Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:
ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.
Then why is someone paying them?
Who's paying them?
oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:
The problem is the public perception of ICE is horrible. Many Minneapolis residents, spurred on by their liberal leaders, treat ICE as invaders. Folks don't treat police at a DUI checkpoint that way.
Police at a DUI checkpoint don't run up at you screaming "Get out of the f***ing car!" and try to pull at your door handle while wearing masks, while their "backup" wanders around your car filming you on a cell phone for good social-media content. Maybe you get what you give.
Police stopping someone running away from a DUI checkpoint don't have to deal with lunatic Karen's and Jessica's harassing and obstructing them while they are trying to do their jobs. Why do you assume the office was filming for the purpose of creating good social media content? More rational to believe he was documenting the lunatic behavior of the crazy Karen's and Jessica's so he can show his bosses the crap he has to deal with.
The ICE officers in this case were already yelling at her to "get out of the f***ing car" before anyone tried to run away.
Why do I assume they were filming for social media content? Because they are encouraged to.Inside ICE’s social media machine creating viral arrest videos - Washington Post https://t.co/HOdWnhV1zL
— @mbalter — investigations and commentary (@mbalter) December 23, 2025
Wow, you missed the boat on the running away comment. I am not sure how to respond to it. I am not sure if you are purposely being obtuse. Would "driving away" have helped you understand better? I was in no way discussing the details on people fleeing from their cars and running on foot to avoid a checkpoint. Furthermore, the point doesn't relate to whether or not the Karen's and Jessica's obstructing and harassing ICE are running away. It does, however, appear they won't drive away until they feel they have gotten ICE to the point that ICE is moving to arrest them.
tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:
ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.
Then why is someone paying them?
Who's paying them?
Who knows. It is obvious someone is.
tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:
ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.
Then why is someone paying them?
Who's paying them?
Who knows. It is obvious someone is.
In other news, Portland Police confirm the two people shot yesterday are TDA.
sycasey said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:
ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.
Then why is someone paying them?
Who's paying them?
Who knows. It is obvious someone is.
Why do you think it's obvious? What evidence exists?
Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:
ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.
Then why is someone paying them?
Who's paying them?
Who knows. It is obvious someone is.
In other news, Portland Police confirm the two people shot yesterday are TDA.
It's obvious, but you don't know. This is the impartial content you bring us as a " Moderator." Nobody is paying them; there are tens of thousands of people that would cheer this for free.
tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:
ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.
Then why is someone paying them?
Who's paying them?
Who knows. It is obvious someone is.
In other news, Portland Police confirm the two people shot yesterday are TDA.
It's obvious, but you don't know. This is the impartial content you bring us as a " Moderator." Nobody is paying them; there are tens of thousands of people that would cheer this for free.
This comment is absurdly stupid.
Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:
ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.
Then why is someone paying them?
Who's paying them?
Who knows. It is obvious someone is.
In other news, Portland Police confirm the two people shot yesterday are TDA.
It's obvious, but you don't know. This is the impartial content you bring us as a " Moderator." Nobody is paying them; there are tens of thousands of people that would cheer this for free.
This comment is absurdly stupid.
Should I report you for ad hominem?
Go back to being a poster, you had credibility as a Republican that you lack as someone allegedly impartial
ICE having a hard time getting around MN 😂😂😂😂😂🧊 pic.twitter.com/xaYglPMsaU
— Anas 🇸🇴 (@aljabarti_) January 9, 2026
cal83dls79 said:
I'm with Jesse. Beat down.
QB1
— Matthew Luciow (@matthewluciow92) January 9, 2026
Aaron Rodgers
“You shouldn’t worry about criticism from someone that you would never ask advice from.”#steelers pic.twitter.com/PAD6K3YpVd
sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:
The problem is the public perception of ICE is horrible. Many Minneapolis residents, spurred on by their liberal leaders, treat ICE as invaders. Folks don't treat police at a DUI checkpoint that way.
Police at a DUI checkpoint don't run up at you screaming "Get out of the f***ing car!" and try to pull at your door handle while wearing masks, while their "backup" wanders around your car filming you on a cell phone for good social-media content. Maybe you get what you give.
Police stopping someone running away from a DUI checkpoint don't have to deal with lunatic Karen's and Jessica's harassing and obstructing them while they are trying to do their jobs. Why do you assume the office was filming for the purpose of creating good social media content? More rational to believe he was documenting the lunatic behavior of the crazy Karen's and Jessica's so he can show his bosses the crap he has to deal with.
