My Guess as to What Venezuelan Oil Means to the USA

[George Hatch]

These videos imo do not show a threat wrt Renee Good. No reason for them to have shown the first Baltimore video, but it was just a snippet. And half the people speaking on the video say that ICE was wrong!

ICE is not the police, and they have different obligations. But the result is an American citizen who was not a criminal is dead because of a poor decision on this agent's part. If he had PTSD from a prior incident, he should have been given paid time off/put on desk duty.

Trump incites poor decisions with his screaming about leftist lunatics and his vision of dystopian violence. The woman was a mother, and was dead for a minute when he and VP Pence and Noem smeared her. I know you don't care about how we look to the world, but for a POTUS to smear a dead woman the day of -even in grade school, bullies are looked down on.

The Baltimore vid is shown as an example of the risks this agent faced. Unknown/unknowable outcome of the driver's decision making until after the fact; she could have changed direction (and in fact did change direction) at any point during her UNLAWFUL advance. The agent is not required to take the hit before reacting.

She had no right to move even an inch in that moment, either forward or backwards. She had the duty to stop and submit. Even if she is a woman. She is dead as a direct result of her own unlawful decision making, not because ICE is grabbing up illegals for deportation and she's serving some higher moral purpose in obstructing those operations.

If this was some Westboro Baptist ******* who was harassing the slags who commit baby murder you and I would be on the same side of that discussion. Despite my sentiments toward those slags.

 

[J Grant]

The Baltimore vid is shown as an example of the risks this agent faced. Unknown/unknowable outcome of the driver's decision making until after the fact; she could have changed direction (and in fact did change direction) at any point during her UNLAWFUL advance. The agent is not required to take the hit before reacting.

She had no right to move even an inch in that moment, either forward or backwards. She had the duty to stop and submit. Even if she is a woman.

Do you have ot make everything about it being a woman? My comments on this would be exactly the same if it were a man.

He was not the police. She has rights as a citizen. Yes, people should submit, and if an officer says stop or exit a vehicle, they should. However, driving slowly away does not justify the use of deadly force. To you it does. Your opinion. But even other LOE or special ops do not agree on it.

IDK why you quit or left LOE. But they have regulations and standards and are not supposed to be cowboys. Deadly force is a last option, not a first option. Even American troops operate within ROE (( rules of engagement. )

 

[George Hatch]

I frame it in those terms in order for you to see the parallels. Deliberately so.

We're are apparently using the term "cops" differently. They are sworn law enforcement agents same as the state and municipal police. And their powers of arrest are not limited to illegals. If I switched my wording to "agents" you're still going to object to all the reasoning that is being used. Whereas my "cops" semantics have no bearing on my arguments.

Her rights did not include the right to pose a proximate and unlawful threat to the "agent". That's where your "rights as a citizen" argument collapses. If I point a gun (or a Honda Pilot) at you at that proximity, I have no right to require you to not respond unless/until I shoot you. That you probably can't respond to me as a result of being unarmed doesn't add to my rights or the lack thereof as far as my misconduct goes. If you had a lawful carry in that example your right to self-defense would be the same as a cop's right.

 

[J Grant]

The MAGA Faithful Still Embraces Lies

Many people believe what they wish to believe, and when that impulse hardens into political identity, facts and truth become disposable while anything that flatters “their values” becomes sacred.

sofrep.com

I frame it in those terms in order for you to see the parallels. Deliberately so.

We're are apparently using the term "cops" differently. They are sworn law enforcement agents same as the state and municipal police. And their powers of arrest are not limited to illegals. If I switched my wording to "agents" you're still going to object to all the reasoning that is being used. Whereas my "cops" semantics have no bearing on my arguments.

Her rights did not include the right to pose a proximate and unlawful threat to the "agent". That's where your "rights as a citizen" argument collapses.

But she did not pose a proximate and unlawful threat to the agent.

She was an unarmed civilian, driving slowly away from the curb, trying to avoid hitting him.

