Perhaps the best test of alternate realities - clear video of the shooting

[Mac-7]

he fired through the driver's window as the car was passing by him.

Thats a lib lie

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The first shot went through the windshield, so he was in front of her vehicle when she gunned i

And THAT violates policy

 

[Seymour Flops]

And THAT violates policy

View attachment 1204386

What is the rest of that sentence that I underlined, and why did you truncate it?

 

[Mac-7]

Thats a lib lie

I should say its a partial lib lie

The first shot was squarely through the winshield

 

[Rawley]

Trump, Vance, Noem, and most of MAGA here are saying he was hit.

Are they lying?

Even your master Frey had to admit she hit him. Are you guys still trying to deny that?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Here is the thing. It might be considered legal shoot, but also consider it incredibly bad move tactically. Many police agencies train to NOT stand in front of a vehicle for just what occurred.

The officer does have the right to defend himself from a perceived legal threat.

Even if thats a superkiller felon tactically if you shoot him when in front of the vehicle you just put a dead foot on the gas and the vehicle keeps going, just like what occurred. Further fellow officers are directly in the line of fire.

 

[SweetSue92]

Well Mac, did she hit the officer or not?

 

[beagle9]

Most of the time when someone says that someone was "hit" by a moving vehicle they mean that they are knocked down, dragged or worse. Her car made contact with him it appears but he put himself in her path which is against DHS policy.

And while her vehicle may have made contact with him by bumping him or physically moving him out of the way, all indications are that she was not aiming for him but instead trying to escape the situation she was in.

None of you have ever heard that it's not lawful for the police to shoot people in the back? A person who is attempting to get away from you is not posing an "imminent threat" of grievous bodily harm or death and I would wager that he shot her out of anger because she physically came in contact with him with her vehicle, ("how dare she TOUCH me, I'm a FEDERAL ICE AGENT" <eye roll>) but NOT because she was trying to run him over.

The way they carry themselves and behave towards the public, this was bound to happen. In fact, I predicted as much when Trump first started talking about wanting to do this because he has for some reason a real dislike of protestors, except for his J6 stooges (who were not protesting, at least not the right way)

Now this is a great example of a leftist attempting to manipulate, soften, and make a victim out of a law breaking leftist that done a very stupid thing that got her shot because of that stupid thing. You can actually read where the poster attempts to apply leftist thinking or manipulation in which creates the narrative. Once you've broken the codes, this stuff is as easy as pie to spot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This thread is less about the Minnesota shooting and more about how America has split into two different realities.

President Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary Noem and most MAGAs on this site are saying the ICE agent was "hit" or "run over".

This is easily the clearest view of the positioning of the vehicle and the shooter. At :09, she puts the vehicle in drive, you can see the tires turning to the right, and the shooting begins.

Please view this video and describe how the agent is "hit". Or, please tell me if you think Trump, Vance, Noem and MAGA are lying.

PLEASE DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SEE.

I see a cop who was not fearing for his life, as he did not try to get out of the way.

I see poor training that escalated a situation to a lethal confrontation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thats a lib lie

The video clearly shows him shooting into the passenger windows twice from the side of the van.

 

[Rawley]

Here is the thing. It might be considered legal shoot, but also consider it incredibly bad move tactically. Many police agencies train to NOT stand in front of a vehicle for just what occurred.

The officer does have the right to defend himself from a perceived legal threat.

Even if thats a superkiller felon tactically if you shoot him when in front of the vehicle you just put a dead foot on the gas and the vehicle keeps going, just like what occurred. Further fellow officers are directly in the line of fire.

And you don't shoot, you're endangering the folks behind you and down the road.

 

[beagle9]

Here is the thing. It might be considered legal shoot, but also consider it incredibly bad move tactically. Many police agencies train to NOT stand in front of a vehicle for just what occurred.

The officer does have the right to defend himself from a perceived legal threat.

Even if thats a superkiller felon tactically if you shoot him when in front of the vehicle you just put a dead foot on the gas and the vehicle keeps going, just like what occurred. Further fellow officers are directly in the line of fire.

More attempts to hang on to the narrative, although there is some slight capitulation in this post.

 

[leftwinger]

My problem with all this is the public commentary from the people at the top level of our government.

Got it. You are looking with your rabid TDS to find something to blame President Trump for this event. UtahMacStain much?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Got it. You are looking with your rabid TDS to find something to blame President Trump for this event. UtahMacStain much?

JFC, all you can think to do is gargle your Rape Daddy's balls, in this topic? Freak.

 

[Zincwarrior]

More attempts to hang on to the narrative, although there is some slight capitulation in this post.

Did you miss the part where I said it would be a legal shoot and why?

For clarity I think its legally a good shot. Tactically I think he was stupid for getting front of the car.

 

[Stryder50]

How about this. Imagine I tell you that there was a train derailment in Montana and I provide you with the link. You click on the link and see this:

It is a train derailment.
The railroad flatcars are towards the top of the photo, on the hillside. They are the grayish rectangles.
The shiny green "cylinders" are Boeing 737 fuselages. Components fabricated at a factory in the midlands USA, being trucked to Seattle/Renton for completion; wings, engines, etc. to be attached.

The 737 fuselages are shipped by rail ~ railroad.

Did you see this photo/image as something else ?

 

[SweetSue92]

Hey Mac did she hit the officer with her car or not?

Insert your full retraction and apology below.

 

[BothWings]

It's hard to see in this video because it's taken from behind the action. But it looks like an officer was standing in front of her car and she floored it. He could easily have been hurt or killed. Yes I believe the vehicle did touch him but he slid out of the way just in time. That's my comment on this initial footage.

However several days later the body cam footage came out which showed much more detail. It showed the woman look right at the officer standing in front of her and smile and then floor it. It doesn't appear to me that she necessarily intended to kill him, but she was reckless and stupid and put him in danger of being maimed or killed. Judging by her prior antagonistic behavior and also that of her friend, I don't think that officer should be punished severely if at all.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Hey Mac did she hit the officer with her car or not?

Insert your full retraction and apology below.

Not Macbut it appears from one video at least that there is a strong case for that.

 

[beagle9]

It's you, Mac

You're the problem it's you

(With apologies to TS)

He's in their with Clayton on TDS.