1 hour ago, transam said:

Says a Trump voter................😆

Whats wrong with Trump voters? Going to insult 50% of this Forum again?. Welcome to Thailand LOL

59 minutes ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

When a high-ranking administration official like the President, VP or Noem appears to make a final judgment of "guilt" or "justification" in a lethal force incident before all facts are gathered, it is widely viewed as a red flag for prioritizing a political narrative or loyalty over the thorough, impartial investigation that due process demands.

It’s perfectly predictable:

On 1/8/2026 at 8:36 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Woman murdered while trying to escape unidentified masked and armed men.

Supporters of this obscenity will be along as soon as they’ve received their scripted talking points.

As is the response.

29 minutes ago, JerryM said:

But most -- if not all -- of these pronouncements on Truth Social etc. to date have been calling people guilty when they might be innocent rather than this case of calling someone innocent when they might be guilty -- and the DoJ is in sole control the federal indictment mechanism.

That’s a false equivalence.

Statements made by private individuals on social media are in no way equivalent to statements made by the President and Cabinet members from their offices and/or via Government communications.

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You have a right to protest and demonstrate legally.

You do not have the right to block traffic, block sidewalks or businesses, damage property, throw rocks and bottles, assault people, and no one has the right to interfere with federal officers doing their jobs.

The left seems to think that their rights supersede the rights of people they disagree with.

And you right MAGA guys think, it´s OK to kill all the lefts?

Go on so, and you need immigrants, ´cause half of the Americans are shot by Oranges SA, SS, Gestapo and armed MAGA idiots.

... nuff for you now

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Statements made by private individuals on social media

I said on 'Truth Social' and I was responding to the post that said 'When a high-ranking administration official like the President, VP or Noem ...

53 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I think at you age you need a vision check. It will help a little but you still wont understand the facts and the law.

I would expect execution in the country you hang out in, but a jolly lady has her head blown off for banter.........😬

Go away, you're embarrassing..................

5 minutes ago, transam said:

I would expect execution in the country you hang out in, but a jolly lady has her head blown off for banter.........😬

Go away, you're embarrassing..................

Back to Cambodia stuff? Still jealous they wont let you in? Bet you would never reveal why, LOL.

"Jolly lady with head blown off for banter". Thats a new low in silliness though. I truly pity folks who are deranged by their Trump obsession.

40 minutes ago, BerndD said:

And you right MAGA guys think, it´s OK to kill all the lefts?

I do not think it's right to kill anyone not they have been convicted certain crimes, or they are a treat to others.

Let's not forget how the left celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the attempted assassinations of Trump, and the assassination and the medical insurance executive. These shooters/killers are all celebrated as heroes of the left. Not everyone on the left celebrated, but plenty did.

No one is celebrating this woman's death, except leftists that believe it will help the left in the midterms, hurt Trump, reduce the deportations, and get the border back open.

40 minutes ago, BerndD said:

Go on so, and you need immigrants, ´cause half of the Americans are shot by Oranges SA, SS, Gestapo and armed MAGA idiots.

Only attempting to run down federal officers, and not all of those.

Just now, Yagoda said:

Back to Cambodia stuff? Still jealous they wont let you in? Bet you would never reveal why, LOL.

"Jolly lady with head blown off for banter". Thats a new low in silliness though. I truly pity folks who are deranged by their Trump obsession.

Which just goes to show you have difficulty posting any facts because of your daft strange agenda...........🤥

Plus, how can anyone be jealous of you hanging out in Cambodia.........🤣

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not think it's right to kill anyone not they have been convicted certain crimes, or they are a treat to others.

Let's not forget how the left celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the attempted assassinations of Trump, and the assassination and the medical insurance executive. These shooters/killers are all celebrated as heroes of the left. Not everyone on the left celebrated, but plenty did.

No one is celebrating this woman's death, except leftists that believe it will help the left in the midterms, hurt Trump, reduce the deportations, and get the border back open.

Only attempting to run down federal officers, and not all of those.

