ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, stepped-up ICE enforcement may be one of the more pro-worker policies in recent years: cracking down on illegal immigration could raise wages for hardworking Americans. It’s basic supply and demand.

I thought you guys were against raising the minimum wage because it would lead to price increases. Now, though, raising wages is a good thing. Hmmmm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

It’s impossible to determine if she could have survived this. Did anyone have a trauma kit or IFAK? They’d need at least one chest seal and a CAT tourniquet. A chest dart would likely be necessary to treat a tension pneumothorax. How quickly did medics get there? QuikClot only does so much.

There was a doctor on the scene. ICE would not let him attend to her. When the medics showed up, they wouldn’t let them drive the ambulance to her so they had to park nearby and walk in

It was a crime scene. In situations like this EMS always needs to defer to law enforcement. None of that is out of the ordinary.

A doctor without a trauma kit would be useless.

ICE do not have the legal authority to restrict municipal EMS from attending to a patient.

In fact, it is a crime to prevent EMS from attending a victim

Municipal EMS? It was someone on the street claiming to be a doctor.

ICE impeded both the doctor and the EMS

The doctor had a whistle, not a trauma kit. There was nothing they could do.

They didn’t block EMS, they had them walk into the scene. They did walk in. Sometimes EMS has to walk a ways.

Nobody knew that at the time. Doctors know where to apply pressure on arteries - in some cases this can save a life.

ICE people can't even pass open book tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

The third shot killed her. THIRD! He’ll be tried for murder. Bring back public hangings.

Explain how you get around Alito's 9-0 decision in Plumhoff.

Here's a reminder:

"We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”

9-0. Including RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Take it up with them.

A threat to public safety is not the same as a threat to the officer. The argument in this case is that he was shooting to protect HIMSELF, not anyone else. The case you cited is irrelevant.

A person who turned her vehicle towards the officer and accelerated to flee the scene, IS a threat to the public.

A person who turned her car AWAY from the officer and proceeded at the outrageously dangerous speed of 2mph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

The third shot killed her. THIRD! He’ll be tried for murder. Bring back public hangings.

Explain how you get around Alito's 9-0 decision in Plumhoff.

Here's a reminder:

"We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”

9-0. Including RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Take it up with them.

A threat to public safety is not the same as a threat to the officer. The argument in this case is that he was shooting to protect HIMSELF, not anyone else. The case you cited is irrelevant.

A person who turned her vehicle towards the officer and accelerated to flee the scene, IS a threat to the public.

A person who turned her car AWAY from the officer and proceeded at the outrageously dangerous speed of 2mph.

Thankfully, she was prevented from going any faster and hitting someone in her path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ICE detains 5-year-old in Minnesota as JD Vance set to visit
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/peopleandplaces/ice-detains-5-year-old-in-minnesota-as-jd-vance-set-to-visit/vi-AA1UKlA3?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=6972510928e8488eb894090740a158c4&ei=18
Federal agents detained a 5-year-old boy, along with his father, as he was arriving home on Wednesday

This hoax rates up there with the hoax in Chicago a few years back - you know, Ju$$ie.

ICE did NOT target a child. The child was ABANDONED.

On January 20, ICE conducted a targeted operation to arrest Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias an illegal alien from Ecuador who was RELEASED into the U.S. by the Biden administration.

As agents approached the driver Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, fled on foot—abandoning his child. For the child’s safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Conejo Arias.

Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children, or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. This is consistent with past administration’s immigration enforcement. Parents can take control of their departure and receive a free flight and $2,600 with the CBP Home app. By using the CBP Home app illegal aliens reserve the chance to come back the right legal way.

The posters (or poster) who embed DHS social media posts as if that's the truth...you're so precious.

DHS has lied to the media and to courts numerous times over the last several months. Most Americans don't believe them.

Thanks for showing us how desperate you are.

Immigration was a HUGE issue in 2024. Trump had a golden opportunity to take advantage of that, make some improvements, and have popular policies.

What a catastrophic failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

The third shot killed her. THIRD! He’ll be tried for murder. Bring back public hangings.

Explain how you get around Alito's 9-0 decision in Plumhoff.

Here's a reminder:

"We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”

9-0. Including RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Take it up with them.

A threat to public safety is not the same as a threat to the officer. The argument in this case is that he was shooting to protect HIMSELF, not anyone else. The case you cited is irrelevant.

A person who turned her vehicle towards the officer and accelerated to flee the scene, IS a threat to the public.

A person who turned her car AWAY from the officer and proceeded at the outrageously dangerous speed of 2mph.

