January 12Jan 12 5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:You keep going on about the car, the positioning of the ICE agent and the hitting of the said agent. So what about the legality of it all and the laws involved (as stated in my previous post):What laws are involved?5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle ...unless the officer believes his life of the lives of others is threatened.5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing ...unless the officer believes his life of the lives of others is threatened.5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:3) an officer cannot accidentally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense.You think the officer getting in front of the car was an accident?5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:Any thoughts in your infinite wisdom?I think people that pretend they know what others are thinking are stupid.
January 12Jan 12 Popular Post 1 minute ago, BerndD said:You would be better off calling yourself "long red tie" instead of Yellowtail. Your Donnie and you and those like you are dividing America like never before after the Civil War. A cowardly, lying gang that wants to enforce its will against all morals, against all decency, against all resistance. You will one day be picked together with the bloody Orange.Another well thought out legal argument from the left, thanks
January 12Jan 12 Popular Post 15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:What laws are involved?...unless the officer believes his life of the lives of others is threatened....unless the officer believes his life of the lives of others is threatened.You think the officer getting in front of the car was an accident?I think people that pretend they know what others are thinking are stupid.No. Completely wrong on all points. Here’s the case laws for you: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 CircuitFacts: 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 vehicleAbraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999) Third CircuitFacts: 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.
January 12Jan 12 4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Ninth CircuitFacts: 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 vehicleAbraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999) Third CircuitFacts: 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.What are the statutes cited, and or which one of these cases was similar situation?
January 12Jan 12 1 hour 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.Back peddling now1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:As did I, yet you claim we disagreed,But ICE are federal law enforcement officers, and people intentionally interfering with them doing their jobs are breaking federal law.That you believe otherwise means nothing.If they are doing there job yes but they were not doing there iob. They have a limited scope of responsibility and duty. They are not police. That seems to be the fact you cant comprehend. Being a federal agent does not give you unlimited authority and as an ICE agents their scope is clearly defined.
January 12Jan 12 8 minutes ago, Dan O said:Back peddling nowNo, you are lying again about what I've said. 8 minutes ago, Dan O said:If they are doing there job yes but they were not doing there iob. They have a limited scope of responsibility and duty. They are not police. That seems to be the fact you cant comprehend. Being a federal agent does not give you unlimited authority and as an ICE agents their scope is clearly defined.If ICE are in their vehicle, on the clock, on official business, they are doing their job. And anyone that interferes with them doing their job is breaking the law.
January 12Jan 12 15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:No, you are lying again about what I've said.If ICE are in their vehicle, on the clock, on official business, they are doing their job. And anyone that interferes with them doing their job is breaking the law.Wrong. Better read up on their responsibilities, duties and limitation. Its already been posted to you by me and others on this thread. With that said your time is up
January 12Jan 12 3 minutes ago, Dan O said:Wrong. Better read up on their responsibilities, duties and limitation. Its already been posted to you by me and others on this thread.You've done nothing but regurgitate other people's opinions here, you're not even able to formulate your own. 3 minutes ago, Dan O said:With that said your time is upThen run along leftie, and go with God, brother.
January 12Jan 12 Popular Post 2 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:An epic thread of videos. As an American, this was very hard to watch. Substitute the uniforms and it could easily be Nazi Germany. Except I think Nazi Germany had less intimidating uniforms--and no masks. If you are making righteous arrests and are following, and not breaking, the law, you don't need to hide behind a mask. Task 1 in ICE reform needs to be outlawing the masks, as California has done. I would outlaw the assault rifles, as well, except in extreme situations. Also hard to watch, another video showing an ICE agent smashing in the car window of an American citizen. The agent obviously was breaking the law when he did this, as he had no warrant and no probable cause--the driver was a US citizen. It bears repeating over and over, an ICE agent can not engage unless he has either a warrant or probable cause. Their task is, by purpose, narrowly focused and it does not include randomly stopping or confronting American citizens--as they tragically and illegally did with Ms. Good, ending in her needless murder. The citizen in the video I saw was well within his right to remain safe in his car, being an American citizen and not subject to an ICE warrant. Appalling that the agent would illegally smash in his window, possibly causing harm to the citizen. Also appalling, that so many other ICE violations, like this, are happening in America. I think most Americans, including me, are in favor of immigration enforcement. But, not like this, with far too many agents, dressed for war, running amok in packs, with hidden faces and heavily armed, indiscriminately breaking the law and illegally going far beyond their mandate. That mandate, incidently, does not include intervening in a traffic issue of a car partially blocking a road.
