Titandan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 3 minutes ago, ctm said: That's why I asked the question of whether he had his gun drawn before the car moved? Keep in mind that the car started moving from a dead stop. That gives the shooter additional time to avoid contact. All of the details will eventually come to light, assuming the FBI doesn't competely cover it up and/or destroy the investigation. Why are they doing that? What's there to cover up? There are multiple video footage from at least three different angles... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 6 minutes ago, Titandan said: I don't agree with total immunity and domestic terrorists comments. Was he not injured? Am I responsible for everything someone else says? I don't blame you for all of Biden's fuck ups. You're touting conservatives as holding nuanced takes when the opposite is true as seen by the immediate response from your leadership regarding the situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeFan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said: You're touting conservatives as holding nuanced takes when the opposite is true as seen by the immediate response from your leadership regarding the situation. And you're avoiding basic questions. Why was she sitting in the road for 3 minutes when her car was operable? Why did she disobey a lawful order to get out of her car? Why did she accelerate when there was a person right in front of her car? IsntLifeFunny 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titandan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 (edited) 20 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said: And it all could have been avoided if she had just not parked her car for 3 minutes in the middle of the road or listened to a lawful order. She has absolutely no blame here. Or the left that constantly villifies ICE for following the laws passed by Congress. I don't think they will ever see it that way... at least for now. It's easier to blame others for shit that happens to us. I know because I used to be that way. For example, I could get scammed and of course a 100% of the fault is on the scammer. But on a more practical level, I could take responsibility for my part in making myself more susceptible to getting scammed. And I can go through the inconvenience of fixing those problems and prevent myself from getting scammed again. Or I can focus all of my energy blaming external forces, victimize myself, neglect to change any of my actions, and then get scammed again. Rinse and repeat. Edited January 11 by Titandan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strunk'sDessert Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 Wow, shocking new video just came out this morning of the event. This will certainly shut up the libs. O8vmeH.mp4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctm Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 Mutual distrust between federal and state authorities derailed plans for a joint FBI and state criminal investigation into Wednesday’s shooting of a Minneapolis woman by an ICE officer, leading to the highly unusual move by the Justice Department to block state investigators from participating in the probe. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said Thursday that after an initial agreement for the FBI to work with the state agency, as well as prosecutors from the US Attorney’s office in Minneapolis and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, to investigate the shooting, federal authorities reversed course and the FBI blocked the BCA from participating in the investigation. https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/politics/investigation-minneapolis-ice-shooting-deviates-police-shooting-playbook Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 She was executed for sitting in her car parked for 3 minutes and didn't comply........lol Also when the ICE agent gets away with it because the administration already said they had total immunity it will mean he was innocent! Why wasn't he charged durrr MadMax 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 26 minutes ago, Titandan said: Even if I'm packing heat, just from a survival perspective, if I believe a car is screeching towards me with split second to decide, my initial instinct is to get the fuck outta dodge. Even if I were to successfully shoot the driver, there's absolutely zero probability that the car is going to automatically turn on the anti lock break function and stop before it hits me. Dude scores a hundred on balls of steel and a zero on survival instinct. He also had a lapse in judgement in shooting the lady but to be fair he also only had a split second to decide. And based on my limited experience, his gun drawing skills is incredibly impressive. Survival instinct isn’t the legal standard — objective necessity is. Officers are trained precisely to override instinct and de-escalate when possible. A split-second decision still has to meet the requirement of an imminent, unavoidable threat at the moment the shot is fired. If that threat no longer exists, lethal force isn’t justified, even if the situation was tense or fast-moving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 2 hours ago, Titandan said: and his actions will be thoroughly investigated. You're dumber than I thought. MadMax, and Jamalisms 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 8 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said: And you're avoiding basic questions. Why was she sitting in the road for 3 minutes when her car was operable? Why did she disobey a lawful order to get out of her car? Why did she