US Politics

DanH said:
If the Trump administration and its sycophantic followers are so confident this is the case then they will allow it to be investigated and confirmed then won’t they.

There is nothing from any video footage that suggests that the ICE agent should believe that his life was in danger. And if it was purely self defence, why did he shoot 3 times and not just once? And why did he call her a ‘f*cking b*tch’ afterwards?
Click to expand...
Your first 4 words were OK, your second 4 words, show you up for what you really are. In my opinion.
 
Spindle said:
You've not watched any of the analysis have you? You made up your mind before you even saw a video. Prejudice AGAIN.

As for the last part, that's his opinion. A desparate clutch.
Click to expand...

I have. And every one I’ve seen describes it clearly showing what I and every other person with functioning eye sight can clearly see.
 
DanH said:
At what point in the video can you actually see it hitting him, Owen? Can you see the car hitting him in all the other videos that come out?

This video changes absolutely nothing. In fact, it just supports the case for murder.

Why are you so desperate to try and defend it? This isn’t about politics.
Click to expand...
The officer wearing the body cam is hit by the car and the video confirms that as the camera changes view and shakes.

This is clear unless you refuse to believe it cos it does not support your political narrative.

As I have said before, you throw around the word murder seemingly not knowing it's meaning.
 
HKOwen said:
The officer wearing the body cam is hit by the car and the video confirms that as the camera changes view and shakes.

This is clear unless you refuse to believe it cos it does not support your political narrative.

As I have said before, you throw around the word murder seemingly not knowing it's meaning.
Click to expand...

You cannot see any impact in the video. Show me the still where you can clearly see impact in that video.
 
Glazier#1 said:
It's all irrelevant in a way, mate. There is no way that the ICE man will ever, ever be found to be guilty of anything.

Nothing can be seen to hinder the immigration standpoint.

It's a wider issue: political expediency.
Click to expand...
Serious question, probably slightly off topic:
Do you believe illegal migrants should be arrested and deported?
Do you believe that migrants who are breaking the law or defrauding the taxpayer should be arrested?
If so, should the authorities be allowed to do this unhindered?
 
HKOwen said:
The officer wearing the body cam is hit by the car and the video confirms that as the camera changes view and shakes.

This is clear unless you refuse to believe it cos it does not support your political narrative.

As I have said before, you throw around the word murder seemingly not knowing it's meaning.
Click to expand...

Regardless if the car hit the officer or not it's immaterial in my view. If you impede a law enforcement operation then you are breaking the law. And if the law enforcement officer deemed there is a threat to life of themselves or others around them then they are well within the law to defend themselves.

I am sure I provided the Minnesota state law earlier in the thread on the topic that backs law enforcement in terms of threat to their lives and split second decision making and I think it protects them from hindsight.
 
eaglesdare said:
Regardless if the car hit the officer or not it's immaterial in my view. If you impede a law enforcement operation then you are breaking the law. And if the law enforcement officer deemed there is a threat to life of themselves or others around them then they are well within the law to defend themselves.

I am sure I provided the Minnesota state law earlier in the thread on the topic that backs law enforcement in terms of threat to their lives and split second decision making and I think it protects them from hindsight.
Click to expand...

How is a stationary car pulling away slowly in the opposite direction a ‘threat to life’ and a reason to shoot someone in the face 3 times?
 
eaglesdare said:
Regardless if the car hit the officer or not it's immaterial in my view. If you impede a law enforcement operation then you are breaking the law. And if the law enforcement officer deemed there is a threat to life of themselves or others around them then they are well within the law to defend themselves.

I am sure I provided the Minnesota state law earlier in the thread on the topic that backs law enforcement in terms of threat to their lives and split second decision making and I think it protects them from hindsight.
Click to expand...
If one syllable of your post is true the law is an ass.
 
Spindle said:
Ha ha as expected Wisbech KC ignored this detailed impartial and common sense review by an Attorney which chucks his whole rhetorical drivel out of a laughing court. The HOLs very own Walter Mitty.

Sounds like this woman who was married with kids caught the feminist woke mind virus and went full Karen until it got her killed. Very sad, I imagine her agitator "wife" will move away from activism into being full poster victim for some anti Trump spokesperson role instead, backed and promoted by Democratic sponsors
Click to expand...
It’s ignored because it deserves to be ignored. All bs deserves to be ignored. If he is an Attorney he is a bigger liar. Whatever the victim was doing prior to the event is irrelevant. Whatever happened to the agent on a previous occasion could be offered in mitigation but doesn’t justify him shooting. All the video evidence shows is that if the car touched him it was very minor. He wasn’t standing directly in front, he was positioned to the front left with the car moving away from him. There was no possible justification to open fire.

Describing her background, even if accurate, is another irrelevancy. I doubt whether the guy who pulled the trigger knew, or cared, about it.
 
eaglesdare said:
I posted the Minnesota state law a few pages back on this. Feel free to go back and have a look.

I'm not sure but I believe tampon tim may have signed it a few years back?
Click to expand...

Oh good. Someone else to blame that isn’t the person who shot her in the face 3 times.

You lot are utterly desperate.
 
eaglesdare said:
Regardless if the car hit the officer or not it's immaterial in my view. If you impede a law enforcement operation then you are breaking the law. And if the law enforcement officer deemed there is a threat to life of themselves or others around them then they are well within the law to defend themselves.

I am sure I provided the Minnesota state law earlier in the thread on the topic that backs law enforcement in terms of threat to their lives and split second decision making and I think it protects them from hindsight.
Click to expand...
Taken to its logical conclusion that would mean any officer could shoot anyone they chose to just by claiming they deemed them a threat to life. Who could challenge what they “deemed” was happening?

It’s nonsense.

Of course an officer has the right to defend themselves. We all have that right. Any response has though to be proportionate to the threat and that can be challenged and tested in a court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top