 

[George Hatch]

Stop, Just stooop.
She was armed with a vehicle, which the Baltimore vid clearly demonstrates as a weapon when threatened or used in that matter. (which is why I posted it in this discussion) You may perhaps have previously heard of the term "vehicular assault". If not you can look it up.

That vid also demonstrates that the proximity is one of the elements to that threat. A little different if they were 20ft apart.

Cops are explicitly trained with the 21ft rule. Suspect armed with a knife can cover 21ft - on foot - before a cop can draw/fire accurately enough to stop the threat. By comparison, 4 of 5ft in a car can happen in an instant. Just like it did in that Baltimore vid. In that vid the only reason the cop got a shot off was because they already had their aim.

 

[J Grant]

Stop, Just stooop.
She was armed with a vehicle, which the Baltimore vid clearly demonstrates as a weapon when threatened or used in that matter. (which is why I posted it in this discussion) You may perhaps have previously heard of the term "vehicular assault". If not you can look it up.

That vid also demonstrates that the proximity is one of the elements to that threat. A little different if they were 20ft apart.

Cops are explicitly trained with the 21ft rule. Suspect armed with a knife can cover 21ft - on foot - before a cop can draw/fire accurately enough to stop the threat. By comparison, 4 of 5ft in a car can happen in an instant. Just like it did in that Baltimore vid. In that vid the only reason the cop got a shot off was because they already had their aim.

She was not "armed with a vehicle."

She was driving an SUV. She was not using the SUV as a weapon (trying to ram him or run him down or driving at speed ). She was slowly pulling away from the curb. He was not in the vehicle's path; he was on the side of it. All he needed to do was take a step back to clear any possibility of coming in contact with it. And he continued shooting after she had pulled far enough away from him to eliminate any excuse of a threat.

He put himself into such close proximity to the vehicle. All he had to do was record her license plate and they could have charged or arrested her later. If your son or wife was parked and surrounded by ICE agents and the same scenario unfolded, would you be defending the agents' actions? You might say they would have stopped and obeyed. But what if, for some reason, they didnt't? Some people get confused or panic in a situation like this.

If the agent had PTSD and that exaggerated the threat he felt, or triggered a reaction of deadly force inappropriately, he should not have been on active duty - his life is affected now too.

 

[Mike Ault]

I don't know any man who would've deliberately taken three shots at a beta woman who was obviously fleeing in a similar situation. He needs to be working in "the records division", not "the enforcement division".

 

[Charles West]

I don't know any man who would've deliberately taken three shots at a beta woman who was obviously fleeing in a similar situation. He needs to be working in "the records division", not "the enforcement division".

Right on time with perfect 20-20 hindsight, counselor. If she weren't a crash and burn mother, she would've been at home taking care of her babies, or at a minimum, thought and considered what could possibly go wrong, impeding, and assaulting federal ICE officers in their line of duty. Seems pretty high risk to me for $25 an hour, even worse because she had to drive up from Missouri with her wife/husband and three babies, probably in the winter, just to join in the half-witted fun of smart-alecky harassing police. Seems to me making ends meet by picking up change on the side of the freeway would have a better outcome. at least that is quasi-legal, stupid, but borderline legal.

 

[Alsie35]

 

[Mike Ault]

Right on time with perfect 20-20 hindsight, counselor. If she weren't a crash and burn mother, she would've been at home taking care of her babies, or at a minimum, thought and considered what could possibly go wrong, impeding, and assaulting federal ICE officers in their line of duty. Seems pretty high risk to me for $25 an hour, even worse because she had to drive up from Missouri with her wife/husband and three babies, probably in the winter, just to join in the half-witted fun of smart-alecky harassing police. Seems to me making ends meet by picking up change on the side of the freeway would have a better outcome. at least that is quasi-legal, stupid, but borderline legal.

"Obey or die" is not how Americans are taught to respond to the police, counselor. What law school did you graduate from? I believe they need to "claw back" your sheepskin.