accelerate when there was a person right in front of her car? Those questions don’t determine whether lethal force was justified. Non-compliance, delay, or poor judgment can explain why an arrest occurred — they do not justify killing someone. The only legally relevant question is whether, at the moment the shot was fired, there was an imminent, unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily harm. If that threshold isn’t met, lethal force is unjustified regardless of everything that led up to it. That’s not avoiding the questions — it’s applying the correct standard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeFan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 Just now, reo said: Those questions don’t determine whether lethal force was justified. Non-compliance, delay, or poor judgment can explain why an arrest occurred — they do not justify killing someone. The only legally relevant question is whether, at the moment the shot was fired, there was an imminent, unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily harm. If that threshold isn’t met, lethal force is unjustified regardless of everything that led up to it. That’s not avoiding the questions — it’s applying the correct standard. Wrong. That's your viewpoint. It is fact that if she wasn't parked in the road for over 3 minutes she wouldn't be dead. It is fact that if she would have put the car in park and complied with the agents order, she wouldn't be dead. It is fact that if she wouldn't have accelerated with a person in front of her car she wouldn't be dead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 3 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said: Wrong. That's your viewpoint. It is fact that if she wasn't parked in the road for over 3 minutes she wouldn't be dead. It is fact that if she would have put the car in park and complied with the agents order, she wouldn't be dead. It is fact that if she wouldn't have accelerated with a person in front of her car she wouldn't be dead. Those are counterfactuals, not legal justification. Many actions can precede a police encounter; none of them authorize lethal force unless, at the moment the shot is fired, there is an imminent, unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily harm. “She wouldn’t be dead if…” is not the standard — that logic would justify killing anyone who makes a mistake. Causation is not justification. The standard is necessity at the moment force is used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titandan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 13 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said: You're touting conservatives as holding nuanced takes when the opposite is true as seen by the immediate response from your leadership regarding the situation. I already explained what I think is Trump's way of thinking. Libs do crazy, he says crazy the other way. And he ends up meeting in the middle and doing the most pragmatic thing. How many times has the sky fallen within a year? Tariffs/trade war is going to start WW3!! Destruction of Iran nuclear sites is going to bring us to World War 3!!! Trump screamed at Zelensky while pulling out red carpet for Putin. We are Putin's bitch. We are effectively owned by Russia. Trump kidnapped Maduro! Putin and Xinnie the Pooh will get mad! They going to respectively take Ukraine and Taiwan!!! Trump talks shit. He negotiates with his opps. They strike a deal. That's how he operates. Stop getting duped by stupid headlines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, Titandan said: I already explained what I think is Trump's way of thinking. Libs do crazy, he says crazy the other way. And he ends up meeting in the middle and doing the most pragmatic thing. How many times has the sky fallen within a year? Tariffs/trade war is going to start WW3!! Destruction of Iran nuclear sites is going to bring us to World War 3!!! Trump screamed at Zelensky while pulling out red carpet for Putin. We are Putin's bitch. We are effectively owned by Russia. Trump kidnapped Maduro! Putin and Xinnie the Pooh will get mad! They going to respectively take Ukraine and Taiwan!!! Trump talks shit. He negotiates with his opps. They strike a deal. That's how he operates. Stop getting duped by stupid headlines. That’s a broader political argument, and it’s not really connected to what we’re discussing here. This thread isn’t about Trump’s negotiating style, headlines, or foreign policy predictions. It’s about a specific incident and whether lethal force met the legal standard at the moment it was used. Pulling in unrelated political narratives just muddies that question. If you want to debate Trump’s tactics, that’s a separate conversation. This one is about use-of-force accountability. If you want to have that conversation, we can but in another thread imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeFan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, reo said: Those are counterfactuals, not legal justification. Many actions can precede a police encounter; none of them authorize lethal force unless, at the moment the shot is fired, there is an imminent, unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily harm. “She wouldn’t be dead if…” is not the standard — that logic would justify killing anyone who makes a mistake. Causation is not justification. The standard is necessity at the moment force is used. You posted the officers legal justification earlier as I pointed out. And she didn't "make a mistake". She made 3 conscious decisions. All that led to her death. Are you saying she has no responsibility for her own death? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.