In any videos I saw the ICE agent was not struck! I hope the word continues to go out to avoid ICE. They obviously are not trained to handle situations and cause more chaos than is necessary!
In any videos I saw the ICE agent was not struck! I hope the word continues to go out to avoid ICE. They obviously are not trained to handle situations and cause more chaos than is necessary!
Last edited by frugal-one; 1-11-26 at 9:32am.
I reasonable summation. I just assume her training or group participation included some encouragement toward non-violence (?) as opposed to a radical domestic terrorist who weaponized her car. Peaceful disobedience.Originally Posted by iris lilies
I was wondering. I've watched he famous officer video a couple of times. I've not seen any part of the car striking and any part of the officer. It just goes blurry and some unidentified noises and anything else seems to be by inference. Was that his cell phone that was hit or dropped when he wen for his gun. I must be missing something, as they are portraying that as damning evidence of self-protection. All I got was that his cell may have hit the car and I'm not sure about that.
I'd think proper investigation would ask where his cell phone was during all of this? Was it always in his hand? Was he holding it when he fired. Or was it attached to his uniform somewhere? We may never know.
"I spent the summer traveling: I got half-way across my backyard." Louis Aggasiz
This is all true. I think it’s reasonable to assume from the chaos of John Ross’s phone video that he was hit by Renee’s car. However, as you point out, that is “assumption.”
there is another video in the sea of videos that show he was hit, clipped, brushed,touched, kissed (whatever word you want to use) by her car.
I also think that questioning the John Ross video is a degree of skepticism not shown to anything from the other political side, but still, bottom line, I see you may be right. I don’t think so, though
I could go 50/50 on that. I'm sure the FBI investigation would analyze the car for fabric fiber left from impact or even some sort of paint residue on his clothing. And do a thorough review of the video. Maybe a reenactment of what a reasonable person would do with a cell phone in one hand while shooting someone. Was the video cropped, magnified or otherwise altered to make the car seem cloer that it was? Ha.This is all true. I think it’s reasonable to assume from the chaos of John Ross’s phone video that he was hit by Renee’s car. However, as you point out, that is “assumption.”
there is another video in the sea of videos that show he was hit, clipped, brushed,touched, kissed (whatever word you want to use) by her car.
I also think that questioning the John Ross video is a degree of skepticism not shown to anything from the other political side, but still, bottom line, I see you may be right. I don’t think so, though
I'm unaware other other videos actually showing contact between the car and the officer.
The bottom line is more like whether the officer felt his life was in danger, regardless. Or if it was a reckless, hate, or negligent act (i.e., the end of the video, "F...ing B...ch). But the news sure seemed to hve jumped on the one video to make unquestioned conclusions.
"I spent the summer traveling: I got half-way across my backyard." Louis Aggasiz
this is so interesting and it’s such a good illustration as to why a video alone in a court of law is not uncontroversial evidence. It just doesn’t suffice because people see it and make their own interpretation.
what difference would it make to you if there was forensic evidence that the automobile did hit the officer? I don’t mean this in a snarky way, I want to know how that changes your opinion on anything or does it?
The point is not so much the specific evidence, but conducing a thorough investigation of all the evidence. In a court of law, would the video be used as evidence and how would that differ from material evidence in relevance. Like I said, I think the bottom line is how the officer may have felt his life in danger. or if he acted negligently, out of anger, or recklessly. The proximity of the car to his body or striking such may or may not indicate that. At least that seems to be the public opinions and news interpretations of the intense scrutiny of the various videos.
I think that many have jumped to potentially false conclusion based on the video that may not be correct and people should know. Since this probably won't go to any sort of legal trail or unbiased legal review, none of the evidence matters, really. And in light of the veracity of the current administration and the limited access to the investigation, I could expect evidence could be altered anyway. I already have some suspicion that the video could have been altered to favor opinions.
"I spent the summer traveling: I got half-way across my backyard." Louis Aggasiz
I wish we could treat him to several "Almighty Cheesus Burgers" including the bacon and egg add-on. (Menu courtesy of the Great Lost Bear in Portland, ME).
great lost bear.jpg
Ha. I think he might like the bacon cheddar burger with double fries and a large pepsi.
"I spent the summer traveling: I got half-way across my backyard." Louis Aggasiz
Fries must be cooked in lard, there is no other way to get that rich crispyness.
Asshole trump is insisting the US take Greenland by force, if needed. he is talking of force in Iran and sending masked thugs to round up people in Minneapolis… to name just a few of the ludicrous atrocities he’s committing. The only positive is that the courts are daily negating his unlawful attempts to make life even worse for the masses.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote