- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cell phone video filmed by the ICE agent that shot the woman in Minneapolis
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:15 am to Napoleon
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:15 am to Napoleon
Are we still pretending like she was an innocent observer and not some dumb bitch who stuck herself in the middle of ICE operations all the time to act as an agitator.
Classic FAFO
Classic FAFO
1
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:17 am to The Boat
No she deserved to be arrested and detained. Just i don't think she deserved to die. But she did hit him with a car. Intent or not. So he was in his right to shoot. I just think it could have been avoided. That's all. Shooting the vehicle didn't stop it from hitting him.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:17 am to Napoleon
quote:
If she was going towards him she would have ran him over
She hit him.
quote:
She was obviously trying to flee. Be placed himself in front her car
If you’re trying to flee and someone is front of your vehicle, you will hit them with your vehicle.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:18 am to Napoleon
quote:
But she did hit him with a car. Intent or not. So he was in his right to shoot
Sooooo….what the frick are you trying to argue about
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:20 am to UncleRuckus
quote:
This isn’t complicated at all
It is when you are trying to formulate a narrative that fits your agenda.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:21 am to Napoleon
quote:
If she was going towards him she would have ran him over. She was going right not left or straight. She was obviously trying to flee. Be placed himself in front her car. He did not need to get in front a vehicle.
See here in the problem. You come on here and accuse people of bias and to “look at the facts” and then you give your opinion with either not knowing ten facts or ignoring them.
It just kills your credibility.
The slow down video clearly shows that after she stopped the reverse, she spun her tires directly forward at the officer. She accelerates with her tires pointing straight. The tires spin out, while straight, catch and rotate 2-3 more times while straight. Only then does she start to turn right, right at the moment that she clips the officer with the front driver side bumper (and he was already moving out of the way).
So maybe you give her the benefit of the doubt and say - well maybe she went straight but she was freaking out and just reacted late - okay (and this would not come into play in a legal analysis because her state of mind is irrelevant). But then you see the video from the officer’s phone which shows her staring right at him and hitting a vape pen before slamming in the gas - she doesn’t appear to be freaking out at all.
So again, what facts are out there that I’m not accounting for that changes the analysis?
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:24 am to Napoleon
quote:
He tried to block her with his body then claimed she was trying to run him over.
She looked at him and then hit the gas.
You are pushing a narrative that is a fantasy.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:29 am to Napoleon
quote:
As I said if he intent was to run him
Only she can speak to intent, and she is dead.
quote:
she would have gone to the left not the right.
She hit him.
The end.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:32 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Only she can speak to intent
With 100% accuracy, yes
But the circumstantial evidence suggests she intended to hit him.
Regardless, her intent in terms of hitting him/fleeing is irrelevant to a legal analysis of justified use of force.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:32 am to Turnblad85
quote:
Thats my position too. You're much better off dodging a vehicle than trying to shoot the driver thats coming at you. That shite only works in the movies.
If she was willing to run one person over would she not be willing to run more people over? This officer seemed to do both options. The driver seemed to think this was a game and imo you realized real life has different consequences than video games and movies.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:32 am to Jay Are
quote:
She saw him, she hit the gas.
quote:
In reverse.
Vehicles go forward, while in reverse…who knew.
Do you realize how moronic that your post makes you look?
This post was edited on 1/10/26 at 10:35 am
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:38 am to lsu xman
quote:
got a feeling this will get settled out of court for mega millions. Alton Sterling's family got 4.5mil.
You feel like this now today?
I wouldn’t, the disgusting trashcan toilet of a mouth her “partner” had on film cursing officers up and down while filming is going to cost them. No one is going to watch a disgusting woman with a man’s haircut talk like that and then get awarded.
That was appalling behavior and I am half savage.
And yes I’m saying that because she’s so ugly it’s going to cost her. People look at disgusting people like that and just get a shite taste in their mouth. Even their own people think they are disgusting but they tolerate them so they can be supported. If a dude with half a brain and a hard dick came by and just said hi these chicks would jump right back over and leave the bulldike who wear the same underwear as poor foreign men.
This post was edited on 1/10/26 at 10:45 am
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:38 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Vehicles go forward, while in reverse…who knew. Do you realize how moronic that your post makes you look?
Did they do a toxicology report on both the officer and the dead lady?
Need to see if not
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:40 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
and hitting a vape pen before slamming in the gas - she doesn’t appear to be freaking out at all.
Can we see a toxicology report?
I’d like to see what’s in the pen she was smoking while driving
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:41 am to Antonio Moss
Even if that was her intent what did shooting he do to protect the officer from being hit. To me it serms more punishment then predervation.
He was hit. I don't deny that. I do think his being dragged before came into hid decsion to shoot. .
One thing we all agree on was she put her self in that situation. Deep doen regardless of action or intent she would still be alive if she didn't try to be some agitator. I dontv think she needed to be shot but i also think she's an idiot and the person most responsible for her death.
He was hit. I don't deny that. I do think his being dragged before came into hid decsion to shoot. .
One thing we all agree on was she put her self in that situation. Deep doen regardless of action or intent she would still be alive if she didn't try to be some agitator. I dontv think she needed to be shot but i also think she's an idiot and the person most responsible for her death.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:45 am to Napoleon
quote:
Even if that was her intent what did shooting he do to protect the officer from being hit. To me it serms more punishment then predervation.
Well fortunately for all of us, legal analyses don’t try to predict the alternate futures to determine whether an act is legal or not.
If she drives off and no one else is hit or hurt, okay great.
But what if she hits him and then throws the vehicle on reverse again?
What if she speeds off and fishtails into a bystander or other agent?
There is no way for the officer to know in that moment what the next 15 seconds are going to look like if he doesn’t pull trigger.
And there is no way for us to know either.
ETA: What did the officer know at the time of the shot?
(1) The offender was obstructing a legitimate legal exercise
(2) The offender and her partner made statements showing their intent was to disrupt this exercise
(3) The offender ignored officers commands to get out of the vehicle
(4) The offender drove her vehicle at him and hit him.
Using these undisputed facts, was the officer reasonable in believing that his life or bodily health, or those of others in vicinity, where threaten due to the offenders actions?
This post was edited on 1/10/26 at 10:52 am
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:50 am to Napoleon
quote:
I just think it could have been avoided. That's all. Shooting the vehicle didn't stop it from hitting him.
Yeah.
Good could have not fled her imminent arrest. Good could have gotten out of the car when directed. Good could have not blocked the road. Good could have not been following and harassing ICE all day. Good could have protested form the sidewalk and not hindered investigations.
All those things she chose to do. And had time to actually think about her choices.
The ICE officer had a split second to decide.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:57 am to jimmy the leg
Why is no one talking about the lead up to it?
ICE aren’t a power onto themselves, and him standing in front of the car can be illegal detainment. Ditto for the forcible removal from the car. Also, NO ONE has SOP being using your own body to hold back a car. Dude was acting like an untrained civilian on a power trip after getting an open carry license.
Yelling at them from across the street isn’t obstruction or interference legally speaking, no matter how many feelings get hurt. And blocking the road is a tough sell because you see other cars drive by, coming from the direction of the ICE convoy no less.
If there was really an infraction, there would have been more than one agent on it.
And when backup arrives, it wouldn’t have been with an attitude of walking over un requested because he’s done with this shite, and immediately escalating the situation physically as opposed to…..backing up the initial officer.
Also of note the shot that probably killed her probably came from the officer that attempted to open the door rather than the front officer. It looks like he just takes one calm shot at point blank range and then stops while the other guy is panic firing.
ICE aren’t a power onto themselves, and him standing in front of the car can be illegal detainment. Ditto for the forcible removal from the car. Also, NO ONE has SOP being using your own body to hold back a car. Dude was acting like an untrained civilian on a power trip after getting an open carry license.
Yelling at them from across the street isn’t obstruction or interference legally speaking, no matter how many feelings get hurt. And blocking the road is a tough sell because you see other cars drive by, coming from the direction of the ICE convoy no less.
If there was really an infraction, there would have been more than one agent on it.
And when backup arrives, it wouldn’t have been with an attitude of walking over un requested because he’s done with this shite, and immediately escalating the situation physically as opposed to…..backing up the initial officer.
Also of note the shot that probably killed her probably came from the officer that attempted to open the door rather than the front officer. It looks like he just takes one calm shot at point blank range and then stops while the other guy is panic firing.
This post was edited on 1/10/26 at 11:00 am
Posted on 1/10/26 at 11:01 am to Napoleon
keep moving those goalposts. all that shite is irrelevant.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 11:03 am to Turnblad85
quote:
That shite only works in the movies.
Apparently it worked in real life this time.
Page 22 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News