ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

The woman was attempting to escape when she recklessly placed her SUV in reverse while disobeying a legal law enforcement officer's order to get out of the car. Then she recklessly (with reckless disregard for the safety of others) placed the car in drive, but unfortunately an officer with his gun drawn was crossing in front of her vehicle as she was attempting to escape.

This is a tragedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what actually occurred

Actually...THIS is what occurred

I don't see any ICE agents being threatened there, do you?

This video shows that she drove right towards the ICE agent in front of the car! One ICE agent tells her to get out of the car and she chooses to instead drive straight for the ICE agent in front of her car.

That untrained, tigger-happy dipshit SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE ROAD YOU VILE, DISGUSTING, AMERICA-HATING PILE OF EXCREMENT.

This is comical. First there were the lies that no agent was in front of the car when there clearly was (most are assuming it’s the agent on the side of the driver’s side window in the main video circulating is the one who shot and they completely miss the agent directly in front of her bumper). Now that you know there was (even an eyewitness statement posted upthread confirms an agent was IN FRONT of her moving vehicle), you now say a federal agent, there on official business, has no right to be in the road! When pedestrians always have the right of way. Hilarious, but doesn’t change that an interfering “protestor” who was failing to comply with FEDERAL agents’ orders tried to run over an agent with her huge SUV and experienced a direct consequence of attempting to murder someone with a gun. Smh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's okay to protest police actions, but it is illegal to interfere with the discharge of an officer's legal duty.

Stay out of the way with a sign & yell to your heart's content, but don't endanger the health or safety of anyone when protesting.

So I guess you would have been ok with all of the J6ers being shot and killed that day at that time. Pretty sure they were interfering with the discharge of duties.

That would have been the best thing. They were rioting, attacking police, trying to kill the VP and all elected officials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if she was driving towards him (which I don't think was on purpose, she was just trying to get away and he was standing in the street), wouldn't it have taken less time for him to run/dive/jump out of the way than to shoot someone three times so accurately that you hit and kill them immediately?

You Monday morning quarterbacks are HILARIOUS. How many life threatening situations have you been in? Have you ever actually held or fired a gun?

No. No, I have not. But I am not a trained LEO. So there's the difference.

Yet you feel the need to critique their every move.

Can’t say I’m surprised.

Not every move. One move. Shooting someone in the face unnecessarily. Just one.

You think he had time (after being hit by a car) to actually aim for her face?

You people are remarkably clueless. Yet you keep going! Unreal.

+1. I played frame by frame in slow motion. There was approx 1 second between brake lights off from reversing and shots fired. The vehicle only began to noticeably turn after the shots were fired. Self defense all the way.

Victim was being stupid and put her life in the hands of a judgment call by an LEO but the officer was clear of the vehicle and deadly force was not warranted by any means. It's a difficult split second decision an officer has to make but they sign up to be professionals and when they get it wrong, they must be held accountable.

Other LEOs who watch the videos available and give an objective opinion will agree that deadly force was not necessary in this case. Deadly force in this case put other lives in danger due the driver of a moving vehicle being shot in the face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's okay to protest police actions, but it is illegal to interfere with the discharge of an officer's legal duty.

Stay out of the way with a sign & yell to your heart's content, but don't endanger the health or safety of anyone when protesting.

They are not police and have no level right to stop a citizen. Also ICE can only operate within 100 miles of the border.

They are sworn federal law enforcement officers you idiot.

And?

[Anonymous]

The people in Minnesota are now throwing snowballs at ICE. it’s turning into a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's okay to protest police actions, but it is illegal to interfere with the discharge of an officer's legal duty.

Stay out of the way with a sign & yell to your heart's content, but don't endanger the health or safety of anyone when protesting.

Even if this were true, blocking a road isn't a death sentence.

Correct. However, using car as a weapon--whether intentional or recklessly--is illegal and can justify the use of deadly force.

Can’t wait for the montage of the many May times ICE agents have behaved with absolutely brazen recklessness with their vehicles in crowds of peaceful, lawful protestors.

Yes, ICE literally ran into a woman's car in Chicago who was just driving to work (she was in her own lane and driving normally, the ICE driver made a reckless lane change) and then arrested her.

