24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

In the last 14 years, illegal aliens were convicted over an average of over 63 times a year in Texas alone.

How many innocent people has ICE killed?

In FY2024, Trump’s first year, ICE arrested 16,552 sex offenders.

This is the organization the left is protesting.

So, you are dismissing the murder, because waffle, waffle...🤫

Now if it were Biden as pressy, or your wife murdered, you would be SCREAMING.....😂

But as you don't live in the USA, for some reason you had to leave, you probably have no idea how folk who do live there are feeling about Trump and his Gestapo.....😬

14 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Why wasn't trump included in these sex offenders arrests, any thoughts?

They were busy rounding up your dad, maybe you can finally meet him before he's sent back to Haiti

New York Times video analysis sheds light on ICE shooting

New York Times reporter Devon Lum joins Anderson Cooper to break down new video analysis that goes frame by frame through multiple angles of the shooting of Renee Good.

New York Times video analysis sheds light on ICE shooting | CNN

11 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

New York Times video analysis sheds light on ICE shooting

New York Times reporter Devon Lum joins Anderson Cooper to break down new video analysis that goes frame by frame through multiple angles of the shooting of Renee Good.

New York Times video analysis sheds light on ICE shooting | CNN

Excellent, a few on here are now buried, it was an execution, the agent was NOT run over as your hero Trump and co., stated...............

5 hours ago, Steven55 said:

You don;t understand your own writing.
But bravo to your mafia-boss:
Adriana Camberos, a San Diego businesswoman who had her prison sentence commuted by Trump in 2021, went on to be convicted a second time on new fraud charges. On Thursday, she received a pardon from the president. As did her brother. 

The siblings were convicted in 2024 of making tens of millions of dollars by selling wholesale groceries after lying to manufacturers about where the products would be sold. Other people granted clemency by Trump have gone on to commit new crimes, too. 

A number of people charged or convicted in attacking the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, all granted clemency by Trump, have gone on to commit fresh offenses. Then there’s Eliyahu “Eli” Weinstein, a convicted Ponzi schemer whose 24-year prison term was commuted by Trump in 2021. In November, he was sentenced to 37 years behind bars for stealing $44 million from investors after he was released. He is said to be considering a new bid for clemency as well.

The New York Times reported Friday that this new raft of clemency grants, as in previous cases, were tied to people close to Trump rather than the strict and deliberate guidelines generally followed by previous administrations. 

What % of the fraudulent money did Blondie Donnie get?
Did they do 50/50 with him? A good deal for the us-dealmaker no.1.....

3 hours ago, theshu25 said:

YOu have to remember,that guy is not that clever, more nasty then anything.

That's what I thought after reading his first posts: stupidly arrogant, a Donnie bootlicker.

27 minutes ago, transam said:

Excellent, a few on here are now buried, it was an execution, the agent was NOT run over as your hero Trump and co., stated...............

Do you mean Trump, Noem, Hannity, Ingraham, and Watters were really lying when they said the agent was ‘recovering in the hospital,’ ‘treated for being hit by the vehicle,’ and had ‘internal bleeding’ — given the video shows no such injury?

50 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

They were busy rounding up your dad, maybe you can finally meet him before he's sent back to Haiti

At least I have a dad, more than we can say about you.

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

Pedantic.

No, questioning whether 3 or 4 shots were fired is not pedantic in this case—it is a legitimate and important factual distinction.

Asking “was it three shots or four?” is asking whether the physical evidence matches the self-defense story or introduces reasonable doubt about proportionality and necessity.

That question sits at the heart of whether the shooting was lawful, whether charges should be considered, and whether public outrage is justified.

It only becomes pedantic if someone fixates on the number while ignoring the broader context (video timing, wound paths, training standards, legal thresholds for deadly force). But simply raising the question itself? Not pedantic at all—it's evidence-based scrutiny of a controversial use-of-force incident.

6 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Do you mean Trump, Noem, Hannity, Ingraham, and Watters were really lying when they said the agent was ‘recovering in the hospital,’ ‘treated for being hit by the vehicle,’ and had ‘internal bleeding’ — given the video shows no such injury?

With Donnie and the US government and all its vassals, you don't have to ask yourself whether a statement is a lie, no, with these morally free people you have to ask yourself whether a statement is actually true.

18 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Do you mean Trump, Noem, Hannity, Ingraham, and Watters were really lying when they said the agent was ‘recovering in the hospital,’ ‘treated for being hit by the vehicle,’ and had ‘internal bleeding’ — given the video shows no such injury?

