Cable Forum - President Trump 2.0

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)

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208821)

"provoked" is the wrong word. Driving her car at the officer was unintentional. Just that her reversing manoeuvre created that situation.

I disagree, she drove her car right into an ICE operation. She drove past the ICE vehicles and cut them off diagonally across the road.

She provoked the interaction with the ICE agents.

The ICE agents were not interested in her, they didn’t want to interact with her, she had nothing to do with their operation, had she drove past they wouldn’t have done anything.

She put herself squarely in harms way into armed agents, that’s bad enough.

But she then made it worse by ignoring their, repeated, requests to get out of the vehicle., and then trying to drive off. That in itself is bad enough, let alone the alleged attack on the ICE agent.

She is 100% responsible for her own death.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Just read that two people fatally shot by UK police in 2024/25 and 1,280 in the US. If you scaled up the UK figures to take account of the population size it would be ten in the UK.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208821)

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.

Think I saw it on here and was just taking the posters word or perhaps interpreting what was posted incorrectly, either way professionals shouldn't be using phones, they should be properly equipped, wonder why they werent?

Saw this on twitter earlier, not sure if its true or accurate, suspect it might be but am suspicious by nature when convenient things just appear...

From Title 1, U.S. DOJ Policy on Use of Force:

"Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless:

(1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle;

or

(2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury ... and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle."

Deliberately stepping into the path of a moving vehicle is classic officer-created jeopardy and fatally undermines any claim that the subsequent use of deadly force was necessary

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36208825)

Just read that two people fatally shot by UK police in 2024/25 and 1,280 in the US. If you scaled up the UK figures to take account of the population size it would be ten in the UK.

And your point is?

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36208826)

AGAIN, he didn't step in front. Just as the window on the opposite side of the road didn't "step in front". Either way he wasn't walking across the front, he was facing towards her. Turning and then moving would've taken more time and still risk being hit. The time frames and distances involved were much to small to do anything else. The officer at the side was ALSO in danger.
Remember you have to take off a quarter of second of any times, just for visual reaction delay. Then further take off the time to make a decision and the time to move. After his 20 years in border Patrol and ICE, the simplest and automatic solution would be to shoot.
He wasn't the other side of the road, he was in the same lane as the car. You can see the lane marking behind him.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208829)

Interesting, I was more interested in this bit which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle."

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36208820)

She was 100% Responsible for her own death.

That's obviously complete nonsense, you are clearly 100% here just to troll, dont bother further.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208829)

He literally broke both those rules. He walked all the way around the vehicle and he shot at a vehicle that was moving. You only have to see the bullet hole to know he was in no danger at all, the front left corner of the car is where he stood when he fired the first shot so it was already moving to the right and NOT being driven at him and was barely 3-5mph if even that. Next two shots went in the side window. Again there was ZERO need as vehicle had already gone passed him.

Same for the officer that attempted to open her door, no danger.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36208827)

And your point is?

This lack of respect for human life seems to go beyond just this tragic killing.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36208834)

This lack of respect for human life seems to go beyond just this tragic killing.

Dont bother, he's left the building.

---------- Post added at 02:40 ---------- Previous post was at 00:50 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36208826)

Saw this on twitter earlier, not sure if its true or accurate, suspect it might be but am suspicious by nature when convenient things just appear...

The Customs and Border Patrol rules are in their handbook, PDF available online.

That said, I dont think ICE are actually classed as Customs and Border Patrol, but rather as part of Homeland Security, but I think their rules are very similar.

Quote:

Chapter 2: Use of Deadly Force

1. Deadly force is force likely to cause serious bodily injury or death of a person.

2. Authorized Officers/Agents may use deadly force only when necessary; that is,when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death to the officer/agent or to another person.

- a. Serious Bodily Injury - Physical injury that involves protracted and obvious disfigurement; protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or a substantial risk of death.

3. Discharging a firearm at a person shall be done only with the intent of stopping that person from continuing the threatening behavior that justifies the use of deadly force.

4. Discharging a firearm as a warning is prohibited except for the limited circumstances described in Chapter 3.C.

5. Discharging a firearm as a distress signal is permitted in emergency situations.

6. Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject.
However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer/agent or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape.

7. Authorized Officers/Agents shall not discharge their firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, or aircraft unless deadly force is necessary, that is, when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the operator poses an imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death to the officer/agent or to another person.

- a. Such deadly force may include a moving vehicle aimed at officers/agents or others present, but would not include a moving vehicle merely fleeing from officers/agents unless the vehicle or the escape of the subject poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to the officer/agent or to another person.

- b. The hazard of an uncontrolled conveyance shall be taken into consideration prior to the use of deadly force.

8. Firearms shall not be fired solely to disable motor vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or other conveyances. The only exception is that Authorized Officers/Agents, when conducting maritime law enforcement operations, may use specifically authorized firearms and ammunition to disable moving vessels or other maritime conveyances (See Chapter 3.C).

9. A firearm may be used in self-defense or in defense of another person to prevent an imminent attack by an animal. A firearm may also be used to euthanize an
animal that appears to be seriously injured or diseased. This discharge does not constitute a use of deadly force.

10.The act of establishing a grip, drawing a weapon, or pointing a weapon does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36208833)

Highway Code rule 202 on reversing

Quote:

checking all around
looking mainly through the rear window
being aware that the front of your vehicle will swing out as you turn.

Now look at the picture in the guidance. If the woman crossing the road, was further over to the left, further across the road, and STANDING STILL, after the car had reversed, she would be in a different position relative front of the car. That's all without her moving.

As I pointed out, the first claimed motorised vehicle pedestrian death was with the car moving at just 4mph.

NOT about what actually happened, but what MIGHT happen. Easy to be knocked off your feet, hit your head and DIE. Multiple examples exist, including being knocked over by a person or a bicycle. He took up a more stable stance with legs slightly apart. He was nudged to the side by the car hitting him. The video from the right from a distance shows that.
I already included a link as to what had happened personally to him a matter of months ago when putting his hands inside a vehicle.
BBC Link

Quote:

Ross needed more than 50 stitches, and had abrasions on his knee, elbow and face, according to the court papers.
...
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.

Don't tell me, needing 50 stitches is just a mere scratch.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208840)

Highway Code rule 202 on reversing
Now look at the picture in the guidance. If the woman crossing the road, was further over to the left, further across the road, and STANDING STILL, after the car had reversed, she would be in a different position relative front of the car. That's all without her moving.

As I pointed out, the first claimed motorised vehicle pedestrian death was with the car moving at just 4mph.

NOT about what actually happened, but what MIGHT happen. Easy to be knocked off your feet, hit your head and DIE. Multiple examples exist, including being knocked over by a person or a bicycle. He took up a more stable stance with legs slightly apart. He was nudged to the side by the car hitting him. The video from the right from a distance shows that.
I already included a link as to what had happened personally to him a matter of months ago when putting his hands inside a vehicle.
BBC Link
Don't tell me, needing 50 stitches is just a mere scratch.

When did the USA start using the UK highway code ?

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208840)

Load of what ifs and whataboutary . Non of that happened though. He went against the rules in the ICE handbook. So shouldn't even have been stood there. One step back/left is all that was needed. No weapons required either. Let her away and let the police visit her later at home.

Never got nudged or knocked off his feet either as was still able to film and fire a weapon 3 times.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36208842)

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1768206774

A decent use of space, for a change.