ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a nice video that gives a view of the front of the car. Sorry if this is old news.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/us/video/minnesota-shooting-ice-video-before-shooting-digvid

Why does he step in front of the car?? And why not get out of the way when she backs up, clearly intending to drive off?

The onus is ALWAYS on the driver in the U.S. in general and the law is on the books in Minnesota. He, on foot, can walk anywhere he wants, even stand in the middle of the street and motorists must yield. You cannot use a vehicle as a weapon to harm a human body, even if you’re upset/overwhelmed or feel righteously justified. If there is a physical confrontation or contact, the driver has very little, if any, defense. And, this is inconvenient for those who want to ignore it, as a federal agent, he has the right to move about the scene and order/make interlopers leave. Even if he says so “rudely”, as someone earlier whined. Even if “legal observers” don’t like his job or the agency he serves.

They told her to move, she moved.

The opportunity for her to safely move her car had passed. She failed to move it when she could safely do so. Once officers got out, approached her car, at were literally touching her car telling her to get out- multiple officers right next to her car- she could no longer safely maneuver her car and should have gotten out. I don’t even back out of parking spot if someone is within several feet of my car- for fear of accidentally hitting someone

None of that creates legal justification for killing her.

Lots of people cosplaying as online lawyers here.

Can anyone link to a detailed legal analysis by, or an interview with, an actual attorney with experience evaluating use of deadly force by LE?

Firing on fleeing suspects has been illegal for almost as long as I am alive and I had a colonoscopy this week.

Did the doctor go too far with the probe and damage your brain?

She wasn’t fleeing; she was protesting there all day long as part of her “ICE-watch” group and then placed an officer in imminent fear of a violent death.

“all day long” try again liar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry for not reading 102 pages but why was ICE interacting with her in the first place?

She was part of the "ICE Watch" movement and was using her vehicle to block the ICE vehicles.
The ICE officers told her to exit her vehicle. She did not comply and we saw what happened.

She's allowed to protest. ICE agents aren't allowed to murder her like Jonathan Ross did.

She is not allowed to block traffic (selectively), interfere with lawful enforcement operations, and disobey police orders.

Not to mention: “lawful protest” does not include attempted murder of a federal agent.

We all know that she did not attempt to murder a federal agent. Even you know that. Again, Jonathan Ross had zero cause to fire three murder shots into her vehicle.

[Anonymous]

Here is the applicable use of force standard:

“Policy from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security allows officers to use deadly force only when it is objectively reasonable and when an officer believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others.

The standard focuses on what an officer perceives in the moment, rather than on hindsight review.”

[Anonymous]

You guys know that you're just arguing with bad faith trolls right? They all know perfectly well that this was murder. They aren't going to ever admit it, no matter how many times you post the video. They will just keep posting the same lies over and over again until the regime comes out with new lies for them to post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys know that you're just arguing with bad faith trolls right? They all know perfectly well that this was murder. They aren't going to ever admit it, no matter how many times you post the video. They will just keep posting the same lies over and over again until the regime comes out with new lies for them to post.

Yes, that much is clear. Their arguments become more bad faith and nonsensical by the hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the applicable use of force standard:

“Policy from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security allows officers to use deadly force only when it is objectively reasonable and when an officer believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others.

The standard focuses on what an officer perceives in the moment, rather than on hindsight review.”

The 4th video released clearly shows the agent was NOT in the path of the vehicle, so the answer is "no"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry for not reading 102 pages but why was ICE interacting with her in the first place?

She was part of the "ICE Watch" movement and was using her vehicle to block the ICE vehicles.
The ICE officers told her to exit her vehicle. She did not comply and we saw what happened.

She's allowed to protest. ICE agents aren't allowed to murder her like Jonathan Ross did.

She is not allowed to block traffic (selectively), interfere with lawful enforcement operations, and disobey police orders.

Not to mention: “lawful protest” does not include attempted murder of a federal agent.

We all know that she did not attempt to murder a federal agent. Even you know that. Again, Jonathan Ross had zero cause to fire three murder shots into her vehicle.

It's the three shots that gets me. The first shot is the only one that could maaaybe be self defense, but the other 2 were out of anger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a nice video that gives a view of the front of the car. Sorry if this is old news.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/us/video/minnesota-shooting-ice-video-before-shooting-digvid

Why does he step in front of the car?? And why not get out of the way when she backs up, clearly intending to drive off?

This video clearly shows he's a moron who walked in front of her car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry for not reading 102 pages but why was ICE interacting with her in the first place?

She was part of the "ICE Watch" movement and was using her vehicle to block the ICE vehicles.
The ICE officers told her to exit her vehicle. She did not comply and we saw what happened.

She's allowed to protest. ICE agents aren't allowed to murder her like Jonathan Ross did.

She is not allowed to block traffic (selectively), interfere with lawful enforcement operations, and disobey police orders.

Not to mention: “lawful protest” does not include attempted murder of a federal agent.

We all know that she did not attempt to murder a federal agent. Even you know that. Again, Jonathan Ross had zero cause to fire three murder shots into her vehicle.

