- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 16,799
- Reaction score
- 6,663
- Points
- 113
So what? Not punishable by death. And I thought they were stuck in the snow? That’s what your government told you.
Democrat Violence Thread
- Thread starter JMM
- Start date
So what? Not punishable by death. And I thought they were stuck in the snow? That’s what your government told you.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 16,799
- Reaction score
- 6,663
- Points
- 113
Hence the two-point turn to flee.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 16,799
- Reaction score
- 6,663
- Points
- 113
there were cars stuck in the snow. look at the still photo. even stevie wonder can point those out.
however, look at HER Honda. It's NOT stuck in the snow. It's crossing the street, effectively blocking/impeding traffic. She did what she set out to do - cause a scene and disrupt ICE actions and movements. She won her prize.
exactly. flee. after being told to get out of the car.
and at no point is that a two-point turn. none. a two point turn involves the vehicle stopping by the operator after one point before continuing to the next point. at no point did she make any attempt to stop the car until she had a slug in her brain.
conveniently leaves out a LOT of what happens.
which you can see in the full unedited videos previously posted.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 16,799
- Reaction score
- 6,663
- Points
- 113
Are you denying she first backed up?
609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.
Subdivision 1.
For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.
Subd. 1a.
The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:
(1) that the authority to use deadly force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a critical responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law;
(2) as set forth below, it is the intent of the legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life or to prevent great bodily harm. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case;
(3) that the decision by a peace officer to use deadly force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using deadly force; and
(4) that peace officers should exercise special care when interacting with individuals with known physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities as an individual's disability may affect the individual's ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers.
Subd. 2.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:
(i) can be articulated with specificity;
(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and
(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.
(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).
Subd. 3.
This section and sections 609.06, 609.065 and 629.33 may not be used as a defense in a civil action brought by an innocent third party.
History:
1978 c 736 s 2; 1986 c 444; 2001 c 127 s 1; 2Sp2020 c 1 s 9,10; 2023 c 52 art 10 s 8- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 16,799
- Reaction score
- 6,663
- Points
- 113
You can see his feet beside the car when the first shot is fired. That’s all you need to know. He wasn’t about to get run over.
she did back up. she then lunged forward. her front tires spun. she turned the wheel. the tires caught dry pavement. at that point, the ICE officer was then hit/bumped/however you want to minimize it. fact remains, she made contact with the ICE officer with her vehicle after being told to get out of the car repeatedly. over and over. repeatedly. she refused to comply with direct instructions by law enforcement officers. she made her decision and the ICE officer made his.
because he was trying to get out of the way...and the angle you're looking at doesn't take into consideration that he was directly in front of her - on the driver side - when she lunged forward.
well, well, well
I've already provided my theory on this. 3 shots were fired.
I posted a video that clearly shows after she tried to run over him, after her wheels spun right, she reaches her arm OUT of the drivers window towards him. He fires again.
I don't "think" the first shot through the windshield hit her head, the second or third ones from the side did.
Last edited:
Nor were Ashli's actions. Your selective outrage is on full display again.
Someone tries to hit you with their car. Thoughts going though your head are self defense first and to prevent the person from injuring and killing others.
If she made it past him, what if she plowed into a group of other agents or bystanders. Rather than 1 death, the toll could have been much higher.
Her objective was to injure/kill, not peacefully protest but I guess peaceful protest is also relative to the individual....
If she made it past him, what if she plowed into a group of other agents or bystanders. Rather than 1 death, the toll could have been much higher.
Her objective was to injure/kill, not peacefully protest but I guess peaceful protest is also relative to the individual....
Hope the dog's OK.
Unfortunately for them, they both seem to have mental deficiencies and challenges.
They also obviously thought they were extremely entitled, maybe it was the white privilege shining through. Or whatever it was, they were not solid citizens
They also obviously thought they were extremely entitled, maybe it was the white privilege shining through. Or whatever it was, they were not solid citizens
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,714
- Reaction score
- 6,349
- Points
- 113
Instead of offering condolences on the tragic, unfortunate death of a mother of three and fellow American, the fact the deranged Trump base is twisting into pretzels trying to rationalize and justify a murder carried out by a masked, weaponized, belligerent federal government death squad, is peak MAGA 2026. And here we are.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,547
- Reaction score
- 16,238
- Points
- 113
again, I was being figurative. The kid with the rifle in Wisconsin got charged, but no one from any BLM assaults or property damage; the entire Capitol police force abandoned their post on Jan 6: no repercussions but thousands of peaceful folks charged and jailed.
no dipshit. we are not.
no one wanted this bloated lesbiand disrupting ICE actions.
the fact that she put herself in that situation is what is being glossed over by you and people of your ilk.
are you now, or have you ever, impeded official police duties? when was the last time you attempted to prevent the police from arresting a suspect? if you never have, then why have you not? you're not such a ***** that you hide behind a keyboard while watching the real leftist warriors accomplish your mission, are you?
the fact that she cared more about illegal Somalian criminals defrauding the US taxpayer than her own child shows her priorities in life. er, showed.
I can't imagine hating Trump more than loving my kid. Stupid choices.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 16,799
- Reaction score
- 6,663
- Points
- 113