New evidence being reported in Minn. Shooting
The woman deliberately blocked ICE from moving forward, causing protestors to gather around them. The officer who fired the shots had previously been rammed and dragged down a street.
FOX video shows Vance and Noem saying this.
Replies to: New evidence being reported in Minn. Shooting
Open and shut. Woman tried to drive over innocent officer. Incarcerate MN mayor.
(no message)
None of that evidence provides Deadly Force. It actually helps the homicide case.
The unhinged ICE agent now seemingly had a motive to retaliate for being "rammed and dragged down the street."
Wrong. She gunned her 2000+lb SUV w officer just in front. Happily,ice caused tires to spin at first
The agent did not raise his gun until she gunned the engine.
The agent may very well have saved his own life - we will never know.
But every shot was necessary until he knew he was no longer being attacked with the SUV. Whether the girl meant to do it or not is irrelevant after she put herself in that situation. The agent had no means nor time to assess her intent.
Watch the video. Ask yourself how firing his weapon prevented him from being struck by car?
Thank God you are not a law enforcement instructor.
She veered off afterwards. She was a radical ICE stalker-prove she wasn’t a threat. She gunned it &
even made contact.
Whether she did it intentionally (which is very possible given her obvious dislike of ICE agents as has recently come out), or just panicked is unknown - but irrelevant.
Her/His partner got out of the car before the confrontation to video record the event on her phone. So clearly, an intentional confrontation was planned and created by the woman. Good also knew that she was being recorded, so she was likely extra brave and stupid for the video - perhaps that emboldened her and made her action more aggressive.
Very sad. So stupid.
Did she realize that she or her anti- ICE colleagues had already hit that agent with a car and dragged him 30 feet already?
He well knew the threat the SUV posed, and acted in self preservation.
As you know being struck by the car is not required to justify the shooting. But he was struck.
The distant video seemed to show that he was bounced back and to the side as the car sped by.
As to being a law enforcement instructor, I appreciate your point. LEO's used to focus on restraint. That was a primary difference between them and the military. But now, it seems that the #1 priority is to "get home safe." I get that, of course, but it shouldn't be at the expense of innocent citizens, and innocent citizens are killed. Just for example, wrong house no knock raids are far more common than they should be. Maybe we should start training more on restraint. And get rid of the military uniforms and military equipment that our police are using.
The car accelerating toward him is sufficient to justify the shooting. All else is noise.
(no message)
As FrankL would confirm, each of three shots has to be justified use of deadly force.
And I do not concede the firsts shot was "a good shoot."
The car was not "weaponized" to permit the first shot. The agent's life was not in peril.
Every shot was through the FRONT windshield, proving that the agent was at risk when fired
since we know the vehicle kept moving.
If there were shots through the side or back window from his gun, you would have a point - but they are not on the side or back windows, so you don’t have a point.
Your concessions mean nothing. You are a partisan with partisan concerns.
An honest investigation will show path of bullets.
A bullet traveling through front windshield does not necessarily mean the shooter was in front of SUV’s path when trigger squeezed.
Deadly force is not meant to be opportunistic.
Yes, a bullet hole in front window DOES mean agent was in front of car when trigger was squeezed
I hope that you are not serious.
The guy on the video was in front - he is who fired. He is not faster than a speeding bullet, nor is the SUV.
I can tell you are grasping because you had not considered the location of the bullet holes as proof that the agents life was threatened- just wow!
If you think you are going to argue that the killing shot came after she went by and he reached around and shot her from the side door and the bullet then went out the front - in other words, an impossible event - you are going to lose that argument. That is probably where you plan to vlaim that the ballistics can’t be trusted because of Trump.
You are not good at this.
Unfortunately, I can't cross examine Frank_L. This is like Tryone's personal secret info below.
Setting aside the first shot, officers often empty their pistols. 3 shots = restraint.
I think you guys are making political points here, not legal points. I think you would be saying different things if you were in court instead of on an internet forum.
Whether or not the driver intended to "weaponize" the car is really only relevant if the authorities decide to try to charge the passenger with felony murder (as an accomplice to a felony being perpetrated by the driver which resulted in the death of the driver). I don't believe that Minnesota statute uses the subjective mindset of the assailant in the analysis of self defense. I'm not a Minnesota attorney (and neither was Frank_L), but I suspect that if the victim (the officer) was in reasonable fear of his life, he was authorized to shoot, regardless of what was in the mind of the driver. She didn't comply, and she therefore opened the door to all of this. Your political opinion of the situation also does not figure into whether or not he was in reasonable fear for his life.
btw, you. haven't responded to my post verifying that Trump is using physical threats against GOP
lawmakers and their families to gain their "support"...it's no "Secret". It's just like you to run off and avoid accountabliity.
Let me know when you post such a verification. I won't be holding my breath.
I figured it was obvious to everyone that your post was meaningless, and therefore my response was unnecessary. I also don't plan on debating conor regarding what Frank_L would say if he were still alive. Let's just stick to public facts.
No need to hold your breath any longer...see my OP above...an apology would be nice to hear, but I'm
not holding my breath. ;-)
Your OP? Your original post?
(no message)
"Unhinged" and "retaliate" are facts not in evidence counselor.
Was she not unhinged for deliberately blocking their passage and retaliating for being asked to get out of her car?
She saw the agent was in front of her car and proceeded without caution.
The video reflects otherwise.
(no message)
She clearly blocked passage, refused to exit the car, and ignored the agent’s safety.
The video clearly shows that.
Thank God you are not a law enforcement instructor.
(no message)
Oh OK now I'm totally cool with poorly trained goons shooting civilians three times in the face
(no message)
Get rammed by an SUV, dragged down the street and stitched 30 times and get back to us.
Your rhetoric suggests you are inciteful and not insightful.
If he was mentally fucked, then he should not have been deployed.
(no message)
And if he was not, he should have been deployed as an experienced agent.
You have no evidence of any psychological impairment.
Well, if she got hit 3 times, it sounds like he wasn't poorly trained. Sounds like he was trained
the right way.
Even a brainless Trumper would hit their target at point blank range.
(no message)
Which tells me he was trained properly. He's a 10 year vet of ICE not some newbie. Getting off
3 rounds in that time is good, no?
Awful training where it counts. He ruined his life because he was trigger happy…
Bad decision in his part and law enforcement is not his forte.
But he didn't ruin his life. He will be pardoned, and become a MAGA media celebrity.
He'll go on speaking tours. He'll appear at CIPAC.
He will be a hero.
Nothing is going to happen to him. He is going to be cleared and back in service.
(no message)
His reputation has been destroyed and if the incident is properly investigated…
He will be brought up on charges
Bet you a finski nothing happens.
(no message)
If the goal was to kill members of the public, his training was great.
(no message)
His job is to deport illegals and get home safely. I call it a successful day.
(no message)
Of course you would.
The only people you admire more than those who own the libs are are those who kill them.
What a hateful statement. Pure histrionics as usual.
(no message)
I believe you said each of these things.
(no message)
Link: https://x.com/dumbassphotoshp/status/2009271357310193968?s=61
You're wrong
(no message)
Context matters, even though the videos are exculpatory.
(no message)
He received 30 stitches from his previous encounter.
(no message)
So he was a loose cannon. Shocking.
(no message)
He's out there on the front lines while you sit behind a keyboard making wisecracks.
(no message)
I agree.
(no message)
And I've killed at least one fewer person.
If he was psychologically damaged, he shouldn't have been out there. Pretty much by definition.
So thanks for pointing it out and proving my point.
You've also killed at least one fewer person than Michael Byrd. Congratulations.
(no message)
Consent Management