Typical load of nonsense from you.....🤔

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Which just goes to show you have difficulty posting any facts because of your daft strange agenda...........🤥

Plus, how can anyone be jealous of you hanging out in Cambodia.........🤣

You are since you mention it enough....

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Back to Cambodia stuff? Still jealous they wont let you in? Bet you would never reveal why, LOL.

"Jolly lady with head blown off for banter". Thats a new low in silliness though. I truly pity folks who are deranged by their Trump obsession.

Remember the left celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder? He was killed ONLY because the left did not like what he was saying.

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Remember the left celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder? He was killed ONLY because the left did not like what he was saying.

Did you see the scum they have already arrested in Minn.? Loads of child rapists. They are marching and screeching and rioting and protesting and interfering and obstructing to defend illegal alien child abusers and predators.

7 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Did you see the scum they have already arrested in Minn.? Loads of child rapists. They are marching and screeching and rioting and protesting and interfering and obstructing to defend illegal alien child abusers and predators.

🤣.............I think you've lost it, chap.......

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Whats wrong with Trump voters? Going to insult 50% of this Forum again?. Welcome to Thailand LOL

50% of this forum voted for Trump. I suppose Donny told you this personally so it must be true.

I'm just annoyed as I didn't get a vote. I suppose not being a colonialist may have had something to do with it.

6 minutes ago, transam said:

🤣.............I think you've lost it, chap.......

Do you think that ICE should be arresting and removing illegal alien child predators from Minneapolis?

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Do you think that ICE should be arresting and removing illegal alien child predators from Minneapolis?

Go away, you agree with murder for nothing.......

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Go away, you agree with murder for nothing.......

You answer is telling. You support illegal alien child sex predators to roam free in the USA. Got it.

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You answer is telling. You support illegal alien child sex predators to roam free in the USA. Got it.

Yet another stupid post, you know nothing, a guessing troll.....Get a life......

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

... nuff for you now

Yep, she rammed him with her vehicle.

Multiple angles show it.

Self defense. End of...

16 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So, as always, no link to facts, I thought not.

You were already given the info that you choose to ignore or deny. Pull up your pampers

23 minutes ago, transam said:

Yet another stupid post, you know nothing, a guessing troll.....Get a life......

Still don't want to answer the question huh LOL. It would be really easy to say no I don't support allowing llegal aliens child sex predators to roam free in communities. Why can't you say that?

4 hours ago, blaze master said:

Just the words of a sincere soccer mom right.

Very relevant. She was there to provocate.

No one knows what threat the officer felt. Only he was in that situation.

I personally think the road conditions that caused the tires to spin and engine to rev from her pressing the accelerator caused him to panic. This is due to his history and ptsd. As I have also stated I dont believe he should of been at work in the field. This is a massive failure of the entire system.

Now please if you may. Point out my comments supporting Trump. Ill wait but youll go quiet or give the same npc response as the others. I could even pre type it.

Try some critical thinking and less clouded judgements due to your own political bias and ideology.

Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you say you're not MAGA then fine but you are on here trying your level best to paint this woman as some sort of agitator and provocateur and by extension, that she somehow deserved the fate she met that day (''She was there to provocate'). Now I know you have said you didn't think she deserved to be shot (well done), but it's the inference that she put herself into a situation that I have an issue with. You've said ''sitting in her car obstructing federal officers honking and bobbing in glee for over 3 minutes' (infering that she was taunting the ICE agents), which can just as easily be construed as non-violent, freedom of expression (which she is perfectly entitled to).

Where you get somewhat close to the REAL story in my opinion is when you start talking about how this particular ICE agent should never have been on active service. This we can certainly agree on as his actions on the day are clearly wrong. I believe that ICE had no reason in the first place to order this woman out of the car or surround it as they did; that we both agree that Ross shouldn't have been on active service so by logical conclusion we don't need the victim blaming that you and so many on here are so desperately pushing.

44 minutes ago, Dan O said:

You were already given the info that you choose to ignore or deny. Pull up your pampers

No, I wanted evidence, a regurgitated opinion.

From an actual lawyer (sorry no name supplied on FB)...

"There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, as an actual attorney, I'd like to cite actual law. The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot accidentally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense. At best, this officer has a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty.

The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were authorized under federal law; and "necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties.

If a federal agent is charged in state court, they can petition to have their case "removed" to federal court. In federal court, the judge would then determine whether the agent's actions met the "necessary and proper" standard. If the court finds the agent was acting within the reasonable confines of their duties, the state charges will be dismissed. If not, the state prosecution can proceed in federal court, applying state substantive law. It is unlikely any judge would find his behavior necessary and reasonable. The mere fact that no other officer present unholstered their weapon and appear shocked he fired towards them reinforces that fact.

Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 1993)

Seventh Circuit – foundational caseFacts: Officer stepped in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming fear for his life.

Holding (paraphrased): “An officer may not unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to escape it.”

Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Ninth Circuit

Facts: Officer jumped in front of a vehicle during a stop and then fired.

Holding: An officer cannot provoke a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created to justify deadly force. An officer may not intentionally place himself in danger and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger he created — including firing into a vehicle

Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999) Third Circuit

Facts: Off-duty officer shot a fleeing driver.

Holding: The court stressed that pre-seizure conduct matters and that officers cannot rely solely on the “split second” framing if their own actions escalated the situation.

Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008)

Holding: Deadly force may be unconstitutional where: The officer fired into a moving vehicle, the officer could have stepped aside or the threat was self-created. The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that a moving car automatically justifies gunfire.

HIS actions where completely illegal. End of story.

No one here has said or meant to imply the woman got what she deserved, but the idea that the woman was murdered in cold blood and that she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The woman did not deserve to be killed for her actions.

The officer is not a murderer.

Both things can be true at the same time.

57 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yep, she rammed him with her vehicle.

Multiple angles show it.

Self defense. End of...

Donnies troll. End of.

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

From an actual lawyer (sorry no name supplied on FB)...

"There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, as an actual attorney, I'd like to cite actual law. The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot accidentally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense. At best, this officer has a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty.

The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were authorized under federal law; and "necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties.

If a federal agent is charged in state court, they can petition to have their case "removed" to federal court. In federal court, the judge would then determine whether the agent's actions met the "necessary and proper" standard. If the court finds the agent was acting within the reasonable confines of their duties, the state charges will be dismissed. If not, the state prosecution can proceed in federal court, applying state substantive law. It is unlikely any judge would find his behavior necessary and reasonable. The mere fact that no other officer present unholstered their weapon and appear shocked he fired towards them reinforces that fact.

Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 1993)

Seventh Circuit – foundational caseFacts: Officer stepped in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming fear for his life.

Holding (paraphrased): “An officer may not unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to escape it.”

Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Ninth Circuit

Facts: Officer jumped in front of a vehicle during a stop and then fired.

Holding: An officer cannot provoke a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created to justify deadly force. An officer may not intentionally place himself in danger and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger he created — including firing into a vehicle

Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999) Third Circuit

Facts: Off-duty officer shot a fleeing driver.

Holding: The court stressed that pre-seizure conduct matters and that officers cannot rely solely on the “split second” framing if their own actions escalated the situation.

Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008)

Holding: Deadly force may be unconstitutional where: The officer fired into a moving vehicle, the officer could have stepped aside or the threat was self-created. The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that a moving car automatically justifies gunfire.

HIS actions where completely illegal. End of story.

MAGA & Orange trolls: did you read this and understand it with your poor mind?

If so, then shut up now.

End of.

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No one here has said or meant to imply the woman got what she deserved, but the idea that the woman was murdered in cold blood and that she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The woman did not deserve to be killed for her actions.

The officer is not a murderer.

Both things can be true at the same time.

I can't agree. The perpetrator acted cold-bloodedly and with intent.
And that is criminally called MURDER.