US Politics

eaglesdare · 2026-01-11T20:57:25+0000

Wisbech Eagle said:
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.

The Chicago chief of police makes some good points back in october 2025 I think:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010420705066950697

Wisbech Eagle · 2026-01-11T21:11:38+0000

Eagleman13 said:
Your first 4 words were OK, your second 4 words, show you up for what you really are. In my opinion.

In my opinion ALL the words he wrote are 100% accurate and what he is a truth teller.

Wisbech Eagle · 2026-01-11T21:18:27+0000

eaglesdare said:
The Chicago chief of police makes some good points back in october 2025 I think:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010420705066950697

What he says isn’t unreasonable but it in no way is relevant to what happened on this occasion and is not what the headline claims, to be in support of ICE. It’s not breaking news!

This is just another desperate attempt to try to justify the unjustifiable.

eaglesdare · 2026-01-11T21:31:35+0000

Wisbech Eagle said:
What he says isn’t unreasonable but it in no way is relevant to what happened on this occasion and is not what the headline claims, to be in support of ICE. It’s not breaking news!

This is just another desperate attempt to try to justify the unjustifiable.

How is it not relevant?

He said in october that:

"If you ram any vehicle, especially one that contains law enforcement agents, and that’s any law enforcement… and you do this intentionally, this is considered deadly force, Deadly force is anything that can cause great bodily harm or death. When you plow into a vehicle that contains law enforcement agents, you are using deadly force. And they can use deadly force in response to stop you"

"If you box them in with vehicles, it is reasonable for them to believe that they are being ambushed, and that this could end in a deadly situation,"

"And it’s reasonable for them to use force based on those conditions. Do not box in any law enforcement officer. You are breaking the law when you do that. And you are putting yourself in danger."

Wisbech Eagle · 2026-01-11T21:31:56+0000

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.

I hope that’s not true and that the State will bring their own charges. There’s enough evidence already.

All the nonsense about her personal life, any activism, why she was there and what had happened to the agent before can be ignored. The guy pulled out a gun and shot someone when there was no reason to. It’s a very simple case. He can claim a lack of training and previous trauma in mitigation but that’s all.

Wisbech Eagle · 2026-01-11T21:34:24+0000

eaglesdare said:
How is it not relevant?

He said in october that:

"If you ram any vehicle, especially one that contains law enforcement agents, and that’s any law enforcement… and you do this intentionally, this is considered deadly force, Deadly force is anything that can cause great bodily harm or death. When you plow into a vehicle that contains law enforcement agents, you are using deadly force. And they can use deadly force in response to stop you"

"If you box them in with vehicles, it is reasonable for them to believe that they are being ambushed, and that this could end in a deadly situation,"

"And it’s reasonable for them to use force based on those conditions. Do not box in any law enforcement officer. You are breaking the law when you do that. And you are putting yourself in danger."

Simply because that does not describe the circumstances. She did not ram a vehicle, nor box one in. She was trying to drive away from those threatening her.

eaglesdare · 2026-01-11T21:39:50+0000

Wisbech Eagle said:
Simply because that does not describe the circumstances. She did not ram a vehicle, nor box one in. She was trying to drive away from those threatening her.

She was clearly obstructing law enforcement agents. There's a few more videos circling of 3-5 mins leading up to it. Maybe you can view them as well.

HKOwen · 2026-01-11T22:05:55+0000

eaglesdare said:
She was clearly obstructing law enforcement agents. There's a few more videos circling of 3-5 mins leading up to it. Maybe you can view them as well.

You are using pesky facts to someone who doesn't want to know them as it does not support his TDS narrative.

Anyone who denies the car struck the ICE officer is simply deluded.

Subsequent events will be analysed etc.

Wisbech Eagle · 2026-01-11T22:27:33+0000

eaglesdare said:
She was clearly obstructing law enforcement agents. There's a few more videos circling of 3-5 mins leading up to it. Maybe you can view them as well.

I haven’t seen any but for the sake of argument let’s say that’s entirely true.

It doesn’t though make the slightest difference. At the moment he shot her she was not threatening him, she was driving away. She might have made him and the other agents extremely p*ssed off but that’s no excuse. They are, or should be, trained to keep their cool at all times and act with caution and restraint. They aren’t gangsters. They are law enforcement officers.

Wisbech Eagle · 2026-01-11T22:29:50+0000

Nobody seems to be talking about Trump, and Vance’s, continuing noise about Greenland. Which is getting louder, even if it can be viewed as just something else to remove the uncomfortable things from the headlines.

