Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

In the "olden days", wow, you really are getting desperate.

Seriously ? Its clear now that you are just trolling. :sleep:

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.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Not really a comparable comparison.

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

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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...

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Yeah, American, lol. Do they forget most of America is descended from migrants.

I tell ya DONNY IS OUT OF HIS MIND THREATENING EVERYONE!!

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

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

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Let me guess, something Hitler said or very close to it...

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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
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.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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 ----------

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

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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
 

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