Biden Out of Race

[DocMcCoy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Not at all. It traveled another 50 feet.

Had it been a terrorist attempt to kill people (it wasn’t) it was 💯 successful.

 

[Southpaw]

We all should be reaponaible for our actions. It's fair to talk about the officer and his reaction. It should also be fair to talk about the driver. What do we know? It is reported she was there to obstruct ICE and its operation. Her choices put her there. We know she received several lawful orders to get out of the car. It's my understanding that once ordered, that indicates she is now detained and not free to leave. She chose to refuse. She accelerated her car at an officer, striking him. Even if minor contact, that's assault with a deadly weapon. She put herself at the scene and her actions escalated the tension. Had she exited the car, she would be home with her wife and kids right now. This is the salient point. I believe the moral is, don't die...comply. I don't understand why this concept is incomprehensible to so many people. Sure, the officer made a split second decision and all can opine on his actions. But we would be talking about Maduro or something else right now had she made better choices.

I don’t dispute any of this. You’re right. I find it interesting that almost all of the maga and/or conservative posters here don’t think it’s imperative in the slightest for officers to avoid conflict, and yet that’s exactly what they demand in the Ashli Babbitt situation.

 

[Southpaw]

We all should be reaponaible for our actions. It's fair to talk about the officer and his reaction. It should also be fair to talk about the driver. What do we know? It is reported she was there to obstruct ICE and its operation. Her choices put her there. We know she received several lawful orders to get out of the car. It's my understanding that once ordered, that indicates she is now detained and not free to leave. She chose to refuse. She accelerated her car at an officer, striking him. Even if minor contact, that's assault with a deadly weapon. She put herself at the scene and her actions escalated the tension. Had she exited the car, she would be home with her wife and kids right now. This is the salient point. I believe the moral is, don't die...comply. I don't understand why this concept is incomprehensible to so many people. Sure, the officer made a split second decision and all can opine on his actions. But we would be talking about Maduro or something else right now had she made better choices.

Actually after watching more I’ve changed my mind. The officer put himself directly in front of the car. She did not drive or park in front of him. He put himself there. She isn’t even disrespectful as far as I can tell. She says something like ‘I’m not mad at all…’. Is that it? The lady outside of the car certainly escalated the situation. She’s being an ass.

The officer has his cellphone out, places himself directly in front of the car, and pulls a weapon. He fires after she made an obvious 3 point turn attempt and it’s clear she’s steering away. He calls her an F’ing B after killing her. Does any of that reflect ‘fear of life’? No. Not close.

I believe this is almost all on the officer and he’s guilty of manslaughter. The bar needs to be high for lethal force. That’s ridiculously low.

Should she have gotten out of the car? Yes, absolutely.

 

[arkgal]

Here are the changes I would like to see happen. I suspect left- and right-wingers could agree on most of these with some compromise.

1. No lifetime Jurists in the SC. Each Justice has an 18-year term. This means every 2 years, a Jurist leaves the bench. The timing of the terms would be such that they end at the end of the first and third years of a 4-year presidential term. Each president selects 2 Jurists for the SC per term. That's fair. There will be early retirements, deaths, impeachments, etc., that this system can't account for. In such a case, an interim SC Justice could be chosen who must step down when it's time for that Jurist's slot to be selected by the president. Each SC justice is selected and voted on by a committee composed of 10 senators and 10 representatives, chosen randomly through a lottery. If there's a tie, VP breaks the tie. No presidental SC justice appointments.
2. Term limits for Congress: 12 years for senators, 12 years for representatives. Representatives' terms are changed to 4 years. 2-year election cycles mean more stability because they don't have to constantly worry about getting reelected. No double-dipping.
3. Lobbying is gone, completely.
4. Campaign finance reform, corporate donors not allowed, and personal donations capped. Each candidate gets the same budget (2 million? just throwing out a number) from a fund, and each candidate is on an equal playing field. TV advertising limited.
5. Drug company TV advertisements banned
6. For-profit health insurance companies and hospitals are banned.
7. Executive powers are curtailed and defined through a constitutional amendment - what this might entail could take an entire discussion by itself

Jonathan Ross family: First details on ICE agent's father emerge after Renee Good shooting

Jonathan Ross was identified as the ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on Wednesday

www.hindustantimes.com

Reading this article, seems like it wasn’t such an easy call for the officer in question.

“ Attention has also turned to Ross’s history in law enforcement. In June, he was seriously injured during a traffic stop in Bloomington, Minnesota, when a suspect drove off with the agent’s arm trapped inside the vehicle.
Ross was dragged roughly 100 yards and suffered deep wounds that required 20 stitches in his right arm and additional stitches in his hand.”

Sounds pretty familiar. I know tons of physicians who anchor on past traumatic incidents, sometimes to the detriment of their patients. “I don’t use ancef in penicillin allergies because this one time they had anaphylaxis when I did.”

Court records unpack background of Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who fatally shot Renee Good

Jonathan Ross, who shot and killed Renee Good on Wednesday, is an Iraq War veteran who has served for nearly two decades in the Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, court records show.

www.wbur.org

“ In courtroom testimony last month, Ross said he deployed to Iraq from 2004 to 2005 with the Indiana National Guard. Ross said he served as a machine gunner on a gun truck as part of a combat patrol team.”

Seems like he was pretty experienced with weapons. And also had been held to the higher standard of the military as mentioned by PGG.

“ Ross said he has served as a deportation officer based in Minnesota since he joined ICE in 2015”


Seems like he was a decade vet of ICE. Served honorably under both Obama and Biden, but only NOW has he revealed he’s a super gestapo nazi!


Where we at on this now lib fam?

I’m inclined to call this what it probably is, an officer with hidden ptsd being exposed to the exact scenario that almost killed him awhile back. Unfortunate, bad luck. Now he’ll live with killing someone and being raked by tolerant leftists the rest of his life.

Enjoy.

If that's the case, they were a weak physician. I had a patient develop a devastating case of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome due to lamotrigine I prescribed 3 years ago. Almost died, months in the burn unit, truly life altering. I was sued, even though I was not at fault. Discovery found the pharmacy gave the patient 8x the dose I prescribed. After 2 years, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed me and my collaborative physician with prejudice. This is all public information in case you are wondering. My career emerged unscathed, no hit on the NPDB. Did I emerge unscathed? Certainly not, even though I did everything right, it left an emotional toll. It was also bumbling. Does that stop me from prescribing lamotrigine when appropriate? Nope. The experience doesn't affect my decision making. I would be doing my patients a disservice not to use this life saving drug. I can't practice in fear.

