Nationalist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 8 minutes ago, robosmith said: And when the officer is violating dept POLICY he is likely to get fired, if not indicted, unless he works for a corrupt boss who works for corrupt Trump. Ok...I might agree with you...if it's true the cop violated any policy or law. Unfortunately it looks like he did not. Thus...if you drive a car at an officer of the law, you're liable to get shot. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Hodad Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Lesson: if you drive a car at an officer of the law, you're liable to get shot. Why isn't the lesson "Don't try to block a car with your body (like training an policy tell you to not to do)." I have been skeptical from the beginning that they can make a criminal charge against Ross (though the video is pretty compelling), but I definitely think the family will win a civil case against the government and, depending on qualified immunity, against Ross. She may have been breaking the law, but he was in the wrong to shoot her for it. Nothing there rose to justification of deadly force. Edited March 6 by Hodad Quote
Nationalist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 minutes ago, Hodad said: Why isn't the lesson "Don't try to block a car with your body (like training an policy tell you to not to do)?" I have been skeptical from the beginning that they can make a criminal charge against Ross (though the video is pretty compelling), but I definitely think the family will win a civil case against the government and, depending on qualified immunity, against Ross. She may have been breaking the law, but he was in the wrong to shoot her for it. Nothing there rose to justification of deadly force. Why? Because dealing with the public is a fluid situation. Thus...if you drive a car at an officer of the law, you're liable to get shot. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
User Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 19 minutes ago, West said: In Canada if you start a malicious rumor about your collegue you'll likely face disciplinary action. I imagine its similar in the US Asking questions isn’t starting a rumor, the rumor already existed. She was dumb though, because she knew this and still kept him close and then in the hearing refused to answer the question directly. Maybe it’s true, maybe not, she handled it poorly. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 50 minutes ago, Hodad said: Oh, boy, armchair sports anatomy guy is here! You can make whatever excuses you want about what's "impossible" but it's a fact that he didn't really get hit. 5:30. Both angles synced up. His hands touch the car, but his body and legs do not. You can see quite a bit of daylight between them. Of course it's easier to understand in the video. He absolutely sweeps his left leg back before the vehicle could make contact. Your "deep expertise" on physiology aside, the camera didn't lie. You are watching a video frame-by-frame and dismissing what your lying eyes tell you because the Trump administration told a different story. That's some deep cult shit there. He contacted the car with his hands. If he did it hard enough he could have been bruised. That's my concession. And if you want to call a bruise "internal bleeding" you're just being deliberately dishonest. Nobody uses that description because it's reserved for a more serious condition. You're right though that she wasn't wrong. She was a deliberate liar. Over and over and over again. The difference between the two of you is that you won't get fired for it. He is literally getting hit in that picture. Why are you denying the obvious? 1 Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Hodad Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Why? Because dealing with the public is a fluid situation. Thus...if you drive a car at an officer of the law, you're liable to get shot. If the officers aren't following rules and laws, it seems like anything can get you shot. Not sure that's a viable lesson. They should have let her leave, taken down her plate number and arrested her later. That's all that should have happened. No need for that escalation. Quote
User Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 9 minutes ago, Hodad said: Why isn't the lesson "Don't try to block a car with your body (like training a policy tell you to not to do)?" 1. That isn’t what happened 2. Even if he did, that doesn’t justify running him over and mean he has to lay there and die 2 minutes ago, Hodad said: If the officers aren't following rules and laws, it seems like anything can get you shot. Not sure that's a viable lesson. They should have let her leave, taken down her plate number and arrested her later. That's all that should have happened. No need for that escalation. Your characterization of the event is not accurate. They can’t let her leave driving over an officer. Quote
Hodad Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: He is literally getting hit in that picture. Why are you denying the obvious? Lol. No, he's not. In the top picture you can see how far aw his left leg is. In the bottom you can see how far away his right leg is--as she's driving by. And as the video plays you can see the gap between car and body. He had his phone is his left hand and his gun in the right. He reaches out and leans into the car. then pushes off. That's the only contact. No body, no legs. Give these a try. Edited March 6 by Hodad Quote
