Too much ice

#3,202
#3,202
DinkinFlicka said:
I hate how hijacked 1A audits have become. There are a couple of channels who are doing it the right way that have been around since the dawn of YouTube, but now 90% of them are kids going to the post office to draw out reactions.

Sucks because I think auditing our Constitutional rights is of chief importance.
Click to expand...
I agree, the constitutional right to film in public or to audit governmental agents is totally ok.

The morons who want to stand and harass women at a coffee shop or employees at a bar or hospital are just idiotic low IQ types
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#3,204
#3,204
JMSqb11 said:
She doesn’t have to be a domestic terrorist for the she tried to run him over narrative to exist.

Noem calling her domestic terrorist was moronic.

Almost as moronic as the people who say she didn’t try to run him over.

Once again, you have a posting history in this thread taking a position asking people not to judge what happened by watching all the video and audio with their own eyes and ears.

It is very credible to say you have yet to exhibit any ounce of objectivity on this.

By invoking the “domestic terrorist” label, you are trying to say if you can discredit that accusation of her being a domestic terrorist, it wipes out the debate of justified use of force.

That’s moronic and children games logic.

If you can’t be objective, just admit you’re not willing to be and go about your day.
Click to expand...
Objectively, she did not "try to run him over." Even Scott Jennings won't say that. You are on far more of an island than you think you are

 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, luthervol, DuckInAPen and 1 other person
#3,207
#3,207
TrumpedUpVol said:
What word was capitalized improperly, Mr. DEI?
Click to expand...
All of these
BreatheUT said:
She is not Law EnForceMent. She doesn't choose the methods and practices. She does have a say in how she Abides by the Law. She chose Poorly.

Once She hit the Gas barreling toward the Officer All bets were off. The correct thing to do was to keep her ass at home with her Kids.
Click to expand...
 
#3,208
#3,208
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, luthervol and DuckInAPen
#3,209
#3,209
InVOLuntary said:
What's funny is if an ICE agent had been in a car trying to drive down the street and a protester had jumped in front blocking his way and he hit the protester, the libs woukd want the ice agent thrown in jail and sentenced to life. It's already been claimed here. You really can't make this stuff up.
Click to expand...
Kinda already did when a guy full of enough fentanyl and cocaine to kill an elephant died under his charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#3,212
#3,212
BeardedVol said:
He placed himself in the path of her car, and took out his phone to record her.

View attachment 805731

www.justice.gov

1-16.000 - Department of Justice Policy On Use Of Force

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

From CBP's on Use of Force review in 2014.

View attachment 805736

PERF CBP Report | DocumentCloud

embed.documentcloud.org embed.documentcloud.org
Click to expand...
So?

Why shouldn't he have stood in front of her car? Like I said earlier, I've walked out in front of many cars just today. Some parked. Some were even moving. I'm not here to debate what would be reasonable in his mind, per reaction times, being in front of the car.

You seem to be making a huge deal that he walked in front of her car. Why is that a big deal?
 
#3,213
#3,213
Orange_Crush said:
So?

Why shouldn't he have stood in front of her car? Like I said earlier, I've walked out in front of many cars just today. Some parked. Some were even moving. I'm not here to debate what would be reasonable in his mind, per reaction times, being in front of the car.

You seem to be making a huge deal that he walked in front of her car. Why is that a big deal?
Click to expand...
So, not placing yourself in the path of a vehicle and taking out your phone to record them, isn't a "reasonable expectation" to keep yourself from being in danger of being struck by a vehicle?

Which he did move out of the way, and still discharged his firearm three times into the vehicle, in spite of moving out of the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, luthervol and DuckInAPen
#3,214
#3,214
BeardedVol said:
So, not placing yourself in the path of a vehicle and taking out your phone to record them, isn't a "reasonable expectation" to keep yourself from being in danger of being struck by a vehicle?

Which he did move out of the way, and still discharged his firearm three times into the vehicle, in spite of moving out of the way.
Click to expand...
Ah, so he should have treated the situation as though she may try to kill him, but not treat the situation as though she was trying to kill him.

Gotcha.

I'll bet you $1000 VN bucks it's deemed a justified shooting, in large part because they will not expect him to have processed the "jump/roll/shoot" options within the reaction time she gave him she hit the gas and sped at him.

(I'm not even convinced he purposefully walked in front of the car and stood, trying to stop her progress. It looks like he was walking in front of the car to get to the passenger side with the other agent, she backed up to the left, which put him at the hood of the car. Seeing that, he stopped, crouched, put his hand out, and drew his weapon. But all of that is beside the point. He was in front of the vehicle. She accelerated at him. His instincts took over. The law seems to be written in such a way that his perception within the time he had to react will be the most important factor.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#3,215
#3,215
Orange_Crush said:
Ah, so he should have treated the situation as though she may try to kill him, but not treat the situation as though she was trying to kill him.