The situation with the ICE officer was very different. His experience was traumatic and likely left emotional scars. It wouldn't surprise me if he developed PTSD. That introduces a contextual consideration with Wednesday's shooting. What was his frame of mind? Did this event trigger immense fear? Did he have a flashback? If the situation was triggering, very well could have thought his life was in danger and could had been predisposed to act with lethal force in such a situation. This changes the calculus. I hope the media doesn't gloss over this context when reporting on the matter. With his previous trauma, there's reasonable doubt. I can't picture a jury convicting him. I don't see this going anywhere.

I'm not defending ICE or saying he's not responsible. He can still get sued. The feds shouldn't impede the stats investigating the crime.

 

[arkgal]

Actually after watching more I’ve changed my mind. The officer put himself directly in front of the car. She did not drive or park in front of him. He put himself there. She isn’t even disrespectful as far as I can tell. She says something like ‘I’m not mad at all…’. Is that it? The lady outside of the car certainly escalated the situation. She’s being an ass.

The officer has his cellphone out, places himself directly in front of the car, and pulls a weapon. He fires after she made an obvious 3 point turn attempt and it’s clear she’s steering away. He calls her an F’ing B after killing her. Does any of that reflect ‘fear of life’? No. Not close.

I believe this is almost all on the officer and he’s guilty of manslaughter. The bar needs to be high for lethal force. That’s ridiculously low.

Should she have gotten out of the car? Yes, absolutely.

People on here saying she was an activist. She had just dropped off her kid at school. She wasn't out to cause trouble.

 

[jope]

People on here saying she was an activist. She had just dropped off her kid at school. She wasn't out to cause trouble.

Do people dropping off their kid usually park their car perpendicular to the road to block it and also have their partner run out to film?

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Actually after watching more I’ve changed my mind. The officer put himself directly in front of the car. She did not drive or park in front of him. He put himself there. She isn’t even disrespectful as far as I can tell. She says something like ‘I’m not mad at all…’. Is that it? The lady outside of the car certainly escalated the situation. She’s being an ass.

The officer has his cellphone out, places himself directly in front of the car, and pulls a weapon. He fires after she made an obvious 3 point turn attempt and it’s clear she’s steering away. He calls her an F’ing B after killing her. Does any of that reflect ‘fear of life’? No. Not close.

I believe this is almost all on the officer and he’s guilty of manslaughter. The bar needs to be high for lethal force. That’s ridiculously low.

Should she have gotten out of the car? Yes, absolutely.

.The problem will be that there is a high bar in this case to successfully prosecute the officer. I have heard several talking heads indicate the officer will be judged on the totality of the events, not just his split second decision. I'm not confident they will be successful. I wish more people would spread the word to cooperate with law enforcement and comply with lawful orders. Incidents like is are relatively common and are tragic. They don't need to end that way. In the end, she is ultimately held accountable for her actions. Sad.

 

[arkgal]

Do people dropping off their kid usually park their car perpendicular to the road to block it and also have their partner run out to film?

She was likely an activist or legal observer.

 

[arkgal]

.The problem will be that there is a high bar in this case to successfully prosecute the officer. I have heard several talking heads indicate the officer will be judged on the totality of the events, not just his split second decision. I'm not confident they will be successful. I wish more people would spread the word to cooperate with law enforcement and comply with lawful orders. Incidents like is are relatively common and are tragic. They don't need to end that way. In the end, she is ultimately held accountable for her actions. Sad.

I agree with this. I see people on reddit encouraging people to resist ICE. One even suggested the pregnant mother being dragged from her car might be what 2A was made for, saying people should use firearms against ICE. I told them you may be right that 2A is justified, but what's the point in being right if you're dead? I said pulling a gun on ICE will be the last thing you ever do. They have military grade semi-automatic weapons with tactics training. People need to stop being stupid. If a cop tells me to exit the vehicle, that's what I'm doing.

 

[rowsdower88]

Here are the changes I would like to see happen. I suspect left- and right-wingers could agree on most of these with some compromise.

1. No lifetime Jurists in the SC. Each Justice has an 18-year term. This means every 2 years, a Jurist leaves the bench. The timing of the terms would be such that they end at the end of the first and third years of a 4-year presidential term. Each president selects 2 Jurists for the SC per term. That's fair. There will be early retirements, deaths, impeachments, etc., that this system can't account for. In such a case, an interim SC Justice could be chosen who must step down when it's time for that Jurist's slot to be selected by the president. Each SC justice is selected and voted on by a committee composed of 10 senators and 10 representatives, chosen randomly through a lottery. If there's a tie, VP breaks the tie. No presidental SC justice appointments.
2. Term limits for Congress: 12 years for senators, 12 years for representatives. Representatives' terms are changed to 4 years. 2-year election cycles mean more stability because they don't have to constantly worry about getting reelected. No double-dipping.
3. Lobbying is gone, completely.
4. Campaign finance reform, corporate donors not allowed, and personal donations capped. Each candidate gets the same budget (2 million? just throwing out a number) from a fund, and each candidate is on an equal playing field. TV advertising limited.
5. Drug company TV advertisements banned
6. For-profit health insurance companies and hospitals are banned.
7. Executive powers are curtailed and defined through a constitutional amendment - what this might entail could take an entire discussion by itself

If that's the case, they were a weak physician. I had a patient develop a devastating case of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome due to lamotrigine I prescribed 3 years ago. Almost died, months in the burn unit, truly life altering. I was sued, even though I was not at fault. Discovery found the pharmacy gave the patient 8x the dose I prescribed. After 2 years, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed me and my collaborative physician with prejudice. This is all public information in case you are wondering. My career emerged unscathed, no hit on the NPDB. Did I emerge unscathed? Certainly not, even though I did everything right, it left an emotional toll. It was also bumbling. Does that stop me from prescribing lamotrigine when appropriate? Nope. The experience doesn't affect my decision making. I would be doing my patients a disservice not to use this life saving drug. I can't practice in fear.

The situation with the ICE officer was very different. His experience was traumatic and likely left emotional scars. It wouldn't surprise me if he developed PTSD. That introduces a contextual consideration with Wednesday's shooting. What was his frame of mind? Did this event trigger immense fear? Did he have a flashback? If the situation was triggering, very well could have thought his life was in danger and could had been predisposed to act with lethal force in such a situation. This changes the calculus. I hope the media doesn't gloss over this context when reporting on the matter. With his previous trauma, there's reasonable doubt. I can't picture a jury convicting him. I don't see this going anywhere.

I'm not defending ICE or saying he's not responsible. He can still get sued. The feds shouldn't impede the stats investigating the crime.

