Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Well, I admit, reports vary and that could be the case,but remains to be seen.

But what seems to be undeniable, is that she was there solely for the purpose to interfere with the ICE agents operation.

She didn’t need to be there and put herself there, and did something stupid.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

They had lived in Kansas City, but moved to Canada because Trump was elected(says it all). They then moved to Minneapolis which is in the state of Minnesota.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

She drove to that specific location, regardless of where she is domiciled, in order to interfere with the ICE agents operation………yes or no?

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

The question is not about her zip code. It's whether her actions warranted her being shot.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Which they definitely did not.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100...smid=url-share

This video show the position of the ICE agent at the time of the first shot

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1768128690

Before the shooting, the video shows him going round the SUV, filming with his phone in his right hand - at the time of the shooting, he had the phone in his left hand and the gun in his right hand.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Yes, but your claim was that they travelled for several hours from another state. That is not true.

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 ----------

Irrelevant. What was the situation at the point in time that he had decide to draw his gun and shoot? There wasn't several seconds between the two.My still frames prove that at that point in time, the car was moving straight ahead and at him. The car pushed him out of the way. Other video from the distant right shows that. Even in your picture, his foot is just inches away from the car. That shows that even if he wasn't actually hit, it was a very close run thing.
REACTION TIMES!
Whatever way you look at it, when he had to decide in that INSTANT, what to do, the car was very near and moving directly at him.
As the car reverses with left hand down(an important aspect), the background(eg a big tree) moves from her right to being in front. Same with the officer. Her viewpoint shifts, not the objects outside.

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

Depends on which set of actions you're talking about. Nobody really disputes that by itself, being there didn't warrant the outcome. But ending up with a car moving directly at someone is another matter. Doesn't have to have been any intent. the fact is, at a point in time, the car was moving at him.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Dont think people care about evidence in the US. It's one side or the other, if you're on the other side you're fair game to be shot. Civil war? Thinks its started already.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Somebody needs to set up a simulation, where somebody is standing still and a vehicle to the right, reverses with left hand down and starting moving directly towards them. Wonder what any measured fear response would be.
If humans would be too aware of what was being tested, try it with animals, eg dogs or cats. That would settle the question of whether there would be a fear of being injured or killed.
Or better still, try it for real with one of the complaining Democrats as a test subject. Might need to be done a few thousand times with different test subjects.:D

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

SnoopZ is willing :D

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Lets hope you don't get into an argument with an armed Halifax traffic warden in some future time.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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