User Posted January 9 Report Posted January 9 1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said: The issue is that a woman was shot and killed for obstructing the roadway. This didn’t have to happen. This is not true. She was shot as she was accelerating into an Officer with her vehicle trying to evade arrest as her friend was yelling DRIVE DRIVE She was shot because she turned her vehicle into a deadly weapon in driving towards the officer as she did. It is on video. Quote
blackbird Posted January 9 Author Report Posted January 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, User said: This is not true. She was shot as she was accelerating into an Officer with her vehicle trying to evade arrest as her friend was yelling DRIVE DRIVE The ICE officer that shot her was not run down as Trump claimed. It is a big lie. The video shows the car was barely moving. It shows he was not run down. He shot her for nothing. Edited January 9 by blackbird Quote
User Posted January 9 Report Posted January 9 9 minutes ago, blackbird said: The ICE officer that shot her was not run down as Trump claimed. It is a big lie. The video shows the car was barely moving. It shows he was not run down. He shot her for nothing. I don't know what Trump said or if your paraphrasing is accurate or not. What is true is that the ICE Officer was struck by the vehicle. The car accelerated towards and into him. He did not shoot her for nothing. Quote
blackbird Posted January 9 Author Report Posted January 9 Just now, User said: I don't know what Trump said or if your paraphrasing is accurate or not. What is true is that the ICE Officer was struck by the vehicle. The car accelerated towards and into him. He did not shoot her for nothing. You are lying because of your MAGA bias. The video shows the car moving very slowly and he had time to step out of the way, which he did. He had stepped out of the way and then aimed his gun and shot her. He did not get run down as claimed. So yes, he shot her for nothing. 1 Quote
User Posted January 9 Report Posted January 9 1 minute ago, blackbird said: You are lying because of your MAGA bias. The video shows the car moving very slowly and he had time to step out of the way, which he did. He had stepped out of the way and then aimed his gun and shot her. He did not get run down as claimed. So yes, he shot her for nothing. Not lying. We had numerous angles of video yesterday AND the newly released cell phone footage from the Officer himself. Clearly shows what happened. You are dishonesly playing words games about "moving slowly" when the vehicle was accelerating from a stop. The Officer did not have time to step out of the way, as he was hit. He was firing at her from the front and the first round went through the windshield. You want to focus on playing semantic word games with things like "run down" when the facts do not change that he was hit by the vehicle and the vehicle did accelerate towards him. All while the ladies friend, partner, or whatever was yelling DRIVE DRIVE so she could flee before getting arrested. Quote
Zeitgeist Posted January 9 Report Posted January 9 (edited) 2 hours ago, User said: This is not true. She was shot as she was accelerating into an Officer with her vehicle trying to evade arrest as her friend was yelling DRIVE DRIVE She was shot because she turned her vehicle into a deadly weapon in driving towards the officer as she did. It is on video. Nope. She was turning. If any contact was made with the agent, it was a brush because the agent remained sturdy on his feet. It’s obvious that the vehicle was turning. The driver wasn’t trying to hit the agent who was unnecessarily escalating the situation. Obvious solutions could’ve been chosen to deal with this woman, such as barricading the end of the street so she couldn’t flee the scene. She was unarmed. You think it’s okay to shoot unarmed people in order to arrest them? This is why we stopped allowing high speed police chases. They had her plate information. Even if she flees the scene, arresting her at home later would’ve been like shooting monkeys in a barrel. This was reckless policing at best. This is where all perspective is lost. What is the value of this kind of policing when this is the result? Edited January 9 by Zeitgeist 1 1 Quote
User Posted January 9 Report Posted January 9 14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Nope. She was turning. If any contact was made with the agent, it was a brush because the agent remained sturdy on his feet. It’s obvious that the vehicle was turning. The driver wasn’t trying to hit the agent who was unnecessarily escalating the situation. Obvious solutions could’ve been chosen to deal with this woman, such as barricading the end of the street so she couldn’t flee the scene. She was unarmed. You think it’s okay to shoot unarmed people in order to arrest them? This is why we stopped allowing high speed police chases. They had her plate information. Even if she flees the scene, arresting her at home later would’ve been like shooting monkeys in a barrel. This was reckless policing at best. This is where all perspective is lost. What is the value of