Too much ice

#1,901
#1,901
GVF said:
That would be it I believe. From the angle they came around her, and the speed at which they left, it seems she was blocking for them as that appears to be who she was waving by. Circumstantial at this point. Could also be a frustrated innocent as you say.

As for her interference. There were reports she was an observer. A trained and paid person to video protests for protestor protection. Her family denies that, but what other logical reason would place her and her partner at that location during that operation. Her partner is supposedly one of the soruces of the primary video we've all seen. So, why also was she there?
Click to expand...
The Star Tribune reported that she lives a few blocks away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11, DuckInAPen and luthervol
#1,903
#1,903
EasternVol said:
Seems like the threat of injury or death would be the factor there and not the non-compliance.
Click to expand...
Well what did you think the deadly use of force was for?
EasternVol said:
Seems like he'd have been faster to bail then.
Shooting her didn't and wouldn't have done a thing to save his life.
Click to expand...
looks like it worked. He’s alive
 
#1,904
#1,904
OrangeTsar said:
It is not a public street opened to all drivers when law enforcement closed the street and tells you not to enter. She had reportedly been doing this all day. Dont act like this was little Miss June Cleaver going to pick up food for her cat and accidentally happened to blunder into a closed off street.
Click to expand...
Reportedly doing this all day according to who?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and DuckInAPen
#1,906
#1,906
RockyTop85 said:
The Star Tribune reported that she lives a few blocks away.
Click to expand...
That would make sense to being in the area, but why in the middle of a LE operation on a blocked off street with her partner allegedly doing the video. And if it was an innocent mistake on her part to disregard a taped off area, why not just exit the vehicle when told if you were not agitating, and plead her case and live.
 
#1,908
#1,908
FLVOL_79 said:
ROE for ICE seems to either be non existent or "on ice" right now, no pun intended. Id love to know if its standard procedure to step in front of a vehicle. Seems to put officers in unnecessary danger if so.
Click to expand...

I thought I had seen in one video, the officer was holding his hand up, motioning for her to stop, prior to her going full throttle.
 
#1,911
#1,911
GVF said:
That would make sense to being in the area, but why in the middle of a LE operation on a blocked off street with her partner allegedly doing the video. And if it was an innocent mistake on her part to disregard a taped off area, why not just exit the vehicle when told if you were not agitating, and plead her case and live.
Click to expand...
I hadn’t seen that it was taped off.
I also don’t know where the report that her partner was videoing came from.
I may just not have enough information.
 
#1,912
#1,912
DinkinFlicka said:
For the record, they're both victims of little else aside from their foolish choices.

However, if you want a difference: one was fleeing and one was intruding.
Click to expand...
I will 100 💯 agree that both were acting very foolishly.
FWIW, „fleeing“ isn’t automatically an excuse for avoid potentially lethal consequences. I see police chase videos all the time where idiots try and flee from police driving 120 mph plus. The officer has to decide if they are going to allow the driver to continue to endanger others by such driving or try and forces the vehicle off the road, often with fatal consequences. It becomes a judgment call. And this officer had less than 2 seconds to decide.
And at least one video I saw clearly shows that the car did hit the officer, which tends to indicate dangerous potential if she continues
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,913
#1,913
RockyTop85 said:
I’m sadly ignorant but curious about whether this has any bearing on the outcome of legal proceedings. There has been litigation over whether officers created the circumstances that placed them in danger and whether they followed department procedures, but I can’t remember the context.

Legal tea leaves tell me it won’t matter, but I am interested.
Click to expand...
If you'll indulge me I'd like to get a professional opinion.

I have the video in front of me and two things catch my attention. When all this begins it is with a stationary car with no one in "front" of the vehicle. The vehicle then does not back in a straight line but in an arc that reorients the front of the vehicle from here

Screenshot 2026-01-08 170423.png

to here which places the agent in front of the vehicle. Not by his movements but her driving.

Screenshot 2026-01-08 173739.png

Again the car is now very briefly stationary and clearly oriented towards the agent before moving forward. Do you think it likely this particular set of evens circumvents the "avoidance of path/step in front of moving vehicles" verbiage cited earlier? If she had simply moved forward from the original position it would appear she had a clear path but after reversing her new path had an agent in front. I wish there was a definitive video showing what, if any, deliberate motion the agent took to put himself more/less in line with the front of the vehicle before it started forward but with what we can objectively observe I'm quite dubious of statements about "He put himself in front of the vehicle.".
 
#1,914
#1,914
NashVol11 said:
People keep saying this. If you're ending people's lives because you have PTSD or whatever then you shouldn't have a gun. Acting like the shooter is the victim in this situation is ridiculous
Click to expand...
No one said PTSD. It’s called experience. If you have actually been involved in decades of experience with arrests, violence, assaults, getting shot at etc. then you have a little more knowledge of it than someone who is a teacher or a community organizer or a housewife and understand alll of it better and be prepared for it
 
#1,916
#1,916
OrangeTsar said:
I will 100 💯 agree that both were acting very foolishly.
FWIW, „fleeing“ isn’t automatically an excuse for avoid potentially lethal consequences. I see police chase videos all the time where idiots try and flee from police driving 120 mph plus. The officer has to decide if they are going to allow the driver to continue to endanger others by such driving or try and forces the vehicle off the road, often with fatal consequences. It becomes a judgment call. And this officer had less than 2 seconds to decide.
And at least one video I saw clearly shows that the car did hit the officer, which tends to indicate dangerous potential if she continues
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was an automatic excuse, but it is without a doubt a substantial difference.

