Official Minnesota ICE shooting thread

Badcompany wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

Haven't read the thread further than this, but I have been wondering, ...at what point do the idiots actually start disagreeing with Trump's actions and actually believe their own eyes? At what point are they actually civilised enough to know that protesting is legal, driving a car is legal and shooting, no killing people, is not a civilised way to apprehend offenders, without even agreeing that this person did nothing wrong, did not do what Trump and his wide ranging followers of parrots and sycophants have you believe.

At what point??? I guess never. Not when you blow up and murder alleged and unconfirmed drug smugglers, not when you hijack oil tankers like Somalian pirates, not when you invade a sovereign country to abduct their leaders, not ever...

These people are just confirming to the civilised world that USA is a rogue state, an abuser of power, like the bully itself running it...like the person that never fought for anything, now bullying those who have.

A pariah state in development

At what point do worthless morons like you figure out that we don’t buy your bullsh!t?.

Shape Shifters in Pol wrote:

Badcompany wrote:

Typical boomer with an entitlement mentality. I don’t owe your wrinkled ass anything.

I’ve stated many times on this board that I don’t debate the TDS addled. It’s old. We’re tired of it. We get it. You hate Trump. No one cares.

This guy really has it in for boomers. That’s a huge tip-off as someone posted earlier. He’s larping as being on the right, but the deflection to boomers for his people’s crimes and continuing anti-American malfeasance ( a la Soros and numerous others, incusing yes, the bankers ) are the main problem and reasons for so many of today’s ills. He really is the modern version of Jack Weinberg (don’t trust anyone over 30), Abbie Hoffman and the rest. While pretending to be the opposite, natch. But that’s always been part of their divide and conquer playbook.

pupil3142 wrote:

Anyone here can do this wrote:

She angled away from him, thought she was going to drive to the side of him to escape, and tapped him in a way that he could have easily avoided if he had decided to avoid the car instead of trying to stand in front of it and point his weapon at her. So, no: ”she actually did hit him” isn’t the be-all-end-all of the encounter.

Are you a complete moran?

Beforw getting into your actual nonsense, lets just observe the easily verifiabke fact that when the car went from reverse into drive and she pushed the accelerator, the wheel was pointing left,

She hit him. If she had fired a gun and hit him, would you argue she was aiming elsewhere. She was the driver, she was responsibke for her driving, she accelerated into him.

How can you dispute this?

stalwart spoil wrote:

SB wrote:

No, incorrect. If she was trying to kill him from that range and missed, she'd have to be the world's worst driver.

There's a lot of the usual boiler plate M@AGA blather on this thread, but the argument begins and ends with this: She could not have been intending to run this guy over if she actually failed to run him over! If would have been the easiest thing in the world to hit someone standing 3 fee from your front bumper.

M@GA should just be honest and say that they just LIKE the idea of someone like this women being killed and are not particular about how it happens. Your ideological and political leaders say it pretty plainly-- that the "real world" is a contest of power and violence whilst laws-- domestic or international-- are, at best, aspirational and, at worst, idealistic fantasy. Why don't you all say this openly too, once and for all. It would save you a lot time on here, saying it over and over again in so many words.

Are you blind.

She did hit him.

moose man wrote:

SB wrote:

No, incorrect. If she was trying to kill him from that range and missed, she'd have to be the world's worst driver.

There's a lot of the usual boiler plate M@AGA blather on this thread, but the argument begins and ends with this: She could not have been intending to run this guy over if she actually failed to run him over! If would have been the easiest thing in the world to hit someone standing 3 fee from your front bumper.

M@GA should just be honest and say that they just LIKE the idea of someone like this women being killed and are not particular about how it happens. Your ideological and political leaders say it pretty plainly-- that the "real world" is a contest of power and violence whilst laws-- domestic or international-- are, at best, aspirational and, at worst, idealistic fantasy. Why don't you all say this openly too, once and for all. It would save you a lot time on here, saying it over and over again in so many words.

Its funny you indicate MAGA doesn't support laws. These were police there to arrest murderers, rapists, and pedophiles....i.e. to enforce the law. The dead lesbo was the one attempting to prevent that for some odd reason. Whether she was trying to murder the law enforcement officer or is just so bad at driving that it appeared to him that's what she was doing is up for debate. But the fact she thinks she has the right to block the arrest of violent murderers so the rest of us have to share space with them (and potentially be their next vicitm) shows she was the one who didnt support laws. Apparently you don't either if you have issues with ICE removing murderers from society.

SB wrote:

pupil3142 wrote:

Are you a complete moran?

Beforw getting into your actual nonsense, lets just observe the easily verifiabke fact that when the car went from reverse into drive and she pushed the accelerator, the wheel was pointing left,

She hit him. If she had fired a gun and hit him, would you argue she was aiming elsewhere. She was the driver, she was responsibke for her driving, she accelerated into him.

How can you dispute this?