In the last days Trump has said the USA must own it. Whatever must be done to achieve that. Vance has suggested they could buy it. He has now instructed the preparation of an invasion plan.

Whilst having a strong military presence in Greenland is becoming increasingly important, to stop incursions by either Russia or China plus the prospect of mineral wealth being discovered there is no reason at all why the USA needs to own the land to achieve that. A treaty already exists which gives them the rights they need to build the bases needed. Should Greenland vote for independence from Denmark that treaty could easily be attached and an associate NATO membership granted that would guarantee their defence should either Russia or China threaten.

For me this is an even clearer statement by Trump of his intention to withdraw from NATO. There being no other reason to want ownership. The next 2 years cannot pass too soon. At least politically.

eaglesdare · 2026-01-11T22:38:07+0000

Wisbech Eagle said:
I haven’t seen any but for the sake of argument let’s say that’s entirely true.

It doesn’t though make the slightest difference. At the moment he shot her she was not threatening him, she was driving away. She might have made him and the other agents extremely p*ssed off but that’s no excuse. They are, or should be, trained to keep their cool at all times and act with caution and restraint. They aren’t gangsters. They are law enforcement officers.

Law enforcement officers aren't required to wait until they're actually hit to defend themselves. This was a justified use of force against a non compliant driver weaponising her car during an enforcement operation not some gangster overreaction.

But anyways believe what you want and if you have a problem take it up with tampon tim who signed the police Minnesota reform law back in 2020👍 I provided it in earlier posts. Take a look.

Wisbech Eagle · 2026-01-11T23:50:51+0000

eaglesdare said:
Law enforcement officers aren't required to wait until they're actually hit to defend themselves. This was a justified use of force against a non compliant driver weaponising her car during an enforcement operation not some gangster overreaction.

But anyways believe what you want and if you have a problem take it up with tampon tim who signed the police Minnesota reform law back in 2020👍 I provided it in earlier posts. Take a look.

Written like the apologist for the autocrat in the White House that you consistently are.

If this was justified heaven help any innocent person who refuses to be bullied by someone in uniform in the USA. For the umpteenth time it’s crystal clear that she was not “weaponising” her car. She was trying to escape. There was no need to pull a gun and threaten to use it, let alone fire it 3 times directly at here. It was unconscionable.

eaglesdare · 2026-01-12T00:00:51+0000

Wisbech Eagle said:
Written like the apologist for the autocrat in the White House that you consistently are.

If this was justified heaven help any innocent person who refuses to be bullied by someone in uniform in the USA. For the umpteenth time it’s crystal clear that she was not “weaponising” her car. She was trying to escape. There was no need to pull a gun and threaten to use it, let alone fire it 3 times directly at here. It was unconscionable.

Call me what you want, but the law including the one Tampon tim signed in 2020 is clear: officers don't have to wait to be run over when a driver accelerates toward them. She weaponised the car, he defended himself. Escape from what? She was there causing an obstruction for some time and refused follow law enforcement order.
Facts over feelings I'm afraid 👍

cryrst · 2026-01-12T00:14:21+0000

DanH said:
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?

If that was your mrs pushing your kid in a buggy you wouldn’t think about anything but wanting to harm that driver.
Unless you are the consummate pacifist.

Stirlingsays · 2026-01-12T03:00:29+0000

eaglesdare said:
She was clearly obstructing law enforcement agents. There's a few more videos circling of 3-5 mins leading up to it. Maybe you can view them as well.

He's never been interested in the truth.

Spindle · 2026-01-12T07:27:38+0000

DanH said:
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.

I'm on about the FB one with the attorney. Not your biased prejudice

Spindle · 2026-01-12T07:28:35+0000

DanH said:
Go on then, give it your best shot big boy.

You're personal and rude when you get cornered, then cry about people who give you s*** back.

Student level debater

Spindle · 2026-01-12T07:31:02+0000

DanH said:
So you can’t see any impact on that video can you? You can see he is clearly unharmed before he fires the gun into her face 3 times as well.

Given that he slides back about 3 feet, yeah. Unless he's that good he did a moonwalk just before shooting

Spindle · 2026-01-12T07:34:09+0000

DanH said:
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?

It's pretty obvious from this not only your myopic bias but also how obtuse you are on their directives. Laughable.

Spindle · 2026-01-12T07:36:00+0000

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

You lot are utterly desperate.

He's one hell of a shot putting all 3 bullets through that same windscreen hole

US Politics

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop