Breaking: Woman shot while trying to kill ICE agents in Minnesota

[Bitterhook]

What would you do, if a car backed up putting you in front of it?

Well, that depends on whether or not I had to consider there might be a Progressive Liberal complete idiot behind the wheel, that has no real business pointing their vehicle at me, isn't helping anyone achieve anything worthwhile, and already fails to demonstrate even an inkling of sense, as well as any care in the world for their own safety or the safety of others.

 

[el midgetron]

 

[TimFitz]

You can see that she struck the officer. Also, where was the outrage when that very same officer was struck and dragged by another person who weaponized their vehicle?

Why did the dumbass repeat the mistake that got him dragged in the first place?

 

[Bitterhook]

You had better get used to it. The rapid growth of all sorts of survaillance, and the use of AI to sort through it is rapidly giving reality a rewind button.

This yet another example.

Oh, am I used to it and not in the least bit concerned about what it might mean to me, because I don't go around doing stupid shit nor do I rely on a bunch of nitwits pretending it is some mystery how anything happened to make excuses for me.

 

[el midgetron]

It’s manufactured outrage. Liberals are sheep who bleat on command.

 

[JoeB131]

sorry, this Agent is toast... Similar cases, the cops went to jail.

Prison sentence for cop who shot into car of unarmed black teens will deter misconduct - The Chicago Reporter

Police officers, who work in an organization designed to serve and protect the public, will see a colleague’s prison sentence as a powerful deterrent to reckless and unlawful acts, such as those in this case.

www.chicagoreporter.com

GA Cop Gets Community Service in Fatal Shooting of Black Man

www.theroot.com

 

[JoeB131]

It’s manufactured outrage. Liberals are sheep who bleat on command.

Oh, get real. We've been saying for months that the reckless behavior and culture of ICE was going to lead to an incident like this, sooner or later.

I guess it's sooner.

 

[el midgetron]

Oh, get real. We've been saying for months that the reckless behavior and culture of ICE was going to lead to an incident like this, sooner or later.

I guess it's sooner.

Yet you never said anything during the arrest of +100k illegals every year Biden was in office. Because…… your masters never told you to.

 

[el midgetron]

Oh, get real. We've been saying for months that the reckless behavior and culture of ICE was going to lead to an incident like this, sooner or later.

I guess it's sooner.

You leftists have also been promising for months to murder people. I’ve posted numerous recent videos in this thread.

 

[TimFitz]

Oh, am I used to it and not in the least bit concerned about what it might mean to me, because I don't go around doing stupid shit nor do I rely on a bunch of nitwits pretending it is some mystery how anything happened to make excuses for me.

OK.

That doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand.

There is little doubt that the timing, angles, of fire have already been worked out, and the FBI has a very clear idea of what happened.

 

[BS Filter]

The Minneapolis insurrection has been stymied today. Yelling obscenities, flipping the bird and spitting doesn't appear to be working.

 

[j-mac]

The Supreme Court has rejected any and all, moment of danger, arguments and requires that the entire chain of events leading up to a shooting be taken into account, including officer created danger outcomes like the one Ross was involved in.

• Brosseau v. Haugen (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004) – An officer in Washington state (Officer Brosseau) shot a fleeing suspect (Haugen) who was in a Jeep, allegedly to prevent him from escaping and possibly harming others nearby[14]. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, did not definitively rule on whether the shooting was constitutional, but it granted the officer qualified immunity. The Court noted that prior cases (including Garner) didn’t clearly resolve whether shooting Haugen under those particular facts was unlawful[14]. Importantly, the Court listed examples where shooting at a moving vehicle was deemed reasonable, suggesting that if an officer has a reasonable belief that a fleeing driver poses an imminent threat to officers or bystanders, deadly force can be permissible. (Haugen had been trying to escape arrest for a violent offense and the officer feared he’d run over someone). Brosseau is often cited to show that in close-call situations, officers might not be held personally liable due to unclear law – but it doesn’t give a blank check. The scenario still must present a significant danger.

 

[Bitterhook]

OK.

That doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand.

There is little doubt that the timing, angles, of fire have already been worked out, and the FBI has a very clear idea of what happened.

But it does, and I am sorry it isn't more convenient to your empty assertions that camera angle makes a damn bit of difference to the decisions made by all the parties present at the point of contact. I cannot help it that you don't ******* understand real-life and reality don't have monday-morning-quarterbacking and rewind options.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why did the dumbass repeat the mistake that got him dragged in the first place?

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen. We now have permission to run over protesters who block the street because they shouldn’t be dumbass enough to make the mistake of being in front of a car

 

[el midgetron]

 

[BS Filter]

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen. We now have permission to run over protesters who block the street because they shouldn’t be dumbass enough to make the mistake of being in front of a car

Agree. Blocking traffic isn't protest. It's illegal.

 

[citygator]

clear as day.

 

[krichton]

• Brosseau v. Haugen (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004) – An officer in Washington state (Officer Brosseau) shot a fleeing suspect (Haugen) who was in a Jeep, allegedly to prevent him from escaping and possibly harming others nearby[14]. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, did not definitively rule on whether the shooting was constitutional, but it granted the officer qualified immunity. The Court noted that prior cases (including Garner) didn’t clearly resolve whether shooting Haugen under those particular facts was unlawful[14]. Importantly, the Court listed examples where shooting at a moving vehicle was deemed reasonable, suggesting that if an officer has a reasonable belief that a fleeing driver poses an imminent threat to officers or bystanders, deadly force can be permissible. (Haugen had been trying to escape arrest for a violent offense and the officer feared he’d run over someone). Brosseau is often cited to show that in close-call situations, officers might not be held personally liable due to unclear law – but it doesn’t give a blank check. The scenario still must present a significant danger.

A lot of things have changed since 2004. Back then the law was still ruled unclear, despite a much earlier ruling in Tennesse vs Garner. This is what allowed qualified immunity to shield the officer from liability in Brosseau v Haugen. Since then, the law has clearly established that shooting an unarmed driver when they could have avoided a moving vehicle is a violation of the 4th amendment. So Ross would likely not get qualified immunity as a result.

 

[krichton]

I had little enough to say about that January thing. Look elsewhere if that's your deal.

And that is what precisely?

 

[krichton]

Why did the dumbass repeat the mistake that got him dragged in the first place?

Some ppl are simply untrainable. Ross is not only a danger to himself but to others around him.