I'm also not entirely sure killing a person with their foot on the gas is in the interest of keeping others safe. If that car doesn't rear end a parked car, that vehicle is 100% out of control and in motion with pedestrians all over the place.

That was my first thought when I saw the video. "Oh ****, that car is going to mow people over."

Just like Ashli Babbit getting dusted, this was a combination of stupid behavior, poor decision making, and police work that leaves a lot to be desired.
 
#1,918
#1,918
hndog609 said:
If you'll indulge me I'd like to get a professional opinion.

I have the video in front of me and two things catch my attention. When all this begins it is with a stationary car with no one in "front" of the vehicle. The vehicle then does not back in a straight line but in an arc that reorients the front of the vehicle from here

View attachment 804801

to here which places the agent in front of the vehicle. Not by his movements but her driving.

View attachment 804803

Again the car is now very briefly stationary and clearly oriented towards the agent before moving forward. Do you think it likely this particular set of evens circumvents the "avoidance of path/step in front of moving vehicles" verbiage cited earlier? If she had simply moved forward from the original position it would appear she had a clear path but after reversing her new path had an agent in front. I wish there was a definitive video showing what, if any, deliberate motion the agent took to put himself more/less in line with the front of the vehicle before it started forward but with what we can objectively observe I'm quite dubious of statements about "He put himself in front of the vehicle.".
Click to expand...
From the video, I think the officer that got struck can’t be seen in these pictures. He comes through the screen before they start trying to get her out of the car. He’s in front of the car and not visible here because of the window tint and height of the vehicle. When she reverses, he’s walking back kind of towards the driver’s side headlight. In the video from the elevated position down the street it looks like he kind of braces against her Driver’s side quarter panel and maybe gets hit on the left hip by the car as it moved forward.

As far as a professional opinion, it’s not my area of law, but from what I know, the officer was legally within his right to use lethal force. I don’t think there’s much room for debate on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, InVOLuntary, whodeycin85 and 1 other person
#1,919
#1,919
GVF said:
@RockyTop85

Semi-related to your question of if they'd been doing it all day.
Click to expand...
It is informative to have information that indicates that they were there because of ICE. It helps rule out that they were just trying to get home.

The tweet linking the story is really something. We really are living in a world where you can’t trust much of anything.
 
#1,920
#1,920
NashVol11 said:
People keep saying this. If you're ending people's lives because you have PTSD or whatever then you shouldn't have a gun. Acting like the shooter is the victim in this situation is ridiculous
Click to expand...
No one said PTSD. It’s called experience. If you have actually been involved in decades of experience with arrests, violence, assaults, getting shot at etc. then you have a little more knowledge of it than someone who is a teacher or a community organizer or a housewife and understand alll of it better and be prepared for it
Wireless1 said:
Thanks, we should just reference #1697 when the what if's on both sides go off the rails.
It's a sad situation all around that too many people are using to promote their agenda.
Click to expand...
it’s so obvious too
 
#1,921
#1,921
RockyTop85 said:
From the video, I think the officer that got struck can’t be seen in these pictures. He comes through the screen before they start trying to get her out of the car. He’s in front of the car and not visible here because of the window tint and height of the vehicle. When she reverses, he’s walking back kind of towards the driver’s side headlight. In the video from the elevated position down the street it looks like he kind of braces against her Driver’s side quarter panel and maybe gets hit on the left hip by the car as it moved forward.

As far as a professional opinion, it’s not my area of law, but from what I know, the officer was legally within his right to use lethal force. I don’t think there’s much room for debate on that.
Click to expand...
Appreciate your input.
 
#1,922
#1,922
sonofUT62 said:
Yes. He should be allowed to own a gun as a private citizen provided he doesn’t use it to break any laws. He shouldn’t have a badge. The badge is the issue. Reverse this in your head where she shoots an ICE agent and claims she felt like she was in danger. She would be on her way to Cuba.
Click to expand...
He didn’t break any laws and it was standard constitutional self defense
 
#1,924
#1,924
RockyTop85 said:
From the video, I think the officer that got struck can’t be seen in these pictures. He comes through the screen before they start trying to get her out of the car. He’s in front of the car and not visible here because of the window tint and height of the vehicle. When she reverses, he’s walking back kind of towards the driver’s side headlight. In the video from the elevated position down the street it looks like he kind of braces against her Driver’s side quarter panel and maybe gets hit on the left hip by the car as it moved forward.

As far as a professional opinion, it’s not my area of law, but from what I know, the officer was legally within his right to use lethal force. I don’t think there’s much room for debate on that.
Click to expand...
Counselor, a question? Do we know why they were trying to extract her from the car? And does this make a meaningful difference?
 
#1,925
#1,925
Vol8188 said:
Not true. This is the moment she pulls forward and he pulls his gun. Her wheels are straight ahead

View attachment 804812
Click to expand...
Pointed this out earlier and it consistent with where the bullet enter the windshield....I think she was fleeing but accelerated toward the offer then started turning when shot...we will see when forensics and body cam are released
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top