Cable Forum
Page 151 of 195 « First 51101141147148149150 151 152153154155161 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   President Trump 2.0 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712850)

Pierre 11-01-2026 12:42
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36208790)

There was no justification for his actions.
There was no justification or reason for her to be there at all.

If she had just stayed away none of this would have happened. The bottom line is that it’s all her, and her partners, own doing and because of her actions she got herself killed.

Mr K 11-01-2026 13:00
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36208792)
There was no justification or reason for her to be there at all.

If she had just stayed away none of this would have happened. The bottom line is that it’s all her, and her partners, own doing and because of her actions she got herself killed.
Lets hope you don't get into an argument with an armed Halifax traffic warden in some future time.

nomadking 11-01-2026 13:23
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36208790)
For the umpteenth time, she never drove directly at anyone, the murderer was at the corner when he took his forst shot. He was also clearly not in danger as he kept his phone in hand filming with his gun in the other hand. Obviously on his feet and steady enough to take aim and shoot 3 times.

There was no justification for his actions.
Completely irrelevant when he took his first shot. The chain of events starts before then. Reaction times are NOT instantaneous(well not on this planet). STILL a close run thing as to whether he would be hit, which it looks like he WAS hit, although slightly.
Just as she appears to have taken time to react and turn right, he would've taken time to see her turn right and POSSIBLY(ie not certainly) miss him, and react. There were no guarantees in the situation.
His actions started with drawing his gun. How was that not justified? Undeniable that vehicle is moving forwards and he's in front of it. That is the point at which he had to decide what to do, which was to draw his gun and shoot.
She went from reverse to drive, without pausing to check who might be now be in front of her. Could've been her wife for all she knew. If she had paused to check, she would've stopped and that would be it. Too focused on getting away to check anything.


An example of what can happen when you're right in front of a car that moves forwards.
Link
Quote:
Video captured on the victim's body-worn camera appears to show the moment the car hits him, knocking him to the ground.
The victim was not seriously injured but has suffered pain to his neck and shoulders.

Stephen 11-01-2026 14:43
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208798)
Completely irrelevant when he took his first shot. The chain of events starts before then. Reaction times are NOT instantaneous(well not on this planet). STILL a close run thing as to whether he would be hit, which it looks like he WAS hit, although slightly.
Just as she appears to have taken time to react and turn right, he would've taken time to see her turn right and POSSIBLY(ie not certainly) miss him, and react. There were no guarantees in the situation.
His actions started with drawing his gun. How was that not justified? Undeniable that vehicle is moving forwards and he's in front of it. That is the point at which he had to decide what to do, which was to draw his gun and shoot.
She went from reverse to drive, without pausing to check who might be now be in front of her. Could've been her wife for all she knew. If she had paused to check, she would've stopped and that would be it. Too focused on getting away to check anything.


An example of what can happen when you're right in front of a car that moves forwards.
Link
Major difference is the warden was right in front of the vehicle which was actually being driven at them! That is NOT the same as what happened n this scenario. The murder never fell over or lost their balance. They remained filming whilst aiming their weapon and shooting. Bullet hit the far right of the windscreen showing that he was NOT in front of the vehicle.

Also US law enforcement are not supposed to walk in front of vehicles nor are they supposed to fire at a moving vehicle. He broke rules.

Paul 11-01-2026 14:45
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208751)
In the olden days, somebody was killed when the vehicle was moving at 4mph
In the "olden days", wow, you really are getting desperate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208751)
Why does it have to be life-threatening?
Seriously ? Its clear now that you are just trolling. :sleep:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208751)
Even being gently knocked to the ground can be fatal.
Right .. seems the perfect excuse to go around shooting people. :rolleyes:

Its quite clear to any sane person there was no reason to actually shoot someone [dead] here.

I'm starting to think the usual suspects are just here to troll again.

Sephiroth 11-01-2026 15:00
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36208793)
Lets hope you don't get into an argument with an armed Halifax traffic warden in some future time.
Didn't you mean Bradford?

Pierre 11-01-2026 15:52
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36208793)
Lets hope you don't get into an argument with an armed Halifax traffic warden in some future time.
Not really a comparable comparison.

But if armed UKBF agents were in Halifax removing illegal immigrants, i wouldn’t be there.

TheDaddy 11-01-2026 16:02
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36208807)
Major difference is the warden was right in front of the vehicle which was actually being driven at them! That is NOT the same as what happened n this scenario. The murder never fell over or lost their balance. They remained filming whilst aiming their weapon and shooting. Bullet hit the far right of the windscreen showing that he was NOT in front of the vehicle.

Also US law enforcement are not supposed to walk in front of vehicles nor are they supposed to fire at a moving vehicle. He broke rules.
For me that's the key, he was in so much danger and hurt so badly he never put the phone down and that's also so amateur, the protestors had body cams and the government agents didn't, its like they don't want their actions properly recorded for some reason...

