In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
After being corrected 20 times he insists on his ******ed belief that ICE has the lawful authority to enforce traffic violations. It’s because he googled for four minutes, not because of confirmation bias, ok!
dude your so dense I said 3 times even a 20 second google search confirmed for me thats true. Were talking about a completely different thing its not my fault you can't read . Ice can do everything else and even your "traffic violation" can easily just be thrown under another category which is what we were discussing....
If a "traffic violation" is "obstructing" them they can arrest. my god even a left wing youtuber I put on for 5 minutes acknowledged this . your clueless. you keep spouting the same one line you heard somewhere without looking into it deeper
Are you so dumb that you believe ICE agents are empowered to make traffic arrests or DUI? Just looooooooooooool.
NO LMAO WHY DO YOU GUYS KEEP SAYING THIS FOR THE 5TH TIME I HAVE NEVER SIAD THIS LMAO. the problem is you guys hear traffic violation and think that involves every traffic situation. Is there some incorrect reddit post about how you can just block ice cars in and they can't do anything about it? because this is absurd
NO LMAO WHY DO YOU GUYS KEEP SAYING THIS FOR THE 5TH TIME I HAVE NEVER SIAD THIS LMAO. the problem is you guys hear traffic violation and think that involves every traffic situation. Is there some incorrect reddit post about how you can just block ice cars in and they can't do anything about it? because this is absurd
Can you demonstrate where an "ice car" was blocked in?
Is there any factual basis for claiming the IDF trains ICE agents? Looking for a legitimate source.
Lol Yahweh himself wouldn't change your mind
presumably that's why you would put your car sideways on the road. do you have another theory why someone would want to put their car sideways on the road and honk their horn and say NO ICE . Like im talking to children here your just getting hung up on the silliest points. less so you then the others. I was afraid you were gonna ask me why i think ice has the power to enforce a traffic violation for a second there.
Lol I wish ice agents got training in Israel there would be +1 American. im sure a couple did get trained to give victor a headline but I doubt its any meaningful numbers . and you know what's wrong with the idf training police seems like a good tax rebate
presumably that's why you would put your car sideways on the road. do you have another theory why someone would want to put their car sideways on the road.
Yes, this has already been discussed in this thread. Do you understand that you aren't blocked in if you can just drive past? You do realize that the killer had already driven past her, right? They weren't "blocked in."
This is what adult conversation is like, bud. You are not going to just get away with spreading misinformation without getting called on it, and you certainly aren't going to be allowed to use it to support any claims.
These are not silly points. If they are blocked in, it could be considered obstruction, which is actionable. They were DEMONSTRABLY not blocked in. It cannot be obstruction if they could just drive past them. That would make the entire encounter improper, not just the obvious murder. These are not semantics. This is not wordplay. This is not silly. IT'S THE ENTIRE GD POINT.
I'm sorry that you think law enforcement should just be able to go off of vibes because it's real time, but the real adult world doesn't work that way.
you do realize we did not see the full interaction and they could have blocked the entire road at some point? and blocking half the road is the same thing? Making them arive at half speed to their destination is literally still obstruction.... You cant imped them in any shape or form. and i mean if were being honest no one cares about that silly rule you keep bringing up. and the traffic situation has little to do with the women not complying and the officer shooter here so I dont know why its your strongest defense. Them choosing to arrest her lawful or not does take away the officers right to defend himself and it does not make it legal for a karen to almost run him over
you do realize we did not see the full interaction and they could have blocked the entire road at some point?
Yes. And this is why, and pay attention here, I HAVE NOT MADE ANY POSITIVE CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. I have not said "she never obstructed them." I have simply demanded evidence from those that claim she did.
Which has not been provided. By anyone. Despite the extra minutes of footage, multiple camera angles, and the powerful Trump administration trying to excuse this behavior.
No. Blocking half the road is not the same thing as blocking the entire road.
Making them arive at half speed to their destination is literally still obstruction.... You cant imped them in any shape or form. and i mean if were being honest no one cares about that silly rule you keep bringing up
Be careful. You are making more bold claims that require support. Are you prepared to support them?
And LOL no one cares about what silly rule? Be specific.
ive already admitted there's not definite proof of obstruction from the 30 second videos multiple times but the new 4 minute ones have dropped. Its not really my job to take a 30 second of video and give you evidence.
The "rule" where you think they have to completely block someone in and not just partially. you keep saying this like it matters. like a car covering 70% vs 100% of the road leaving enough room to barely get around slow is not as bad. it may not be the exact same thing but legally it might I bet you haven't even looked into it that much its still probably going to go into the books as obstruction
ive already admitted there's not definite proof of obstruction from the 30 second videos multiple times but the new 4 minute ones have dropped. Its not really my job to take a 30 second of video and give you evidence.
Correct. It's not your job. But it is your burden if you want to make a claim and not have it just be ignored because it is not supported by any evidence. That is entirely up to you.
As of now you have provided zero support for your claim. That's fine. But it's the same amount of support I would have for a claim that a random person (not necessarily you) molests their children. Just something to bear in mind.
The "rule" where you think they have to completely block someone in and not just partially.
The actual rule is just what obstruction means. Obstruction means preventing them from doing their job. If they can just drive normally past them, they are not being prevented from doing their job.
You claim that slowing them down could count as obstruction. That is an extremely tenuous claim. It would require proving that their job required them to reach a certain place in a certain time and that they were intentionally slowing them down. That is a tall bar when they apparently weren't in a big hurry to begin with (given they had time to stop and pick a fight with a lady and lost so badly the guy had to shoot her in the head to save face).
And you keep pretending it doesn't.
like a car covering 70% vs 100% of the road leaving enough room to barely get around slow is not as bad. it may not be the exact same thing but legally it might I bet you haven't even looked into it that much its still probably going to go into the books as obstruction
You should not assume that everyone else is as ignorant of the way the law works as you appear to be.
also in the new video posted like 5-7 hours ago you can clearly see her sitting in the entire road (not half the entire road) while dancing and spamming her horn at about the :41 second mark give it a search its about 3:32 long. we hear her horn for nearly the entire video. this was about 3 minutes before the more famous shorter videos. ah maybe its more like 80% why is this a one way road btw..... we see ice cars backing up as well
Lol Yahweh himself wouldn't change your mind
So there’s no factual basis for claiming that ICE agents are trained by the IDF. Got it.
The IDF has no involvement in the formal training of ICE agents.
Did you even read the article you linked? ****ing clown.
There is no justification for the first shot because his gun should have never been unholstered to begin with. I'd love to hear the reasons why a couple of Karen's were posing an immediate physical threat to either the officers or the public at the time that called for a gun to be drawn. If he had never fired he should have probably been suspended just for drawing his gun in that situation.
Do you think anyone here with zero training is going to fear for their safety in that situation enough to put a gun in their hand?
Another example of this cretin shitting all over the place with lies and deceit. The only guarantee with Victor is that he intentionally misrepresents the truth.
eventually one gets bye but it took a bit. so shes completely blocking one lane and slowing the other lane to a crawl. how is that not obstruction ? thats effecting both lanes
I didn't say it wasn't obstruction. It might be. I would have to look, but it sounds pretty tenuous if they had the ability to drive past. There would be a lot of things they would have to prove to demonstrate it was obstruction, but I would probably agree it might qualify as probable cause.
There is no justification for the first shot because his gun should have never been unholstered to begin with. I'd love to hear the reasons why a couple of Karen's were posing an immediate physical threat to either the officers or the public at the time that called for a gun to be drawn. If he had never fired he should have probably been suspended just for drawing his gun in th
wdym car drives towards you resisting arrest your trained to shot driver in the face. Not sure thats how it is but it should be. 99% of people would just say screw that tho its a little fed up and focus on dodging which is the better play. sure she steered away from him but you can't tell in the heat of the moment its split seconds. a few videos show her looking right at him which I mean doesn't mean intent I don't think she had intent but a rookie gunman might not know that
wdym car drives towards you resisting arrest your trained to shot driver in the face. Not sure thats how it is but it should be. 99% of people would just say screw that tho its a little fed up and focus on dodging which is the better play. sure she steered away from him but you can't tell in the heat of the moment its split seconds. a few videos show her looking right at him wh
Yeah that’s not how it’s supposed to be and the US has been dealing with police brutality issues for a long time. The immediate response should not be to shoot someone in the face.
Where are these brave soldiers to shoot people in the face during school shootings?
This guy gunned down an unarmed white blonde lady.
And as an aside Victor is a worm who should not be allowed to post the mods should be ashamed.
wdym car drives towards you resisting arrest your trained to shot driver in the face. Not sure thats how it is but it should be. 99% of people would just say screw that tho its a little fed up and focus on dodging which is the better play. sure she steered away from him but you can't tell in the heat of the moment its split seconds. a few videos show her looking right at him wh
In fact, no. That is not how they are trained.
DOJ policy on use of deadly force:
1-16.200 - USE OF DEADLY FORCE AND PROHIBITED RESTRAINT TECHNIQUES
A. Deadly Force
Law enforcement and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.
Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.
Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.
wdym car drives towards you resisting arrest your trained to shot driver in the face. Not sure thats how it is but it should be. 99% of people would just say screw that tho its a little fed up and focus on dodging which is the better play. sure she steered away from him but you can't tell in the heat of the moment its split seconds. a few videos show her looking right at him wh
If you're worried about getting ran over by a car, don't stand in front of the car. She was being super annoying and "disobedient" but was not posing any physical threat to anybody. There was no reason to have a gun out in the first place.
Officer-created jeopardy is a good thing to research on that topic.
liberals are debating on if this was legal.
Right and the argument is the officer was in danger from the vehicle which in that very rule says you can use deadly force . no one in the entire world is disputing 1-16.200 its if it justified by section 2
"Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force."
5 south we all make mistakes obvious the officer made a tactical error with positioning but does that mean he has no right to defend himself if he meets the above criteria? No of course not his mistake does not effect the later outcome