Thankfully, she was prevented from going any faster and hitting someone in her path.

You realize you're calling for the neutralizing of any person behind the wheel of the car because they COULD hit someone.

How are you people so bad at logic. It's like you're all 5 years old.

DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

The third shot killed her. THIRD! He’ll be tried for murder. Bring back public hangings.

Explain how you get around Alito's 9-0 decision in Plumhoff.

Here's a reminder:

"We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”

9-0. Including RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Take it up with them.

A threat to public safety is not the same as a threat to the officer. The argument in this case is that he was shooting to protect HIMSELF, not anyone else. The case you cited is irrelevant.

A person who turned her vehicle towards the officer and accelerated to flee the scene, IS a threat to the public.

A person who turned her car AWAY from the officer and proceeded at the outrageously dangerous speed of 2mph.

Thankfully, she was prevented from going any faster and hitting someone in her path.

No. This is why officers are not supposed to shoot people who are driving -- the vehicle is quite likely to speed up and not being in control.

That's an absolutely silly statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

The third shot killed her. THIRD! He’ll be tried for murder. Bring back public hangings.

Explain how you get around Alito's 9-0 decision in Plumhoff.

Here's a reminder:

"We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”

9-0. Including RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Take it up with them.

A threat to public safety is not the same as a threat to the officer. The argument in this case is that he was shooting to protect HIMSELF, not anyone else. The case you cited is irrelevant.

A person who turned her vehicle towards the officer and accelerated to flee the scene, IS a threat to the public.

A person who turned her car AWAY from the officer and proceeded at the outrageously dangerous speed of 2mph.

Thankfully, she was prevented from going any faster and hitting someone in her path.

Look at the video and you'll see the throngs of bystanders and onlookers in her path!

You guys . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

The third shot killed her. THIRD! He’ll be tried for murder. Bring back public hangings.

Explain how you get around Alito's 9-0 decision in Plumhoff.

Here's a reminder:

"We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”

9-0. Including RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Take it up with them.

A threat to public safety is not the same as a threat to the officer. The argument in this case is that he was shooting to protect HIMSELF, not anyone else. The case you cited is irrelevant.

A person who turned her vehicle towards the officer and accelerated to flee the scene, IS a threat to the public.

A person who turned her car AWAY from the officer and proceeded at the outrageously dangerous speed of 2mph.

Thankfully, she was prevented from going any faster and hitting someone in her path.

She literally went faster and hit something only after he put a bullet in her brain, not before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

It’s impossible to determine if she could have survived this. Did anyone have a trauma kit or IFAK? They’d need at least one chest seal and a CAT tourniquet. A chest dart would likely be necessary to treat a tension pneumothorax. How quickly did medics get there? QuikClot only does so much.

There was a doctor on the scene. ICE would not let him attend to her. When the medics showed up, they wouldn’t let them drive the ambulance to her so they had to park nearby and walk in

It was a crime scene. In situations like this EMS always needs to defer to law enforcement. None of that is out of the ordinary.

A doctor without a trauma kit would be useless.

ICE do not have the legal authority to restrict municipal EMS from attending to a patient.

In fact, it is a crime to prevent EMS from attending a victim

Municipal EMS? It was someone on the street claiming to be a doctor.

ICE impeded both the doctor and the EMS

The doctor had a whistle, not a trauma kit. There was nothing they could do.

They didn’t block EMS, they had them walk into the scene. They did walk in. Sometimes EMS has to walk a ways.

Nobody knew that at the time. Doctors know where to apply pressure on arteries - in some cases this can save a life.

ICE people can't even pass open book tests.

Multiple GSWs aren’t treated simply by applying pressure.

Was the doctor a dermatologist, or a dentist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, stepped-up ICE enforcement may be one of the more pro-worker policies in recent years: cracking down on illegal immigration could raise wages for hardworking Americans. It’s basic supply and demand.

I thought you guys were against raising the minimum wage because it would lead to price increases. Now, though, raising wages is a good thing. Hmmmm

You know, you are truly an idiot. PP said NOTHING about raising the minimum wage. Wages rise because of market demand when illegal aliens who accept below market wages are taken off the streets.
Yes, increased wages are an excellent thing. When it happens organically. And that is what is happening now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

The third shot killed her. THIRD! He’ll be tried for murder. Bring back public hangings.

Explain how you get around Alito's 9-0 decision in Plumhoff.

Here's a reminder:

"We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”

9-0. Including RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Take it up with them.

A threat to public safety is not the same as a threat to the officer. The argument in this case is that he was shooting to protect HIMSELF, not anyone else. The case you cited is irrelevant.