The ICE officers in this case were already yelling at her to "get out of the f***ing car" before anyone tried to run away.
Why do I assume they were filming for social media content? Because they are encouraged to.Inside ICE’s social media machine creating viral arrest videos - Washington Post https://t.co/HOdWnhV1zL
— @mbalter — investigations and commentary (@mbalter) December 23, 2025
Wow, you missed the boat on the running away comment. I am not sure how to respond to it. I am not sure if you are purposely being obtuse. Would "driving away" have helped you understand better? I was in no way discussing the details on people fleeing from their cars and running on foot to avoid a checkpoint. Furthermore, the point doesn't relate to whether or not the Karen's and Jessica's obstructing and harassing ICE are running away. It does, however, appear they won't drive away until they feel they have gotten ICE to the point that ICE is moving to arrest them.
Honestly, now I don't understand why you made any argument about "stopping someone running away" since it doesn't seem to apply to the Renee Good shooting at all. Happy to let it drop.
“In my 25 years I’ve done hundreds of vehicle stops. If someone is fleeing that is not a justification for the use of deadly force.”
— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) January 9, 2026
Eric Balliet is a 25 year veteran federal officer and retired ICE agent who oversaw use of force investigations for DHS. He says the agent who… pic.twitter.com/8Em1gooCVq
sycasey said:“In my 25 years I’ve done hundreds of vehicle stops. If someone is fleeing that is not a justification for the use of deadly force.”
— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) January 9, 2026
Eric Balliet is a 25 year veteran federal officer and retired ICE agent who oversaw use of force investigations for DHS. He says the agent who… pic.twitter.com/8Em1gooCVq
This segment was cut from 60 Minutes but is up online.
BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:“In my 25 years I’ve done hundreds of vehicle stops. If someone is fleeing that is not a justification for the use of deadly force.”
— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) January 9, 2026
Eric Balliet is a 25 year veteran federal officer and retired ICE agent who oversaw use of force investigations for DHS. He says the agent who… pic.twitter.com/8Em1gooCVq
This segment was cut from 60 Minutes but is up online.
The point isn't about her fleeing. It's about her hitting an officer with her car. Those two things aren't the same or equal
sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:“In my 25 years I’ve done hundreds of vehicle stops. If someone is fleeing that is not a justification for the use of deadly force.”
— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) January 9, 2026
Eric Balliet is a 25 year veteran federal officer and retired ICE agent who oversaw use of force investigations for DHS. He says the agent who… pic.twitter.com/8Em1gooCVq
This segment was cut from 60 Minutes but is up online.
The point isn't about her fleeing. It's about her hitting an officer with her car. Those two things aren't the same or equal
Also addressed in the segment, it's not clear that she hit the officer.
BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:“In my 25 years I’ve done hundreds of vehicle stops. If someone is fleeing that is not a justification for the use of deadly force.”
— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) January 9, 2026
Eric Balliet is a 25 year veteran federal officer and retired ICE agent who oversaw use of force investigations for DHS. He says the agent who… pic.twitter.com/8Em1gooCVq
This segment was cut from 60 Minutes but is up online.
The point isn't about her fleeing. It's about her hitting an officer with her car. Those two things aren't the same or equal
Also addressed in the segment, it's not clear that she hit the officer.
It is whether you want to admit that or not dude.
sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:“In my 25 years I’ve done hundreds of vehicle stops. If someone is fleeing that is not a justification for the use of deadly force.”
— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) January 9, 2026
Eric Balliet is a 25 year veteran federal officer and retired ICE agent who oversaw use of force investigations for DHS. He says the agent who… pic.twitter.com/8Em1gooCVq
This segment was cut from 60 Minutes but is up online.
The point isn't about her fleeing. It's about her hitting an officer with her car. Those two things aren't the same or equal
Also addressed in the segment, it's not clear that she hit the officer.
It is whether you want to admit that or not dude.
No, it really is not. In fact, I think the preponderance of the evidence leans towards the idea that he was not, or if he was he was not hit very hard. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with people saying otherwise.
oski003 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:“In my 25 years I’ve done hundreds of vehicle stops. If someone is fleeing that is not a justification for the use of deadly force.”
— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) January 9, 2026
Eric Balliet is a 25 year veteran federal officer and retired ICE agent who oversaw use of force investigations for DHS. He says the agent who… pic.twitter.com/8Em1gooCVq
This segment was cut from 60 Minutes but is up online.
The point isn't about her fleeing. It's about her hitting an officer with her car. Those two things aren't the same or equal
Also addressed in the segment, it's not clear that she hit the officer.
It is whether you want to admit that or not dude.
No, it really is not. In fact, I think the preponderance of the evidence leans towards the idea that he was not, or if he was he was not hit very hard. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with people saying otherwise.
I do feel like everyone is taking crazy pills with the focus way to much on whether or not the officer was actually struck by the vehicle. We should be able to all agree that the car accelerated toward the officer at close range. The driver turned right and either did or did not hit the officer with a glancing blow (albeit from a heavy dangerous object).
The question about the contact should instead be framed on whether or not the officer believed the driver was going to do them serious bodily harm. I believe that is a reasonable belief.
sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:“In my 25 years I’ve done hundreds of vehicle stops. If someone is fleeing that is not a justification for the use of deadly force.”
— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) January 9, 2026
Eric Balliet is a 25 year veteran federal officer and retired ICE agent who oversaw use of force investigations for DHS. He says the agent who… pic.twitter.com/8Em1gooCVq
This segment was cut from 60 Minutes but is up online.
The point isn't about her fleeing. It's about her hitting an officer with her car. Those two things aren't the same or equal
Also addressed in the segment, it's not clear that she hit the officer.
It is whether you want to admit that or not dude.
No, it really is not. In fact, I think the preponderance of the evidence leans towards the idea that he was not, or if he was he was not hit very hard. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with people saying otherwise.
And honestly, I'm not sure the new cell phone footage from the officer helps his case for "reason to believe" she was trying to hit him. She speaks politely to him in their first interaction, and his footage has her turning the steering wheel ALL THE WAY to the right before accelerating, which means he could see she was turning too. Seems pretty obvious she was not trying to hit him, even from his vantage point.
BearlySane88 said:
You've even admitted in this thread that all it takes is for her to drive towards the officer with her car for him to have the legal authority to use deadly force.
sycasey said:
if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.
BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:
if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.
This statement.
Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle
sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:
if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.
This statement.
Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle
And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?
Anyway, IF he thought that then force "may be justified," I said. Question is, should he have thought that? Did he really? Looks like he could see her turning the wheel away from him. I'm not too sure.
Another question: does it matter that he moved himself into harm's way (in front of the vehicle) against what appears to be standard law-enforcement training?
BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:
if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.
This statement.
Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle
And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?
Anyway, IF he thought that then force "may be justified," I said. Question is, should he have thought that? Did he really? Looks like he could see her turning the wheel away from him. I'm not too sure.
Another question: does it matter that he moved himself into harm's way (in front of the vehicle) against what appears to be standard law-enforcement training?
Past it? She clearly hit him in some fashion.
Also looks like he saw her drive at him.
No he shouldn't have been standing there but that doesn't give her the right to drive through him. Poor training or bad judgment on his part doesn't excuse her actions
sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:
if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.
This statement.
Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle
And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?
Anyway, IF he thought that then force "may be justified," I said. Question is, should he have thought that? Did he really? Looks like he could see her turning the wheel away from him. I'm not too sure.
Another question: does it matter that he moved himself into harm's way (in front of the vehicle) against what appears to be standard law-enforcement training?
Past it? She clearly hit him in some fashion.
Also looks like he saw her drive at him.
No he shouldn't have been standing there but that doesn't give her the right to drive through him. Poor training or bad judgment on his part doesn't excuse her actions
You keep saying she tried to drive through him when she clearly tried to drive around.
Look, I don't deny that it was a dumb decision by that woman to try to flee in that moment, and also not smart to park her car in that way. But I hold cops to a higher standard of decision-making because they are given guns and authority by the state. So to me it matters a lot where he chose to position himself, same for the one who came up and grabbed at the car door immediately rather than first asking the driver to stop blocking the lane. Don't create a confrontation if you don't have to.
sycasey said:
And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?
Even CNN had to admit that the brave ICE agent was hit by the domestic terrorists car first, and then he opened fire.
— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) January 10, 2026
When you lose CNN! pic.twitter.com/93UssDoP3X
Yesterday the lie was that he didn’t get hit at all. https://t.co/2eME0MDad1
— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) January 9, 2026
BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:
if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.
This statement.
Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle
And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?
Anyway, IF he thought that then force "may be justified," I said. Question is, should he have thought that? Did he really? Looks like he could see her turning the wheel away from him. I'm not too sure.
Another question: does it matter that he moved himself into harm's way (in front of the vehicle) against what appears to be standard law-enforcement training?
Past it? She clearly hit him in some fashion.
Also looks like he saw her drive at him.
No he shouldn't have been standing there but that doesn't give her the right to drive through him. Poor training or bad judgment on his part doesn't excuse her actions
You keep saying she tried to drive through him when she clearly tried to drive around.
Look, I don't deny that it was a dumb decision by that woman to try to flee in that moment, and also not smart to park her car in that way. But I hold cops to a higher standard of decision-making because they are given guns and authority by the state. So to me it matters a lot where he chose to position himself, same for the one who came up and grabbed at the car door immediately rather than first asking the driver to stop blocking the lane. Don't create a confrontation if you don't have to.
If she really tried to drive around, she could have slowly started to move instead of gassing it.
They told her to get out of the car. She didn't. They tried to get her out. Standard procedure for officers. Happens all the time. Again he was in the wrong position. That gave her no right to try to drive away and through him
BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:
And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?
Posting for the cnn piece, not the X commentaryEven CNN had to admit that the brave ICE agent was hit by the domestic terrorists car first, and then he opened fire.
— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) January 10, 2026
When you lose CNN! pic.twitter.com/93UssDoP3X
sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:
if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.
This statement.
Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle
And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?
Anyway, IF he thought that then force "may be justified," I said. Question is, should he have thought that? Did he really? Looks like he could see her turning the wheel away from him. I'm not too sure.
Another question: does it matter that he moved himself into harm's way (in front of the vehicle) against what appears to be standard law-enforcement training?
Past it? She clearly hit him in some fashion.
Also looks like he saw her drive at him.
No he shouldn't have been standing there but that doesn't give her the right to drive through him. Poor training or bad judgment on his part doesn't excuse her actions
You keep saying she tried to drive through him when she clearly tried to drive around.
Look, I don't deny that it was a dumb decision by that woman to try to flee in that moment, and also not smart to park her car in that way. But I hold cops to a higher standard of decision-making because they are given guns and authority by the state. So to me it matters a lot where he chose to position himself, same for the one who came up and grabbed at the car door immediately rather than first asking the driver to stop blocking the lane. Don't create a confrontation if you don't have to.
If she really tried to drive around, she could have slowly started to move instead of gassing it.
They told her to get out of the car. She didn't. They tried to get her out. Standard procedure for officers. Happens all the time. Again he was in the wrong position. That gave her no right to try to drive away and through him
It's standard procedure to immediately run towards the vehicle yelling "get out of the f***ing car" and grab the door handle? I very much doubt that. She barely had a couple of seconds to exit the car before they were already trying to force their way in.
BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:
if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.
This statement.
Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle
And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?
Anyway, IF he thought that then force "may be justified," I said. Question is, should he have thought that? Did he really? Looks like he could see her turning the wheel away from him. I'm not too sure.
Another question: does it matter that he moved himself into harm's way (in front of the vehicle) against what appears to be standard law-enforcement training?
Past it? She clearly hit him in some fashion.
Also looks like he saw her drive at him.
No he shouldn't have been standing there but that doesn't give her the right to drive through him. Poor training or bad judgment on his part doesn't excuse her actions
You keep saying she tried to drive through him when she clearly tried to drive around.
Look, I don't deny that it was a dumb decision by that woman to try to flee in that moment, and also not smart to park her car in that way. But I hold cops to a higher standard of decision-making because they are given guns and authority by the state. So to me it matters a lot where he chose to position himself, same for the one who came up and grabbed at the car door immediately rather than first asking the driver to stop blocking the lane. Don't create a confrontation if you don't have to.
If she really tried to drive around, she could have slowly started to move instead of gassing it.
They told her to get out of the car. She didn't. They tried to get her out. Standard procedure for officers. Happens all the time. Again he was in the wrong position. That gave her no right to try to drive away and through him
It's standard procedure to immediately run towards the vehicle yelling "get out of the f***ing car" and grab the door handle? I very much doubt that. She barely had a couple of seconds to exit the car before they were already trying to force their way in.
So she gets to just drive through people?
tequila4kapp said:sycasey said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:tequila4kapp said:Anarchistbear said:
ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.
Then why is someone paying them?
Who's paying them?
Who knows. It is obvious someone is.
Why do you think it's obvious? What evidence exists?
The crowd for hire guy saying so.
Signage that is created very quickly and is the same across different cities.
Equipment and supplies provided en masse.
Protesters occasionally slipping and saying so.
sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:
if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.
This statement.
Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle
And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?
Anyway, IF he thought that then force "may be justified," I said. Question is, should he have thought that? Did he really? Looks like he could see her turning the wheel away from him. I'm not too sure.
Another question: does it matter that he moved himself into harm's way (in front of the vehicle) against what appears to be standard law-enforcement training?
Past it? She clearly hit him in some fashion.
Also looks like he saw her drive at him.
No he shouldn't have been standing there but that doesn't give her the right to drive through him. Poor training or bad judgment on his part doesn't excuse her actions
You keep saying she tried to drive through him when she clearly tried to drive around.
Look, I don't deny that it was a dumb decision by that woman to try to flee in that moment, and also not smart to park her car in that way. But I hold cops to a higher standard of decision-making because they are given guns and authority by the state. So to me it matters a lot where he chose to position himself, same for the one who came up and grabbed at the car door immediately rather than first asking the driver to stop blocking the lane. Don't create a confrontation if you don't have to.
If she really tried to drive around, she could have slowly started to move instead of gassing it.
They told her to get out of the car. She didn't. They tried to get her out. Standard procedure for officers. Happens all the time. Again he was in the wrong position. That gave her no right to try to drive away and through him
It's standard procedure to immediately run towards the vehicle yelling "get out of the f***ing car" and grab the door handle? I very much doubt that. She barely had a couple of seconds to exit the car before they were already trying to force their way in.
So she gets to just drive through people?
Did I say that? I'm criticizing how the officers approached the situation. You see no problems there?
YouGov poll | 1/7
— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) January 9, 2026
Do you approve of recent protests against ICE actions?
Approve 44%
Disapprove 42%
Not sure 14%
🟦Democratic (72/19 approve)
🟥Republican (74/14 disapprove)
⬜️Independent (46/32 approve)
Link to poll: https://t.co/EeUMOvlmcc pic.twitter.com/6fMDbljn9M
Jan 7 poll of 2,686 U.S. adults (+/-2.2 points)
— YouGov America (@YouGovAmerica) January 8, 2026
% who approve | disapprove of how ICE is handling its job
U.S. adults 39% | 52%
Democrats 9% | 85%
Independents 28% | 56%
Republicans 80% | 14%
(Link in reply) pic.twitter.com/FECgursPgO
sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:
if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.
This statement.
Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle
And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?
Anyway, IF he thought that then force "may be justified," I said. Question is, should he have thought that? Did he really? Looks like he could see her turning the wheel away from him. I'm not too sure.
Another question: does it matter that he moved himself into harm's way (in front of the vehicle) against what appears to be standard law-enforcement training?
Past it? She clearly hit him in some fashion.
Also looks like he saw her drive at him.
No he shouldn't have been standing there but that doesn't give her the right to drive through him. Poor training or bad judgment on his part doesn't excuse her actions
You keep saying she tried to drive through him when she clearly tried to drive around.
Look, I don't deny that it was a dumb decision by that woman to try to flee in that moment, and also not smart to park her car in that way. But I hold cops to a higher standard of decision-making because they are given guns and authority by the state. So to me it matters a lot where he chose to position himself, same for the one who came up and grabbed at the car door immediately rather than first asking the driver to stop blocking the lane. Don't create a confrontation if you don't have to.
If she really tried to drive around, she could have slowly started to move instead of gassing it.
They told her to get out of the car. She didn't. They tried to get her out. Standard procedure for officers. Happens all the time. Again he was in the wrong position. That gave her no right to try to drive away and through him
It's standard procedure to immediately run towards the vehicle yelling "get out of the f***ing car" and grab the door handle? I very much doubt that. She barely had a couple of seconds to exit the car before they were already trying to force their way in.
So she gets to just drive through people?
Did I say that? I'm criticizing how the officers approached the situation. You see no problems there?
