Re: President Trump 2.0
 

They like to think that

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Putin's Pubes naughty list :confused:

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

I think its more a case of "he" rather than "they".

The Americans I have spoken to recently are not particularly happy with recent actions, and (at least) two of them voted Republican.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

This week’s Private Eye cover

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...7&d=1767969908

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Fail :dunce:

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Thank you for the prompt - much appreciated… :angel:

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Private Eye should do a Ukraine piece.. cry more

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Somebody is eventually going to end up owning Greenland, it could be the USA, Russia, or the Chinese. Those minerals are handy to have for 'obvious' reasons

Why don't we throw a couple of Nukes at it and spoil all their plans :D


*am I serious? no not really, but do you think any 2 of the above will be happy for the 3rd to take it all without putting in some resistance by fair means or foul?

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Interesting…

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Anybody else crossing off the days of Donny, and hoping we're still here at the end of it? Seems to be going incredibly slowly, and our chances decreasing.....

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Bad for who? I thinks he’s doing a great job for the US

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Are you being serious here?

The country is in a mess.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

👍👍👍

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

More like referring for riots :rolleyes: the administration stamped out psychosis

It makes perfect sense to bring America all together. A blooming super-duper power.

His tariffs are something different.

People just don't like change. Sorry Mr Perfect.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

You seen the size of Russia?

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

I'll buy you a trapper hat if you go live on Antarctica

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Enough of this nonsense, grow up please.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

EU will roll over . . . . as will NATO

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Independent investigation by the Democratic Minneapolis Mayor? Yeah right.
Attachment 31589
When he reached for his gun, wheels aimed straight ahead and he's in front of the vehicle.
A few frames on.
Attachment 31590
Vehicle has moved forwards and wheels still straight ahead.
Case closed.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...g-minneapolis/

He was in so much danger he kept filming on his phone whilst he shot the driver…

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

It's bloody law enforcement. If you want to use a potential weapon, a vehicle in this case to escape apprehension both the law enforcement and escapee are under threat. Both used force to deal with the situation. I don't understand this grievance for the driver of the vehicle. Obey instructions from those in positions of power or you'll feel each others power.

The driver was immature. An adult would deal with the situation.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

When vehicle moved of, wheels turned to right, no danger to the murderer

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

As the pictures PROVE, at the point of drawing his gun in order to shoot, her car was moving straight forwards. She may have noticed him at the last second and started to turn right, but at that point the appearance was that he was going to be hit.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

the driver was 37 years old

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

That's your reputation shot - or what was left of it.

---------- Post added at 16:33 ---------- Previous post was at 16:32 ----------

... and Starmer will have to squirm.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

The car was reversing AND turning. That brought him into the front.
Pictures
Attachment 31591
Attachment 31592
Attachment 31593
Was he moving from right to left or was the car moving from left to right? Little sign of him moving as he is facing forwards all the time.
Phone was in his left hand, gun was on his right. He started filming long before then.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Why is the car black in your images but the images on SkyNews show the vehicle as burgundy :confused:

https://youtube.com/shorts/s5rndXDaX_Q

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Too close and facing forwards. Not enough time to do anything. He would have to turn right and then move. He appears to have been stationary and not expecting her to move forward. He did move slightly or was nudged aside, with the car appearing to hit his left leg(foot off the ground). Only now, the front wheels are starting to turn right.
Attachment 31594

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Different angle and camera. My caps do show a dark burgundy. The video is from the BBC broadcast.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

At the time he had to make a decision, the wheels were pointing straight ahead. Not that he would've seen them as he was too close and watching the actions of the driver.
Even at the point of the 1st shot, the wheels were only starting to turn right.
Attachment 31595
See his left foot off the ground from his leg being hit.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

When ever i here that Trump has been mouthing off again it reminds me of this https://youtu.be/nYZ4IoyztIw?t=73

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

However if you watch the other videos, the murderer was clearly in no danger at all. His first shot was to the dark right of the windshield. Showing he was at the corner of the vehicle and his own mobile phone footage shows where he was.

But as per the law enforcement rules they should not stand in front of a moving or potentially moving vehicle. You also hear the shots as she moved off to the right.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Eh no, from the picture you provided, his left foot is not ‘off the ground’, if anything it would have been his right leg, judging from the angle. There is nothing, absolutely nothing from the frame you have posted that suggests that the ICE agent’s life was in imminent danger. The car is moving away from him.

