Government Coup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

I suppose part of any fair investigation would ask whether the officer felt his life was in danger, regardless of whether the woman was trying to ram him or just get away. His previous experience being dragged by a car might play into the defense. Alternately, he was just an idiot for standing in front of a running car while the driver was being yelled at and threatened and his reaction was poor judgement.

---

from the Supreme Court decision Alan referenced earlier. Even though Justice Kagan is no wise Latina, she sees the reality and the necessity in these situations.

“…In the unanimous 2025 Supreme Court decision
Barnes v. Felix, Justice Kagan, writing for the Court, stated that when evaluating a police officer's use of force, including the perception that their life is in danger, courts must consider the "totality of the circumstances," which includes events leading up to the "climactic moment," not just the moment the threat was perceived…”

this of course addresses the only the legality of the shooting ICE agent’s action. it doesn’t address whether there were other actions he could’ve should’ve taken. It doesn’t address the awfulness of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

I suppose part of any fair investigation would ask whether the officer felt his life was in danger, regardless of whether the woman was trying to ram him or just get away. His previous experience being dragged by a car might play into the defense. Alternately, he was just an idiot for standing in front of a running car while the driver was being yelled at and threatened and his reaction was poor judgement.

---

Thank you for moving past the narrative and bringing up the important aspects of the event. Now, go one step further and consider the fact that he wasn't standing in front of a running vehicle, he was approaching it from the passenger side when it suddenly backed up at an angle and then was pointed towards him as it quickly accelerated forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Thank you for moving past the narrative and bringing up the important aspects of the event. Now, go one step further and consider the fact that he wasn't standing in front of a running vehicle, he was approaching it from the passenger side when it suddenly backed up at an angle and then was pointed towards him as it quickly accelerated forward.

---

Maybe. I sure don't buy into the other narrative that she was a radicalized domestic terrorist who deserved what she got, per J.D., either. I just think there should be a fair investigation and it's not so obvious either way. And that's probably not going to happen. Did he get dragged perviously because he used poor judgement then, too? Could he have easily moved aside?

I think he should be judged in a court of law by a jury of his peers where the law is carefully explained and both sides have their day in court. It would be interesting to get the opinions of police well trained in crowd control as expert witnesses. I don't think anything like that is going to happen. Is that unreasonable to ask for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

Maybe. I sure don't buy into the other narrative that she was a radicalized domestic terrorist who deserved what she got, per J.D., either. I just think there should be a fair investigation and it's not so obvious either way. And that's probably not going to happen. Did he get dragged perviously because he used poor judgement then, too? Could he have easily moved aside?

I think he should be judged in a court of law by a jury of his peers where the law is carefully explained and both sides have their day in court. It would be interesting to get the opinions of police well trained in crowd control as expert witnesses. I don't think anything like that is going to happen. Is that unreasonable to ask for?

---

yes, it is unreasonable if a Grand jury, after carefully considering evidence and bucking the mob, determines not to try the case. Mob rule should not prevail.

The St, Louis County prosecutor who was elected based on his rhetoric about taking Michael Brown’s case in Ferguson to trial found, after he got into office, that there was no there “there .“ Despite his openness to mob mentality, he was unable to make the legal system work in outrageous ways.

But that guy is now out of office and has gone to Congress, turning on his supporters and becoming a shill for Israel or so we’re told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

yes, it is unreasonable if a Grand jury, after carefully considering evidence and bucking the mob, determines not to try the case. Mob rule should not prevail.

---

Do you honestly think this will ever go to a grand jury? I get the feeling the Vice President of the United States has already exonerated the guy, even without an investigation.

Quote:

---

I get the feeling the Vice President of the United States has already exonerated the guy, even without an investigation

---

Doesn't matter. *@#$*%!@ would just pardon him anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

Do you honestly think this will ever go to a grand jury? I get the feeling the Vice President of the United States has already exonerated the guy, even without an investigation.

---

I honestly think there is a chance it will get taken into the legal system. There is some sort of jurisdictional issue that I haven’t followed that plays into it, I mean State vs Feds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by early morning

Doesn't matter. *@#$*%!@ would just pardon him anyway.

---

Not if he is convicted by the State.

but the chance of conviction is super slim.And that right there is a valid reason to not prosecute, if the prosecutor dowsn’t see a winnable case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

I honestly think there is a chance it will get taken into the legal system. There is some sort of jurisdictional issue that I haven’t followed that plays into it, I mean State vs Feds.

---

I just hope it gets fair unbiased treatment after experts have reviewed all the evidence. There are elements of our current "legal system" that are run by the administration, and who has already passed its judgement.

The way I get the current investigation, the state isn't allowed access to any evidence collected by the FBI and isn't allowed on the crime scene? I think JD referred to the state police as radical leftist extremists, if I heard right. That's a great state to a fair investigation.

Edit: And...JD said an investigation by the state could ruin the poor guys life. WTF. He shot and killed a mother of three for the mis handling of a parking obstruction! I wonder how much he ruined he lives of the kids and her family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Thank you for moving past the narrative and bringing up the important aspects of the event. Now, go one step further and consider the fact that he wasn't standing in front of a running vehicle, he was approaching it from the passenger side when it suddenly backed up at an angle and then was pointed towards him as it quickly accelerated forward.

---

Obviously I don't know the source of your information, but a news account I read from an eye witness says this is not what happened. She said the officer was not in front of the car, and came up on the side, to the window, and shot her.

Maybe this film will help?

Bing Videos