ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is tragic she died. But she and her wife were out there to disrupt ICE as much as possible. I am not sure what compels anyone to actually provoke a team of federal officials who are clearly armed.

Protest? Sure. Vote against the politicians implementing the policies? Sure.

But interjecting and engaging the officers literally; that (at best) gets you arrested - at worst dead.

Neither of those outcomes are worth the risk.

+1

Why did you make me hit you?

Do you ever take personal responsibility for any of your decisions and their outcomes?

Does ICE ever take responsibility for any of its decisions and their outcomes? No, they just lie about them.

You're no different if you don't believe in taking personal responsibility for your decisions and actions.

Do you think you’re actually making a point, here?

No one makes a decision to get shot in the face. People DO make decisions to SHOOT SOMEONE in the face. Do you really not understand the difference?

You don't seem to understand that consequences occur for decisions and actions. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's life. Not everyone is nice, kind, and caring.

DP. Yep. And when you kill someone through officer-created exigency and outside the scope of justification, there are consequences. Ask Chauvin about that.

+1 And they’re doing it over and over again, in violation of a 9-0 decision from this Supreme Court last year (Barnes v Felix)

It’s almost like people shouldn’t be interfering with federal agents doing their jobs (something legal to do) by trying to intimidate, block, or ram them with their cars (something illegal to do). No adult with a functioning IQ and sense of accountability is moved that entitled, violent, idiots voluntarily put themselves in harms way because they don’t like that laws of this country are being enforced. We don’t care if they are “mommies” who care more about sticking it to Trump more than their own children as they abandon them to play revolutionary.

FYI, the defense attorney won't be making your whiny arguments.

The defense attorney is going to have a field day going through her voluminous violent and unhinged texts and emails.

You're making up evidence at this point, so your argument is wholly disingenuous. And also completely irrelevant to the incident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is tragic she died. But she and her wife were out there to disrupt ICE as much as possible. I am not sure what compels anyone to actually provoke a team of federal officials who are clearly armed.

Protest? Sure. Vote against the politicians implementing the policies? Sure.

But interjecting and engaging the officers literally; that (at best) gets you arrested - at worst dead.

Neither of those outcomes are worth the risk.

+1

Why did you make me hit you?

Do you ever take personal responsibility for any of your decisions and their outcomes?

Does ICE ever take responsibility for any of its decisions and their outcomes? No, they just lie about them.

You're no different if you don't believe in taking personal responsibility for your decisions and actions.

Do you think you’re actually making a point, here?

No one makes a decision to get shot in the face. People DO make decisions to SHOOT SOMEONE in the face. Do you really not understand the difference?

You don't seem to understand that consequences occur for decisions and actions. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's life. Not everyone is nice, kind, and caring.

DP. Yep. And when you kill someone through officer-created exigency and outside the scope of justification, there are consequences. Ask Chauvin about that.

+1 And they’re doing it over and over again, in violation of a 9-0 decision from this Supreme Court last year (Barnes v Felix)

It’s almost like people shouldn’t be interfering with federal agents doing their jobs (something legal to do) by trying to intimidate, block, or ram them with their cars (something illegal to do). No adult with a functioning IQ and sense of accountability is moved that entitled, violent, idiots voluntarily put themselves in harms way because they don’t like that laws of this country are being enforced. We don’t care if they are “mommies” who care more about sticking it to Trump more than their own children as they abandon them to play revolutionary.

FYI, the defense attorney won't be making your whiny arguments.

The defense attorney is going to have a field day going through her voluminous violent and unhinged texts and emails.

You think that it will get any time knocked off his sentence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is tragic she died. But she and her wife were out there to disrupt ICE as much as possible. I am not sure what compels anyone to actually provoke a team of federal officials who are clearly armed.

Protest? Sure. Vote against the politicians implementing the policies? Sure.

But interjecting and engaging the officers literally; that (at best) gets you arrested - at worst dead.

Neither of those outcomes are worth the risk.

+1

Why did you make me hit you?

Do you ever take personal responsibility for any of your decisions and their outcomes?

Does ICE ever take responsibility for any of its decisions and their outcomes? No, they just lie about them.

You're no different if you don't believe in taking personal responsibility for your decisions and actions.

Do you think you’re actually making a point, here?

No one makes a decision to get shot in the face. People DO make decisions to SHOOT SOMEONE in the face. Do you really not understand the difference?

You don't seem to understand that consequences occur for decisions and actions. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's life. Not everyone is nice, kind, and caring.

DP. Yep. And when you kill someone through officer-created exigency and outside the scope of justification, there are consequences. Ask Chauvin about that.

+1 And they’re doing it over and over again, in violation of a 9-0 decision from this Supreme Court last year (Barnes v Felix)

It’s almost like people shouldn’t be interfering with federal agents doing their jobs (something legal to do) by trying to intimidate, block, or ram them with their cars (something illegal to do). No adult with a functioning IQ and sense of accountability is moved that entitled, violent, idiots voluntarily put themselves in harms way because they don’t like that laws of this country are being enforced. We don’t care if they are “mommies” who care more about sticking it to Trump more than their own children as they abandon them to play revolutionary.

FYI, the defense attorney won't be making your whiny arguments.

The defense attorney is going to have a field day going through her voluminous violent and unhinged texts and emails.

Sure, Jan.
The defense attorney will advise Ross to make a plea bargain - if one is even on offer. This is so obviously an extrajudicial execution that the interests of government accountability may demand MN’s strongest criminal penalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI, the defense attorney won't be making your whiny arguments.

The defense attorney will win because he will have all of the evidence and a jury will never decide unanimously to convict based on that evidence.

When the prosecutor shows the jury that Ross was not in front of the car at the time he fired the first shot, his defense attorney will have a hard time explaining why it was reasonable to fear for his life.

His defense attorney will also have to explain why, even if he was in front of the car, Barnes v. Felix does not apply. To refresh your recollection, Barnes was a 9-0 US Supreme Court decision rendered in 2025 that stands for the proposition that an officer may not intentionally or recklessly place himself in a situation that causes him to fear for his life and then subsequently claim the use of deadly force was justified. Barnes specifically involved an officer who stepped in front of a vehicle. There is NO dispute that Ross stepped in front of the vehicle.

Ross is also going to take a beating on why he deliberately walked in front of her car not once but twice, going against all national police safety training about interacting with vehicles.

[Anonymous]

If she just obeyed the lawful command to exit her vehicle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI, the defense attorney won't be making your whiny arguments.

The defense attorney will win because he will have all of the evidence and a jury will never decide unanimously to convict based on that evidence.

When the prosecutor shows the jury that Ross was not in front of the car at the time he fired the first shot, his defense attorney will have a hard time explaining why it was reasonable to fear for his life.

His defense attorney will also have to explain why, even if he was in front of the car, Barnes v. Felix does not apply. To refresh your recollection, Barnes was a 9-0 US Supreme Court decision rendered in 2025 that stands for the proposition that an officer may not intentionally or recklessly place himself in a situation that causes him to fear for his life and then subsequently claim the use of deadly force was justified. Barnes specifically involved an officer who stepped in front of a vehicle. There is NO dispute that Ross stepped in front of the vehicle.

Ross is also going to take a beating on why he deliberately walked in front of her car not once but twice, going against all national police safety training about interacting with vehicles.

Violating a policy is not breaking the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she just obeyed the lawful command to exit her vehicle.

She’d probably have the same outcome

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she just obeyed the lawful command to exit her vehicle.

She’d probably have the same outcome

Nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI, the defense attorney won't be making your whiny arguments.

The defense attorney will win because he will have all of the evidence and a jury will never decide unanimously to convict based on that evidence.

When the prosecutor shows the jury that Ross was not in front of the car at the time he fired the first shot, his defense attorney will have a hard time explaining why it was reasonable to fear for his life.

His defense attorney will also have to explain why, even if he was in front of the car, Barnes v. Felix does not apply. To refresh your recollection, Barnes was a 9-0 US Supreme Court decision rendered in 2025 that stands for the proposition that an officer may not intentionally or recklessly place himself in a situation that causes him to fear for his life and then subsequently claim the use of deadly force was justified. Barnes specifically involved an officer who stepped in front of a vehicle. There is NO dispute that Ross stepped in front of the vehicle.

Ross is also going to take a beating on why he deliberately walked in front of her car not once but twice, going against all national police safety training about interacting with vehicles.

Violating a policy is not breaking the law.

Shooting twice into the driver side window after the perceived danger had passed...is.

[Anonymous]

Ross's own video clearly shows her cranking the steering wheel to the right, AWAY from him, BEFORE he shoots. He didn't shoot because he thought she was going to run him over, he shot her because he didn't want her to get away. He was determined to get her, and didn't care if it was dead or alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is tragic she died. But she and her wife were out there to disrupt ICE as much as possible. I am not sure what compels anyone to actually provoke a team of federal officials who are clearly armed.

Protest? Sure. Vote against the politicians implementing the policies? Sure.

But interjecting and engaging the officers literally; that (at best) gets you arrested - at worst dead.

Neither of those outcomes are worth the risk.

+1

Why did you make me hit you?

