There's no substance, just an announcement:
The Times’s coverage of the president’s remarks will include stories, newsletters and videos over the coming days, as well as an episode of The Daily on Friday. A transcript of the interview will be published.
Very bold of Trump to give all that access — and right in the middle of a week packed with quickly unfolding action and with only the full transcript to protect him. I like that the Times is breaking out the material in separate bits.
The first bit is: "We Pressed Trump on His Conclusion About the ICE Shooting. Here’s What He Said. The exchange was a glimpse into the president’s reflexive defense of his federal crackdown on immigration." It could have been a much more reflexive defense of the ICE agents. His first take was balanced: "I want to see nobody get shot. I want to see nobody screaming and trying to run over policemen either." And later, he says: "She behaved horribly. And then she ran him over. She didn’t try to run him over" — I would say that's a reflexive defense of the woman. How does he know she didn't try to run the agent over?
Also, the NYT writes "When we pressed Mr. Trump on his conclusion that the victim, Renee Nicole Good, tried to run over the agent," but technically, the first quote is not a statement that she tried to run anyone over. It's a distanced, abstract statement: "I want to see nobody get shot. I want to see nobody screaming and trying to run over policemen either." I'm not seeing the follow-up question quoted, but I think it shouldn't have been "Why are you concluding that Good tried to run over the agent?" but "Are you saying you've determined that Good tried to run over the agent?" [Or better, to avoid ambiguity: "Are you saying you've determined that Good intended to run over the agent?"]
The second article based on the interview is "Trump Says U.S. Oversight of Venezuela Could Last for Years/In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times on Wednesday, President Trump said 'only time will tell' when it comes to how long the United States aims to control the country" (NYT).
“Only time will tell,” he said, when asked how long the administration will demand direct oversight of the South American nation, with the hovering threat of American military action from an armada just off shore....
“We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” Mr. Trump said during a nearly two-hour interview. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.”...
The president said that as the operation unfolded, he was worried it could end up being a “Jimmy Carter disaster. That destroyed his entire administration.”...
He contrasted the success of the seizure of Mr. Maduro.... “You know you didn’t have a Jimmy Carter crashing helicopters all over the place, that you didn’t have a Biden Afghanistan disaster where they couldn’t do the simplest maneuver,” he said, referring to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan....
He reiterated that Mr. Maduro’s allies are cooperating with the United States, despite their hostile public statements. “They’re giving us everything that we feel is necessary,” he said. “Don’t forget, they took the oil from us years ago.”ADDED: I'm just reading the comments on the Venezuela article. The top-rated one is from AT of Kankakee:
It's difficult to believe Mr. Trump was as coherent as he sounds in this article.
I think the Times could do Americans - and democracy - a huge favor by releasing the voice recordings or actual transcripts of this interview.
We're staring into an abyss with a monster at the helm. Please curtail the sane-washing. Be patriots and help save democracy.
It's rough when you believe the NYT is out to help the other side, so now you know how Trump supporters usually feel, AT from Kankakee.
And let me just add for the sake of serenity: All along the southbound odyssey/The train pulls out at Kankakee...
Posts
374 comments:
1 – 200 of 374 Newer› Newest»She didn’t try to run him over, she actually ran him over.
Also Trump didn't say we could be in Venezuela for "years," the headline writer for the Times did.
I'm trying to imagine Biden sitting down for a two hour interview. Nope, can't see it.
Looks like the US government learned from Iraq.
Amazing that Trump spent all that time with people who hate him and lie about him daily.
@Iman: that’s the way I interpreted his remark as well
Yes are the wurst i told you sangers bonafides
Pretty amazing that he gave them that much time AND that they actually printed reasonable statements about him.
Could someone explain to me why we are using the woman's middle name? It is very odd and all of the reportage seem to be doing it for whatever reason.
Just read an article in The Nation. The writer stated the Venezuelan government didn’t “take” the oil producing infrastructure from the U.S. oil companies, they “nationalized” it.
…absent NYT ‘experts’ on use of force some general notes on state’s use if force by police…
The criminal law of each state permits the use of force by police officers, creating exceptions to the laws which otherwise criminalize the use of violence. These exceptions fall into two categories. There are
general exceptions that are available to everyone and special exceptions available only to public officers, including police officers and those assisting police officers in enforcing the law.
Like they 'nationalized' my parents farm
…the majority of states generally follow the more
systematic approach of the Model Penal Code.37 The Code itself permits the use of deadly force against a person to (1) prevent that person from escaping from arrest, (2) prevent that person from escaping from prison or other such institution, (3) suppress a riot or mutiny,40 or (4) prevent that person from committing a crime that, if not prevented, would lead to
death or serious injury.41 Notably, the Code permits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest only if the officer believe either (1) that the crime for which the arrest is to be made involved the threat or use of deadly force or (2) that there is a “substantial risk” the suspect will cause death or serious
injury if not promptly arrested.
Crucially…many state criminal
codes explicitly exempt police officers from the requirement to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense…In essence, this provision permits police officers to stand their ground and
use deadly force to enforce the law rather than retreating in the face of resistance.
Left unsaid is Trump being available and transparent to the American people. Unsaid, because it goes against the narrative that he is acting secretly and against American Democratic Values.
No I . Stop it.
"She didn’t try to run him over, she actually ran him over."
Yes, she ran him over. I think everyone can agree.
The factual question that people are disagreeing about is whether that was the purpose of her action. Did she intend to run him over or was she only trying to drive away and hitting him was an unintended consequence.
"Very bold of Trump to give all that access"
Rather easy when your brain isn't broccoli.
Purpose is immaterial. His life and that of his colleagues were in danger. Very clear cut permissive use of deadly force against a Karen wielding a 3000lb weapon.
Ann, you may think everyone agrees that she hit him, but there were people in yesterday's comments on this that vehemently denied there was contact.
I am in the unintended consequence camp. Unfortunately, she put herself in the situation to begin with by interfering with federal operations. When they told her to get out of her car, she should have simply done so and faced whatever consequences were to be. Everyone in that situation (that she instigated) was filled with adrenaline, but the only one not trained to handle it was Ms Good.
Ann Althouse said...
Yes, she ran him over. I think everyone can agree.
The factual question that people are disagreeing about is whether that was the purpose of her action. Did she intend to run him over or was she only trying to drive away and hitting him was an unintended consequence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly the disagreement is there. but to what end? Her intent is immaterial to whether the officer is charged with a crime as a result of these events. It is his mindset that matters, and whether his actions and reactions were reasonable.
Why was she there, she was blocking the road
The Obama Administration, which included Tom Homan, deported more people than the Trump Administration has. With 1/10th the budget and nearly none of the publicity.
"Everyone in that situation (that she instigated) was filled with adrenaline, but the only one not trained to handle it was Ms Good."
Karens often place themselves in situations they're unable to handle. It's Standard Operating Procedure. She simply wasn't going to accept what she was told until speaking with that officer's manager.
Did she intend to run him over or was she only trying to drive away and hitting him was an unintended consequence.
I suppose that’s important to some and maybe Minnesota law. What is clear is she intended to disobey law enforcement instructions, intended to put her stoped vehicle in motion after being order to exit the vehicle, and in the process of committing those intended actions, her vehicle struck an officer. I don’t think that is merely negligence.
"I suppose that’s important to some and maybe Minnesota law"
Leland says: kill them all and let God sort them out...
Kakistocracy said...
The Obama Administration, which included Tom Homan, deported more people than the Trump Administration has. With 1/10th the budget and nearly none of the publicity.
If true, and since this is Kak there is reasonable doubt; the Obama Administration also had the assistance of local and state officials, who were not actively trying to subordinate national laws. All the publicity is because scumbags like Walz and Frey, and Newsom and Bass, want the publicity of defying federal law enforcement.
Leland says: kill them all and let God sort them out...
I consider that defamation.
There were no due process claims in the way, of course he meant to amnesty the rest
Deadly Weapon - Noun - Any instrument, substance, or device that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Varies by jurisdiction, but I know of no LE jurisdiction anywhere that does not consider a car a deadly weapon and doesn't enforce the 21 foot "Tueller Rule/Drill".
Around she fucked. Find out she did.
The factual question that people are disagreeing about is whether that was the purpose of her action.
We should ask James Comey. He has self-described ability to divine the intention of people who’ve otherwise committed serious crimes.
States that do not follow the Model Penal Code have comparable statutes permitting the police to stand their ground and use deadly force rather than retreat in the face of resistance. For example, under Nevada law, “[h]omicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer . . .when necessary to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process.” Similar provisions can be found in Alaska,California, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas
…if true state law says the standard of justifiable deadly force is lower than being debated here- there only needs to be ‘actual resistance to the execution of the legal process’. Her resistance to following orders is sufficient.
It sure sounds like deadly force was justified even before she tried to move the car and the agents exercised more restraint than necessary by law…
"Very bold of Trump to give all that access"
Just following the example set by Biden.
/s
The Obama Administration, which included Tom Homan, deported more people than the Trump Administration has. With 1/10th the budget and nearly none of the publicity.
Then why are you lefties so upset about Trump doing it?
(This is sarcasm--you know as well as I do that the Obama figures were mainly BS, as they counted people turned away at the border as "deportations.")
I wonder if she even saw the agent pull his gun when she put the vehicle in drive. He was right in front of her.
The Obama Administration, which included Tom Homan, deported more people than the Trump Administration has. With 1/10th the budget and nearly none of the publicity.
"Nearly none" of the publicity until he decided, for electoral reasons, that he wanted to be known as the Deporter in Chief At that point, he pretty much kept a telethon counter running to show how "tough" he was on our national and border security. (To be fair, I prefer his approach to Biden's.)
As to his approach: surely you're aware that most of those "deportations" were, what do they call them, "turnaways"? "Turn backs"? People AT the border who - quite properly - were not permitted to get any farther into the country, but were called "deportations" to burnish those "tough on border security" bona fides. Whole helluva lot easier (and cheaper) than having to wade deep into the Heart of Darkness, find the illegally present, arrest, detain, and deport them. Which has to be done now, because, you know, "surge to the border," as our previous president urged them.
That said, yes, I knew a person who was a huge Obama fan - until he deported her husband, who had overstayed his visa by years and had been living underground, essentially (working for cash and so forth), ever since in order to evade immigration law. And I'm sure Biden - or, you know, whoever was running things - did in fact deport some people.
The publicity - what's the difference here? Could it have anything to do with the attitude of Democrats toward deportation - that it was at worst a sad necessity under a Democrat president, but it's a Crime Against Humanity under a (or "this") Republican one?
They should start arresting any drivers blocking the roads, and impounding the vehicles, and breaking the windows if necessary. For safety's sake.
Except in arizona he blocked the local authorities from deporting illegals
Much shorter me: "Why doesn't Trump just carry out these deportations quietly?" Because, in contrast to the years under Obama and Biden, Democrats won't let him.
She was an insurrectionist who operated her vehicle as a large mass of abortive capacity. An activist who was anti-emigration reform and for American civil liberties unburdened with collateral damage. The officer acted in self-defense, not Capitol punishment where homicide is planned without probable cause.
+1 Jamie @7:19a
And point of fact, the "turnaways" are still happening under Trump, quietly; because Democrats know that if they filmed people still trying to illegally enter the country, that too "would play into Trump's hands."
@kak
Check your stats. You are lying.
Who can forget Obama keeping undocumented children in cages. The controversy was largely unpublished by the mainstream suspects who believed that it would be politically incongruent to Democratic pride and progress.
They just cannot comprehend that Trump might have an active, sharp functioning brain. He is abnormal, of that there is no question. He is a one--off in terms of social interaction, but his mind is sharp and he's done more negotiating and dealing in his life than the majority of people alive today. You don't do that without a fast moving, strategic mind.
Also...all this talk about 'did she hit the agent?' She did, she didn't. It's all moot. Why was she even there, in that position? And talk of her poor baby son? What kind of mom leaves her son to do what she did- following and antagonizing, threatening the agents all day long?
I see this as a tragedy. But it was clearly avoidable and the result of some horrible decisions on the part of the deceased woman.
Besides, deporting more illegals in eight years easier than the one year that Trump has had so far. And bribing people around the world to come here illegally, to pad their election rolls, wasn’t a major plank in the DNC platform yet.
A wall would have gone a long way to mitigate progress and collateral damage while allowing authorities to work on emigration reform and abating George "Fentanyl" Floyd Syndrome that aborts thousands of American lives annually through illicit migration.
"I don't think any governor in history has had to fight a war against the federal government every single day. And now it's... We are under assault like no other time in our state's history because of a petty, vile administration that doesn't care about the well-being of Minnesotans."
Tim Walz will be arrested or I will vote for the person who promises to arrest him and try him for sedition and insurrection.
He should be executed publicly.
This woman died because of what Tim Walz is saying in public and encouraged her actions.
Leland goes on to say: "the Obama Administration also had the assistance of local and state officials, who were not actively trying to subordinate national laws."
Yes, Obama's immigration enforcement involved far fewer political theatrics and performative elements than Trump's current actions.
What kind of mom leaves her son to do what she did- following and antagonizing, threatening the agents all day long?
…as we start to learn where all the corrupt money was going the answer to the question will become apparent- It’s a living….
Was it NYeT's intent to publish facts or gotchas of negotiable dark light character?
All this talk about Obambi setting records for deportations, why didn’t he focus on the target rich environment? The would be Little Mogadishu, aka Minneapolis. Sorry, rhetorical question.
Obama was anti-undocumented immigrant, pro-American? Pro-emigration reform? Sequester the conception.