this kind of policing when this is the result? She could have been planning a trip to mars. The fact is that she hit the officer after accelerating towards him. That is a fact. It is on video from multiple angles. There is no "If" about it, she did make contact. And sitting here saying it was just a brush doesn't somehow mean the Officer was supposed to know all that in a split second. Tell you what, lets play a game. Post your address on here, I will drive my SUV over. You can stand in front of me and I will hit the gas. You get to guess which way I am going. I could turn left, I could turn right, I could go straight. Or, you can stand there and see if you can tell which way my wheels are turning after I start accelerating. The situation was escalated by her blocking the road and harassing ICE. They were literally there to be agitators and interfere. She was given a lawful command to exit the vehicle, that is not "escalation" anymore than any law enforcement action is. She was armed with a vehicle. Lets play my game again, you can stand there in the road and let me know if it is deadly or not when I run you over. She was not shot for speeding, she was shot because she was running into an Officer. She was not shot for fleeing the scene. She was shot because she was fleeing the scene into an Officer. Quote
blackbird Posted January 10 Author Report Posted January 10 2 hours ago, User said: The Officer did not have time to step out of the way, as he was hit. That is a pure lie. He moved out of the way and then shot her. If he had been hit, he would have been knocked down and would not have been able to aim his gun and shot her twice. The vehicle may have just barely touched his clothes as he stepped aside, but he was not directly hit or knocked down. So there was no reason to shoot her. Quote
User Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 7 minutes ago, blackbird said: That is a pure lie. He moved out of the way and then shot her. No, you are either lying or didn’t watch any of the video. We have a picture of a bullet hole through the windshield. We have video from the officer and multiple others all showing he was in front of of the vehicle when she started accelerating and eventually hitting him. 9 minutes ago, blackbird said: If he had been hit, he would have been knocked down and would not have been able to aim his gun and shot her twice. The vehicle may have just barely touched his clothes as he stepped aside, but he was not directly hit or knocked down. So there was no reason to shoot her. There is no if. It’s on multiple videos. he was hit. The fact that he was moving out of the way enough to be hit less only proves it would have been worse had he not had to try to move. The reason to shoot comes BEFORE being hit. Not after. Quote
WestCanMan Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said: Nope. She was turning. If any contact was made with the agent, it was a brush because the agent remained sturdy on his feet. It’s obvious that the vehicle was turning. The driver wasn’t trying to hit the agent who was unnecessarily escalating the situation. Sorry Z, but that's not true at all. If you look strictly at the moments before and during the shooting, you'll see that: she was very aware of the fact that she was under arrest because officers were all around her, yelling at her and approaching her vehicle she was driving extremely recklessly: she accelerated quickly backwards and then abruptly forwards, with people all around her at the time she started accelerating forwards she was accelerating towards an officer, and that's 100% certain because her vehicle ended up hitting him. If she was never accelerating towards him, then she never would have hit him. Case closed. FWIW, with the benefit of hindsight, I can see that she was most likely going to be able to turn far enough to avoid the officer, but in that brief moment before he shot her, he just saw a vehicle quickly accelerating towards him, and he reacted quickly and lawfully. He could have only guessed that she was going to turn the wheel far enough to maybe avoid him during the instant that he went to shoot her, and no one guesses at "life and death" if they don't have to. His job isn't to take unnecessary chances with his life, and she's not allowed to put officers lives at risk in an attempt to flee. And yeah, cops take risks to make arrests ALL THE TIME. If they didn't, they wouldn't need SWAT teams. They decided that woman needed to be arrested, and even that is 100% not up for dispute by either side. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you take the last hours of that day into account, that woman was breaking the law constantly, and got away with it many, many times. She had to cross the line a ridiculous number of times to finally prompt an arrest. So this wasn't a case of bully officers inflicting themselves on her, she was being a stupid ho for hours while they put up with her, and she eventually went way too far, prompting an officer to lawfully take her life in defence of his own. If you take her whole story into account, she's a woman who lost full custody of her first two children. Sorry, but that just screams "loser with huge issues". It's nearly impossible for a man to win full custody in this day and age. A real-life judge actually ruled her a "loser of the lowest order" in a modern court of law, and what people witnessed that whole day was also just her being that much of a loser, and inflicting herself on others. This whole story, from top to bottom involves: a huge loser, who had major issues all her life politicians and prominent celebrities seditiously urging that woman to break laws that are implicitly understood by everyone on the planet law enforcement officers being more than humanly patient with her for hours while she 3a) broke the law, 3b) made their work harder and 3c) made their job more dangerous, by alerting perps that the ICE agents were coming. her eventually being stupid and unlawful enough to prompt her lawful arrest her exercising poor enough judgment to put the lives of officers in jeopardy Z: no set of judicial/enforcement regs can prevent all stragglers like her from their date with Darwin's laws. In any system where there's a confluence of so many high-level flaws present, catastrophe is at hand. If that was aeronautics, a plane would crash. If it was a bungee jumping company, someone would plummet to their death. If she was an irresponsible teenager driving some drunk friends home, there woulda been a car accident. Etc. Darwin, Darwin, Darwin, Darwin, Darwin. As a society, we have to be willing to see some crakhomama's get mowed down, and some speeders are gonna crash and burn. We can't take the cops' guns away and we can't put the speed limit down to 30k and rigidly enforce it. Edited January 10 by WestCanMan Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
blackbird Posted January 10 Author Report Posted January 10 (edited) 17 hours ago, User said: No, you are either lying or didn’t watch any of the video. We have a picture of a bullet hole through the windshield. We have video from the officer and multiple others all showing he was in front of of the vehicle when she started accelerating and eventually hitting him. There is no if. It’s on multiple videos. he was hit. The fact that he was moving out of the way enough to be hit less only proves it would have been worse had he not had to try to move. The reason to shoot comes BEFORE being hit. Not after. What you're saying doesn't make any sense. If he was hit from the front, he would have been knocked down. He wasn't knocked down. How was he able to aim his gun and shoot her twice if he had been hit by the vehicle in any serious way? That's the question you can't answer. If he stepped out of the way of the vehicle, which he must have or he would have been knocked down, why did he shoot her? There was no threat to him if he already stepped out of way. So according to you, he was in front of the vehicle near the side when he shot her. Instead of stepping out of the way, he chose to shoot her twice instead. Then stepped out of the way. Is that how it happened? Doesn't sound like self defence. Edited January 10 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 10 Author Report Posted January 10 15 hours ago, West said: We are witnessing Democrats pumping out propaganda while they rob the tax payers blind How are they robbing taxpayers? Trump is trying to cut or reduce medicare subsidies. Is that a good plan? Quote
West Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 Just now, blackbird said: How are they robbing taxpayers? Trump is trying to cut or reduce medicare subsidies. Is that a good plan? Have you followed the fraud stories? Quote
blackbird Posted January 10 Author Report Posted January 10 Just now, West said: Have you followed the fraud stories? No. Are you aware Trump is trying to reduce subsidies that would affect medicare? 1 Quote
West Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 4 minutes ago, blackbird said: No. Are you aware Trump is trying to reduce subsidies that would affect medicare? perhaps this is why Quote
User Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 2 hours ago, blackbird said: What you're saying doesn't make any sense. What I am saying is simply an observable fact from the video we have. 2 hours ago, blackbird said: If he was hit from the front, he would have been knocked down. He wasn't knocked down. There is no "if" he was in fact hit by the car. Just because you are hit doesn't mean you get knocked down, as he was moving out of the way to the side and got twisted a bit. Again, all on video. 2 hours ago, blackbird said: How was he able to aim his gun and shoot here twice if he had been hit by the vehicle in any serious way? That the question you can't answer. He was drawing his firearm as soon as he seen the vehicle start moving towards him, he was fast enough that he was able to get a shot off just about as he was being struck by the vehicle. There is a bullet in the windshield to confirm this as well as all of the video. 2 hours ago, blackbird said: If he stepped out of way of the vehicle, which he must have or he would have been knocked down, why did he shot her? Asked and answered above. 