US Political News and Trump’s China visit
- Thread starter RabzonKhan
- Start date
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
Doesn't look like a massive protest to me. A couple of hundred people at most.
Funny how many of them are wearing masks.
PakAl
Elite Member
He should of let her go, chased after her, arrested and jailed her for driving away, not shot her dead. If we support this then ICE will kill people at will. Ofcourse protesters can be difficult to handle, temperatures are raised but law officers should not kill them.
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
If Walz is smart, which he is not, any deployment of the NG will be for riot control.
j_hungary
Professional
Said that before, there is no force to use on this, you had her plate, you had her face, it takes you like 10 seconds to come up with a name, I don't even know if she was arrestable at that point.
There is a recent Supreme Court case (forgot the name) when a cop jump onto the bonnet (or the path, I forgot) of a car when the driver was fleeing and shot him and claim self defence, which opined on saying LE cannot escalate the situation and that use it as an excuse for use of force as it had to be on the totality of the circumstance, this is exactly the same.
PakAl
Elite Member
Maybe National Guard is better than ICE, a local force is better than a federal one in a federal nation. It is similar in many federal nations, when a federal force comes they are aggressive and also have no care about the locals but a local force is not aggressive since they all locals, they work with the locals to implement the laws.
j_hungary
Professional
Found the case I was talking about
Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. ___ (2025)
Barnes v. Felix: To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force under the Fourth Amendment, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment.
supreme.justia.com
SolarWarden
Trusted Member
j_hungary
Professional
That didn't prove anything..........As I already said, there was bumping involved; he is at one point in front of her car, if not he will not get bumped. The question is, was he in the car travel path
The angle and the shooting match with a video, we can clearly see from yours and mine, that the agent is OUTSIDE the turning circle of the car, the car is turning, I can be 5 ,inch front of the car or 5 ft away or 10 ft away and I would still be able to put rounds on her windshield, but if IO am 10 ft away and she is turning, I most likely wouldn't be on her path.
Just because I am standing in front of the car, that does not mean I am on its path, it can turh, and in this case, it DID turn, you know?
And that is before we consider the action of the totailty, this is the agent himself putting himself at unnecessary risk, and he fires AFTER the car cleared him.
Last edited:
Davey Crockett
Elite Member
Jan. 8, 2026, 9:35 p.m. ET
Just now
Ashley Ahn
President Trump said in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News that the United States requires a $600 billion increase in military spending next year to address “some real threats out there.” He did not provide more details on the specific threats he was referring to. He is proposing to raise the defense budget in 2027 to $1.5 trillion.
~
War piggies want moar!
Just now
Ashley Ahn
President Trump said in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News that the United States requires a $600 billion increase in military spending next year to address “some real threats out there.” He did not provide more details on the specific threats he was referring to. He is proposing to raise the defense budget in 2027 to $1.5 trillion.
~
War piggies want moar!
Davey Crockett
Elite Member
Watch: NYC Protesters Chant "Kristi Noem will Hang!” and "Save a Life, Kill an ICE”<!-- --> | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
RescueRanger
Meme Lord
Watch: NYC Protesters Chant "Kristi Noem will Hang!” and "Save a Life, Kill an ICE”<!-- --> | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
Slogans like "save a life Kill ICE" doesn't help. I remember the George Flloyd protests and the ACAB crew literally calling for the murder of police officers. This is a complex problem that requires legal restitution.
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
Bingo!
j_hungary
Professional
So, finally, asked my wife on a hot takes in this, and this is what she said (She is NOT an American, and is not pro either side of the spectrum, she is a PI (Personal Injury) lawyer
Her responses are based on 2 videos she saw on YouTube, both from Sky News
Video 1
Video 2
The context is Video 1, which shows a snippet of what happened before and during the shooting, and Video 2 shows a snippet of what happened after the shooting. We will look at the 2 videos according to facts (Irrefutable truth) and context (Interpretation)
Facts of the case
1.) There was an SUV that drove past the Honda before the ICE agent intervene
2.) The Agent is in front of the vehicle (Video 1)
3.) The Agent is at the Driver's Side of the Vehicle (Video 1)
4.) The car turns right after the driver is shot (Video 1/2)
5.) The windscreen is clear, not obstructed (Video 2)
With those facts, we can establish 3 things.
The agent on the left side of the vehicle shot and killed the driver
There is no one further right to the agent that fire at the vehicle
The agent shot at the vehicle after the car was in forward motion.
First of all, if we look at the department's use of force policy, All Law Enforcement have the duty to retreat, because the use of deadly force should be the last resort. If there is any way you can avoid the use of force, the law enforcement agent should take that avenue before employing deadly force
Now for the agent himself, he is not blocked, nor was he in any way caught by surprise, as that was the vehicle's second move; she backed up first, and the car is not traveling excessively fast, so reasonably, he can avoid the car by stepping to the side, on the other hand, there are no one further to the right (To the driver, left to him) so there are no one to protect as there are no one in the oncoming direction of the car.
Secondly, he should have been able to see the action of the driver, as the windscreen is not obstructed, nor tinted, which means it is reasonable to believe he knows or saw that Good had turned her steering wheel and anticipated a right turn, as we see the car is on full right lock before the car is driving forward.
Finally, from the first video, there was another car that drove around Good's SUV before the ICE agent stopped, which begs the question, with the totality of circumstance, why wouldn't the ICE agents just drive around her instead of getting out of the vehicle and confronting the woman?
With the timing, we can deduce that the officer is likely to be acting negligently because,
1.) He did not follow the Standard Operating Procedure for Use of Force; there are reasonable avenues to retreat, but he didn't
2.) Either he did not register what was going on (Which is a negligence by itself for not aware of the situation), or he wasn't looking at where he was shooting (which would also be a negligence act
3.) There is no need for the ICE officer to intervene in the first place,
And if there is a civil rights violation lawsuit filed, the US government is very likely to lose that suit.
And I have asked her another question on the criminal culpability, to which she answered, "Do you consider firing at a target without looking at it as reckless?"
Her responses are based on 2 videos she saw on YouTube, both from Sky News
Video 1
Video 2
The context is Video 1, which shows a snippet of what happened before and during the shooting, and Video 2 shows a snippet of what happened after the shooting. We will look at the 2 videos according to facts (Irrefutable truth) and context (Interpretation)
Facts of the case
1.) There was an SUV that drove past the Honda before the ICE agent intervene
2.) The Agent is in front of the vehicle (Video 1)
3.) The Agent is at the Driver's Side of the Vehicle (Video 1)
4.) The car turns right after the driver is shot (Video 1/2)
5.) The windscreen is clear, not obstructed (Video 2)
With those facts, we can establish 3 things.
The agent on the left side of the vehicle shot and killed the driver
There is no one further right to the agent that fire at the vehicle
The agent shot at the vehicle after the car was in forward motion.
First of all, if we look at the department's use of force policy, All Law Enforcement have the duty to retreat, because the use of deadly force should be the last resort. If there is any way you can avoid the use of force, the law enforcement agent should take that avenue before employing deadly force
Now for the agent himself, he is not blocked, nor was he in any way caught by surprise, as that was the vehicle's second move; she backed up first, and the car is not traveling excessively fast, so reasonably, he can avoid the car by stepping to the side, on the other hand, there are no one further to the right (To the driver, left to him) so there are no one to protect as there are no one in the oncoming direction of the car.
Secondly, he should have been able to see the action of the driver, as the windscreen is not obstructed, nor tinted, which means it is reasonable to believe he knows or saw that Good had turned her steering wheel and anticipated a right turn, as we see the car is on full right lock before the car is driving forward.
Finally, from the first video, there was another car that drove around Good's SUV before the ICE agent stopped, which begs the question, with the totality of circumstance, why wouldn't the ICE agents just drive around her instead of getting out of the vehicle and confronting the woman?
With the timing, we can deduce that the officer is likely to be acting negligently because,
1.) He did not follow the Standard Operating Procedure for Use of Force; there are reasonable avenues to retreat, but he didn't
2.) Either he did not register what was going on (Which is a negligence by itself for not aware of the situation), or he wasn't looking at where he was shooting (which would also be a negligence act
3.) There is no need for the ICE officer to intervene in the first place,
And if there is a civil rights violation lawsuit filed, the US government is very likely to lose that suit.
And I have asked her another question on the criminal culpability, to which she answered, "Do you consider firing at a target without looking at it as reckless?"