Internal bleeding can be just a bruise, but yes, they are all lying, well it is a Trump trait..........😉

15 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

No, questioning whether 3 or 4 shots were fired is not pedantic in this case—it is a legitimate and important factual distinction.

Asking “was it three shots or four?” is asking whether the physical evidence matches the self-defense story or introduces reasonable doubt about proportionality and necessity.

That question sits at the heart of whether the shooting was lawful, whether charges should be considered, and whether public outrage is justified.

It only becomes pedantic if someone fixates on the number while ignoring the broader context (video timing, wound paths, training standards, legal thresholds for deadly force). But simply raising the question itself? Not pedantic at all—it's evidence-based scrutiny of a controversial use-of-force incident.

Why not ask which shot was the killer shot, you've got nothing else............🤗

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Why not ask which shot was the killer shot, you've got nothing else............🤗

I will leave it to the experts at the autopsy to figure out which of the THREE, not four, shots killed her.

Of course, everyone is lying but the leftists.

Just now, Smokey and the Bandit said:

I will leave it to the experts at the autopsy to figure out which of the THREE, not four, shots killed her.

Oh dear, you have a thing about whether 3 or 4 shots, that is funny, and the new video has buried you and a few others, so stand down, you are looking a bit daft.....😀

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/16/us/video/ac360dereklum

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Of course, everyone is lying but the leftists.

Oooooh, no, its your lot, buried............

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/16/us/video/ac360dereklum

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Oh dear, you have a thing about whether 3 or 4 shots, that is funny, and the new video has buried you and a few others, so stand down, you are looking a bit daft.....😀

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/16/us/video/ac360dereklum

I will leave it to the experts.

True forensic certainty (e.g., bullet trajectories, exact wound causation, precise speed/impact calculations) requires experts from accredited forensic labs or certified analysts. Media outlets provide valuable preliminary visual context and raise questions, but they aren't substitutes for official forensic examination. The full picture will come from the ongoing FBI probe.

44 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

No, questioning whether 3 or 4 shots were fired is not pedantic in this case—it is a legitimate and important factual distinction.

Asking “was it three shots or four?” is asking whether the physical evidence matches the self-defense story or introduces reasonable doubt about proportionality and necessity.

That question sits at the heart of whether the shooting was lawful, whether charges should be considered, and whether public outrage is justified.

It only becomes pedantic if someone fixates on the number while ignoring the broader context (video timing, wound paths, training standards, legal thresholds for deadly force). But simply raising the question itself? Not pedantic at all—it's evidence-based scrutiny of a controversial use-of-force incident.

The woman is dead, 3, 4 or 10 shots makes little difference to the outcome, considering none were needed and it was against protocol to discharge any firearm under these circumstances.

5 minutes ago, Artisi said:

The woman is dead, 3, 4 or 10 shots makes little difference to the outcome, considering none were needed and it was against protocol to discharge any firearm under these circumstances.

Per the left

3 hours ago, Artisi said:

It's pretty clear that a crime has more than likely been committed, plus there has been many post already pointing out that his discharging of his firearm is against proceedure and its more than obvious that he was not following proceedure.

"No criminal charges as yet" - let's see what happens there.

The FBI is investigating, but DHS/ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility will review for policy violations (potentially leading to administrative discipline, not necessarily criminal charges).

Expert opinions are split: some see clear procedural issues (especially tactics/positioning), others say it's premature without full evidence (e.g., autopsy, ballistics).

I agree we need to see what happens with the investigation!

38 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

I will leave it to the experts at the autopsy to figure out which of the THREE, not four, shots killed her.

Yes indeed, is seems everyone thinks they are experts, well armchair experts, best leave it the real ones!

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Per the left

Per you!

6 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Per you!

Oh, that's clever

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh, that's clever

Just as clever, or maybe even more so, than your post that I responded to!!

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Just as clever, or maybe even more so, than your post that I responded to!!

No you na na na !!!!!!!!!!!

Just now, Yellowtail said:

No you na na na !!!!!!!!!!!

And in English please, what does that childish response, if any, actually mean?

Just now, scottiejohn said:

And in English please, what does that childish response, if any, actually mean?

I know you are, but what am I?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I know you are, but what am I?

It would seem to be an idiot as it makes no sense.

Any chance of just stopping the petty posts and getting back on subject if possible!

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

It would seem to be an idiot as it makes no sense.

Any chance of just stopping the petty posts and getting back on subject if possible!

you are!!!!!!!!!!!!

11 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

And in English please, what does that childish response, if any, actually mean?

This is in Idiotish...