Do you ever take personal responsibility for any of your decisions and their outcomes?

Does ICE ever take responsibility for any of its decisions and their outcomes? No, they just lie about them.

You're no different if you don't believe in taking personal responsibility for your decisions and actions.

Do you think you’re actually making a point, here?

No one makes a decision to get shot in the face. People DO make decisions to SHOOT SOMEONE in the face. Do you really not understand the difference?

You don't seem to understand that consequences occur for decisions and actions. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's life. Not everyone is nice, kind, and caring.

I understand that perfectly. None of her decisions or actions warranted her being shot in her car.

His decisions and actions better have some severe consequences. Like a lifetime in jail.

See how that actually works?

Dipshit.

You can call people names all day long. I did not say she deserved to be shot or die. I said every decision, every action has an outcome. Your name-calling doesn't change that fact about life.

Her outcome was murder. His outcome has just begun with him fleeing his home.

OP here. Yes, because of the bad choice he made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI, the defense attorney won't be making your whiny arguments.

The defense attorney will win because he will have all of the evidence and a jury will never decide unanimously to convict based on that evidence.

When the prosecutor shows the jury that Ross was not in front of the car at the time he fired the first shot, his defense attorney will have a hard time explaining why it was reasonable to fear for his life.

His defense attorney will also have to explain why, even if he was in front of the car, Barnes v. Felix does not apply. To refresh your recollection, Barnes was a 9-0 US Supreme Court decision rendered in 2025 that stands for the proposition that an officer may not intentionally or recklessly place himself in a situation that causes him to fear for his life and then subsequently claim the use of deadly force was justified. Barnes specifically involved an officer who stepped in front of a vehicle. There is NO dispute that Ross stepped in front of the vehicle.

Ross is also going to take a beating on why he deliberately walked in front of her car not once but twice, going against all national police safety training about interacting with vehicles.

Violating a policy is not breaking the law.

No it isn't. But it does remove the self-defense argument according to the Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision. Last term. With those radical leftist rogue justices Kavenaugh, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she just obeyed the lawful command to exit her vehicle.

Then what? She would have been violently thrown to the pavement with a knee in her back as seen in numerous ICE videos? He wouldn't have had a chance to murder her? Where are you gong with this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is tragic she died. But she and her wife were out there to disrupt ICE as much as possible. I am not sure what compels anyone to actually provoke a team of federal officials who are clearly armed.

Protest? Sure. Vote against the politicians implementing the policies? Sure.

But interjecting and engaging the officers literally; that (at best) gets you arrested - at worst dead.

Neither of those outcomes are worth the risk.

+1

Why did you make me hit you?

Do you ever take personal responsibility for any of your decisions and their outcomes?

Does ICE ever take responsibility for any of its decisions and their outcomes? No, they just lie about them.

You're no different if you don't believe in taking personal responsibility for your decisions and actions.

Do you think you’re actually making a point, here?

No one makes a decision to get shot in the face. People DO make decisions to SHOOT SOMEONE in the face. Do you really not understand the difference?

You don't seem to understand that consequences occur for decisions and actions. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's life. Not everyone is nice, kind, and caring.

I understand that perfectly. None of her decisions or actions warranted her being shot in her car.

His decisions and actions better have some severe consequences. Like a lifetime in jail.

See how that actually works?

Dipshit.

You can call people names all day long. I did not say she deserved to be shot or die. I said every decision, every action has an outcome. Your name-calling doesn't change that fact about life.

Her outcome was murder. His outcome has just begun with him fleeing his home.

OP here. Yes, because of the bad choice he made.

She's murdered, and now his family suffers his consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI, the defense attorney won't be making your whiny arguments.

The defense attorney will win because he will have all of the evidence and a jury will never decide unanimously to convict based on that evidence.

When the prosecutor shows the jury that Ross was not in front of the car at the time he fired the first shot, his defense attorney will have a hard time explaining why it was reasonable to fear for his life.

His defense attorney will also have to explain why, even if he was in front of the car, Barnes v. Felix does not apply. To refresh your recollection, Barnes was a 9-0 US Supreme Court decision rendered in 2025 that stands for the proposition that an officer may not intentionally or recklessly place himself in a situation that causes him to fear for his life and then subsequently claim the use of deadly force was justified. Barnes specifically involved an officer who stepped in front of a vehicle. There is NO dispute that Ross stepped in front of the vehicle.

Ross is also going to take a beating on why he deliberately walked in front of her car not once but twice, going against all national police safety training about interacting with vehicles.

Violating a policy is not breaking the law.

Shooting twice into the driver side window after the perceived danger had passed...is.

The jury will decide that based on the totality of the evidence.