[Anonymous]

Governor Tim Walz press conference on CNN now. The Governor is speaking in a responsible fashion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's okay to protest police actions, but it is illegal to interfere with the discharge of an officer's legal duty.

Stay out of the way with a sign & yell to your heart's content, but don't endanger the health or safety of anyone when protesting.

Even if this were true, blocking a road isn't a death sentence.

Correct. However, using car as a weapon--whether intentional or recklessly--is illegal and can justify the use of deadly force.

Someone posted still on threads and the officer was a good two feet from the vehicle and shot into the window when he started firing. How is lethal force justified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In this new video, it appears she actually struck one of the officers before crashing into a parked car:

Little late to the video evidence. Scroll up fool. You reposted nothing but trees. 3 shots came before your treescape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This looks to be a marginal shoot at best. But officers of the law tend to receive a wide berth because they show restraint in situations most of us wouldn't even engage in. Just stopping a driver is incredibly dangerous. This is why whenever I'm around an officer of the law I behave like a whipped dog. It's the best way to be safe around them.

I've watched enough police body camera videos to understand both the incredible risk they take in situations we'd all walk away from, and the risk that entails to anyone engaging on the other side as well.

Irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video from ABC5 shows that she hit the officer.

At, what, 2 mph? As she turned hard? Why was he standing in the road obstructing her? He had zero right to do that.

It doesn’t matter why he was standing in the road as pedestrians have the right to be in the road, a vehicle can’t just plow through them, no matter the speed. Somehow, protestors understand this when THEY are blocking people’s way to work to protest whatever their cause-of-the-day is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The woman was attempting to escape when she recklessly placed her SUV in reverse while disobeying a legal law enforcement officer's order to get out of the car. Then she recklessly (with reckless disregard for the safety of others) placed the car in drive, but unfortunately an officer with his gun drawn was crossing in front of her vehicle as she was attempting to escape.

This is a tragedy.

Correct. I have seen videos from different angles and what some people don't realize yet is that in trying to drive away, the woman actually drove directly at an agent. I can see why she did that in a moment of panic and misjudgement, and most likely would have swerved away as she drove away. But in that fatal second, she was aiming at an agent, and that is when the agent shot his gun.

This is a tragedy and there is blame for both sides. But right now people really need not to get charged at fighting and blocking ICE agents who are doing their lawful job.

Protest ICE peacefully, don't interfere with their actions, stick to court cases and peaceful protests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this new video, it appears she actually struck one of the officers before crashing into a parked car:

Little late to the video evidence. Scroll up fool. You reposted nothing but trees. 3 shots came before your treescape.

Yes, this video shows acceleration after the shots. As in their threat was caused by her dead weight on the pedals. So they're blaming the justification for killing her on her inability to control her body after she was dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if she was driving towards him (which I don't think was on purpose, she was just trying to get away and he was standing in the street), wouldn't it have taken less time for him to run/dive/jump out of the way than to shoot someone three times so accurately that you hit and kill them immediately?

You Monday morning quarterbacks are HILARIOUS. How many life threatening situations have you been in? Have you ever actually held or fired a gun?

No. No, I have not. But I am not a trained LEO. So there's the difference.

Yet you feel the need to critique their every move.

Can’t say I’m surprised.

Not every move. One move. Shooting someone in the face unnecessarily. Just one.

You think he had time (after being hit by a car) to actually aim for her face?

You people are remarkably clueless. Yet you keep going! Unreal.

+1. I played frame by frame in slow motion. There was approx 1 second between brake lights off from reversing and shots fired. The vehicle only began to noticeably turn after the shots were fired. Self defense all the way.

Victim was being stupid and put her life in the hands of a judgment call by an LEO but the officer was clear of the vehicle and deadly force was not warranted by any means. It's a difficult split second decision an officer has to make but they sign up to be professionals and when they get it wrong, they must be held accountable.

Other LEOs who watch the videos available and give an objective opinion will agree that deadly force was not necessary in this case. Deadly force in this case put other lives in danger due the driver of a moving vehicle being shot in the face.

He can get his day in court and then go spend time with Derek Chauvin.