I think it is fairly obvious that a poorly trained person, thrust in to a position because of the current US regime are desperate to people to carry out the Fuhrer's, sorry, President’s, wishes, regardless.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Independent investigation by the FBI under its current leadership who were calling the murder victim names before she was cold, yeah right

Also in the video you don't hear him cry out in surprise or pain at the car hitting him, we do him him cursing the lady he just shot in the face though however...

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

It was moving at what ? 2 mph ?
Doesnt exactly seem "life threatening".

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

He didn't stand in front. As shown by the set of 3 pictures I posted. She reversed left hand down. That brought him, the fences, trees, and building across the road into view. Are you suggesting the fences etc moved?
She would've been turning the steering to the right to straighten up, after steering left.
The first picture, he has his hand on this gun. The 2nd picture has the gun partially out of the holster. The set of two pictures proves she was steering straight and moving straight ahead.The wheel trim is visible in both.

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

In the olden days, somebody was killed when the vehicle was moving at 4mph(on back of Walkers crisp packet from the 1970s).
Why does it have to be life-threatening? It is clear the car was pointing in his direction and moving forward at the time of drawing his gun. Even being gently knocked to the ground can be fatal.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

She literally reversed, turned the wheel to the right and moved. That is also clear to see from the murderers own phone footage.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Right or left leg, he was still hit.
Shows point of contact.
Attachment 31596
and pushed aside.
Attachment 31597
As the car moved on, he seem to do a slight hobble.
NOT about what happened to him, but what COULD'VE happened to him. He could've have been dragged by the car and required 33 stitches, as had happened to him before.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Where does it say it was him "cursing" anybody? You curse if you had been injured or were forced to shoot somebody when you wouldn't have wanted to.
The women were there to deliberately disrupt ICE and block the roads. That is according to her wife.
Undeniable that the car was driven towards him. Why wouldn't you call somebody who did that all sorts of names?
Only on closer and detailed examination, might it appear that she might've unintentionally driven towards him. That takes time to establish.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

The woman drove several hours from another state to get “involved”.

Her partner got out the car, and she then positioned the car in such a way as to interfere with the ICE actions.

She was instructed, three times? , not sure , to stop the vehicle and get out.


Her partner video’s and goaded the officers.

Her partner then told to “drive baby drive” whilst the officers were trying to detain the vehicle.

Directly into one officer, that had been a victim of a similar incident previously in which he had been seriously injured.

He fired in self defence.

She , and her partner, travelled a great distance and went looking for trouble, and she found it.

Zero sympathy for her,

Maximum sympathy for her kids.

Shame she didn’t think about them at the time.

---------- Post added at 23:02 ---------- Previous post was at 23:00 ----------

The murderer.

What a joke you are.

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------

She also literally indicated, winded her window down, waved a handkerchief,………..

---------- Post added at 23:10 ---------- Previous post was at 23:06 ----------

How is she innocent?

She put herself on harms way.

She travelled there for several hours from another state with the express intention to interfere with ICE agents operations.

She pulled her car across the carriageway in order to block ICE vehicles.

Her reason for being in that location at that time was to be an activist again federal law agents.


She was in no way at all …………..”innocent”

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Not sure she travelled a long distance. They lived in the town.

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

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

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

And your point is?

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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
 

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

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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
 

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

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Dont bother, he's left the building.

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

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.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

When did the USA start using the UK highway code ?

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

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
 

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Of course not, but also not relevant here, he wasnt reaching into the car.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

https://archive.ph/3tDmZ

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Completely irrelevant.
The rule simply highlights what happens in the real world.
Here's a UK Youtube video demonstrating 45 degree reverse parking. Similar manoeuvre. Look at the road sign opposite in the distance. It starts off to the right of the car and then ends up straight ahead of it.
USA YouTube video of parallel parking(around 1:40 in). The silver car starts off to being to the right, but after reversing with left hand down, it's directly in front. The silver car hasn't moved.
Try walking backwards in a similar way. Something started off to the right of you, ends up in front.
Shows so many people are blinkered and biased, that they refuse to recognise what happens each and every day.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Right hand held onto the door, left hand then reached in.
Attachment 31603

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Thats not the person who fired the shots.
Since the window is fully down, they couldnt be trapped by it anyway.

(and if they were, shooting the driver just made it worse, as the the car went down the street anyway, out of control, so would have dragged anyone "trapped").

I really dont understand why you're so desperate to make this shooting seem ok.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Confess I was a bit confused by that one as well but thought it was just me! The US highway code seems a bit simpler - shoot first, ask questions afterwards. ;)

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

More like, shoot first, don't question me after

Re: President Trump 2.0