Fascist Trump goons with guns again..

(Jan 11, 2026 01:12 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: You just admitted to using a deflection fallacy. Moving on.

Oh, if only you could read at, at least, a fifth grade level. 9_9

That's okay. We all know the answer.

This is how quickly a stopped car can accelerate and kill you:
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/7lG1NDhBTsQ

Standing at the same front left corner.

What you (Syne) seem to be seeing is a woman shot by a man standing beside a vehicle and your justification for that is that he might have been killed if he'd been standing in front of the vehicle. It works for you as a revenge killing for something that didn't happen. I don't know if ICE agents are allowed to kill people for things they haven't done - maybe they are.

I suspect most people are seeing a woman killed while attempting to leave the scene of a crime (?) after failing to step out of the vehicle when instructed to do so by an ICE agent. There does seem to be some disagreement whether the ICE agent was acting within the (US) law when he killed her

In the UK we would at least have an 'enquiry' to ascertain the legality of a killing, particularly when there are two such conflicting interpretations of the same event.

There is something that people miss in that shooting. The woman had a dog.

The dog wasn't tied in, or behind a dog guard in her car, it was actually standing up in the back seat with the window open.

Most peoples dogs, if they felt their owner was in trouble would bark, growl and even attempt to attack whoever it is effecting their owner. In some respects, her dog might well have attacked the ice officer attempting to grab her from the car.

If her dog was getting agitated the thoughts she might have been having could of been along the lines of "if the dog bites this ice guy, I could be in trouble or the dog could get destroyed" so in some respects she might of wanted to move the vehicle away from the guy grabbing her to stop that happening. (Not the intention of attacking an ice agent)

(Jan 11, 2026 10:31 AM)confused2 Wrote: What you (Syne) seem to be seeing is a woman shot by a man standing beside a vehicle and your justification for that is that he might have been killed if he'd been standing in front of the vehicle. It works for you as a revenge killing for something that didn't happen. I don't know if ICE agents are allowed to kill people for things they haven't done - maybe they are.

I suspect most people are seeing a woman killed while attempting to leave the scene of a crime (?) after failing to step out of the vehicle when instructed to do so by an ICE agent. There does seem to be some disagreement whether the ICE agent was acting within the (US) law when he killed her

In the UK we would at least have an 'enquiry' to ascertain the legality of a killing, particularly when there are two such conflicting interpretations of the same event.

He was literally hit and shunted aside. Threatening any law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon (and cars qualify) is justification for escalation of force.
Impeding law enforcement is a crime. Fleeing law enforcement, especially while endangering others with a vehicle, is a felony.

People who understand how little time an officer has to make a life-saving decision know that he was justified (as my above video illustrates).

Everyone else are armchair analysts who've never been in anything like a dangerous or deadly situation.

---

(Jan 11, 2026 11:14 AM)stryder Wrote: If her dog was getting agitated the thoughts she might have been having could of been along the lines of "if the dog bites this ice guy, I could be in trouble or the dog could get destroyed" so in some respects she might of wanted to move the vehicle away from the guy grabbing her to stop that happening.  (Not the intention of attacking an ice agent)

The video doesn't show the dog agitated.

When it comes to an officer defending himself, the intention (which he cannot magically glean in the moment) is irrelevant. Only the actual situation that he observes (truck gunning directly at him) matters to his immediate reaction.

---

(Jan 11, 2026 03:02 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

He sent them to sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with detainer orders, which required extra agents to seek out criminal aliens in the local neighborhoods.
All started with blue city policies. I would say, if you don't like it, vote different, but leftists obviously want the opportunity for performative protest and violence. They obviously want ICE in their neighborhoods instead of in their courthouses.

Quote:He was literally hit and shunted aside. Threatening any law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon (and cars qualify) is justification for escalation of force.