A person who turned her vehicle towards the officer and accelerated to flee the scene, IS a threat to the public.

A person who turned her car AWAY from the officer and proceeded at the outrageously dangerous speed of 2mph.

Thankfully, she was prevented from going any faster and hitting someone in her path.

She literally went faster and hit something only after he put a bullet in her brain, not before.

You guys can debate, postulate and deliberate ad nauseam about what you think happened and what you think SHOULD have happened.
But, the only thing that matters is what the ICE officer that her car was headed for was thinking. That is all.
He will not be charged with any crime because he did not commit one.
The real shame is had she simply followed the officer's orders to get out of the car, she would be alive. How many times do people have to be told to FOLLOW THE COMMANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. You can take your case to a judge later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

The third shot killed her. THIRD! He’ll be tried for murder. Bring back public hangings.

Explain how you get around Alito's 9-0 decision in Plumhoff.

Here's a reminder:

"We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”

9-0. Including RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Take it up with them.

A threat to public safety is not the same as a threat to the officer. The argument in this case is that he was shooting to protect HIMSELF, not anyone else. The case you cited is irrelevant.

A person who turned her vehicle towards the officer and accelerated to flee the scene, IS a threat to the public.

A person who turned her car AWAY from the officer and proceeded at the outrageously dangerous speed of 2mph.

Thankfully, she was prevented from going any faster and hitting someone in her path.

She literally went faster and hit something only after he put a bullet in her brain, not before.

You guys can debate, postulate and deliberate ad nauseam about what you think happened and what you think SHOULD have happened.
But, the only thing that matters is what the ICE officer that her car was headed for was thinking. That is all.
He will not be charged with any crime because he did not commit one.
The real shame is had she simply followed the officer's orders to get out of the car, she would be alive. How many times do people have to be told to FOLLOW THE COMMANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. You can take your case to a judge later.

ICE are a terrorist force

Do not confuse them with law enforcement who actually have checks to their action


It won't work

Actual law enforcement knows it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

It’s impossible to determine if she could have survived this. Did anyone have a trauma kit or IFAK? They’d need at least one chest seal and a CAT tourniquet. A chest dart would likely be necessary to treat a tension pneumothorax. How quickly did medics get there? QuikClot only does so much.

There was a doctor on the scene. ICE would not let him attend to her. When the medics showed up, they wouldn’t let them drive the ambulance to her so they had to park nearby and walk in

It was a crime scene. In situations like this EMS always needs to defer to law enforcement. None of that is out of the ordinary.

A doctor without a trauma kit would be useless.

ICE do not have the legal authority to restrict municipal EMS from attending to a patient.

In fact, it is a crime to prevent EMS from attending a victim

Municipal EMS? It was someone on the street claiming to be a doctor.

ICE impeded both the doctor and the EMS

The doctor had a whistle, not a trauma kit. There was nothing they could do.

They didn’t block EMS, they had them walk into the scene. They did walk in. Sometimes EMS has to walk a ways.

Nobody knew that at the time. Doctors know where to apply pressure on arteries - in some cases this can save a life.

ICE people can't even pass open book tests.

Multiple GSWs aren’t treated simply by applying pressure.

Was the doctor a dermatologist, or a dentist?

They knew how many bullets had hit her? They knew where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars.

It’s impossible to determine if she could have survived this. Did anyone have a trauma kit or IFAK? They’d need at least one chest seal and a CAT tourniquet. A chest dart would likely be necessary to treat a tension pneumothorax. How quickly did medics get there? QuikClot only does so much.

There was a doctor on the scene. ICE would not let him attend to her. When the medics showed up, they wouldn’t let them drive the ambulance to her so they had to park nearby and walk in

It was a crime scene. In situations like this EMS always needs to defer to law enforcement. None of that is out of the ordinary.

A doctor without a trauma kit would be useless.

ICE do not have the legal authority to restrict municipal EMS from attending to a patient.

In fact, it is a crime to prevent EMS from attending a victim

Municipal EMS? It was someone on the street claiming to be a doctor.

ICE impeded both the doctor and the EMS

The doctor had a whistle, not a trauma kit. There was nothing they could do.

They didn’t block EMS, they had them walk into the scene. They did walk in. Sometimes EMS has to walk a ways.

Nobody knew that at the time. Doctors know where to apply pressure on arteries - in some cases this can save a life.

ICE people can't even pass open book tests.

Multiple GSWs aren’t treated simply by applying pressure.

Was the doctor a dermatologist, or a dentist?

Pressure can buy time.

ICE decided to give her no chance.