Whether it's conservative men with guns shooting Honda-driving women in the head or Honda-driving women making conservative men with guns feel scared, both sides share blame for conservative men with guns shooting Honda-driving women in the head.
Kakistocracy said...
"I suppose that’s important to some and maybe Minnesota law"
Leland says: kill them all and let God sort them out...
The sock muppet us just a lying sack of shit operating in bad faith at every level.
These people are evil and they need to be removed from our country. This woman died because of people like this poster and what they are saying right now.
I think this is why Trump ran for POTUS again. He loves talking to the NYT's/WaPo and debating them. He has no real hostility toward them. They may hate him, but he likes them. If he did, he'd shut them out and just go on Fox. Or the conservative networks.
Nixon was somewhat different. With him, it was a case of unrequited love. Nixon did things to win the MSM's approval. Trump doesn't do that. Trump just loves the action and talking to the elite.
Nation building we like
Obama et al operated under Critical Diversity Theory and "burden" replacement policies with the "benefit" of Democratic gerrymandering.
So he was anti American supporter of terrorists
Temujin said, "And talk of her poor baby son? What kind of mom leaves her son to do what she did- following and antagonizing, threatening the agents all day long?"
A side-effect of extended somali-adjacency and pro-palestinianism is a willingness to use human shields. It just rubs off on ya.
And I wonder how many boobs are still falling for the "Rule of Law" scam? The Left and the Democrats don't believe in the rule of law for themselves. Laws are too be followed when they like them, disrregared when they dont. The Liberals/Left did want the Right to "follow the rule of law" though. When the liberal/left makes the laws.
Kakistocracy said...
Whether it's conservative men with guns shooting Honda-driving women in the head or Honda-driving women making conservative men with guns feel scared, both sides share blame for conservative men with guns shooting Honda-driving women in the head.
There is a group of people who think it is OK to follow federal agents around and use your vehicle as an impediment and a weapon against them in order to keep them from enforcing immigration laws.
A super majority of Americans want those immigration laws enforced.
People who encouraged this woman to act like this and who support her actions do not belong in our country.
I'm confused as to why People can interfere and harrass federal agents who are doing their jobs. I thought there was a law against that. A Federal law.
…and that’s a multi dimensional problem. As the government money is being allocated and ‘paid protester’ becomes more and more like a true profession with technical training, legal education and support, public political support, medical assistance, one could imagine anyone who signs up would feel like what they are doing is normal, acceptable mainstream behavior. Add a feeling of political righteousness and it sure looks like all the empowerment to cross the legal line and put oneself in harm’s way. But sure, let’s blame the ICE agent…
Kak, your argument is that Trump's "theatrics" are the cause of Democrats' protests and riots - do I have that right? That if he'd just carried out the attempted deportation of some ten million people quietly, Democrats would have had nothing to say about it?
My memory is that when ICE was first going after the most heinous criminals among the illegally present, Democrats styled those criminals "Maryland father" and "respected community member" and, oh, "church warden," and got straight to protesting. Do you remember something different?
Howard said...
Nation building we like
There is definitely a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.
Is it adult Howard today or are you going to toss snark and run away?
Remember islamic state was the jayvee team, 'man caused disasters'
BTW, notice you get zero outrage or concern out of the R Senators over the attacks on ICE and enforcing the law. They're quiet as Church mice. Guess they're too concerned with Ukraine or figuring out how to ge $$ from their big donors.
“I am in the unintended consequence camp. Unfortunately, she put herself in the situation to begin with by interfering with federal operations. When they told her to get out of her car, she should have simply done so and faced whatever consequences were to be…”
And the ICE agents would have talked to her for a couple minutes, then sent her on her way. Yes, she wasn’t completely innocent, in what was going on. She had apparently dropped off her wife (yes, that means stereotypical lesbians, but somehow with kids) to video record the action. That’s inevitably what a good portion of those at these protesters are supposedly doing, if not there to provide medical or legal assistance. The doctor who responded appears to have been one of the protester/medical assistant types.
“ Karens often place themselves in situations they're unable to handle. It's Standard Operating Procedure. She simply wasn't going to accept what she was told until speaking with that officer's manager.”
Which solidly gives away that they are solidly white middle class. Minorities know that this doesn’t work with police. Insisting on talking to superiors is something that older people do, because it doesn’t work for young adults. You have to be noticeably older than the person you are talking to for this to work.
Besides, her apparently having a wife, implies that she is a lesbian. Maybe the most entitled leftist protesters out there. Made worse because she is apparently unconcerned that they are raising children without a man.
Ann Althouse said...
Yes, she ran him over. I think everyone can agree.
The factual question that people are disagreeing about is whether that was the purpose of her action. Did she intend to run him over or was she only trying to drive away and hitting him was an unintended consequence.
Huh? Maybe we have different definitions of "run over"? Oxford: (of a vehicle) knock a person or animal down and pass over their body.
She might have hit him with the vehicle, but I did not see her "run him over." At the critical moment when the the ICE agent shot her, however, he didn't know whether she intended to use a deadly weapon to run him over or turn right.
"You have to be noticeably older than the person you are talking to for this to work."
Doubly-damning. Zero excuses. And to top it off there's child-endangerment.
Yes, she ran him over. I think everyone can agree.
She didn't run over him. She did hit him with her car and if he hadn't reacted quickly he could have been run over and seriously injured or killed. The street was icy and footing was very poor. The agent was lucky he didn't go down when he moved to get out of the way.
The factual question that people are disagreeing about is whether that was the purpose of her action. Did she intend to run him over or was she only trying to drive away and hitting him was an unintended consequence.
If one wants to give her the benefit of the doubt the best you can do is to claim she didn't think to herself, 'I'm going to hurt this guy.' The agent was in front of her car, blocking her escape. She made a decision that she was going to drive away and the consequences to the agent be damned.
But even if you give her that, the agent couldn't allow her to speed away, endangering the public by necessitating a high speed chase.
If you want to analyze the video of the woman getting shot skip to around 19 minutes.
You clearly see where the vehicle is pointing when the break lights go off.
You clearly see when the car lurches forward and where the officer is when it lurches forward.
You see when the officer reaches for his weapon and it is well after the reverse lights on the vehicle go off.
You will see that if the officer did not move she would have run him over.
She tried to run him over. She failed to run him over. She had been following them all day and using her vehicle to harass the officers.
Everyone in that crowd needs to be rounded up and thrown in jail. Everyone who is following federal agents around and impeding their arrests needs to be arrested or more stupid people like this woman will get killed.
From the last lines of the post:
"And let me just add for the sake of serenity: All along the southbound odyssey/The train pulls out at Kankakee..."
