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

[Mac1958]

 

[Darlo kittu]

They put in for early retirement because they've had enough of DOJ being run by a bunch of bloodthirsty lunatics led by that orange menace.

But no mass resignations

Another lie spin by the looney tune left has blown up on your faces

 

[Darlo kittu]

So you want these dirtbags I'm your neighborhood near your family?

 

[justoffal]

She tried to maneuver around the officers and their vehicles. One cop would have none of it and shot her dead.

I don't know why they were after her. Did she hit someone before this video begins? But I do know the the officer was recently drug 50 feet down the street and was hospitalized in another incident.

She had an obligation to stop. Even if she was trying to get away she tried to do it through a human body.... In effect using her car as an instrument of violence. Shooting was justified.

 

[Darlo kittu]

She had an obligation to stop. Even if she was trying to get away she tried to do it through a human body.... In effect using her car as an instrument of violence. Shooting was justified.

You always comply with instructions from law enforcement. If you have an issue go to the police precinct and speak to his/her supervisor

 

[Mac1958]

The fact that Trump's DOJ lackey's are whitewashing this shows that the ICE goon was in the wrong.

It also shows that they know they can get away with the whitewashing.

 

[Darlo kittu]

It also shows that they know they can get away with the whitewashing.

F Chuck Schumer bellowed he plans on taking fellow Democrats in MN to confront ICE

Oh please Chucky you and your fellow gas bags interfere, obstruct, and impede ICE. I would watching you and other Demabrats kissing the pavement as you are cuffed and stuffed in an ICE vehicle. Then taken to the jail and booked

 

[teddyearp]

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 the woman starting to go forward, wheels spinning briefly as she guns it, the officer draws his gun, she then guns it towards the officer and as he fires, she hits him. It is not easy to see in this clip, but it still is clear that his footing got a real quick change that has nothing to do with him moving his feet.

No, Trump, Vance, and anybody else who sees that is not lying. Why are you trying to not see what happened when it is plainly in front of your eyes. Oh, nice way the video you posted is kind of darkened to make it not so clear.

 

[Mac1958]

I see the woman starting to go forward, wheels spinning briefly as she guns it, the officer draws his gun, she then guns it towards the officer and as he fires, she hits him.

So you see the vehicle strike the shooter. Okay. I believe that's what you see.

That's not what I see. I see his feet well away from the car, and the car clearly turning right before his first shot.

And that's why I gave the thread the title I did.

 

[teddyearp]

That's not what I see. I see his feet well away from the car, and the car clearly turning right before his first shot.

And that's why I gave the thread the title I did.

Well, as I said, I notice you posted the video that has the absolute worst view of the officer himself, and even edited to make it harder still with the shading, and that is why you posted it and gave the thread the title you did. You just want to show how you have taken reality and twisted it to fit your little pretzel logic of it and then showed it off to your echo chamber buddies who are here cheering on your obfuscation of the facts efforts.

I am surprised you didn't post the CNN version where they cropped out the whole view of the officer(s) so you can have no chance of seeing her hit him. Why didn't you?

 

[Mac1958]

Well, as I said, I notice you posted the video that has the absolute worst view of the officer himself, and even edited to make it harder still with the shading, and that is why you posted it and gave the thread the title you did. You just want to show how you have taken reality and twisted it to fit your little pretzel logic of it and then showed it off to your echo chamber buddies who are here cheering on your obfuscation of the facts efforts.

I am surprised you didn't post the CNN version where they cropped out the whole view of the officer(s) so you can have no chance of seeing her hit him. Why didn't you?

So you think I edited the video? Okay, well that's not a surprise.

I appreciate your response.

 

[Rawley]

So you think I edited the video? Okay, well that's not a surprise.

I appreciate your response.

I believe he's saying you chose the video that best supports your opinion. There are other videos that clearly show her hitting the officer.

 

[Nostra]

 

[HikerGuy83]

not hit by anything

Except you have video showing him being hit by the car.

I know.....

 

[HikerGuy83]

View attachment 1206365

They need to start arresting and trying the mayors of those cities.

 

[teddyearp]

So you think I edited the video? Okay, well that's not a surprise.

I appreciate your response.

No, and if I seemed to imply that YOU edited it, forgive me. The video though is clearly edited as shown in the second post of this thread where the clearer video of this very same angle has been posted.

 

[Care4all]

He may not have done things perfectly by textbook training but that doesn't change the underlying fact that once the driver purposely accelerated her SUV into him and hit him he was then justified to use lethal force in self-defense.

View attachment 1204258

Nope. That is not how it works, since the Supreme Court ruling of 9 to 0 on Barnes vs Felix in May of 2025.

The totality of the incident MUST BE taken in to consideration for its reasonableness, of the actions....including whether the cop followed guidelines and regs on him placing himself in danger by his own actions, whether the car driver had committed a felony or violent felony and that is why they stopped her or just a driving infraction etc etc etc....

 

[Darlo kittu]

Nope. That is not how it works, since the Supreme Court ruling of 9 to 0 on Barnes vs Felix in May of 2025.

The totality of the incident MUST BE taken in to consideration for its reasonableness, of the actions....including whether the cop followed guidelines and regs on him placing himself in danger by his own actions, whether the car driver had committed a felony or violent felony and that is why they stopped her or just a driving infraction etc etc etc....

She was a member of a group that set out to block and obstruct ICE in doing their job

She refused to obey a lawful order to get out of the car

She tried to drive away as an officer was still in physical contact with the car

She did hit another officer which caused injuries

Yet some call this a murder when the officer fired his weapon?

What gives?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope. That is not how it works, since the Supreme Court ruling of 9 to 0 on Barnes vs Felix in May of 2025.

The totality of the incident MUST BE taken in to consideration for its reasonableness, of the actions

Haven't read the decision, eh?

A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during
a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which re-
quires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from “the per-
spective of a reasonable officer at the scene.

This isn't the use of a excessive force during a stop or arrest, its a case of on an officer responding to a direct and immediate threat -- the police officer did not shoot his assailant because she tried to flee after being told to exit her vehicle, she was shot because she assaulted him and he needed to protect himself.

....including whether the cop followed guidelines and regs on him placing himself in danger by his own actions,

Per the court:
The Court does not address a separate question about whether or
how an officer’s own “creation of a dangerous situation” factors into the
reasonableness analysis. The courts below never confronted that is-
sue, and it was not the basis of the petition for certiorari

Better luck next time.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf

 

[Darlo kittu]