1. Agree, with caveats. (Lottery?)
2. Hard disagree. If the concern is gerontocracy, institute an age limit instead. All of the evidence I've read suggests that when term limits have been implemented at the state level suggests this entrenches power in governors and lobbyists hands. Here's one source I read on it a while back: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40263375
3. I don't think it's possible or enforceable really. Maybe there is another country that has a system you want to emulate?
4. Agree in principle.
5. I don't really know how much harm this causes. Maybe there are harms here and I'm just not aware of them.
6. Agree.
7. Agree.

 

[Johan321]

 

[Johan321]

I would bet my life the main reason he wants Greenland is because it looks big on a map. I genuinely believe that’s the level of geopolitical strategy we’re dealing with here.

 

[Johan321]

 

[anonperson]

People on here saying she was an activist. She had just dropped off her kid at school. She wasn't out to cause trouble.

She and her wife were there to obstruct and protest after they dropped their kid. Why would you need 2 parents to drop off a kid to school?

The only time that happens is on the first day of school or something.

 

[Gern Blansten]

1. Agree, with caveats. (Lottery?)
2. Hard disagree. If the concern is gerontocracy, institute an age limit instead. All of the evidence I've read suggests that when term limits have been implemented at the state level suggests this entrenches power in governors and lobbyists hands. Here's one source I read on it a while back: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40263375
3. I don't think it's possible or enforceable really. Maybe there is another country that has a system you want to emulate?
4. Agree in principle.
5. I don't really know how much harm this causes. Maybe there are harms here and I'm just not aware of them.
6. Agree.
7. Agree.

#5-drug companies marketings direct to the public has been change that has been terrible. I totally agree that it should be banned. It drives up the cost of the medication and put undue pressure on physicians to prescribe inappropriate medications just because the patient wants them to.
I think most of the changes suggested are long overdue and very reasonable. I would love to see them enacted.

 

[UscGhost]

Couple of things…

1. To play devils advocate regarding the POV video, it also demonstrates one of two things regarding the agent.

He was tactically inept. He essentially placed himself in a fatal funnel directly in front of the business end of a 5000 lb SUV. There was no threat to protect behind him. It’s also not his first rodeo which makes then move even more odd IMO.

Or, worst case, he did it intentionally to force an escalation with the driver. Create a justified situation to discharge his firearm and see if the driver takes the bait. Unfortunately, she did.

2. Regarding “military training and discipline”, I can 100 percent assure you, in what essentially became a cordon operation/quasi snap vehicle checkpoint, had a driver taken the same actions, about 500 rounds would have been dumped into that vehicle.

3. Remove the lesbian couple and replace it with a couple of vikings wearing MAGA hats, and the situation shared A LOT of similarities with actions of the protestors on J6. This country has an extremist problem.

I agree. She showed reckless disregard for the safety of the officers (out of anger i assume) and put herself in danger....and as you said..he unnecessarily put himself in danger and used his gun to get out of a bad situation.

In terms of Jan 6, or BLM. If you enter into a building protected by armed police...as part of a violent mob..i expect that you tacitly agree that you may get shot.

This lady was out on a public street.

 

[arkgal]

1. Agree, with caveats. (Lottery?)
2. Hard disagree. If the concern is gerontocracy, institute an age limit instead. All of the evidence I've read suggests that when term limits have been implemented at the state level suggests this entrenches power in governors and lobbyists hands. Here's one source I read on it a while back: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40263375
3. I don't think it's possible or enforceable really. Maybe there is another country that has a system you want to emulate?
4. Agree in principle.
5. I don't really know how much harm this causes. Maybe there are harms here and I'm just not aware of them.
6. Agree.
7. Agree.

The alternative is career politicians more worried about serving themselves and getting reelected than accomplishing anything. I think it's one reason our country's issues don't get addressed by Congress.

For lobbying, this is a good model:

French lobbying rules, established by the Sapin II Law (2016), mandate mandatory registration for "interest representatives" with the Haute Autorité pour la Transparency de la Vie Publique (HATVP), requiring disclosure of identities, activities, and resources to influence public officials. Key rules include registration on a public digital directory, reporting lobbying actions quarterly (for foreign interference), adhering to strict ethics (no significant gifts, no deception), and facing penalties for non-compliance, including potential criminal charges for individuals and significant fines for entities.
Key Requirements:

• Mandatory Registration: Anyone whose main or regular duty involves communicating with designated public officials (ministers, MPs, senior civil servants, local officials) to influence decisions must register.
• Public Digital Register: Managed by the HATVP, this is a public database where lobbyists provide details about their organization, activities, resources (financial/human), clients, and funding.
• Reporting Obligations: Registered lobbyists must submit regular activity reports detailing issues and resources. Specific rules for foreign interference require quarterly reporting.
• Definition of "Lobbying": Occurs if a person spends more than half their time on lobbying or conducts at least 10 such activities in a year.

Rules for Public Officials & Lobbyists:

• No Gifts/Benefits: Lobbyists must not offer significant gifts, presents, or benefits to public officials.
• No Fraudulent Means: Deceiving officials or using fraudulent tactics to obtain information or decisions is prohibited.
• "Revolving Door" Rules (Pantouflage): The HATVP also monitors transitions of former officials into private sector roles (like lobbying) to prevent conflicts of interest.

Enforcement:

• HATVP Oversight: The High Authority monitors compliance and can impose penalties.
• Penalties: Non-compliance can lead to daily penalty payments, criminal charges (imprisonment & fines for individuals), and sanctions for legal entities.

In essence, France aims for transparent lobbying by making activities and participants publicly known and holding them accountable to ethical standards.

 

[rowsdower88]

The alternative is career politicians more worried about serving themselves and getting reelected than accomplishing anything. I think it's one reason our country's issues don't get addressed by Congress.

There is some evidence that term limits in practice have done the opposite of what you're suggesting. From my prior source:

"We characterize the biggest impact on behavior and priorities as a "Burkean shift," whereby term-limited legislators become less beholden to the constituents in their geographical districts and more attentive to other concerns. The reform also increases the power of the executive branch (governors and the bureaucracy) over legislative outcomes and weakens the influence of majority party leaders and committee chairs, albeit for different reasons."

Here's an article by a very opinionated UChicago professor on it: Term Limits - Center for Effective Government

Here's another paper suggesting they make legislators less effective: How Do Electoral Incentives Affect Legislator Behavior? Evidence from U.S. State Legislatures | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core

I will say there are definitely positives associated with term limits for Congress, I'm just very concerned that the negatives outweigh them.

I skimmed the section on lobbying. It sounds an awful like what we currently have in place here right? We have laws requiring lobbyists to be registered and gifts over a certain value need to be made public (if not prohibited). We also have penalties for failing to disclose lobbying behavior (Paul Manafort). If you just want to increase the penalties and increase monitoring, that's fine.