Even if the car, in turning away from the agent, pushed against him, which is exactly what we see, this does not establish its use as a deadly weapon. To be a deadly weapon, intent to kill with it has to exist. It does not. She was only performing a 3 point turn to drive away. There was absolutely no use of the car as "a deadly weapon." The only deadly weapon on site was the gun in the agent's hands.

(Jan 11, 2026 09:31 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:He was literally hit and shunted aside. Threatening any law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon (and cars qualify) is justification for escalation of force.

Even if the car, in turning away from the agent, pushed against him, which is exactly what we see, this does not establish its use as a deadly weapon. To be a deadly weapon, intent to kill with it has to exist. It does not. She was only performing a 3 point turn to drive away. There was absolutely no use of the car as "a deadly weapon." The only deadly weapon on site was the gun in the agent's hands.

No, intent is only relevant in prosecuting charges against the driver. It has nothing to do with an officer's reaction to what he observed in the moment, as there is zero means for him to determine the intent inside someone else's mind.

Remember, the wheels started spinning when they were pointed directly at the officer and he heard the engine rev up.

But we all know you're illiterate of the law.

Quote:He sent them to sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with detainer orders, which required extra agents to seek out criminal aliens in the local neighborhoods.

Sanctuary cities are totally legal under federal law:

"sanctuary city policies are generally considered legal under current U.S. law, as federal courts have upheld local entities' rights under the Tenth Amendment to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, though the federal government has tried to challenge these policies through funding restrictions, leading to ongoing legal battles and varying designations. There's no single definition, but they typically involve local law enforcement not inquiring about or holding individuals solely for immigration status.

Why They're Generally Legal

Tenth Amendment: Sanctuary policies are often defended under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers for states and local governments, preventing the federal government from commandeering local resources to enforce federal law.

Court Rulings: Court rulings, including a Ninth Circuit decision later dropped by the Trump administration, have found sanctuary ordinances lawful and struck down federal attempts to condition funding on cooperation.

Detainers are Requests: Federal immigration "detainers" (requests to hold someone) are not legally binding commands, allowing local jurisdictions to decline them without breaking federal law, as stated by Albany Law School.

---

Quote:No, intent is only relevant in prosecuting charges against the driver. It has nothing to do with an officer's reaction to what he observed in the moment, as there is zero means for him to determine the intent inside someone else's mind.

Nope..intent is absolutely crucial to establish any claims of weaponization of a vehicle. There is nothing inherently weaponizing about a moving car in itself. It all depends on what the driver was evidently intending to do. And since his own video shows Renee steering to the hard right, no intent at all was evident. Hence pure murder out the rage of the moment. "This fucking bitch isn't getting away from us! Here's two more bullets in your face!"

(Jan 11, 2026 10:54 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:He sent them to sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with detainer orders, which required extra agents to seek out criminal aliens in the local neighborhoods.

Sanctuary cities are totally legal under federal law:

No one said sanctuary city policies were illegal nor that detainers were compulsory. But they are the reason ICE officers are forced to arrest criminal aliens in your neighborhoods, instead of just pick them up from courthouses, while they are already in custody.

You don't get to have it both ways, sanctuary cities and whining about ICE in your neighborhoods. You made the choice. Deal with it.

Quote:

Quote:No, intent is only relevant in prosecuting charges against the driver. It has nothing to do with an officer's reaction to what he observed in the moment, as there is zero means for him to determine the intent inside someone else's mind.

Nope..intent is absolutely crucial to establish any claims of weaponization of a vehicle. There is nothing inherently weaponizing about a moving car in itself. It all depends on what the driver was evidently intending to do. And since his own video shows Renee steering to the hard right, no intent at all was evident. Hence pure murder out the rage of the moment. "This fucking bitch isn't getting away from us! Here's two more bullets in your face!"

Again, if only you could read, intent is only a matter of prosecution of the driver. There is no intent requirement in a reasonable belief of imminent danger and the use of proportionate force.

But thanks for immediately proving your legal illiteracy.