Interesting story about the song:
"While at the bar of the Quiet Knight in Chicago, Goodman saw Arlo Guthrie, and asked to be allowed to play a song for him. Guthrie grudgingly agreed, on the condition that if Goodman bought him a beer, Guthrie would listen to him play for as long as it took to drink the beer. Goodman played "City of New Orleans", which Guthrie liked enough that he asked to record it. The song was a hit for Guthrie on his 1972 album Hobo's Lullaby, reaching #4 on the Billboard Easy Listening chart and #18 on the Hot 100; it would prove to be Guthrie's only top-40 hit and one of only two he would have on the Hot 100 (the other was a severely shortened and rearranged version of his magnum opus, "Alice's Restaurant", which hit #97). In New Zealand, "City of New Orleans" spent two weeks at number one, charting throughout the winter of 1973."
I do think that the officer’s shooting of the woman probably transcends the Uniform Penal Code. Those rights of LEOs are above and beyond normal self defense available to everyone. Once she put the car in gear, and started forward, hitting the officer, he was entitled to use deadly force. As were the other officer’s present. What he saw was 3,000 lbs of deadly force aimed at him. What the Model Penal Code does here is to close the legal loopholes that might be used, by an aggressive prosecutor, to negate his self defense claim.
Whether it's conservative men with guns...
What were the politics of the man who shot Ashli Babbitt?
"Ann Althouse said...
Yes, she ran him over. I think everyone can agree."
I would imagine at some point MN will subpoena the medical report/examine on the ICE agent from being "run over" to further verify his DHS claims.
You're right Achilles. Sometimes I get so disgusted by the comments here that I can no longer participate. So yes I do like to follow it up plenty of snark in the face of the ridiculousness cruelty and stupidity of the shallow superficial knee-jerk reactions to the news of the day.
So today, are you going to show us your deep compassion for humans that you let sneak out every once in awhile? Where is today the day that you read people's minds and tell them what they think, blame groups of people for individual situations and actions and then call everybody who disagrees with you an evil retard?
That's the late great Dr Mike would say, asking for a friend.
RCOCEAN II said...
BTW, notice you get zero outrage or concern out of the R Senators over the attacks on ICE and enforcing the law. They're quiet as Church mice. Guess they're too concerned with Ukraine or figuring out how to ge $$ from their big donors.
This.
Trump is the only person in Washington DC that gives a shit about this country. Everyone else is listening to whoever gives them money.
Nobody is donating money to arrest Walz or Newsome.
They are donating money to arrest Maduro, bomb Iran, and dump cash on Ukraine.
Hopefully ICE change tactics
Box in who they want to detain arrest so vehicle cannot move
Which they could have done to this lady
Howard said...
You're right Achilles. Sometimes I get so disgusted by the comments here that I can no longer participate. So yes I do like to follow it up plenty of snark in the face of the ridiculousness cruelty and stupidity of the shallow superficial knee-jerk reactions to the news of the day.
So today, are you going to show us your deep compassion for humans that you let sneak out every once in awhile? Where is today the day that you read people's minds and tell them what they think, blame groups of people for individual situations and actions and then call everybody who disagrees with you an evil retard?
That's the late great Dr Mike would say, asking for a friend.
Stop whining.
Just because you were wrong about this woman needing to be shot isn't that big of a deal. You can be right now.
It is also possible to talk about Venezuela and what is going on there in an adult fassion. You just choose not to.
I'm sure the left will try to make Good into the next George Floyd.
hanuman_prodigious_leaper said...
Hopefully ICE change tactics
Box in who they want to detain arrest so vehicle cannot move
Which they could have done to this lady
Hopefully they change tactics and just start arresting all of the scum bags that follow them around and harass them.
Then scum bags wont get shot when they try to run over ICE agents.
It's not unusual for police to take a car escape through them as deadly force and respond with shots through the windows. You can see it all over on youtube in police chase videos.
Police have the public right to that assumption that normal people do not, in other words.
"Her intent is immaterial to whether the officer is charged with a crime as a result of these events. It is his mindset that matters, and whether his actions and reactions were reasonable."
You are jumping ahead to a new stage: What if the agent that fired the gun is charged with homicide?
But we're not there yet. If we were, I'd focus on the second and third shots. (Also: on the way the first shot was not an effective way to stop the car.)
But we're at a stage where we can ask other questions: What crime did Good commit — just reckless driving and other relatively minor crimes having to do with not obeying police order or was it attempted murder?
Also, beyond charging and proving crimes, we are concerned with what we think of the individuals involved in the incident. Were they good or bad human beings? Were they caught up in a situation caused by bad choices of the leaders of the federal/state government? Should ICE withdraw from Minneapolis activity because it's too overheated and likely to produce more unfortunate incidents? Or should Trump send in the National Guard to protect everybody and to insure that federal law is enforced?
There are ongoing protests and the violent intentions of the participants are important. Who's inciting what? Is it deliberate or chaotic?
There are a million things to talk about.
I'm not wrong about the shooting of the woman in the vehicle. It never should have occurred. The cop overreacted. If the vehicle was going to actually run him over which it didn't the bullets wouldn't have stopped the momentum.
It must be very frustrating to think that the only way to get your opinions implemented is by the use of deadly force. It's so surprising that you think women are the source of all of the woes in our country right now because they don't want to breed with the likes of you.
Remember it's not because you are short of stature it is because you are short of character.
Whether it's conservative men with guns shooting Honda-driving women in the head or Honda-driving women making conservative men with guns feel scared
Kak, this is too much like the post-Butler chorus of commentary insisting that Trump just got a little boo-boo on his ear.
There are a few people herein who - if they are being truthful about their past - have faced purposeful opponents in deadly situations. I am not one. The closest I've come was when working at McDonald's as a teenager, a clearly disturbed woman marched up to the drive-through window and punched me in the face, twice. On that occasion, no one - not I, not my runner, not my manager - did anything but stand there in disbelief (to be fair, I slithered to the floor in shock and pain). The police, when called, asked me why I didn't punch her back. I was so astonished at the question, I couldn't even answer: it never would have occurred to me to do so. I didn't - and don't - face the threat of bodily harm on the regular. Therefore I cannot accurately claim that I know how someone who does should react when confronted with it.
What made Trump's reaction to being shot in the head so remarkable was that he doesn't either, yet he stood and shouted his defiance.
"We're staring into an abyss with a monster at the helm."
Good Lord, these people have worked themselves into a froth.
Bob Boyd said, "I'm sure the left will try to make Good into the next George Floyd."
As seen elsewhere around the web:
She's George FOID. SHE CAN'T LEAVE!
I agree that she didn't "run over" him in the literal sense. She ran into him. I was going to pick at that preposition issue in the post but decided not to.
Maybe she only almost ran into him but he managed to jump out of the way and to shoot her at the same time. People might say "she tried to run into him" when they just mean to observe that the can was aimed at him and he quickly and effectively relocated himself.
This is why I'm stressing accurate and respectful questioning from the NYT journalists.
Those simple words contain ambiguities. Don't say he said something unless you know what he was "trying" to say.
"Trying" is a funny word. We are talking about INTENT and intent is a very tricky concept.
"I'm not wrong about the shooting of the woman in the vehicle. It never should have occurred."
You're right. Millions of illegals should not be in this country. Thousands of hot heads should not be interfering with the lawful deportation of said illegals. Democrat politicians should not be egging them on.
It never should have occurred.
Wokal Distance on Leftist Perogative.
There's a great youtube channel with millions of subscribers called Police Activity. Almost weekly there is body cam footage of precisely these types of incidents involving deadly use of vehicle, and 99.9% of the time the officer-involved shooting that principates is justified...even in situations far more ambiguous than what we're seeing here.
Interestingly, there WILL BE bodycam footage of this incident but it remains to be seen when it will be released (they might put it out there quite quickly). I'm also 99.9% sure (feel free to screencap) that it will show this shooting was completely justified, as bodycam footage shows 99.9% of them are.
Irony strikes again. The thing that criminal enablers screamed for after Michael Brown ends up showing what they didn't intend you to see...again. Foisted by their own retards!
I’m still not making a call but just to clear up the idea of shooting a fleeing vehicle or “she should have stopped”;
Here’s the law for you.
From Title 1, U.S. DOJ Policy on Use of Force:
“Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury … and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”
“Also, placing oneself in the path of a moving vehicle constitutes officer-created jeopardy and undermines any claim that deadly force was necessary.”
Ann Althouse said...
You are jumping ahead to a new stage: What if the agent that fired the gun is charged with homicide?
They couldn't possibly be that stupid. This would lead to a landslide victory in 2026 for Republicans.
The more attention is paid to this situation the better it gets for Trump and the country.
After the whiny emotion and immediate reactions wear off and people analyze this incident they will overwhelmingly conclude this woman needed to be shot and the only way this could have been prevented was to arrest all of the insurrectionists that are following agents around and attacking them with snowballs and vehicles.
These people are trying to turn our country into Somalia.
We should just send them there so we don't have to shoot them.
’From Title 1, U.S. DOJ Policy on Use of Force’
Does policy carry the same weight as international law? lol
Ward probably doesn't - or won't - realize it, but that policy quote doesn't do for his argument what he thinks it does.
Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles
…I read this to mean acts related to shooting a vehicle…
Vizzini got it wrong again shocker
What I haven't seen anywhere "who was ICE attempting to arrest and deport at the time". I found this at Breitbart discussing the previous days arrest:
"On Tuesday, DHS announced the arrest of Tomas Espin Tapia, an Ecuadorian national in the U.S. illegally. Tapia has been convicted of robbery and is wanted for murder and sexual assault."
Here is video of that arrest. Note, it is happening inside a multi-unit residential building, not a transfer from a prison or jail, where local authorities might otherwise house someoneconvicted of robbery and is wanted for murder and sexual assault. If local authorities would arrest people wanted for murder and sexual assault and, if in the country illegally, hand them to federal officials; then none of the complaints by Walz and Frey would be necessary. Also, Ms. Good wouldn't be on the streets trying to prevent law enforcement from doing their job. She would have to try that at the jail or prison.
Ronald J. Ward said...
1/8/26, 8:35 AM
At least you agree that he was in front of the vehicle when it was moving, but he didn't move in front of a moving vehicle, he moved in front of a stopped vehicle that she decided to make move. The vehicle was being operated in a manner to cause harm.
From Title 1, U.S. DOJ Policy on Use of Force’
ICE agents are DHS.
Howard said...
I'm not wrong about the shooting of the woman in the vehicle. It never should have occurred. The cop overreacted. If the vehicle was going to actually run him over which it didn't the bullets wouldn't have stopped the momentum.
It must be very frustrating to think that the only way to get your opinions implemented is by the use of deadly force. It's so surprising that you think women are the source of all of the woes in our country right now because they don't want to breed with the likes of you.
Remember it's not because you are short of stature it is because you are short of character.
There it is. Your at step 2.
Just skip to around 19 minutes Howard.
When the body cam footage comes out it is going to show the officers perspective and the body camera itself is going to get hit with a vehicle.
It will also have the audio. Her tire slips as she shifts from reverse to drive so she is obviously hitting the gas.
When that vehicle starts moving forward he is right in front of it and if he doesn't move he gets run over.
His hand doesn't reach for the gun until after the break lights turn off and the tires start slipping. When that vehicle starts forward the wheels are still turned right towards the officer.
People are just whining at this point.
Ronald J. Ward said...
“Also, placing oneself in the path of a moving vehicle constitutes officer-created jeopardy and undermines any claim that deadly force was necessary.”
The vehicle wasn't moving when he was standing in front of it you lying sack of shit.
Well Beast, Minnesota law pretty much mirrors the above. It also says “When possible, officers are encouraged to move out of the path of an approaching vehicle rather than fire at it.”(because shooting into a vehicle carries high risk of uncontrollable danger).
Again, I’m not making a call but if I’m standing in front of an approaching car with a gun in my hand, how is it that a bullet in the head will somehow cause that right foot to jump from the gas peddle to the brake peddle?
ICE agents are DHS
…yes and it will be quite valuable to quickly learn about the rules and laws governing their actions. Is it reasonable to infer their powers are at least as great as civilian law enforcement governed by state law and doj ‘policy’?
No Achilles, you’re the one lying as I never made such a claim. I simple quoted the law.
that policy quote doesn't do for his argument what he thinks it does.
To be more fair than he deserves; the argument put forward is only to clear up the "law" (even though what is presented is policy).
I don't think the officer "discharged solely to disable moving vehicles" yet section 2 criteria is met by most reasonable standards.
Ronald J. Ward said...
Again, I’m not making a call but if I’m standing in front of an approaching car with a gun in my hand, how is it that a bullet in the head will somehow cause that right foot to jump from the gas peddle to the brake peddle?
It wont.
What it will do is convince 1000 other people that it is a bad idea to try to run over a police officer with your vehicle.
Trump the performer, Trump the comedian, gets energy from the crowds. Without the crowd and sitting down at an interview or negotiating table, Trump is probably more restrained. He may not be so restrained as politicians who simply repeat the same cliches and do nothing, but his behavior is not the same as it is on stage.
Achilles said...
“Ronald J. Ward said...
Again, I’m not making a call but if I’m standing in front of an approaching car with a gun in my hand, how is it that a bullet in the head will somehow cause that right foot to jump from the gas peddle to the brake peddle?
It wont.
What it will do is convince 1000 other people that it is a bad idea to try to run over a police officer with your vehicle.“
Interesting strategy; “just shoot a few and the rest will fall in line”.
Lot of twisted logic in these posts for a justification but that’s a sure winner.
Or should Trump send in the National Guard to protect everybody and to insure that federal law is enforced?
I thought Walz was calling out the NG to "protect" the state from ICE.
Who knows what jazz hands meant
Ronald J. Ward said...
Achilles said...
“Ronald J. Ward said...
Again, I’m not making a call but if I’m standing in front of an approaching car with a gun in my hand, how is it that a bullet in the head will somehow cause that right foot to jump from the gas peddle to the brake peddle?