Hugh 11-01-2026 16:19
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
1 Attachment(s)
On a related note, this message from the US Department of Labour seems familiar from history, but I just can’t place it…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1768151723

Stephen 11-01-2026 16:28
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36208814)
On a related note, this message from the US Department of Labour seems familiar from history, but I just can’t place it…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1768151723
Yeah, American, lol. Do they forget most of America is descended from migrants.

Dude111 11-01-2026 17:18
I tell ya DONNY IS OUT OF HIS MIND THREATENING EVERYONE!!

I heard he threatend greenland,etc.........

HE IS MAKING OUR COUNTRY LOOK WORSE!!!!!!

TheDaddy 11-01-2026 18:38
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36208814)
On a related note, this message from the US Department of Labour seems familiar from history, but I just can’t place it…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1768151723
Let me guess, something Hitler said or very close to it...

nomadking 11-01-2026 20:50
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36208807)
Major difference is the warden was right in front of the vehicle which was actually being driven at them! That is NOT the same as what happened n this scenario. The murder never fell over or lost their balance. They remained filming whilst aiming their weapon and shooting. Bullet hit the far right of the windscreen showing that he was NOT in front of the vehicle.

Also US law enforcement are not supposed to walk in front of vehicles nor are they supposed to fire at a moving vehicle. He broke rules.
He wasn't far away from the vehicle.Completely irrelevant, AGAIN, how bad any contact was. It's about what COULD'VE happened. He might've have needed 33 stitches as he had BEFORE.
If went in FRONT of the windscreen.
Reaction times mean that any reaction is delayed from the start of any action. Visual reaction times are around 250ms.
The phone was in his LEFT hand. It was there all the time he went around the vehicle.
She reversed with left hand down. That brought him from being on her right to being in front. The trees opposite couldn't move, yet according to you they did. Watch the change in position of the window in the background, relative to the vehicle. Did the window "move" or was it the vehicle?
Attachment 31591
Attachment 31592
Attachment 31593
Effectively she moved in front of him. She was reversing, so wasn't moving forwards.
He was facing her, so walking forwards wouldn't have achieved anything. He would've had NO IDEA of what she was or wasn't going to do next. That is why he was facing her. Simply no time, to turn and walk forwards to the right of the vehicle. Of course that assumes, the vehicle didn't turn that way.
Around half a second between starting to move forwards and appearing to hit him. If she reversed left hand down, a bit more, she wouldn't have been pointing at him. Or instead of reversing, she move forward when nobody was in front and the officer on the left hadn't reached her. Result, danger averted.


Nobody seems to have considered the fact that the officer on the left was also potentially in danger.
BBC News
Quote:
Ross reached into Muñoz's vehicle with his right hand and attempted to unlock the driver's door. Muñoz drove up on the kerb and accelerated away. Ross's right arm was caught in the vehicle and he was dragged along with it.
Depends on which direction the vehicle is moving relative to officer. Moving fast across from left or right or right to left, might be more dangerous to shoot, but slowly right at you, less so.

Pierre 11-01-2026 20:55
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36208808)

Right .. seems the perfect excuse to go around shooting people. :rolleyes:

Its quite clear to any sane person there was no reason to actually shoot someone [dead] here.

I'm starting to think the usual suspects are just here to troll again.
But you assign 100% responsibility to the ICE agent and apparently 0% responsibility to the deceased.

She went there with the express intention to interfere with a federal ICE operation. She drove her car into the operation cutting off ICE vehicles, she provoked the situation.

She was 100% Responsible for her own death.

nomadking 11-01-2026 21:06
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36208812)
For me that's the key, he was in so much danger and hurt so badly he never put the phone down and that's also so amateur, the protestors had body cams and the government agents didn't, its like they don't want their actions properly recorded for some reason...
There was so little time. Less than a second between being in danger and firing. He would've had to concentrate on getting his gun, rather than what to do with his phone.
Did the protestors have bodycams? The news reports say they got their phones out.
The purpose of him shooting was to AVOID him or the other officer being hurt badly.
Just around a quarter of a second between him being at the bumper and the vehicle turning to the right. Visual reaction time is just a quarter of a second, so no time at all to react.

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36208820)
But you assign 100% responsibility to the ICE agent and apparently 0% responsibility to the deceased.

She went there with the express intention to interfere with a federal ICE operation. She drove her car into the operation cutting off ICE vehicles, she provoked the situation.

She was 100% Responsible for her own death.
"provoked" is the wrong word. Driving her car at the officer was unintentional. Just that her reversing manoeuvre created that situation.


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:50.
Page 151 of 195 « First 51101141147148149150 151 152153154155161 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum