No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over
ICE agents??
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over
ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video
itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over
ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video
itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clealy got hit.
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over
ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video
itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clealy got hit.
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in
front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please.
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that
doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified.
-hh
On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over
ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video
itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clealy got hit.
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in
front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please.
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that
doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified.
-hh
They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out
of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their
lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident
like this has happened with them.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over >>>>>> ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video >>>>> itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clealy got hit.
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in
front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please.
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that
doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified.
-hh
They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out
of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their
lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident
like this has happened with them.
She hit him and she got what she deserved.
- "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"
On 1/8/26 11:49, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over >>>>>>> ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video >>>>>> itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clealy got hit.
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in
front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please.
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that
doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified.
-hh
They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out
of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their
lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident
like this has happened with them.
She hit him and she got what she deserved.
Barely, and that was despite how he deliberately stepped in front of a >running vehicle.
FWIW, Adam Cochran has said that he's spoken on background with two >attorneys who have defended officer involved shootings.
Both have always taken their cases to trial.
After reviewing the events today, both said if it were their client
theyAd advise:
- Seek a plea deal
- Be willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime or a lower sentence
- Accept anything that isnAt de jure LWOP (life with out parole)
In other words, the guys who defend police officers shooting for a
living, think this case is unwinnable. They would try to defend his >actions, theyAd just try and lower the impact of the outcome.
Their main sticking point were:
- "I could argue shot number one and hope for an acquittal or a hung
jury - but I canAt get there on shots 2 and 3"
- "A jury will not get passed the turning of the wheels"
- "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"
-hh
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:22:19 -0500, -hh
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/8/26 11:49, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over >>>>>>>> ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video >>>>>>> itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clealy got hit.
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in >>>>> front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please.
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that
doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified.
-hh
They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out >>>> of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their
lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident
like this has happened with them.
She hit him and she got what she deserved.
Barely, and that was despite how he deliberately stepped in front of a
running vehicle.
FWIW, Adam Cochran has said that he's spoken on background with two
attorneys who have defended officer involved shootings.
Both have always taken their cases to trial.
After reviewing the events today, both said if it were their client
theyAd advise:
- Seek a plea deal
- Be willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime or a lower sentence
- Accept anything that isnAt de jure LWOP (life with out parole)
In other words, the guys who defend police officers shooting for a
living, think this case is unwinnable. They would try to defend his
actions, theyAd just try and lower the impact of the outcome.
Their main sticking point were:
- "I could argue shot number one and hope for an acquittal or a hung
jury - but I canAt get there on shots 2 and 3"
- "A jury will not get passed the turning of the wheels"
- "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"
-hh
It will depend on the jury.
On 2026-01-08 20:46:10 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:22:19 -0500, -hh
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/8/26 11:49, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over >>>>>>>>> ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video >>>>>>>> itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clealy got hit.
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in >>>>>> front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please. >>>>>>
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that
doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified. >>>>>>
-hh
They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out >>>>> of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their
lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident >>>>> like this has happened with them.
She hit him and she got what she deserved.
Barely, and that was despite how he deliberately stepped in front of a
running vehicle.
FWIW, Adam Cochran has said that he's spoken on background with two
attorneys who have defended officer involved shootings.
Both have always taken their cases to trial.
After reviewing the events today, both said if it were their client
theyAd advise:
- Seek a plea deal
- Be willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime or a lower sentence
- Accept anything that isnAt de jure LWOP (life with out parole)
In other words, the guys who defend police officers shooting for a
living, think this case is unwinnable. They would try to defend his
actions, theyAd just try and lower the impact of the outcome.
Their main sticking point were:
- "I could argue shot number one and hope for an acquittal or a hung
jury - but I canAt get there on shots 2 and 3"
- "A jury will not get passed the turning of the wheels"
- "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"
-hh
It will depend on the jury.
Yeah a Minneapolis jury, not one in Alabammy. Good luck.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 14:50:00 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 20:46:10 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:22:19 -0500, -hh
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/8/26 11:49, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:Yet he clealy got hit.
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over >>>>>>>>>> ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video >>>>>>>>> itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle. >>>>>>>>
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in >>>>>>> front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please. >>>>>>>
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that >>>>>>> doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified. >>>>>>>
-hh
They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out >>>>>> of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their >>>>>> lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident >>>>>> like this has happened with them.
She hit him and she got what she deserved.
Barely, and that was despite how he deliberately stepped in front of a >>>> running vehicle.
FWIW, Adam Cochran has said that he's spoken on background with two
attorneys who have defended officer involved shootings.
Both have always taken their cases to trial.
After reviewing the events today, both said if it were their client
theyAd advise:
- Seek a plea deal
- Be willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime or a lower sentence
- Accept anything that isnAt de jure LWOP (life with out parole)
In other words, the guys who defend police officers shooting for a
living, think this case is unwinnable. They would try to defend his
actions, theyAd just try and lower the impact of the outcome.
Their main sticking point were:
- "I could argue shot number one and hope for an acquittal or a hung
jury - but I canAt get there on shots 2 and 3"
- "A jury will not get passed the turning of the wheels"
- "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"
-hh
It will depend on the jury.
Yeah a Minneapolis jury, not one in Alabammy. Good luck.
No... Federal agents are immune from state and local prosecution when
acting on official business.
On 2026-01-08 21:09:46 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 14:50:00 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 20:46:10 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:22:19 -0500, -hh
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/8/26 11:49, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro >>>>>>>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:Yet he clealy got hit.
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over >>>>>>>>>>> ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video
itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle. >>>>>>>>>
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in >>>>>>>> front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please. >>>>>>>>
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that >>>>>>>> doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified. >>>>>>>>
-hh
They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out >>>>>>> of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their >>>>>>> lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident >>>>>>> like this has happened with them.
She hit him and she got what she deserved.
Barely, and that was despite how he deliberately stepped in front of a >>>>> running vehicle.
FWIW, Adam Cochran has said that he's spoken on background with two
attorneys who have defended officer involved shootings.
Both have always taken their cases to trial.
After reviewing the events today, both said if it were their client
theyAd advise:
- Seek a plea deal
- Be willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime or a lower sentence
- Accept anything that isnAt de jure LWOP (life with out parole)
In other words, the guys who defend police officers shooting for a
living, think this case is unwinnable. They would try to defend his >>>>> actions, theyAd just try and lower the impact of the outcome.
Their main sticking point were:
- "I could argue shot number one and hope for an acquittal or a hung >>>>> jury - but I canAt get there on shots 2 and 3"
- "A jury will not get passed the turning of the wheels"
- "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"
-hh
It will depend on the jury.
Yeah a Minneapolis jury, not one in Alabammy. Good luck.
No... Federal agents are immune from state and local prosecution when
acting on official business.
You were the one who brought up a jury dweeb.
This guy's gonna get his ass sued off in a civil suit at the very
least, cost him a lot more than his $50K sign-on bonus.
Also get doxxed sooner or later, AI will see to that.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over
ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the
video itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clea[r]ly got hit.
On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 05:25:50 -0500, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over
ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the
video itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clea[r]ly got hit.
No he did not. He can be seen walking away unharmed afterwards.
Look at this <https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo>
frame-by-frame analysis of this and other videos of the incident from >different angles: the shooter moves to the left of the vehicle as the
driver steers right to drive away -- no attempt at colliding with
anyone at all.
First shot is fired as the car is already turning to the right. Two
more shots are then fired. The car continues even further away from
the perpetrators before coming to a stop after hitting another car at
the edge of the road.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:25:57 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 21:09:46 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 14:50:00 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 20:46:10 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:22:19 -0500, -hh
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/8/26 11:49, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro >>>>>>>>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:Yet he clealy got hit.
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over >>>>>>>>>>>> ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video
itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle. >>>>>>>>>>
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in >>>>>>>>> front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please. >>>>>>>>>
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that >>>>>>>>> doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified. >>>>>>>>>
-hh
They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out
of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their >>>>>>>> lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident >>>>>>>> like this has happened with them.
She hit him and she got what she deserved.
Barely, and that was despite how he deliberately stepped in front of a >>>>>> running vehicle.
FWIW, Adam Cochran has said that he's spoken on background with two >>>>>> attorneys who have defended officer involved shootings.
Both have always taken their cases to trial.
After reviewing the events today, both said if it were their client >>>>>> theyAd advise:
- Seek a plea deal
- Be willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime or a lower sentence >>>>>> - Accept anything that isnAt de jure LWOP (life with out parole)
In other words, the guys who defend police officers shooting for a >>>>>> living, think this case is unwinnable. They would try to defend his >>>>>> actions, theyAd just try and lower the impact of the outcome.
Their main sticking point were:
- "I could argue shot number one and hope for an acquittal or a hung >>>>>> jury - but I canAt get there on shots 2 and 3"
- "A jury will not get passed the turning of the wheels"
- "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"
-hh
It will depend on the jury.
Yeah a Minneapolis jury, not one in Alabammy. Good luck.
No... Federal agents are immune from state and local prosecution when
acting on official business.
You were the one who brought up a jury dweeb.
Yeah... do you have a point?
This guy's gonna get his ass sued off in a civil suit at the very
least, cost him a lot more than his $50K sign-on bonus.
It vould happen, but not likely.
If it does, he'd have lots of money
coming in.
Also get doxxed sooner or later, AI will see to that.
He may have to shoot someone else.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 23:47:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Look at this <https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo>
frame-by-frame analysis of this and other videos of the incident
from different angles: the shooter moves to the left of the vehicle
as the driver steers right to drive away -- no attempt at colliding
with anyone at all.
Nope. video from the other side shows him getting hit ...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 19:03:52 -0500, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 23:47:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Look at this <https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo>
frame-by-frame analysis of this and other videos of the incident
from different angles: the shooter moves to the left of the vehicle
as the driver steers right to drive away -- no attempt at colliding
with anyone at all.
Nope. video from the other side shows him getting hit ...
There is no such video.
On 2026-01-08 22:57:29 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:25:57 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 21:09:46 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 14:50:00 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 20:46:10 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:22:19 -0500, -hh
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/8/26 11:49, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro >>>>>>>>>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:Yet he clealy got hit.
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over
ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video
itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle. >>>>>>>>>>>
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in
front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please. >>>>>>>>>>
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that >>>>>>>>>> doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified. >>>>>>>>>>
-hh
They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out
of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their >>>>>>>>> lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident >>>>>>>>> like this has happened with them.
She hit him and she got what she deserved.
Barely, and that was despite how he deliberately stepped in front of a >>>>>>> running vehicle.
FWIW, Adam Cochran has said that he's spoken on background with two >>>>>>> attorneys who have defended officer involved shootings.
Both have always taken their cases to trial.
After reviewing the events today, both said if it were their client >>>>>>> theyAd advise:
- Seek a plea deal
- Be willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime or a lower sentence >>>>>>> - Accept anything that isnAt de jure LWOP (life with out parole) >>>>>>>
In other words, the guys who defend police officers shooting for a >>>>>>> living, think this case is unwinnable. They would try to defend his >>>>>>> actions, theyAd just try and lower the impact of the outcome.
Their main sticking point were:
- "I could argue shot number one and hope for an acquittal or a hung >>>>>>> jury - but I canAt get there on shots 2 and 3"
- "A jury will not get passed the turning of the wheels"
- "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"
-hh
It will depend on the jury.
Yeah a Minneapolis jury, not one in Alabammy. Good luck.
No... Federal agents are immune from state and local prosecution when >>>> acting on official business.
You were the one who brought up a jury dweeb.
Yeah... do you have a point?
?
You say: "It will depend on the jury."
I say: "Yeah a Minneapolis jury, not one in Alabammy. Good luck."
You say: "No... Federal agents are immune from state and local
prosecution when acting on official business."
Is your brain engaging before you hit the "Send" button?
This guy's gonna get his ass sued off in a civil suit at the very
least, cost him a lot more than his $50K sign-on bonus.
It vould happen, but not likely.
Why isn't it likely. As O.J. Simpson found out the bar is quite lower
in a civil case than a criminal one.
If it does, he'd have lots of money
coming in.
And so will her partner to pursue him legally until he dies.
Also get doxxed sooner or later, AI will see to that.
He may have to shoot someone else.
For another unjustifiable homicide, he's chomping at the bit no doubt.
It will depend on the jury.
Yeah a Minneapolis jury, not one in Alabammy. Good luck.
No... Federal agents are immune from state and local prosecution when
acting on official business.
You were the one who brought up a jury dweeb.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:22:19 -0500, -hh
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/8/26 11:49, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:
On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over >>>>>>>> ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video >>>>>>> itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clealy got hit.
Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in >>>>> front of an operating vehicle? Chapter & verse with cite, please.
Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that
doctrine is a standards violation...
...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified.
-hh
They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out >>>> of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their
lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident
like this has happened with them.
She hit him and she got what she deserved.
Barely, and that was despite how he deliberately stepped in front of a >>running vehicle.
FWIW, Adam Cochran has said that he's spoken on background with two >>attorneys who have defended officer involved shootings.
Both have always taken their cases to trial.
After reviewing the events today, both said if it were their client
theyAd advise:
- Seek a plea deal
- Be willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime or a lower sentence
- Accept anything that isnAt de jure LWOP (life with out parole)
In other words, the guys who defend police officers shooting for a
living, think this case is unwinnable. They would try to defend his >>actions, theyAd just try and lower the impact of the outcome.
Their main sticking point were:
- "I could argue shot number one and hope for an acquittal or a hung >>jury - but I canAt get there on shots 2 and 3"
- "A jury will not get passed the turning of the wheels"
- "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"
-hh
It will depend on the jury. She did hit the gas as he was sting in
front of the car, and regardless of the wheels being turned. she hit
him.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 23:47:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 05:25:50 -0500, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:
No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over
ICE agents??
Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the
video itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.
Yet he clea[r]ly got hit.
No he did not. He can be seen walking away unharmed afterwards.
Look at this <https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo>
frame-by-frame analysis of this and other videos of the incident from >>different angles: the shooter moves to the left of the vehicle as the >>driver steers right to drive away -- no attempt at colliding with
anyone at all.
First shot is fired as the car is already turning to the right. Two
more shots are then fired. The car continues even further away from
the perpetrators before coming to a stop after hitting another car at
the edge of the road.
Nope. video from the other side shows him getting hit, but it doesn't
matter. She drove the car forward while he was in front of it. That's
no different from a person getting shot because they aimed a gun at a
cop.
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 05:04:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 19:03:52 -0500, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 23:47:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Look at this <https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo>
frame-by-frame analysis of this and other videos of the incident
from different angles: the shooter moves to the left of the vehicle
as the driver steers right to drive away -- no attempt at colliding
with anyone at all.
Nope. video from the other side shows him getting hit ...
There is no such video.
New Minneapolis ICE shooting video shows vehicle appear to hit agent
as he opened fire
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-minneapolis-ice-shooting-video-shows-vehicle-appear-to-hit-agent-as-he-opened-fire/ar-AA1TLAEa
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37853883/minneapolis-ice-shooting-renee-good-video/
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 02:16:34 -0500, Socialism is for losers <MeanDog@Snarl.Dash> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 05:04:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 19:03:52 -0500, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 23:47:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Look at this <https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo>
frame-by-frame analysis of this and other videos of the incident
from different angles: the shooter moves to the left of the vehicle
as the driver steers right to drive away -- no attempt at colliding
with anyone at all.
Nope. video from the other side shows him getting hit ...
There is no such video.
New Minneapolis ICE shooting video shows vehicle appear to hit agent
as he opened fire
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-minneapolis-ice-shooting-video-shows-vehicle-appear-to-hit-agent-as-he-opened-fire/ar-AA1TLAEa
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37853883/minneapolis-ice-shooting-renee-good-video/
The video in the first link clearly shows the officer bracing his leg
before impact.
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 05:04:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 19:03:52 -0500, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 23:47:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Look at this <https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo>
frame-by-frame analysis of this and other videos of the incident
from different angles: the shooter moves to the left of the
vehicle as the driver steers right to drive away -- no attempt at
colliding with anyone at all.
Nope. video from the other side shows him getting hit ...
There is no such video.
New Minneapolis ICE shooting video shows vehicle appear to hit agent
as he opened fire
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 02:16:34 -0500, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 05:04:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 19:03:52 -0500, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 23:47:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Look at this <https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo>
frame-by-frame analysis of this and other videos of the incident
from different angles: the shooter moves to the left of the
vehicle as the driver steers right to drive away -- no attempt at
colliding with anyone at all.
Nope. video from the other side shows him getting hit ...
There is no such video.
New Minneapolis ICE shooting video shows vehicle appear to hit agent
as he opened fire
ThatAs not onewo. ItAs the same old one that Trump and his followers
are hyper-fixated on: that angle doesnAt show that the victim is
already steering away from the shooter before he opens fire.
Check the above link, and also this ><https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis-ice-shooting-video.html>.
It doen't matter, she drove at him because she hit him.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 19:47:53 -0500, Socialism is for winners didnAt
write:
It doen't matter, she drove at him because she hit him.
Evidence does matter. You donAt just get to make things up.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 19:47:53 -0500, Socialism is for winners didnAt
write:
It doen't matter, she drove at him because she hit him.
Evidence does matter. You donAt just get to make things up.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 02:16:34 -0500, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 05:04:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 19:03:52 -0500, Socialism is for losers wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 23:47:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Look at this <https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ceqzj9932wjo>
frame-by-frame analysis of this and other videos of the incident
from different angles: the shooter moves to the left of the
vehicle as the driver steers right to drive away -- no attempt at
colliding with anyone at all.
Nope. video from the other side shows him getting hit ...
There is no such video.
New Minneapolis ICE shooting video shows vehicle appear to hit agent
as he opened fire
ThatrCOs not rCLnewrCY. ItrCOs the same old one that Trump and his followers are hyper-fixated on: that angle doesnrCOt show that the victim is
already steering away from the shooter before he opens fire.
Check the above link, and also this <https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis-ice-shooting-video.html>.
ThatrCOs not rCLnewrCY. ItrCOs the same old one that Trump and his followers >> are hyper-fixated on: that angle doesnrCOt show that the victim is
already steering away from the shooter before he opens fire.
Check the above link, and also this
<https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis-ice-shooting-video.html>.
The Trump regime released one video that doesn't show her dog was in the
car during the entire incident at the very end.
ICE Barbie is probably disappointed the woman got killed and not her dog.
The Trump regime released one video that doesn't show her dog was inLearn:
the car during the entire incident at the very end.
Evidence does matter. You donrCOt just get to make things up.Learn:
that angle doesnrCOt show that the victim isLearn:
already steering away
I await an explanation that this was official business.Learn:
video from the other side shows him getting hit ...Learn:
There is no such video.
He can be seen walking away unharmed afterwards.After being sideswiped closely.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 12:31:05 -0600
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
The Trump regime released one video that doesn't show her dog was inLearn:
the car during the entire incident at the very end.
https://x.com/AlphaNews/status/2009679932289626385
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:32:52 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,842 |
| Posted today: | 1 |