It wont.
What it will do is convince 1000 other people that it is a bad idea to try to run over a police officer with your vehicle.“
Interesting strategy; “just shoot a few and the rest will fall in line”.
Lot of twisted logic in these posts for a justification but that’s a sure winner.
If the police pull me over I want them to be calm and trust me.
I don't want them to be scared of me and wondering if I am a democrat that wants to run them over.
Democrats are purposely trying to sow distrust between law enforcement officers and civilians. They are doing this because they want more people killed. They are doing this because they are trying to turn our country int o Somalia.
Chuck is an absolute piece of shit. Chuck wants more people killed in clashes between officers enforcing laws we want enforced and the people who want immigration fraud to continue.
And his schtick is working on fools like Howard who are crying and moaning.
Nobody or run over or even knocked down.
Hth.
Ronald J. Ward said...
No Achilles, you’re the one lying as I never made such a claim. I simple quoted the law.
The only reason to quote that law was to pretend the shooting wasn't justified and completely lawful.
You are just a bad faith poster.
Achilles, I’m unsure if your festered hatred of Democrats or your illogical raging mindset allows you to focus for a few seconds but we can put you down with an ICE plan of “shoot a few and the rest will fall in line”, right?
Trump should not be platforming the New York Times.
He's legitimizing them. People might think they're reading real news. It's a huge mistake on his part.
They would just make stuff up, when they arent being leaked war plans or stuixtnet operational protocols
Proximate cause is her inserting herself into a law enforcement situation. Perhaps her and her fellow travelers should think twice before doing so.
narciso said, "They would just make stuff up"
Orders have gone out. They're going to provoke until they get a better martyr.
Good drove the car at the agent. She dealt the play. White women aren’t exempt from the consequences of their actions.
“It's so surprising that you think women are the source of all of the woes in our country right now because they don't want to breed with the likes of you.”
Howie’s sure all teh womens are after his essence… just like his hero, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper.
Yeah i dont think she rolls that way
"White women aren’t exempt from the consequences of their actions."
A consequence of Schrödinger's Feminist - women are empowered yet simultaneously indemnified. Women - as people - are not exempt, but feminists like Good absolutely believe rules don't apply to them depending on how they feel that day.
To me - after watching the video - she resisted arrest, didn't stop when asked, stomped the pedal, and could have easily harmed the officer with her vehicle.
My guess is she wanted to do her rage-fueled ICE block for daddy walz, and then zoom away unscathed.
In some ways - I hope this is a warning to other antifa rage fueled idiots. You are all being conned. Democrats are using you. They do not care about you.
Hey, if it was okay for Michael Byrd to shoot Ashli Babbitt, it was okay for this ICE officer to shoot the driver of the vehicle. As far as I can tell, nothing has happened to Michael Byrd for a shooting that was far less "justified" than this one.
It would be good to know who is financing and organizing all these protests
Marxists employing their “Decision Dilemma” Alinsky strategy.
This time, shit happened to one of them.
Two-hours? Have they retracted their prior reporting that he was becoming incapacitated by age?
Impeding the enforcement, which she was doing all day. And which is illegal.
’Well Beast, Minnesota law pretty much mirrors the above.’
Pretty much is close enough, right? I can’t stop laughing…
You have to be knowingly courting danger to your life using a weapon when confronting police.
A deadly weapon
I am that rare hybrid: a MAGAite who thinks the Byrd/Babbitt shooting was justified. You don't have to wait until a mob is on top of you to find out if they came to throttle or tickle. You can draw a conclusion from their words and behavior, and you can use deadly force to stop the first one through the breach and encourager les autres to stay away. Why did cops use to call their shotguns 'riot guns?' Because they were intended to scatter shot into masses of rioters, and the law of not too long ago saw nothing wrong with that. The only thing that upsets me about Byrd's treatment is that it should have been extended to other cops who are sitting in pound-me-in-the-ass prison (well, maybe not literally sitting) for equally justified use of force. Such as Chauvin.
So, similar to Byrd, the ICE guy yesterday didn't have to wait to see just how hard the protester's car was going to hit him. He could do some instinctive instantaneous statistics and figure it was very likely to be very hard, and then use the only tool available to him to try to mitigate the threat. CC, JSM
SIX LITTLE WORDS — Did we get that from Biden?
"Should ICE withdraw from Minneapolis activity because it's too overheated and likely to produce more unfortunate incidents?"
Should we stop enforcing the law? Yes.
I could interpret Trump as saying that she wasn't trying to hit him with the car but actually did hit him with the car. However, the most likely interpretation is exactly that- she hit him but that wasn't her intent which I think is the truth. However, as I wrote yesterday, her intent there is completely irrelevant- she did accelerate the vehicle towards the officer and that is all that matters- he perceived the action as an attempt to hit him with the car and the rest is simple reflex. It was a justified shooting.
And for those of you who think the ICE guy should have dodged rather than shot: go get a red cape, and I'll get my car. Let's play Toreador. Don't worry, it's just a Cooper Mini. CC, JSM
Yancey Ward 9:55 - exactly!
I'd add that her actions appear to tell the story of someone who thinks rules and laws do not apply to her.
Minorities know that this doesn’t work with police.
Some are demanding supervisors at traffic stops now. The really dumb ones then roll up their tinted windows.
Who straightened her steering wheel after she was shot?
JohnMosby: “I am that rare hybrid: a MAGAite who thinks the Byrd/Babbitt shooting was justified.” I am a retired career prosecutor and after watching the videos I think it was not. I don’t yet have an opinion about the ICE shooting. However, an automobile can be a deadly weapon. Babbitt was unarmed and Byrd had no reason to believe otherwise.
Rubio at least is not stupid. But this is a huge gamble. Taking out bad actors — okay nobody will really miss Maduro.
Trump dismissed the Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado — whom Rubio had called among “the bravest people in the world” — as a viable contender to govern Caracas.
That’s the key point. I highly doubt Rubio’s plan was to keep the rest of Maduro’s administration intact. I suspect Trump’s bitterness at not receiving the peace prize warped the implementation of what to do after snatching Maduro. And now things are a mess because Trump can be tricked into believing Rodriguez is bending the knee by offering some minor concessions (ie 30-50M barrels of oil).
If the agent had not moved, what would have happened? People are assuming The Poet knew he would move.
Giving White Womem the benefit of every doubt.
without Biden's open border and mass abuse of asylum laws - and the left's disgraceful desperation - and rage fueled lies - she would be alive.
What was she doing in MN, BTW?
Jesse Kelly
@JesseKellyDC
The entire Democrat Party ceases to exist without taxpayer money, election fraud, and the mass importation of foreigners. It’s a 20% Party without those things.
Understand that and you’ll understand why they fight so hard for those things.
Their entire existence is on the line.
"Kakistocracy said...
The Obama Administration, which included Tom Homan, deported more people than the Trump Administration has. With 1/10th the budget and nearly none of the publicity."