2 hours ago, blackbird said: There was no threat to him if he already stepped out of way. He had not done so when he fired the first round as he was getting hit. Again, all on video. 2 hours ago, blackbird said: If he shot her while he was in front of the vehicle, she would not have been in control of the vehicle because he shot her in the head. Momentum... have you ever taken a physics class? 2 hours ago, blackbird said: So according to you, he was in front of the vehicle near the side when he shot her. Instead of stepping out of the way, he chose to shoot her twice instead. Then stepped out of the way. Is that how it happened? Doesn't sound like self defence. No, the video clearly shows him in front of the vehicle. Shows him getting hit by the vehicle. Shows the bullet hole through the front windshield. You can't argue these facts, so you just ask a bunch of questions. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 17 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: The issue is that a woman was shot and killed for obstructing the roadway. No she wasn't. She weaponized her vehicle. That is why she was shot. 17 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: She could’ve been redirected and removed in other less volatile ways. That is what they tried to do and she tried to run a man over. 17 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: The weaponized vehicle argument is a stretch that won’t pass muster with the majority of people in my opinion. Watch her back up the car, look him dead in the eye and punch it. There is no arguing her intent now. You can't say she was scared. You can't say she panicked. You can hear her wife yell at her to drive. You can see her focus in on the guy as she drops her foot down to accelerate. She is a "victim" of her own actions. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
John Stone Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 ................. if this guy can't avoid being baited he should put his hands in the air and back away from the mic. Quote
Barquentine Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 On 1/9/2026 at 7:35 AM, Michael Hardner said: The enslavement and corruption of COMFORT. What does that mean? Quote
Barquentine Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 23 hours ago, ironstone said: that would be an indication that the left could go and riot...again. Riots are useless , but are the exception. The vast majority of protests are peaceful. Quote
Barquentine Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 On 1/9/2026 at 11:45 AM, CDN1 said: weaponize mass civil unrest every time an illegal kills or rapes a citizen. What about when a citizen kills or rapes a citizen. It only upsets you when it's an immigrant? Quote
ironstone Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 14 minutes ago, Barquentine said: Riots are useless , but are the exception. The vast majority of protests are peaceful. Yeah, we've heard that line before. Quote Beware the Brookfield industrial complex...
Nationalist Posted January 10 Report Posted January 10 11 hours ago, blackbird said: How are they robbing taxpayers? Trump is trying to cut or reduce medicare subsidies. Is that a good plan? Yes. You dont like federal police. You steal federal funds. So you get none. Enjoy. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
blackbird Posted January 10 Author Report Posted January 10 (edited) 13 hours ago, User said: 15 hours ago, blackbird said: So according to you, he was in front of the vehicle near the side when he shot her. Instead of stepping out of the way, he chose to shoot her twice instead. Then stepped out of the way. Is that how it happened? Doesn't sound like self defence. No, the video clearly shows him in front of the vehicle. Shows him getting hit by the vehicle. Shows the bullet hole through the front windshield. You can't argue these facts, so you just ask a bunch of questions. You don't know where he was when he shot her. The video doesn't show that. One fact is clear. The bullet hole in the windshield was right by the front edge of the windshield. That seems to show he shot from near the front corner of the vehicle, not from directly in front. The woman would have been sitting in front of the steering wheel and he would have to have shot her from an angle, which he did. The location of the hole in the glass looks like it came from an angle, not from the front of the vehicle. However you and I are speculating. The investigators will have to determine that if it is possible. I don't hold out much hope there will be an impartial investigation. The government investing it are part of Trump's admin. It doesn't look like self defence. Shooting her from where he was standing, inches from the vehicle, would not and did not stop the motion of the vehicle. So what was the point of shooting her? Edited January 10 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 10 Author Report Posted January 10 11 hours ago, West said: perhaps this is why If fraud exists in the system, then stop the fraud. That is no justification for cutting off health care support to millions of people. Quote
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.