January 12Jan 12 1 minute ago, newnative said:As an American, this was very hard to watch. Substitute the uniforms and it could easily be Nazi Germany. Except I think Nazi Germany had less intimidating uniforms--and no masks. If you are making righteous arrests and are following, and not breaking, the law, you don't need to hide behind a mask. Task 1 in ICE reform needs to be outlawing the masks, as California has done. I would outlaw the assault rifles, as well, except in extreme situations.Also hard to watch, another video showing an ICE agent smashing in the car window of an American citizen. The agent obviously was breaking the law when he did this, as he had no warrant and no probable cause--the driver was a US citizen. It bears repeating over and over, an ICE agent can not engage unless he has either a warrant or probable cause.Their task is, by purpose, narrowly focused and it does not include randomly stopping or confronting American citizens--as they tragically and illegally did with Ms. Good, ending in her needless murder.The citizen in the video I saw was well within his right to remain safe in his car, being an American citizen and not subject to an ICE warrant. Appalling that the agent would illegally smash in his window, possibly causing harm to the citizen. Also appalling, that so many other ICE violations, like this, are happening in America.I think most Americans, including me, are in favor of immigration enforcement. But, not like this, with far too many agents, dressed for war, running amok in packs, with hidden faces and heavily armed, indiscriminately breaking the law and illegally going far beyond their mandate. That mandate, incidently, does not include intervening in a traffic issue of a car partially blocking a road.Yes, we know why you do not want the ICE agents to wear masks. As an American, it is hard for me to watch know-nothings that regurgitate leftist idiocy about what federal law enforcement officers are and are not allowed to do. You still want to pretend this was a traffic stop. It was not.
January 12Jan 12 1 hour ago, blaze master said:It really doesnt.hahahaha look at the other videos not propaganda that show it from behind where you can actually see the officer and car at he same time
January 12Jan 12 Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.
January 12Jan 12 10 minutes ago, Dan O said:hahahaha look at the other videos not propaganda that show it from behind where you can actually see the officer and car at he same timePropaganda? OK you're finished.
January 12Jan 12 Popular Post 1 hour ago, newnative said:As an American, this was very hard to watch. Substitute the uniforms and it could easily be Nazi Germany. Except I think Nazi Germany had less intimidating uniforms--and no masks. If you are making righteous arrests and are following, and not breaking, the law, you don't need to hide behind a mask. Task 1 in ICE reform needs to be outlawing the masks, as California has done. I would outlaw the assault rifles, as well, except in extreme situations.Also hard to watch, another video showing an ICE agent smashing in the car window of an American citizen. The agent obviously was breaking the law when he did this, as he had no warrant and no probable cause--the driver was a US citizen. It bears repeating over and over, an ICE agent can not engage unless he has either a warrant or probable cause.Their task is, by purpose, narrowly focused and it does not include randomly stopping or confronting American citizens--as they tragically and illegally did with Ms. Good, ending in her needless murder.The citizen in the video I saw was well within his right to remain safe in his car, being an American citizen and not subject to an ICE warrant. Appalling that the agent would illegally smash in his window, possibly causing harm to the citizen. Also appalling, that so many other ICE violations, like this, are happening in America.I think most Americans, including me, are in favor of immigration enforcement. But, not like this, with far too many agents, dressed for war, running amok in packs, with hidden faces and heavily armed, indiscriminately breaking the law and illegally going far beyond their mandate. That mandate, incidently, does not include intervening in a traffic issue of a car partially blocking a road.Very well said due process along with dignity , fairness and the rule of law have gone into the Rapist-in-Chief's moral meat grinder jeered on by the baying mob of deplorables. The thing is this is what they voted for. They don't care.
January 12Jan 12 20 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:Very well said due process along with dignity , fairness and the rule of law have gone into the Rapist-in-Chief's moral meat grinder jeered on by the baying mob of deplorables. The thing is this is what they voted for. They don't care.Agree.
January 12Jan 12 Popular Post 23 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:Very well said due process along with dignity , fairness and the rule of law have gone into the Rapist-in-Chief's moral meat grinder jeered on by the baying mob of deplorables. The thing is this is what they voted for. They don't care.You talk about due process, dignity, fairness and the rule of law, and then you lie call Trump a rapist, which he was never convicted of. You leftists are all the same.
January 12Jan 12 8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:You talk about due process, dignity, fairness and the rule of law, and then you lie call Trump a rapist, which he was never convicted of.You leftists are all the same. As Judge Kaplan, who handled Trump's rape trial notes, you can be a rapist while also being convicted for a lesser charge. Per The Washington Post:The filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts.https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/static/my-post/images/topics/trump-tracker-180px.pngFollow Trump’s second termFollowKaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.”“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”So, to sum up, although he raped Ms. Carroll, he escaped a rape conviction in NY by using one of his tiny fingers rather than his tiny penis to rape her.
January 12Jan 12 5 minutes ago, newnative said:As Judge Kaplan, who handled Trump's rape trial notes, you can be a rapist while also being convicted for a lesser charge. Per The Washington Post:The filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts.https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/static/my-post/images/topics/trump-tracker-180px.pngFollow Trump’s second termFollowKaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.”“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”So, to sum up, although he raped Ms. Carroll, he escaped a rape conviction in NY by using one of his tiny fingers rather than his tiny penis to rape her.He was not convicted of anything in Judge Kaplin's court, you are mistaken.
January 12Jan 12 22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:He was not convicted of anything in Judge Kaplin's court, you are mistaken.Carroll v. TrumpCourtUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New YorkFull case nameE. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. TrumpDocket nos.20-cv-0731122-cv-1001623-79324-644VerdictTrump liable for sexual abuse and defamationCarroll II: $5 million damagesCarroll I: $83.3 million damagesCourt membershipJudge sittingLewis A. Kaplan
January 12Jan 12 31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:He was not convicted of anything in Judge Kaplin's court, you are mistaken.You share some qualities of Mr Trump not least his aversion to the truth and disrespect for the rule of law no wonder you endned up in Thailand.
January 12Jan 12 1 minute ago, newnative said:Carroll v. TrumpCourtUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New YorkFull case nameE. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. TrumpDocket nos.20-cv-0731122-cv-1001623-79324-644VerdictTrump liable for sexual abuse and defamationCarroll II: $5 million damagesCarroll I: $83.3 million damagesCourt membershipJudge sittingLewis A. KaplanIt was a civil court; he was found libel. No one is convicted in civil court. Had he been convicted, he'd have gone to jail.Both cases are still under appealThe idea that a women went into an upscale New York department store dressing room in the middle of the afternoon and was raped with no one noticing is ridiculous.The idea that there the exact same "woman raped in the dressing room" scenario was an episode of the "victims" favorite TV show. We are to believe that thirty years ago, an older woman accompanies a tall, rich, arguably handsome celebrity playboy into a dressing room for what? She says nothing for thirty years, then sees it on TV and decides to sue Trump saying he raped her. Sorry, but it seems a bit thin to me. Now the left is calling him a pedophile, but back then he likes older women, yes?
January 12Jan 12 8 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:You share some qualities of Mr Trump not least his aversion to the truth and disrespect for the rule of law no wonder you endned up in Thailand.I would call you a liar, but you likely believe the idiocy you regurgitate. If Trump were convicted of rape, he would be in jail. I was transferred here for work with a big promotion, why are you here?
January 12Jan 12 36 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:It was a civil court; he was found libel. No one is convicted in civil court. Had he been convicted, he'd have gone to jail.Both cases are still under appealThe idea that a women went into an upscale New York department store dressing room in the middle of the afternoon and was raped with no one noticing is ridiculous.The idea that there the exact same "woman raped in the dressing room" scenario was an episode of the "victims" favorite TV show.We are to believe that thirty years ago, an older woman accompanies a tall, rich, arguably handsome celebrity playboy into a dressing room for what? She says nothing for thirty years, then sees it on TV and decides to sue Trump saying he raped her. Sorry, but it seems a bit thin to me.Now the left is calling him a pedophile, but back then he likes older women, yes? Okey-dokey. Liable for sexual assault--or Judge Kaplan's take that it was, for all intents and purposes, rape. I feel so much better about my President. Just liable for sexual assault! Or, maybe a type of rape. Whew! I still find myself in the Twilight Zone, surreally even discussing rape or sexual assault in the context of a US President. The other day I stumbled upon a news blurb, forget where, with a photo of poor Gary Hart and the woman he had a brief dalliance with all those years ago. The affair destroyed his campaign for President, and his political career. These days, with the Trump National Numbness, brought on by all his despicable acts, Hart's dalliance likely wouldn't even be a speed bump. How far we have sunk, with the bottom nowhere in sight.
January 12Jan 12 Just now, newnative said:Okey-dokey. Liable for sexual assault--or Judge Kaplan's take that it was, for all intents and purposes, rape. I feel so much better about my President. Just liable for sexual assault! Or, maybe a type of rape. Whew!I still find myself in the Twilight Zone, surreally even discussing rape or sexual assault in the context of a US President. The other day I stumbled upon a news blurb, forget where, with a photo of poor Gary Hart and the woman he had a brief dalliance with all those years ago. The affair destroyed his campaign for President, and his political career. These days, with the Trump National Numbness, brought on by all his despicable acts, Hart's dalliance likely wouldn't even be a speed bump. How far we have sunk, with the bottom nowhere in sight.So now you know he was not convicted of rape, but tomorrow, you'll just go back to lying, and saying Trump is a convicted rapist, because you are a leftist, and care nothing of the truth.
January 12Jan 12 Immigration Enforcement MinnesotaThe Trump administration secretly reimposed a policy limiting Congress members' access to immigration detention facilities a day after a federal immigration officer fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis, attorneys for several congressional Democrats said Monday in asking a federal judge to intervene.Three Democratic members of Congress from Minnesota were blocked from visiting an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility near Minneapolis on Saturday, three days after an ICE officer shot and killed U.S. citizen Renee Good in the city.Last month, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., temporarily blocked ICE from enforcing policies limiting Congress members’ access to immigration detention facilities. In a court filing on Monday, plaintiffs' lawyers asked Cobb to hold an emergency hearing and decide if the duplicate notice policy violates her order.Judge is asked for emergency hearing after Congress members blocked from ICE facility in Minneapolis
January 12Jan 12 My take on the status quo:Federal indictment against officer Jonathan Ross: Forget about it.State charges against J. Ross per Reuters:If Minnesota charged the agent, he could seek to move the case to federal court and argue he is immune from prosecution.To prevail, the state would have to show the actions were outside his official duties or were objectively unreasonable or clearly unlawful.If a judge ruled the officer was immune, the case would be dismissed and the state would not be able to charge him again.https://www.reuters.com/world/us/can-ice-agent-who-shot-minneapolis-woman-be-prosecuted-2026-01-08/Could the family sue officer J. Ross for civil damagesFederal officers are immune from civil lawsuits unless their conduct clearly violated a clear constitutional right. Besides why sue the officer for damages?Could the family sue DHS and Sec. Noem.My post: The real liability here may lie not with the shooter but with the ICE/DHS supervision entity that may have allowed J. Ross to be on active duty following his dragging incident and should have still been on desk duty. This may explain why an otherwise experienced and well-trained officer made a rookie mistake by standing in front of the car.NB Per Donald J. Trump, civil damages start at $1 billion.
January 13Jan 13 Popular Post What the Renee Good shooting has brought home for many Americans is the reality that a military force has become an everyday presence on American streets. What began as a supposed effort to rid America of foreign criminal elements has morphed not only into a full scale effort to intimidate immigrant and non-white communities across the nation, but essentially a political militia blindly loyal to carrying out Trump's wishes. Sadly, the American people, partly due to the passage of time, have lost touch with the history of how the National Socialists came to power in the 1930's, and have failed to recognize the glaring echos of this history, but the visual image of brown shirted and jackbooted thugs roughing up and intimidating the civilian population is one which has endured, and I believe the parallels to the political role ICE is playing in imposing Trump's authoritarian vision for America have finally sunk into the thick-skulled American consciousness. It is my fervent hope that we are finally at a turning point and America (and the rest of the world) recognizes that sitting back and waiting for the mid-term elections is no longer an option.
January 13Jan 13 7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:So now you know he was not convicted of rape, but tomorrow, you'll just go back to lying, and saying Trump is a convicted rapist, because you are a leftist, and care nothing of the truth.Isn't he?30.12.2024In 2023, the US President was sentenced to pay millions in compensation for the sexual abuse of US author Caroll. Trump appealed - but a US federal court has confirmed the verdict.The allegations are time-barred under criminal law, but Carroll, now 81, had legal recourse under civil law.Time-barred under criminal law, that was the reason he was not prosecuted. But the court has confirmed that he is a rapist.
Create an account or sign in to comment