 

[UscGhost]

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/09/trump-says-he-will-temporarily-cap-credit-card-rates-00721147

Socialism!!

 

[arkgal]

There is some evidence that term limits in practice have done the opposite of what you're suggesting. From my prior source:

"We characterize the biggest impact on behavior and priorities as a "Burkean shift," whereby term-limited legislators become less beholden to the constituents in their geographical districts and more attentive to other concerns. The reform also increases the power of the executive branch (governors and the bureaucracy) over legislative outcomes and weakens the influence of majority party leaders and committee chairs, albeit for different reasons."

Here's an article by a very opinionated UChicago professor on it: Term Limits - Center for Effective Government

Here's another paper suggesting they make legislators less effective: How Do Electoral Incentives Affect Legislator Behavior? Evidence from U.S. State Legislatures | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core

I will say there are definitely positives associated with term limits for Congress, I'm just very concerned that the negatives outweigh them.

I skimmed the section on lobbying. It sounds an awful like what we currently have in place here right? We have laws requiring lobbyists to be registered and gifts over a certain value need to be made public (if not prohibited). We also have penalties for failing to disclose lobbying behavior (Paul Manafort). If you just want to increase the penalties and increase monitoring, that's fine.

French laws prohibit corporations and other legal entities from making campaign donations. It takes away the power that corporations can hold over lawmakers. That's what I want to see happen.

 

[Southpaw]

This is from CNN so hardly a MAGA source. It does appear Good and her wife were there to cause an altercation potentially for social media clout as her wife gets out before the incident presumably to start filming.

Good's wife was acting like an ass. The only audio I can hear of Good is something like 'i'm not mad, dude...' or something like that. In any case, she seemed calm and she wasn't there to be disrespectful. Good's wife seemed there to instigate and capture a 'gotcha' moment on video.

I asked Gemini 'when can officers use lethal force?' and got the following:


Officers may use lethal (deadly) force only when they
reasonably believe it is necessary to protect themselves or others from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. The use of force must be objectively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances at the moment force is applied.
This standard, based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, emphasizes that law enforcement must make "split-second judgments" in tense, rapidly evolving situations, and their actions are judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with the benefit of hindsight.

Key Circumstances Justifying Lethal Force
Lethal force is generally considered justified in two primary scenarios:

• To protect life: The most common justification is when an officer reasonably believes there is an immediate and significant threat of death or serious physical harm to themselves, other officers, or members of the public. This includes situations involving armed suspects who are non-compliant or making aggressive movements.
• To prevent escape of a dangerous felon: Lethal force may be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a violent felony involving serious bodily harm or death and that the suspect poses an imminent threat to the community if not immediately apprehended.

Restrictions on the Use of Lethal Force
The use of lethal force is strictly prohibited in many situations, including:

• Fleeing non-dangerous suspects: It is unconstitutional to use deadly force against an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect who is fleeing the scene.
• Solely to prevent escape: Deadly force cannot be used solely to prevent an escape if the suspect does not pose a significant threat of harm.
• Solely to disable vehicles: Firearms generally may not be discharged at a moving vehicle solely to disable it or stop a pursuit unless a person in the vehicle poses a deadly threat by means other than the vehicle itself, or the vehicle is being used as a weapon to threaten death or serious injury.
• Warning shots: Warning shots are generally prohibited by federal and most local law enforcement policies.

General Principles
Police policies emphasize the preservation of human life and a "use-of-force continuum," meaning officers should use the minimum force necessary to control a situation.

• De-escalation: Officers are trained in de-escalation tactics and must use non-violent means when possible before resorting to force.
• Warning: If feasible and safe to do so, officers should provide a verbal warning of their intent to use deadly force before doing so, allowing a person the chance to comply.
• Duty to intervene/render aid: Officers have a duty to intervene if they witness excessive force by a fellow officer and must ensure medical aid is provided to anyone injured as soon as it is practical and safe to do so.

Am I to believe the officer felt he needed to 'protect life' as he was videoing with his cellphone and had a weapon pulled (the only officer to have a weapon pulled) as he placed himself in front of her vehicle and watched her attempt to rather slowly do a 3 point turn? I conclude NO.

Is he preventing the escape of someone dangerous? No

Did he de-escalate the situation? Not at all. He clearly escalated the situation by videoing, placing himself in front of the vehicle, pulling a weapon, and finally calling her a F'ing B after killing her.

Did he provide warning? No.

Did the other officers fulfill their duty intervening after excessive force by a fellow officer? No. They prevented aid from being rendered by people on the scene.

 

[Southpaw]

The irony is that you don’t see that this applies to you as well when you completely denigrate one side while excusing the bad actions by your own. I don't support the action of the J6 protestors, but it can easily be interpreted as selective justice when hundreds of them get the book thrown at them while there were comparatively few BLM protestors were jailed for years.

Conservatives and not just MAGA can see that since Trump won in 2016, the entire weight of the Democrat party and the media have pushed countless hoaxes and lies that have fomented severe partisanship and division. These include the Russia Collusion hoax, Charlottesville etc. There is a decent collection here- The American Debunk.

I think most reasonable people including myself don't like Trump as a person, but if we want to not have conservative views completely dominated such as in a state like California where it's permanent Democrat rule, Trump has shown he is the only person that can withstand the personal attacks that most regular conservative politicians would easily wither from.

BLM protests and the events of J6 are so completely unrelated I'm often puzzled at why they're tied together by MAGA. One was a nationwide protest against Floyd being murdered, and another was an attack on the US Capitol after Trump lost an election (which most MAGA still to this day don't believe lost - and they provide zero evidence whatsoever to support those claims). 15-26 million people participated in BLM protests after George Floyd was murdered. Around 14,000 were arrested. There were, relatively speaking, few bad actors but certainly there were some. Approximately 10,000 were at the Capitol to protest on J6. Around 1200 entered the building. Trump issued blanket pardons to everyone involved in J6. Babbitt was given military honors and Trump gave her family $5 million. Of those pardoned, some went on to commit homicide, sexual assault, child pornograghy, theft, and stalking. Pardon of January 6 United States Capitol attack defendants - Wikipedia

On The American Debunk - I'm not going through all of it because come on, it doesn't even make an attempt at being objective. On Charlottesville, I don't care much about the 'fine people' stuff, meaning I'll give Trump the benefit of the doubt. I do find it interesting they aren't even honest about the intent of the rally - MAGA white supremacy. There's no mention of Heather Heyer being killed by a MAGA white supremacist. I'd certainly have been more impressed with Trump had he denounced the ENTIRE RALLY and everything surrounding it and associated with it.

Conservative views? I have no clue what that even means anymore. It seems to change daily based on what Trump tells you to believe.

 

[emergentmd]

I saw the different views and I believe I am objective which is what we would expect to see in 12 jurors.

#1 - I doubt anyone would take this to trial
#2 - In NO way is 12 people going to agree that he was not justified or feared for his life.

1. He was dumb to stand in front of a car especially if he felt a threat to his life. Being dumb does not make you a killer
2. She and her friend/wife was there to cause trouble. You have kids, why would you go somewhere with protests/riot potential and guns on both sides?
3. She intentionally and illegally parked on the street. I have yet in my 40 yrs of driving every parked in the middle of the street unless my car was disabled. NEVER.
4. The wife/friend was trying to be some tik tock/youtube/FB hero. This is why she was so belligerent and videoing the whole incident. She was hoping something like this happen (short of her friend getting shot) so she would get her 10 minutes of fame or gofundme jackpot. She is as much to blame as anyone
5. If an officer tells you to get out of the car, GET OUT. Driving off and hitting cop is the worse decision. I tell my kids when they get pulled over by a cop, do whatever they say. If they want you to do jumping jacks, you better do it til they tell you to stop.
6. The ICE officer WAS HIT by the car. Anyone who says his life was not in danger is just intentionally being dumb. A 3K lb car can kill you if it runs you over. What if the ICE officer being hit fell towards the middle of the car and was run over?
7. #6 - his life was in danger and reasonable to feel a threat to his life.

Unless I see something different, in no way am I convicting this guy. Just like in no way I would convict the Babbit officer. In medicine, we make split decisions all the time and my anxiety level goes up but the difference is my life is never in danger. As an officer, they make split decisions all the time and the difference is it is life/death vs a lawsuit.

 

[Account1]

BLM protests and the events of J6 are so completely unrelated I'm often puzzled at why they're tied together by MAGA. One was a nationwide protest against Floyd being murdered, and another was an attack on the US Capitol after Trump lost an election (which most MAGA still to this day don't believe lost - and they provide zero evidence whatsoever to support those claims). 15-26 million people participated in BLM protests after George Floyd was murdered. Around 14,000 were arrested. There were, relatively speaking, few bad actors but certainly there were some. Approximately 10,000 were at the Capitol to protest on J6. Around 1200 entered the building. Trump issued blanket pardons to everyone involved in J6. Babbitt was given military honors and Trump gave her family $5 million. Of those pardoned, some went on to commit homicide, sexual assault, child pornograghy, theft, and stalking. Pardon of January 6 United States Capitol attack defendants - Wikipedia

On The American Debunk - I'm not going through all of it because come on, it doesn't even make an attempt at being objective. On Charlottesville, I don't care much about the 'fine people' stuff, meaning I'll give Trump the benefit of the doubt. I do find it interesting they aren't even honest about the intent of the rally - MAGA white supremacy. There's no mention of Heather Heyer being killed by a MAGA white supremacist. I'd certainly have been more impressed with Trump had he denounced the ENTIRE RALLY and everything surrounding it and associated with it.

Conservative views? I have no clue what that even means anymore. It seems to change daily based on what Trump tells you to believe.

Always a classic to bring up Trump's lack of "denouncing."

Verbatim regarding Charlottesville: "They should be condemned totally"

 

[rowsdower88]

Always a classic to bring up Trump's lack of "denouncing."

Verbatim regarding Charlottesville: "They should be condemned totally"

Wrt David Duke denouncing

It's Trump's own fault. This is because he will also say things like: “I just don’t know anything about him," in reference to David Duke in 2016 after Duke endorses him. He continuously steps on his own dick. Expecting him to denounce David Duke... again... 16 years later... after you hear him say he doesn't know who he is, is perfectly fine.

The bar is so, so low for Republicans.

Trump's David Duke Amnesia - FactCheck.org

Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, "I just don't know anything about him." The record proves him wrong.

www.factcheck.org

 

[Southpaw]

Always a classic to bring up Trump's lack of "denouncing."

Verbatim regarding Charlottesville: "They should be condemned totally"

This wasn’t my point. Read my post again.

 

[Southpaw]

I saw the different views and I believe I am objective which is what we would expect to see in 12 jurors.

#1 - I doubt anyone would take this to trial
#2 - In NO way is 12 people going to agree that he was not justified or feared for his life.

1. He was dumb to stand in front of a car especially if he felt a threat to his life. Being dumb does not make you a killer
2. She and her friend/wife was there to cause trouble. You have kids, why would you go somewhere with protests/riot potential and guns on both sides?
3. She intentionally and illegally parked on the street. I have yet in my 40 yrs of driving every parked in the middle of the street unless my car was disabled. NEVER.
4. The wife/friend was trying to be some tik tock/youtube/FB hero. This is why she was so belligerent and videoing the whole incident. She was hoping something like this happen (short of her friend getting shot) so she would get her 10 minutes of fame or gofundme jackpot. She is as much to blame as anyone
5. If an officer tells you to get out of the car, GET OUT. Driving off and hitting cop is the worse decision. I tell my kids when they get pulled over by a cop, do whatever they say. If they want you to do jumping jacks, you better do it til they tell you to stop.
6. The ICE officer WAS HIT by the car. Anyone who says his life was not in danger is just intentionally being dumb. A 3K lb car can kill you if it runs you over. What if the ICE officer being hit fell towards the middle of the car and was run over?
7. #6 - his life was in danger and reasonable to feel a threat to his life.

Unless I see something different, in no way am I convicting this guy. Just like in no way I would convict the Babbit officer. In medicine, we make split decisions all the time and my anxiety level goes up but the difference is my life is never in danger. As an officer, they make split decisions all the time and the difference is it is life/death vs a lawsuit.

You’re not objective, you’re maga. He won’t get prosecuted bc the second the state charged him it’d get elevated to federal. The maga scotus has ensured federal officers are protected, likely for instances such as this.

If I place myself directly in front of a car and that car brushes up against me as it makes a hard right turn, and my cellphone video of the driver turning their steering wheel hard right shows that, is it my fault or the drivers? I know what you’ll say. If I place myself directly in front of someone running down my street and they run into me, is that my fault or theirs? I know what you’ll say. Am I allowed to shoot in self defense in either situation in which I made zero effort to avoid conflict? Why would I feel my life is in danger?

The officer should be charged with manslaughter by the state of MN. I hope that occurs, even if symbolic. It’d be the correct move.

The fault lies with the officer and the wife. Per Gemini law enforcement has a duty to de escalate the situation. They also have a duty to ensure aid is rendered (he fled). See my post above. Lethal force was easily avoided in this situation if the officer wasn’t a hothead and didn’t let the wife get to him. And maybe, just maybe, he shouldn’t have placed himself directly in front of the vehicle. Maybe, just maybe, he should’ve taken 1-2 steps to the right.

