) "I'm not mad at you."

His next words after firing "Fucking bitch."

Total deplorable.

Bingo

One of the narratives doesn't mention that she was there specifically as an agitator, that she had moments of resisting just before. Does that excuse the shooting? No, of course not, but it changes the picture.

The other narrative seems to think that since they're frustrated with immigration, militarized response is a reasonable solution.

Some folks seem to think that the agent went up to the car and shot someone in the head out of the blue. Most of the people that see that narrative don't realize that there are videos that support the self-defense motive. I've seen them.

(I don't necessarily believe them - or the others, for that matter - because I'm not sure how to verify any of it.)

In general liberals don't understand why there's any support at all for ICE. I think they attribute it to bigotry, but it's at least partly because they don't see many of the stories that conservatives see.

Trump supporters see stories of an 8yo killed by an immigrant who had been previously been arrested for DUIs and somehow was still 1) not behind bars and 2) in the US. They don't understand why the media is focused on an adult agitator rather than an innocent child so they conclude that liberals are heartless and manipulative and somehow miss that state violence is a different beast altogether.

CR45H 0V3RR1D3 2d ago

From all of the evidence I have seen, it was her wife that was agitating the ICE goon and when he broke SOP by pulling out his cell phone and recording, I saw and heard the driver say she would cooperate with them.

Then, after he walked all the way around the van again and stood in front of the vehicle (another violation of SOP) while his ICE goon buddy approached the car and tried to forcefully remove her. When he realized the door was locked, he tried reaching and that is when she put the van in reverse, first turning the wheel to the left, the throwing it into drive and fully turning the wheel to the right and began to accelerate.

None of this is conjecture, you can literally see it on the video, but this is when MAGA began to distort what actually happened to suit their narrative. Trump said she ran him over and dragged him down the street, which clearly didn’t happen, that’s why he fired. Dress up Barbie tried to say due to PTSD from a previous incident where he was dragged down the street, essentially telling everyone who the agent was 🤦🏻‍♂️, and that was her interpretation of why he fired. So, the president outright lied to try and justify it and Noem spun a PTSD narrative to try and justify it, two completely different opinions not backed up by anything that can be proven, especially since both statements were made even before her body went cold. And while subjective, that clearly showed me what their narrative was.

It’s been said that she was impeding a federal investigation, yet you can clearly see a vehicle driving around her fairly easily, so I am not buying that either. Also labeling her a domestic terrorist to try and justify it when it was simply one person exercising her first amendment right. If anyone is the terrorist, it’s the agent, given that are literally terrorizing civilians as an excuse to get to people they assume are here illegally.

Ok, so, back to the video and what we can actually prove. Did she bump him when she tried to get away, possibly but that’s because he was practically sitting on her hood (again, a violation of SOP), if he was standing even one foot back, it never would’ve touched him. That’s giving him the benefit of the doubt, even if I personally think he wasn’t touched at all. He then proceeds to fire three shots at a moving vehicle (another SOP violation), killing her.

As far as the narrative that everyone who is resisting ICE is doing it to protect alleged undocumented immigrants, that’s nonsense as well. No one is saying undocumented people should be allowed to stay here, what we are saying is that we will not stand for these Gestapo style raids, whether or not they are undocumented or whatever, does not give them the authority to treat them like dogs while stepping all over their rights.

There is absolutely no oversight and most of them aren’t even properly trained, so it’s not really a surprise that this happened. This is what Trump wants, division and internal fighting. He figures if we are fighting each other we will be distracted from the illegal shirt he has been doing. I honestlyDGAF about the Epstein files, those are the least of my concerns when it comes to Cheeto Hitler.

I will say, it has been nice being able to have a civilized conversation, trying to have one with MAGA is an exercise in futility. I would have a better chance of having an intellectual conversation with a grapefruit, so, thank you for that.✌🏻

Appreciate people who can change their opinions when new evidence is presented.

nostr:nevent1qqsv865afwqss7fzayr562s92w0tgk6cze397jyz25gavpv4s4dukkqprfmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdaksygqx3804s3ag6vmk3yk6993z6lq0ms00r9v0f0zyw8vsje42rm9f7gpsgqqqqqqsr7n3w4

Respect to people who take responsibility and change their opinions when presented by new information.

"Leftism is the pretense of empathy, devoid of its reality. Anybody with empathy would understand that the agent is not looking at the tires and calculating where scientifically one should expect the car to go. He's looking at the driver and observing the current direction of the car: headed towards him."

- Nick Szabo

At :44 you see the officer being rammed *hard* by lesbian rambo:

nostr:nevent1qqsv865afwqss7fzayr562s92w0tgk6cze397jyz25gavpv4s4dukkqprfmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdaksygqx3804s3ag6vmk3yk6993z6lq0ms00r9v0f0zyw8vsje42rm9f7gpsgqqqqqqsr7n3w4