re: Best video of shooting. 2nd and 3rd shots through the open window.

Ohh the guy who spends all his time on this board bitching about Trump is using a F’n TikTok from a white liberal woman. Why am I not surprised

The head canon they invent…

quote:

---

influence government policy by intimidation or coercion

---

You just gonna try to dance by this one? You don’t think she’s trying to influence government policy on immigration by impeding their investigation? Do you think the result of her protest (her death) will be used to influence government policy?

quote:

---

dangerous act

---

Check

quote:

---

Occurring primarily in the United States

---

Check

quote:

---

affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

---

This is the only one not met. And it’s usually not met for those on the right who get the domestic terrorism label attached.

quote:

---

Terrorism requires provable coercive or ideological intent, which is absent here

---

And this is obviously present. No matter what your sloppy AI agent spit out.

He wants his initial take to be correct. He thinks he can still get there. So he’s arguing with himself and trying to keep his board credibility from melting completely down.

quote:

---

For those interested, here are the relevant DHS guidelines:

Yes — under current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) use-of-force and tactical policies, officers and agents are generally supposed to avoid stepping in front of a vehicle or placing themselves in its path to try to stop it. DHS policies emphasize officer safety, public safety, and minimizing unnecessary risk, and placing oneself in front of a moving vehicle is explicitly discouraged. ?
U.S. Customs and Border Protection +1
Here’s how the policy language and training guidance address this:
?? 1. DHS use-of-force doctrine
DHS’s use-of-force standards require that:
Force, including deadly force, must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Deadly force cannot be used solely to stop a fleeing suspect or to prevent escape unless there is a reasonable belief that the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. ?
Department of Homeland Security
?? 2. Tactical positioning around vehicles
Specific DHS guidance (e.g., Customs and Border Protection and related directives) states that officers/agents should:
Avoid standing directly in front of or behind a subject vehicle, and
Not place their body in the path of a moving vehicle to block it. ?
U.S. Customs and Border Protection +1
The reasoning is both safety and tactical — physically blocking a vehicle exposes the officer to serious risk and limits available safe options if the vehicle moves unexpectedly.
?? 3. Deadly force and moving vehicles
DHS policy also incorporates strict guidance on shooting at vehicles:
Agents are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle unless the use of deadly force is otherwise justified under the policy (e.g., imminent threat to life).
Before using deadly force against a moving vehicle’s operator, the danger to others and the viability of less risky options must be considered. ?
Department of Homeland Security
?? Bottom line
Yes — it is contrary to DHS tactical and use-of-force policy for officers to place themselves in front of a vehicle in an attempt to stop it. The guidance encourages tactics that minimize risk and avoid putting officers directly in the path of a vehicle — and deadly force cannot be justified simply because a subject is trying to flee.

---

Im sure now everyone criticizing the woman for not following orders will be sure to criticize the officer for not following protocol.

She is supposed to follow orders. He was supposed to not stand in front of a vehicle or fire into a fleeing vehicle.

If either chooses to do what they are supposed to noone ends up dead.

quote:

---

Im sure now everyone criticizing the woman for not following orders will be sure to criticize the officer for not following protocol.

---

That would require valuing reason over Tribalism. Not going to happen with 85% of the Board.

Yes he was in front of the vehicle before she drove off, but she was told to stop and she decided to pull forward, already knowing he was there

quote:

---

You were wrong all day yesterday, changed your mind after it was obvious she was stupid, now you are at it again.

---

I'm not AT anything. Did you know that shots 2 and 3 weren't made from the front? I didn't.

It doesn't change anything. criminally or morally. As I said yesterday, he reasonably feared for his life AND Good was obstructing federal agents in performance of their official acts. Good and the Democrats who encouraged her lawlessness are to blame for the situation.

So, the ICE agent will benefit from qualified immunity, AND he can remove any state prosecution to federal court. This doesn't change anything criminally. It might make a difference in a CIVIL suit (inadequate training).

quote:

---

Im sure now everyone criticizing the woman for not following orders will be sure to criticize the officer for not following protocol.

---

Is "guidance" the protocol? The "the use of deadly force" was fully justified in this case.

The tragedy here is not his action, but that there is a segment of our population that has been brainwashed, emboldened, and funded to think they can act like that without consequences.

quote:

---

Yes — it is contrary to DHS tactical and use-of-force policy for officers to place themselves in front of a vehicle in an attempt to stop it. The guidance encourages tactics that minimize risk and avoid putting officers directly in the path of a vehicle — and deadly force cannot be justified simply because a subject is trying to flee.

---

Similar to Chauvin, he didn’t follow his training or protocol. If he had, she would possibly be alive. Maybe not, but we’ll never know and that’s the problem.

This opens him up to criminal liability if MN state courts indict him, which I’m sure they will after hearing Walz’s speech today.