 

[jope]

You’re not objective, you’re maga. He won’t get prosecuted bc the second the state charged him it’d get elevated to federal. The maga scotus has ensured federal officers are protected, likely for instances such as this.

If I place myself directly in front of a car and that car brushes up against me as it makes a hard right turn, and my cellphone video of the driver turning their steering wheel hard right shows that, is it my fault or the drivers? I know what you’ll say. If I place myself directly in front of someone running down my street and they run into me, is that my fault or theirs? I know what you’ll say. Am I allowed to shoot in self defense in either situation in which I made zero effort to avoid conflict? Why would I feel my life is in danger?

The officer should be charged with manslaughter by the state of MN. I hope that occurs, even if symbolic. It’d be the correct move.

The fault lies with the officer and the wife. Per Gemini law enforcement has a duty to de escalate the situation. They also have a duty to ensure aid is rendered (he fled). See my post above. Lethal force was easily avoided in this situation if the officer wasn’t a hothead and didn’t let the wife get to him. And maybe, just maybe, he shouldn’t have placed himself directly in front of the vehicle. Maybe, just maybe, he should’ve taken 1-2 steps to the right.

It's funny how the goal posts keep moving now that further evidence shows Good and her wife were not just innocent bystanders but rather activists trying to cause an altercation to provoke federal agents enforcing the law with her crazy honking and blocking of traffic. They are blaming the agent for walking in front of the car but if she didn't go out seeking a confrontation and/or complied with the federal officers, this could all have been avoided. The Democrats/MSM pushing the narrative that ICE are gestapo/Nazis has made some people think it's acceptable to attack them.

As for the ICE agent, it could be argued he was trying to help surround the car to help his colleagues make an arrest as Good was illegal blocking the road and impeding an operation. When she reversed, then suddenly accelerated, he likely only had a few seconds to determine if Good was turning right or going straight at him before firing.

 

[Southpaw]

It's funny how the goal posts keep moving now that further evidence shows Good and her wife were not just innocent bystanders but rather activists trying to cause an altercation to provoke federal agents enforcing the law with her crazy honking and blocking of traffic. They are blaming the agent for walking in front of the car but if she didn't go out seeking a confrontation and/or complied with the federal officers, this could all have been avoided. The Democrats/MSM pushing the narrative that ICE are gestapo/Nazis has made some people think it's acceptable to attack them.

As for the ICE agent, it could be argued he was trying to help surround the car to help his colleagues make an arrest as Good was illegal blocking the road and impeding an operation. When she reversed, then suddenly accelerated, he likely only had a few seconds to determine if Good was turning right or going straight at him before firing.

His cellphone video shows Good turning her steering wheel hard right after she went in reverse and stopped. Watch it. He knew exactly which way she was going. Still shot her 3 times.

no goalposts have been moved. The wife was an antagonist. Good should have gotten out of the vehicle. This has been said the entire time.

Nothing in your post provides justification for lethal force.

 

[Southpaw]

By the way one can legally go into public places and film. It’s all over YouTube. That’s what good did. It’s also true the wife was an antagonist who was looking for a gotcha moment. That doesn’t provide an excuse for lethal force.

 

[UscGhost]

It's funny how the goal posts keep moving now that further evidence shows Good and her wife were not just innocent bystanders but rather activists trying to cause an altercation to provoke federal agents enforcing the law with her crazy honking and blocking of traffic. They are blaming the agent for walking in front of the car but if she didn't go out seeking a confrontation and/or complied with the federal officers, this could all have been avoided. The Democrats/MSM pushing the narrative that ICE are gestapo/Nazis has made some people think it's acceptable to attack them.

As for the ICE agent, it could be argued he was trying to help surround the car to help his colleagues make an arrest as Good was illegal blocking the road and impeding an operation. When she reversed, then suddenly accelerated, he likely only had a few seconds to determine if Good was turning right or going straight at him before firing.

Even if what you said was 100% true...its not justification for lethal use of force.

The only justification is protection of self and others. He drew his weapon before any threat was evident...put himself in a dangerous position (who stands that close to a car??)...and then shot her as she was driving past him

 

[emergentmd]

You’re not objective, you’re maga.

Man, your one of the worse posters. Just reading the past 3-5 pages, do you not realize that there is no way 12 people would agree on this?

half of your rebuttals is Maga this Maga that and the other half makes zero sense.

Now carry on with more nonsense rebuttals.

 

[emergentmd]

His cellphone video shows Good turning her steering wheel hard right after she went in reverse and stopped. Watch it. He knew exactly which way she was going. Still shot her 3 times.

no goalposts have been moved. The wife was an antagonist. Good should have gotten out of the vehicle. This has been said the entire time.

Nothing in your post provides justification for lethal force.

Ok, not worth debating the dense. just as the lefties on here have repeatedly told me...... If he is guilty, then he should/will be held accountable. So let the legal system play out. If he is found guilty, then I will come back saying I was wrong. If he is not convicted or brough to trial, then will you come back with admitting you are wrong?

 

[arkgal]

I picked this screenshot from another forum. It addresses the situation from a defense attorney's perspective.

Edit : file won't attach

 

[arkgal]

Picture

 

[Gern Blansten]

Picture

Will it into being.

 

[arkgal]

Even liberals and centrists are sidestepping the fact these •s had no business approaching the vehicle in the first place. No immigration or customs violations, no warrant, no probable cause for any kind of crime. Exactly the kind of action that we were PROMISED by guys like Mike and drew and baron man was absolutely not going to happen, it was a leftist fantasy and fearmongering.

Another thing I was thinking - did the ICEtapo goons identify themselves as Federal Agents at any point during the confrontation?

If not, how was Good to know she wasn't being attacked by masked arms bandits?

 

[arkgal]

Doesn’t • matter if they were in real uniforms and showed their badges and everything. No immigration or customs crime, no business hassling citizens. Sorry if having whistles blown and cameras pointed and horns honked, or, gasp, having to move a block over to get through hurts your masculine feelings, but at least once upon a time we used to believe in an America where even beat cops, even more so customs agents, needed a probable cause to order you out of your vehicle. Just another case of the center/left ceding legitimacy to this fascist regime that it’s widely assumed that they were in their rights to approach the vehicle at all.

 

[arkgal]

.
She was clearly turning to drive away, and the officer fired shots from the side of her vehicle.

It still looks to me like he shot from the front but again he was standing in front of the vehicle when he unholstered his weapon as she was turning away. If he wasn't standing in front of the vehicle he would not have been in the danger which necessitated the shot. Not a cop but seems to me like he put himself in a very precarious position. Similar to say speaking to someone you have pulled over from the drivers side versus hte passenger side where it is likely less dangerous....

This is literally no different than the Greenland thread. Until people push back and stop this behavior, the violence and authoritarian push will continue to escalate. That is how this works when you have fascists running things and when people believe "might makes right." That's it. That's all there is to it. There's no amount of courtroom circle jerking that can solve this. People need to begin to actually resist, tell people "no," and not comply. It's going to hurt (your pocketbooks at least), we're going to see a lot more videos like this. People are going to get killed. But until people just stop doing what they're being told or appealing to the "better angels" or whatever, this will continue and it will increasingly escalate. We can try to justify it by "oh, well she was in a car, and she could have theoretically run him over" or whatever, but that's just making excuses for our own desire for things to be "normal" - this isn't normal. This is because the people in charge want to round up and deport millions. It's not going to stop at the illegal immigrants either. This is going to continually escalate and ramp up and the violence will get more excessive until the people doing these raids are held to account.

Time to pull the blinders off. Not to be, "that guy" but, "I told you so." The happy comfy life of easy apolitical relaxation that you have where you can just do your job and wait for the nonsense to blow over? That's dead. Now you cannot hide from it anymore. You cannot look away, because it's going to be happening everywhere this is going to be happening on every street. The violence that has been perpetrated on your behalf for years so you could live a comfortable life is going to be front and center. It's Foucault's Boomerang, it's decades of executive power creep, it's a revolution from the right. I tried to warn you guys 10 years ago, then increasingly frantically about 5. I never figured these doofuses (doofi, doofae?) would get a second chance, then I got sick and had to focus on me. Along the way, nobody • listened, and here's where we are now.

Let me repeat my basic thesis. In this world, there are no laws but the laws of physics and the laws other people impose on you. Everything else is a suggestion. You have no rights unless you are willing to defend them. What you value as a person is not determined by what you do, rather by what you'll sacrifice to maintain those values.

That's it. It's up to us now.

Interesting historical notes abound in this time. The Nazis planned to deport all the Jews to Madagascar. Madagascar Plan - Wikipedia What ended up happening is that proved too logistically challenging after they over extended themselves and the British didn't give up. It ended up just being easier to just kill them off. Coincidentally, this is a post from Homeland Security that's been out on Facebook and other social media platforms:

There aren't 100m foreign citizens in America. There's about 100m non-white people (let that sink in). You should believe what these people are telling you. You should believe them when they tell you what they believe.

But even if you were a racist piece of crap and wanted to get rid of everyone who wasn't "desirable" this is logistically impossible. Eventually, they're going to realize that it is cheaper to kill these people than to fly them out of the country (and other countries already don't want refugees) and so that's what they'll do. That's how this has almost always gone down.

You have been warned. Again.

 

[arkgal]

Will it into being.

 

[Southpaw]

Man, your one of the worse posters. Just reading the past 3-5 pages, do you not realize that there is no way 12 people would agree on this?

half of your rebuttals is Maga this Maga that and the other half makes zero sense.

Now carry on with more nonsense rebuttals.

that would be ‘you’re’. You are. You’re one of the worst MAGAs. Actually I shouldn’t say that because I really don’t differentiate between MAGAs. I sorta just lump yall into one maga pile. So you’re all kinda the same to me.

12 jurors wouldn’t agree if there was a single maga. If all 12 were non-MAGAs I believe he’d be guilty of manslaughter. Look at this thread. The only people defending the guy saying lethal force was reasonable are MAGAs. You don’t see that?

Try this out - show me one single post from a non-MAGA saying lethal force was reasonable here. Just one post. Do it.

 

[Southpaw]

Ok, not worth debating the dense. just as the lefties on here have repeatedly told me...... If he is guilty, then he should/will be held accountable. So let the legal system play out. If he is found guilty, then I will come back saying I was wrong. If he is not convicted or brough to trial, then will you come back with admitting you are wrong?

I’ve already told you it won’t go to trial. Can you not read? I’ve said that since the very beginning. Hours after it occurred the freaking POTUS had declared him innocent. POTUS said ‘VICIOUSLY run over we hope he recovers from his injuries soon’. Dude, the guy fled the scene. This has been an absolute joke from the start. Maybe, just maybe, POTUS should’ve said ‘awful situation…we’ll wait for an investigation to play out’. But the second POTUS cast the driver as responsible the maga cult attacked the driver and defended the officer. Everyone can see that. That shouldn’t be at all confusing for you. It’s exactly how this thread has played out.

Regardless, if the state charges it’ll get elevated to federal and charges will be dismissed. The state charging would be symbolic and it should occur. But there will be NO TRIAL. If you had a lick of reading comprehension you’d see I’ve said exactly that from the outset.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Another thing I was thinking - did the ICEtapo goons identify themselves as Federal Agents at any point during the confrontation?

If not, how was Good to know she wasn't being attacked by masked arms bandits?

I believe it is pretty common knowledge that the reason they were there was to protest and obstruct an ICE operation. She and her wife knew exactly who they were.

 

[Hoya11]

I’ve already told you it won’t go to trial. Can you not read? I’ve said that since the very beginning. Hours after it occurred the freaking POTUS had declared him innocent. POTUS said ‘VICIOUSLY run over we hope he recovers from his injuries soon’. Dude, the guy fled the scene. This has been an absolute joke from the start. Maybe, just maybe, POTUS should’ve said ‘awful situation…we’ll wait for an investigation to play out’. But the second POTUS cast the driver as responsible the maga cult attacked the driver and defended the officer. Everyone can see that. That shouldn’t be at all confusing for you. It’s exactly how this thread has played out.

Regardless, if the state charges it’ll get elevated to federal and charges will be dismissed. The state charging would be symbolic and it should occur. But there will be NO TRIAL. If you had a lick of reading comprehension you’d see I’ve said exactly that from the outset.

Its great logic right - if the courts dont find him guilty, you must be wrong and he must be innocent right? You see first you have to believe 100 percent that the cop did nothing wrong, and then you have to believe 100 percent in our police/legal system to hold them own accountable IF something wrong was done. The reality is cops do bad things and the legal system does not hold them accountable. Many of us just don't have exposure to this and maybe cant comprehend it or dont want to comprehend this problem with our society. We've grown up privileged and some of us apparently havent seen outside of that bubble of privilege and continue to boot lick.