In what time frame? First year? First term? All eight years?
Let's compare apples to apples.
Babbit did not deserve to be shot.
Sadly - all of the protestors fell for the left's plan to get them in the building.
One guy walked in took photos and left - and he was treated like a terrorist by the corrupt left. He ended his own life - and not a single leftist gives a shit.
Trump wasnt shot in the head.
A bullet grazed his ear.
The dead lady didn't run over anyone.
She cleared his body in her turn.
If the second or third shot blew off her head
when he shot from the side, causing the car to accelerate, charge him with manslaughter and let him defend himself in a court of law.
Words matter.
So do the autopsy results.
Release his name today, and respect science, police investigations, and rule of law.
Get ICE out of Minneapolis now. Theyre killing innocents, putting themselves in harms way, and are clearly not trained police officers. Cops have to play by the rules. American citizens don't have to submit to masked men on the streets sowing chaos on residential neighborhoods cuz you old folks at home want a show. Too many officers with too little to do, because Noem wanted to make a statement. They didn't know where each other was... like guys in a hunting party not communicating. ie dick cheney
Weren't they supposed to be here arresting Somalia fraudsters, the 2000 of them? Dont defend this shitshow...
Seen the video where they wouldn't let the physician in to help the driver? Waited 10 or 15 minute's for the ICE medics to show up... do you guys want a civil war? Walz doesn't. He will call up the national guard if peaceful protests which are an american right get out of hand. Respect the first amendment?No need for Donny to send in the Army since SCOTUS told him he can't use the national guard first if there's an insurrection.
People want justice not an insurrection.
You old boomers looked away for decades from a breached border and let the illegals spread throughout the country instead of containing this to the border states. We believe in rule of law here, and just punishments for those who break our laws. Ask aimee bock, and her friends... no shots fired to deliver justice. White collar fraud isn't curtailed by guns on streets. It's just a show with the drama you old folks live for
Welcome, you're soooo late to the party.
Release his name and background file today. Did he shoot at the driver who allegedly "drug" him in july? Why walk in front of a vehicle and put himself at risk again. No real cop makes that mistake twice. He's not properly trained. Settle this in a court of law, not violently...
Watch your prepositions and stop hyping violence, old proffy. Think of your reputation? This was totally preventable... don't wish for violence on American streets.
Kak at 10:03: We will rarely have a better example of precipitous, Democrat TDS conjecture masquerading as critical thinking.
"Yes, she ran him over. I think everyone can agree."
So the car at some point was on top of him, or it knocked him out of the way? I do not see either happening when viewed in the zoomed slow motion video that is close in on the side of contact. I stepped through frame by frame. The car does touch him, but only because he leans in to shoot through the windshield from beside the front fender, and he then slips on the ice and his feet slide backward sending the top of his body even closer and his arms into contact as the car is moving away . The officer appears to make his shoot decision when the car is aimed at him and accelerating (justified), but by the time he shoots The wheels are turned away and the car is moving away from him at an angle making it impossible to run him over. So it looks justified to me based on his reasonable belief that she was tying to run him over, but she never actually does. So, no, we cannot agree that she ran him over, but it also doesn't matter for his justification.
I want to emphasize the point again; we are not talking about who it was ICE was attempting to apprehend in the beginning. It is important that this not be allowed to be glossed over. While everyone may want to talk about the secondary events that occurred; the first event was ICE was at the scene to arrest a fugitive wanted for breaking various US laws including entering illegally (and almost certainly other felonies committed inside the US).
It seems reasonable, based on statements made by Ms. Good spouse; that Ms. Good was at the scene in a manner that can be seen as assisting a fugitive to evade law enforcement during an arrest. I think many want to gloss over those actions by Ms. Good, and in so doing, fail to recognize that Ms. Good actions prior to the video was likely unlawful and worthy of her arrest/detainment.
"“Also, placing oneself in the path of a moving vehicle constitutes officer-created jeopardy and undermines any claim that deadly force was necessary.”
Ronald, if you have seen the video you know that last part absolutely does not apply to this case- the officer was in front of the vehicle before it began moving.
Achilles: "Nobody is donating money to arrest Walz or Newsome."
Dude, that would be a record-breaking GoFundMe! CC, JSM
The Babbit shooting was clearly unjustified. No imminent threat of death or bodily harm to anyone, except by the guy with the gun.
The "cop" ran away from the scene of the crime, his crime.
Where is his gun? Was he questioned before he took off to spend time with his family? Is that how this officer was trained? Did he fear for his life, that a mob would string him up
so he broke protocol again?
Which hospital did he allegedly treat at, and when?
Do trump vance and noem think they can circle the wagons and keep him anonymous, and shield him from a real investigation? Not here. Not in this video age.
Does he remind you of your son/grandson, ann? Can you think logically without emotion?
The war with Venezuela is far from over, is Trump 'selling the skin before he has killed the bear?' Maybe, but there is still the matter of a worldwide embargo on Venezuelan oil, which will bite more and more until the people "starve due to the incompetent management of the socialists" and then, as Dostoyevski put it, I think, "they will come to us to be enslaved as long as we promise to feed them."
This is WWIII, it is happening, Trump is all in on it. it's just that the tech is different. China depends heavily on Venezuelan oil, Venezuela also has a lot of silver, which is by far the best conductor of electricity, copper being a distant second. So you can't really make chips without silver.
People say that the dollar is a fiat currency, but it isn't, "petrodollars" aren't just some little isolated pile of dollars, at bottom, your dollar can no longer be exchanged for gold, but for a long time, the only way you could buy oil was with US dollars, underpinning its value, and our military made sure that this was the case, and China has been trying to squirm out of this stranglehold, and we are using our military to force them back into it.
"She behaved horribly. And then she ran him over. She didn’t try to run him over" — I would say that's a reflexive defense of the woman. How does he know she didn't try to run the agent over? "
No, he's making a point. She didn't try to run him over, she DID run him over.
After Charlie Kirk was killed I said that you're going to see "new normals broken through from here on out with frightening speed and regularity". We are 8 days into a new year and we're not even close to being overwhelmed.
To those of you who understand strategy and conflict dynamics, you already know where we're headed. Buckle up.
Ronald is a moron. He only thinks about a situation until he gets to the point where he gets to what he wanted to believe all along. We all do it sometimes, but Ward does it all the time.
You know that song was about a trained, not an ocean liner, right? Sample the next sentence after the one you cited.
Are you trying to be a blonde dingbat so the old dumb codgers here and in the next bedroom over will like you? Why act so dumb?
Leland - indeed.
+
I see her actions in the car as resisting arrest.
I expect the body cam footage may make it look even more like he was hit, because as he slips on the ice he falls toward the car, which from his camera is going to look like the car came toward him at that time when it was actually moving away, but by then, the shot was past.