Gotcha.

I'll bet you $1000 VN bucks it's deemed a justified shooting, in large part because they will not expect him to have processed the "jump/roll/shoot" options within the reaction time she gave him she hit the gas and sped at him.

(I'm not even convinced he purposefully walked in front of the car and stood, trying to stop her progress. It looks like he was walking in front of the car to get to the passenger side with the other agent, she backed up to the left, which put him at the hood of the car. Seeing that, he stopped, crouched, put his hand out, and drew his weapon. But all of that is beside the point. He was in front of the vehicle. She accelerated at him. His instincts took over. The law seems to be written in such a way that his perception within the time he had to react will be the most important factor.)
Click to expand...

He placed himself in a position of danger by standing in front of her vehicle to begin with, for the sole purpose it seems of getting a better angle to record her with his personal cell phone.

1768083843423.png

He created a scenario, that put himself at risk, and then used his firearm to shoot into a moving vehicle, against DOJ policy, and in spite of the fact that he had successfully moved out of the way of the vehicle that was turning away from him. As had she not been turning away from him after backing up first, she would have flattened him and him shooting into the vehicle would not have stopped it from running over him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, luthervol, NashVol11 and 1 other person
#3,216
#3,216
BeardedVol said:
He placed himself in a position of danger by standing in front of her vehicle to begin with, for the sole purpose it seems of getting a better angle to record her with his personal cell phone.

View attachment 805755

He created a scenario, that put himself at risk, and then used his firearm to shoot into a moving vehicle, against DOJ policy, and in spite of the fact that he had successfully moved out of the way of the vehicle that was turning away from him. As had she not been turning away from him after backing up first, she would have flattened him and him shooting into the vehicle would not have stopped it from running over him.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I'll bet you $1000 VN bucks that the shooting will be found justified in accordance with the law because none of that will matter and the (lack of) reaction time given by her actions will matter.

But again. Your argument seems to be that he shouldn't have been standing there because he should have considered her a danger to try to kill him, but he should go to prison because, once she accelerated her car at him from close range, he should not have responded as though she were a danger that was trying to kill him?

That's your argument?
 
  • Like
Reactions: allstar34
#3,217
#3,217
BeardedVol said:
He placed himself in a position of danger by standing in front of her vehicle to begin with, for the sole purpose it seems of getting a better angle to record her with his personal cell phone.

View attachment 805755

He created a scenario, that put himself at risk, and then used his firearm to shoot into a moving vehicle, against DOJ policy, and in spite of the fact that he had successfully moved out of the way of the vehicle that was turning away from him. As had she not been turning away from him after backing up first, she would have flattened him and him shooting into the vehicle would not have stopped it from running over him.
Click to expand...
You are creating scenarios that do not exist.
Courts recognize vehicles as Deadly Weapons if used to ram.
If the driver accelerates directly at you, shooting to stop is often reasonable.
She had no path other than through him.
 
#3,220
#3,220
allstar34 said:
You are creating scenarios that do not exist.
Courts recognize vehicles as Deadly Weapons if used to ram.
If the driver accelerates directly at you, shooting to stop is often reasonable.
She had no path other than through him.
Click to expand...
Silly rabbit.

He should not have been standing there because he should have assumed she may try to murder him with her SUV.

Also, when she reversed her SUV to put him in its path and then put it in drive and then then pressed the gas and lurched at him from a couple of feet away, he should not have responded as though she were trying to murder him with her SUV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and MemphisVol77
#3,222
#3,222
Orange_Crush said:
Like I said, I'll bet you $1000 VN bucks that the shooting will be found justified in accordance with the law because none of that will matter and the (lack of) reaction time given by her actions will matter.

But again. Your argument seems to be that he shouldn't have been standing there because he should have considered her a danger to try to kill him, but he should go to prison because, once she accelerated her car at him from close range, he should not have responded as though she were a danger that was trying to kill him?

That's your argument?
Click to expand...

You can bet whatever you want, I've linked the DOJ policy on the use of deadly force for you to read.

No he should not have placed himself in front her her car to begin with. He placed himself in danger by doing so, and it's from a 'use of deadly force perspective' it's reasonable to expect a federal officer to not intentionally put themselves in harms way to justify the use of deadly force.

Furthermore ICE has no authority to conduct a traffic stop against a US citizen, they should have sucked up their egos and driven around her, and called the situation in to local police if they felt it warranted police intervention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen and luthervol
#3,224
#3,224
BeardedVol said:
Furthermore ICE has no authority to conduct a traffic stop against a US citizen, they should have sucked up their egos and driven around her, and called the situation in to local police if they felt it warranted police intervention.
Click to expand...
federal agents can detain citizens if they have probable cause to believe they've committed a crime or violated federal law
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top