Nationalist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 minute ago, Hodad said: If the officers aren't following rules and laws, it seems like anything can get you shot. Not sure that's a viable lesson. I've seen you Libbies say this over and over. Yet you cant come up with the rules or laws not followed. 3 minutes ago, Hodad said: They should have let her leave, taken down her plate number and arrested her later. That's all that should have happened. No need for that escalation She shouldn't have been obstructing law officers in the first place. If one begs for trouble, one has no standing to complain about trouble. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Nationalist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 minutes ago, Hodad said: Lol. No, he's not. In the top picture you can see how far aw his left leg is. In the bottom you can see how far away his right leg is--as she's driving by. And as the video plays you can see the gap between car and body. He had his phone is his left hand and his gun in the right. He reaches out and leans into the car. then pushes off. That's the only contact. No body, no legs. Give these a try. What part of 'it's actually irrelevant whether she hit the cop or not'...does not register with you? Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
LinkSoul60 Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: Ok so you accuse ICE of breaking the law...then cant name an instance when they've broken the law. You simply BS about the 4th amendment. Such nonsense. A good place to start is them murdering two innocent citizens...but hey, shît happens. Have a look at this link. If you need more lots of other sites to find instances of them breaking the law https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/ice-cbp-legal-analysis/ Quote
John Stone Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 hours ago, robosmith said: I don't believe a worthy scapegoat is actually a scapegoat. Scapegoats are by definition unworthy of the blame they are assgned. Some like LUser, like their BLINDERS. Noem was on borrowed time ......an opportunity presented itself and Trump took it to fire her. .............. arguably she was the perfect scapegoat in terms of position, lack of political allies and ................... PERFORMANCE!!! They say that there is no wrath as that of a woman scorned - Noem's been scorned - wonder if she has the ballz to bite the hand that fed her? On the other hand a Presidential Pardon might come in handy. Quote
Hodad Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 minute ago, Nationalist said: I've seen you Libbies say this over and over. Yet you cant come up with the rules or laws not followed. That's ridiculous. They've been "come up with" many times. here. He was not supposed to stand in front of the car or try to block the car with his body, because it puts officers at risk and can create a deadly encounter. He was not supposed to shoot the driver of the car unless in defense of someone's life, because doing so actually creates danger for others. He broke the rules and by virtue of breaking the rules broke the law in shooting her. Again, I skeptical that they could get a conviction due to the tight timing and reasonable expectations for processing the situation, but with time to examine the circumstances, he was clearly not justified. Like a close call overturned on instant replay. Quote She shouldn't have been obstructing law officers in the first place. If one begs for trouble, one has no standing to complain about trouble. Should or shouldn't isn't really at issue. But she probably could have been ticketed or charged for what she was doing. And no, even if one is committing a minor offense, one can still complain about an extreme overreaction to that offense. Speeding is begging for trouble. Double parking is begging for trouble. But a proportional response is expected, not lethal force. I'm sure it was annoying to the officers to have people honking and yelling, but they need to be better trained and met with high expectations to respond properly. Not to create a bad situation that ends in a shooting. Quote
Hodad Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 7 minutes ago, Nationalist said: What part of 'it's actually irrelevant whether she hit the cop or not'...does not register with you? It may not be relevant to whatever point you're trying to make, but the fact that he wasn't even hit, let alone "run over" is certainly relevant to the fact of Noem's lying. And it's certainly relevant to Gato, who insists that he was hit, even when the video shows otherwise. Quote
Hodad Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 3 minutes ago, John Stone said: Noem was on borrowed time ......an opportunity presented itself and Trump took it to fire her. .............. arguably she was the perfect scapegoat in terms of position, lack of political allies and ................... PERFORMANCE!!! They say that there is no wrath as that of a woman scorned - Noem's been scorned - wonder if she has the ballz to bite the hand that fed her? On the other hand a Presidential Pardon might come in handy. Nah, none of them have balls. Seriously, that lapdog sycophancy was a HUGE part of the selection process. Trump HATED it his first terms when he appointed some competent people who then responsibly resisted or blocked his whims. And who, after they left, told public how useless he is. 1 Quote