Kak: “The Obama Administration, which included Tom Homan, deported more people than the Trump Administration has.” The Obama Administration deported 2.7 - 3 million illegals in 8 years. Trump’s deported 600k in one year not counting self-deportation. The math and the implications ought to be easy, even for Kak, but evidently they are not.
If someone in law enforcement has a gun pointed at you. You stop, and put your hands up. You surrender.
She did not do that.
You can always tell when Kakabich is lying- there are words in his comment.
He didn't get run over.
Never went to the ground.
He'd a limped if the car went over his foot.
He didnt. Plenty of room for her to turn the wheel and clear his body...
His best defense is he panicked. Nobody believes that she ran him over, even the blonde dingbat retracted that statement she was sure everyone agreed with.
Everyone being her husband.
Matt - that does not mesh with eye witness accounts.
Where did you read that?
’The Poet’
Love it!
The entire Democrat Party ceases to exist without taxpayer money, election fraud, and the mass importation of foreigners
…circumstances lead me to believe this is extremely true. Maybe they aren’t extinct but instead not relevant…
Did she try to run him over? Probably never know. Did she even see the agent in front of the car? Was she focused on the agent at her door? When I first watched the video, I immediately thought - why would the agent put himself in front of the car? Are they trained to try and block a car with their body? Seems like a bad place to set up?
Eyewitness interview:
“As for whether Good was even a part of the effort to impede ICE, the witness did not hesitate.
“Definitely, yeah,” the witness said. “That was her goal.”
The witness went further, explaining that Good was not a peripheral figure but the lead vehicle in the protest.
“They clearly wanted her out of there, um, because she was the main car leading the, um, the protest is my understanding,” the witness said. “I talked to another guy who was driving behind her.”
The witness continued, “She was very — she was very successful in blocking traffic. She was doing what she was, what she was set out to do, and so they wanted to get her the hell out of there.”
I'm interested in knowing the truth about her prior actions that day.
I'm interested in knowing what drugs she had in her system.
The agent at her car door is important. Was he asking her to stop and get out of the car? It looks like it.
Space Mtn - hate and rage and the preferred drugs on the left.
Matt, the fact that she blocked the street by stopping in it sideways while her wife filmed it from the sidewalk suggests very strongly that she was in that position deliberately to stop the ICE agents. I don't know if she decided to become an activist just that morning but the details all lean towards her being an activist at that moment.
’The Poet’
I once read a thriller by that name, I think that "the Poet" was a serial killer in it.
"I'm interested in knowing what drugs she had in her system."
Righteous indignation, pumped into her by Tim Walz, for one, who called ICE "gestapo."
When his name and background file are released, we will learn how much training these masked ICE officers undergo...
They're not cops.
The training might have been thought good enough to arrest brown illegals, but they are in white residential neighborhoods now. Justice matters.
They were in over their heads in Chicago. The local police cannot be seen as in cahoots with ICE. Real cops try to build trust in their communities over the past decades. That's why Trump wanted National Guard soldiers to support his keystone cops, for their own protection.
SCOTUS said no after the young woman National Guard soldier was shot in the head in DC.
Congress abdicated their duties for years, which makes it harder now to root illegals out of their jobs, our universities, and our social service programs. It will be done, but legally, not with guns.
Too many innocent women/vulnerables being killed to justify the ICE follies now. Guns can't provide justice anymore than they can watch your elders, mow your lawns, or fix your roofs.
Stop putting your faith in weapons over people with brains who believe in rule of law... Was ann ever one of us??
Assuming good faith, she should have stopped the vehicle, and shut off the engine. This wasn't Charlottesville where a violent civilian mob was assaulting her vehicle and impeding its departure following similar events nationwide .
It wasn't Capitol punishment where a woman in a prone position was aborted in cold blood.
It wasn't a virtual righteous action where a drug overdose caused respiratory distress and a selfie-abortion amid a hostile crowd.
When will the ICE officer who killed her be drug tested?
Are these ICE agents vetted?
@Jaq, it's clear she was an angry bull dyke. Her misandrist estrogen levels were probably higher than a 37yo tranz-eunuch.
I'd like Trump to talk and tackle vote fraud, and tax payer waste and fraud from corrupt d-run states like MN and CA. etc...
and then focus like a laser.
Peachy said...
Babbit did not deserve to be shot.
Again deserve is a terrible word to use in this situation.
Babbit made decisions that led to a high probability of getting shot.
She never should have tried to climb through a broken window inside the capitol building.
Was the officer who shot her justified in shooting her?
I did not see if he had announced himself. If he was hiding in a corner behind a door then no. If he announced himself and told her to stay back then yes he was.
I am not saying she did anything wrong. But she did do things that I would expect to be shot for doing.
So, she was obstructing traffic, causing a hazardous environment, the agent confronted her, and, in the best case, she attempted to flea without care to any abortive affirmative action.
Yancey & Jaq, my quotes of the law doesn’t mean I’m making a case of this incident, it’s simply quoting the law.
Beast @ 9:47, have you actually researched the state’s laws and policies or are you afraid of what it says and could apply?
Again - Ashley Babbit did NOT DESERVE to be shot.
Here's some advice for all the usual suspects SJWs and RJW.
When the coppers say get out of the car, get out of the car. It doesn't matter if it's Barney Fife or some jacked trooper. Get out of the car and put your hands where you're told put them and keep your filthy mouth shut. That way you stay alive.
In a few days you can vent to a judge.
Babbit was caught in a hostile environment, after failing to calm the situation, she attempted to escape, and was aborted in cold blood.
"China depends heavily on Venezuelan oil, "
I saw a report recently (wish I could remember where) that Venezuela's share of Chinese imports is just a few percent.
DHS needs to tell us who ICE was there to arrest. The articles now are "what we know about the woman ICE shoot". We need to know why ICE was there, who were they there to apprehend, and then we work on figuring out why this woman and her vehicle were between ICE and the person they were there to apprehend.
I'm willing to accept she was backing out of her driveway and got caught up in the situation. But while the stories of "what we know" pretend to tell us about her; they don't explain why she was there. Why was this Poet, Wife, and Mother at that location and why was ICE ther?. Who was the third person (the immigrant ICE was there to detain) that nobody wants to mention and where was that person?
Honest question: do American citizens have to obey, and be taken away to the local concentration camp, if an ICE officer demands it?
Can they request local police processing and demand to see a judge in an American courtroom? The citizens being wrongly locked up for days and disappeared should be suing, brown or not.
Any thoughts on jurisdiction or civil procedure here, old proffy ?Or just respect the men with the big guns and do whatever they say?
Would you submit and go quietly wherever they directed you, while your spouse waits days to learn what happened and pray you make it out alive? Be honest.
Who broke the windows at the Capitol building?
We know Sullivan did. We have video of what looks like an under-cover FED breaking some windows.
Why didn't they get shot ?
Jon Sullivan was a known antifa. he was pretending to be a MAGA - and he broke windows. yet - we hear very little about him. Where is he now? did he ever serve time?
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.