It's the three shots that gets me. The first shot is the only one that could maaaybe be self defense, but the other 2 were out of anger.

The first shot was also wrong. His life was so in danger that he had time to unholster his weapon, lean in toward the vehicle, take aim, and fire?

[Anonymous]

GUYS!

There is yet ANOTHER video none of you have seen, and you can watch the video being created, here on this BBC journalism / exposé; fast-forward to the 1:10 mark:

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo

Notice BBC’s label “Agent Filming” ?

That agent, we now know, is Ross.

He is making his own video. NO ONE (outside .gov), has seen the incident from the agent’s own perspective.

THAT piece of video evidence will likely prove pivotal here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a nice video that gives a view of the front of the car. Sorry if this is old news.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/us/video/minnesota-shooting-ice-video-before-shooting-digvid

Why does he step in front of the car?? And why not get out of the way when she backs up, clearly intending to drive off?

The onus is ALWAYS on the driver in the U.S. in general and the law is on the books in Minnesota. He, on foot, can walk anywhere he wants, even stand in the middle of the street and motorists must yield. You cannot use a vehicle as a weapon to harm a human body, even if you’re upset/overwhelmed or feel righteously justified. If there is a physical confrontation or contact, the driver has very little, if any, defense. And, this is inconvenient for those who want to ignore it, as a federal agent, he has the right to move about the scene and order/make interlopers leave. Even if he says so “rudely”, as someone earlier whined. Even if “legal observers” don’t like his job or the agency he serves.

So if someone walks in front of my car as I'm turning a corner and I don't see them quickly enough, they can shoot me in the head??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a nice video that gives a view of the front of the car. Sorry if this is old news.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/us/video/minnesota-shooting-ice-video-before-shooting-digvid

Why does he step in front of the car?? And why not get out of the way when she backs up, clearly intending to drive off?

The onus is ALWAYS on the driver in the U.S. in general and the law is on the books in Minnesota. He, on foot, can walk anywhere he wants, even stand in the middle of the street and motorists must yield. You cannot use a vehicle as a weapon to harm a human body, even if you’re upset/overwhelmed or feel righteously justified. If there is a physical confrontation or contact, the driver has very little, if any, defense. And, this is inconvenient for those who want to ignore it, as a federal agent, he has the right to move about the scene and order/make interlopers leave. Even if he says so “rudely”, as someone earlier whined. Even if “legal observers” don’t like his job or the agency he serves.

So if someone walks in front of my car as I'm turning a corner and I don't see them quickly enough, they can shoot me in the head??

Please explain what right you have to strike that person with a deadly weapon (your 3 ton SUV in this case).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry for not reading 102 pages but why was ICE interacting with her in the first place?

She was part of the "ICE Watch" movement and was using her vehicle to block the ICE vehicles.
The ICE officers told her to exit her vehicle. She did not comply and we saw what happened.

She's allowed to protest. ICE agents aren't allowed to murder her like Jonathan Ross did.

She is not allowed to block traffic (selectively), interfere with lawful enforcement operations, and disobey police orders.

Not to mention: “lawful protest” does not include attempted murder of a federal agent.

We all know that she did not attempt to murder a federal agent. Even you know that. Again, Jonathan Ross had zero cause to fire three murder shots into her vehicle.

It's the three shots that gets me. The first shot is the only one that could maaaybe be self defense, but the other 2 were out of anger.

The first shot was also wrong. His life was so in danger that he had time to unholster his weapon, lean in toward the vehicle, take aim, and fire?

I finally agree with you; his life WAS so in danger, he had no other choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GUYS!

There is yet ANOTHER video none of you have seen, and you can watch the video being created, here on this BBC journalism / exposé; fast-forward to the 1:10 mark:

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo

Notice BBC’s label “Agent Filming” ?

That agent, we now know, is Ross.

He is making his own video. NO ONE (outside .gov), has seen the incident from the agent’s own perspective.

THAT piece of video evidence will likely prove pivotal here.

I’m skeptical. How would they have obtained the ICE agents video so quickly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry for not reading 102 pages but why was ICE interacting with her in the first place?

She was part of the "ICE Watch" movement and was using her vehicle to block the ICE vehicles.
The ICE officers told her to exit her vehicle. She did not comply and we saw what happened.

She's allowed to protest. ICE agents aren't allowed to murder her like Jonathan Ross did.

She is not allowed to block traffic (selectively), interfere with lawful enforcement operations, and disobey police orders.

Not to mention: “lawful protest” does not include attempted murder of a federal agent.

We all know that she did not attempt to murder a federal agent. Even you know that. Again, Jonathan Ross had zero cause to fire three murder shots into her vehicle.

It's the three shots that gets me. The first shot is the only one that could maaaybe be self defense, but the other 2 were out of anger.

The first shot was also wrong. His life was so in danger that he had time to unholster his weapon, lean in toward the vehicle, take aim, and fire?

I finally agree with you; his life WAS so in danger, he had no other choice.

Wow, it seems you're as much of a hotheaded snowflake as the murderer Jonathan Ross then.