John Stone Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 minutes ago, Hodad said: That's ridiculous. They've been "come up with" many times. here. He was not supposed to stand in front of the car or try to block the car with his body, because it puts officers at risk and can create a deadly encounter. He was not supposed to shoot the driver of the car unless in defense of someone's life, because doing so actually creates danger for others. He broke the rules and by virtue of breaking the rules broke the law in shooting her. Again, I skeptical that they could get a conviction due to the tight timing and reasonable expectations for processing the situation, but with time to examine the circumstances, he was clearly not justified. Like a close call overturned on instant replay. Should or shouldn't isn't really at issue. But she probably could have been ticketed or charged for what she was doing. And no, even if one is committing a minor offense, one can still complain about an extreme overreaction to that offense. Speeding is begging for trouble. Double parking is begging for trouble. But a proportional response is expected, not lethal force. I'm sure it was annoying to the officers to have people honking and yelling, but they need to be better trained and met with high expectations to respond properly. Not to create a bad situation that ends in a shooting. They wuz both murdered. It ain't over - waaaaaay too political. "To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties," / Stephen Miller And they believed, HIM? Quote
gatomontes99 Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 22 minutes ago, Hodad said: Lol. No, he's not. In the top picture you can see how far aw his left leg is. In the bottom you can see how far away his right leg is--as she's driving by. And as the video plays you can see the gap between car and body. He had his phone is his left hand and his gun in the right. He reaches out and leans into the car. then pushes off. That's the only contact. No body, no legs. Give these a try. That body is in full contact with the car. You are in denial. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Hodad Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 minute ago, John Stone said: They wuz both murdered. It ain't over - waaaaaay too political. "To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties," / Stephen Miller And they believed, HIM? True. There's no statute of limitations on murder. Like all lizard people masquerading as humans, Stephen Miller speaks with forked tongue. Quote
John Stone Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 5 minutes ago, Hodad said: Nah, none of them have balls. Seriously, that lapdog sycophancy was a HUGE part of the selection process. Trump HATED it his first terms when he appointed some competent people who then responsibly resisted or blocked his whims. And who, after they left, told public how useless he is. yeah, ICE did get a bit over their skis. ...... in future they need to cover their a$$ - contrary to widespread rhetoric - their actions will be reviewed later and they will be investigated with prejudice. Quote
User Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 9 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: A good place to start is them murdering two innocent citizens...but hey, shît happens. Have a look at this link. If you need more lots of other sites to find instances of them breaking the law https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/ice-cbp-legal-analysis/ They didn’t murder two innocent civilians. Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 Just now, User said: They didn’t murder two innocent civilians. Yep, it was murder, plain and simple. 1 Quote
User Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 11 minutes ago, Hodad said: Nah, none of them have balls. Says the coward hiding from me. Quote
robosmith Posted March 6 Author Report Posted March 6 7 minutes ago, John Stone said: They wuz both murdered. It ain't over - waaaaaay too political. "To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties," / Stephen Miller And they believed, HIM? They do have "immunity" from Federal charges as long as Trump is willing and able to pardon them. Which is NOT forever. Quote
Hodad Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said: That body is in full contact with the car. You are in denial. That's for shrinking that down to the size of a postage stamp, but no, it's not. That's why syncing up the other angle is so important. This is the exact same moment. Look at the bottom image. His left hand is pushing off (in line with the other officer's arm) and his right has the gun extended. Look at all that daylight between body and car. Quote
Nationalist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 29 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: A good place to start is them murdering two innocent citizens...but hey, shît happens. Have a look at this link. If you need more lots of other sites to find instances of them breaking the law https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/ice-cbp-legal-analysis/ Nice link. Has any ICE agent been charged with any of these? Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
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.