As an anesthesiologist this has always bugged me. We can be held accountable for a chipped tooth after intubation, for surgical bleeding that occurs in PACU, for tingling after a nerve block. The lawyers will pursue every small bad outcome that occurs, totally frivilous, very often out of our control, and they get money for their client and ruin our good names and reputations. So you believe every outcome that is handed down in regards to police behavior, do you believe all these anesthesiologists who are sued are also guilty since they were successfully sued? Why don't cops get that scrutiny? Why are they just assumed to be doing good all the time? The issue is police accountability. I don't know about you but I'm sick and tired of seeing a 47 year old MAGA jerk cop who just retired for "disability" getting his shoulder or knee done with BMI 38. I don't exactly hold police in a high regard, especially compared to an anesthesiologist.

 

[Southpaw]

Well I don’t really have an issue with police. Some good some bad. I certainly have an issue with ICE. They’re being used as a political tool going into only blue states and leaving the reds alone. There aren’t any bad illegals that need deportation in red states? Gimme a break. I do hope ice is able to remove the bad illegals.

Regardless, this was a traffic issue. Good was perpendicular to the flow of traffic. But if you watch video many cars went around her in the 3-4 minutes her car was in park. She waved a couple ICE vehicles past. The officer in question never identified himself. He never asked Good for license and registration, or any form of identification. They never asked what she was doing. Did they even ask if she could just move and go on with her day?

The officers didn’t de escalate the situation. The officer in question has video he took showing Good turning her steering wheel hard right. He knew she was doing a 3 point turn and going hard right to leave. Did he make even the slightest effort to move from the path of the vehicle?

Did the officers render aid or did they flee?

These are totally objective questions. I don’t care what Good did for a living. Why does it matter? That’s maga effort to discredit her as if that’s some excuse for killing her. Get real, maga.

 

[aneftp]

that would be ‘you’re’. You are. You’re one of the worst MAGAs. Actually I shouldn’t say that because I really don’t differentiate between MAGAs. I sorta just lump yall into one maga pile. So you’re all kinda the same to me.

12 jurors wouldn’t agree if there was a single maga. If all 12 were non-MAGAs I believe he’d be guilty of manslaughter. Look at this thread. The only people defending the guy saying lethal force was reasonable are MAGAs. You don’t see that?

Try this out - show me one single post from a non-MAGA saying lethal force was reasonable here. Just one post. Do it.

Well people think I’m a maga but I’m really just an instigator.

law enforcement officers have way more leeway than you realize. If it were a public citizen doing the “self defense” claim. They would be convicted

But since they are law enforcement. They get the benefit of the doubt. So according to how law enforcement officers prosecuted for lethal force. He won’t get convicted. I’m not even sure he would even get charged.

It’s not a popular opinion. But just the way the world works.

Considering the ice dude just got dragged 50 feet in a car in a similar situation after tasing a liberal protestor and end up stitches. These are split second decisions

It’s fine to protest. Your constitutional provides that right. But the lady was looking for trouble and unfortunately paid for it.

She’s looney anyway. For the father of her first two kids to have full custody is very unusual. And the third kid she has custody of (6 year old) the father of that child is deceased.

 

[Southpaw]

Well people think I’m a maga but I’m really just an instigator.

law enforcement officers have way more leeway than you realize. If it were a public citizen doing the “self defense” claim. They would be convicted

But since they are law enforcement. They get the benefit of the doubt. So according to how law enforcement officers prosecuted for lethal force. He won’t get convicted. I’m not even sure he would even get charged.

It’s not a popular opinion. But just the way the world works.

Considering the ice dude just got dragged 50 feet in a car in a similar situation after tasing a liberal protestor and end up stitches. These are split second decisions

It’s fine to protest. Your constitutional provides that right. But the lady was looking for trouble and unfortunately paid for it.

She’s looney anyway. For the father of her first two kids to have full custody is very unusual. And the third kid she has custody of (6 year old) the father of that child is deceased.

You voted for Trump 3 times. You’re maga. Cool, if you’re looney in the opinion of maga you deserve to die? What world are y’all living in? This is total insanity.

 

[aneftp]

You voted for Trump 3 times. You’re maga. Cool, if you’re looney in the opinion of maga you deserve to die? What world are y’all living in? This is total insanity.

Dude. That’s like me calling anyone who voted for Biden Obama Clinton (who I did vote twice) liberal.

I like to provoke. MAGA is nationalism. Anti abortion pro guns. I certainly am not anyone of that

That’s the issue with liberals like urself. You like to pigeon hold and have blinders on

ICE is not the real issue. It’s the conflict liberals yelling at their officers provoking them.

Trump was willing to unite families with free flights home for the holidays and liberals were against this generous gesture.

 

[Southpaw]

Dude. That’s like me calling anyone who voted for Biden Obama Clinton (who I did vote twice) liberal.

I like to provoke. MAGA is nationalism. Anti abortion pro guns. I certainly am not anyone of that

That’s the issue with liberals like urself. You like to pigeon hold and have blinders on

ICE is not the real issue. It’s the conflict liberals yelling at their officers provoking them.

Trump was willing to unite families with free flights home for the holidays and liberals were against this generous gesture.

If you want me to engage with you on this topic, and I know you like to argue, you can answer my earlier objective questions/statements regarding the officers actions, his video, and what is required for the justification of lethal force.

I’d love to hear how he made attempts to de escalate the situation. Or that he asked for identification. Or that he offered his ID and position. Or what she was guilty of to warrant asking her to exit the vehicle. Or that he made effort to NOT place himself in front of a moving vehicle. Or that HIS OWN VIDEO doesn’t show Good turning her steering wheel hard right after going in reverse, indicating a 3 point turn and an effort to avoid the officers. Or that after the shooting the officers secured the scene and ensured medical aid was rendered.

If you want to blab about the same stuff you always blab about, well sorry but I’m not interested.

 

[aneftp]

If you want me to engage with you on this topic, and I know you like to argue, you can answer my earlier objective questions/statements regarding the officers actions, his video, and what is required for the justification of lethal force.

I’d love to hear how he made attempts to de escalate the situation. Or that he asked for identification. Or that he offered his ID and position. Or what she was guilty of to warrant asking her to exit the vehicle. Or that he made effort to NOT place himself in front of a moving vehicle. Or that HIS OWN VIDEO doesn’t show Good turning her steering wheel hard right after going in reverse, indicating a 3 point turn and an effort to avoid the officers. Or that after the shooting the officers secured the scene and ensured medical aid was rendered.

If you want to blab about the same stuff you always blab about, well sorry but I’m not interested.

I already answered your questions

Read what I posted. I’m fairly objective with the officer.

I think you guys get so blinded by emotions. Officers have a lot of leeway. Especially when it involved being provoked along with a weapon (a moving vehicle).

The law will favor the officer. Notice the usual civil rights democratic supporting lawyers like Ben Crump or Gloridia Allred or even Jesse Jackson have been silent on this lastest ice event.

That tells you something. They know it’s not worth their time going to the news to support this woman family.