Easily. If it was her intent to hit him, why did she turn the wheels away from him at all? And, how was it that he shot her through the side window, after she had moved past him? Then, of course, what was he doing standing in front of her car in that situation in the first place?

Please just say, like the others, that you hate this woman because of who she is and that you're glad that she's dead.

SB wrote:

moose man wrote:

Its funny you indicate MAGA doesn't support laws. These were police there to arrest murderers, rapists, and pedophiles....i.e. to enforce the law. The dead lesbo was the one attempting to prevent that for some odd reason. Whether she was trying to murder the law enforcement officer or is just so bad at driving that it appeared to him that's what she was doing is up for debate. But the fact she thinks she has the right to block the arrest of violent murderers so the rest of us have to share space with them (and potentially be their next vicitm) shows she was the one who didnt support laws. Apparently you don't either if you have issues with ICE removing murderers from society.

I don't think you're organically stupid. You're worse-- willfully stupid in thrall of an aggressively misanthropic ideology. I haven't heard a single word out of any of you trogs that indicates that you have a shred of genuine empathy or compassion for anyone. You sometimes act like it. when it works ideologically (e.g. profound sympathy for Charlie Kirk), but you're just rage fill necrophiliacs who actually think empathy and compassion are forms of weakness. And you THINK you want to live in world where everyone believes that too, but you'll soon be finding out that you don't. There will always be someone who thinks like that and happens to hate YOU. Then what?

To your points:

1. This women was exercising her first amendment rights to free speech and assembly, as is everyone who surveils and confronts ICE in their communities. This isn't F-ing and finding out; it's actually guaranteed in the Constitution, whether you like it or not. (And you've increasingly shown that you have very little time for your Constitution. I pretty much NEVER hear conservatives in general reference the Constitution anymore, after going on about almost nothing else for years!)

2. M@GA likes laws that further the Trump admin's quest for complete domination, and enable it to smash it's enemies and various untermenshen; it completely flouts laws that stand in the way of this quest, be they domestic or international. And here the list is too long to recite, but start with: the pardoning of 1600 rioters, some convicted of attacking or ignoring cops, pardoning convicted drug dealers and various financial grifters, and carrying out an act of war without congressional approval, abducting that county's leader (and his wife!). Stephen Miller put it best when he said the other day that international law is a fantasy, and that power and force are the reality of how the world works. He has gotten around to saying this about America law, but he doesn't have to. Some American laws will remain useful. The others, they can and will continue to ignore.

moose man wrote:

SB wrote:

I don't think you're organically stupid. You're worse-- willfully stupid in thrall of an aggressively misanthropic ideology. I haven't heard a single word out of any of you trogs that indicates that you have a shred of genuine empathy or compassion for anyone. You sometimes act like it. when it works ideologically (e.g. profound sympathy for Charlie Kirk), but you're just rage fill necrophiliacs who actually think empathy and compassion are forms of weakness. And you THINK you want to live in world where everyone believes that too, but you'll soon be finding out that you don't. There will always be someone who thinks like that and happens to hate YOU. Then what?

To your points:

1. This women was exercising her first amendment rights to free speech and assembly, as is everyone who surveils and confronts ICE in their communities. This isn't F-ing and finding out; it's actually guaranteed in the Constitution, whether you like it or not. (And you've increasingly shown that you have very little time for your Constitution. I pretty much NEVER hear conservatives in general reference the Constitution anymore, after going on about almost nothing else for years!)

2. M@GA likes laws that further the Trump admin's quest for complete domination, and enable it to smash it's enemies and various untermenshen; it completely flouts laws that stand in the way of this quest, be they domestic or international. And here the list is too long to recite, but start with: the pardoning of 1600 rioters, some convicted of attacking or ignoring cops, pardoning convicted drug dealers and various financial grifters, and carrying out an act of war without congressional approval, abducting that county's leader (and his wife!). Stephen Miller put it best when he said the other day that international law is a fantasy, and that power and force are the reality of how the world works. He has gotten around to saying this about America law, but he doesn't have to. Some American laws will remain useful. The others, they can and will continue to ignore.

And you might as well admit you are no better. When Charlie Kirk died, not only were people indifferent, people like you actually expressed joy and celebrated....wearing bloody neck costumes for Halloween, posting joy about his death, etc. Did you call them out? No. And he was just having friendly debate at a planned event, not obstructing the arrest of criminals and trying to kill law enforcement like this lady.

moose man wrote:

SB wrote:

Easily. If it was her intent to hit him, why did she turn the wheels away from him at all? And, how was it that he shot her through the side window, after she had moved past him? Then, of course, what was he doing standing in front of her car in that situation in the first place?

Please just say, like the others, that you hate this woman because of who she is and that you're glad that she's dead.

Both things can be true. Her life's goal was to keep violent criminals in our communities safe from arrest or deportation and to mutilate small children through her trans advocacy. So I personally am not sad to see her gone. But its also true that her death was warranted based on her efforts to kill a law enforcement officer who was interfering with her efforts to obstruct the arrest of a violent illegal.