Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is there a level at which their choice to abide by Federal laws is crossed. Where it is then illegal or breaching federal laws. I heard that individuals who try to stop federal officers is illegal.
Fair enough. I can't be bothered making you go back and find my words. Or that my words meant what you think I meant. My approach to these situations is always to mention that we don't know all the facts so making claims is premature.
But this is doing the same thing. Referring to some source as truth. All I know is what Home land security said. That the officer recieved internal bleeding. Not whether it was serious or not.
Well it sure seems like he did not. Which is telling in itself of a deep divide in beliefs and political ideology.
I don't know. A santuary State for illegal immigrants seems like a protection for illegal imigrants. An alternative policy on the status of illegal immigrants.
But what makes you think that they wouldn't try to stop them from murders and rapes? So why would you say something this?
If they are suspects in a rape or murder case the non-ICE police will pick them up interrogate them and if the prosecutor thinks that they have a case, the suspects will be brought to criminal court and have their day in court.
How did you reach this conclusion?
Good, then they should bring them to court.
What if the politicians knew about the data but did not act on it. It could be a number of reasons. From mismagement as far as the time it took from identifying to arrest.
You would think that would be the normal process of law. Like I said it will depend on a number of reasons why. For example many people honestly believe that every person being picked up is innocent and should be allowed to stay regardless of whether they are a criminal or not.
I just explained this above. The protestors claim teh ICE agents are going in arresting innocents. When they are actually going in to arrest criminals. Thus in their good intention they are preventing law enforcement from arresting criminals.
Yes that should be the course of natural justice. But I think the rule of law has long been lost. I think in part it was the undermining of such long held principles that has caused the whole mess. The culture war that has divided people to hate each other.
Beside crimes against immigration law? I'm going to need a reference for that, since this data would indicate otherwise.
That is not a reason to not afford suspects due process.
It isn't justified. That is my point. I see you want to play in the same iffy space as Rob.
By post war, you must mean the war that we use to indicate "antebellum"? After that war was the period of greatest immigration. A period of mass migration that started with the first rising of the klan focused on terrorizing newly freed slaves to not vote and ended with the mass movement of the second rising triumphantly ending mass migration in their quest against immigrants, Catholics, and Jews.
This phrasing is 99% WRONG. With the exception of specific groups of refugees, immigrants are not "brought in" at all. No country is going into another country and scooping up full villages to move across the ocean. Individuals make those choices for themselves.
The violence on the streets is from the government.
This isn't about drug boats, Steve. Wrong thread.
I don't think you even understood what I wrote. It was principally about how and why this "info" was released.
Well that's nice.
Asking questions is fine. But I am not seeing question asking. I am seeing accusations and judgement. You seem to at least be somewhat fair in calling for a jury to decide. But before that happens an investigation needs to be completed. It may be seen that the use of force was justified and no trial is needed. Just because an officer shoots someone, doesn't mean there has to be a trial.
You are delusional lol. What does Mesopotamia have anything to do with my statement lol? It doesn't. Civil law? Depends on the State. It does matter. In some States it may be illegal or not acceptable.
Mesopotamia wasn't Christian and marriage existed there and was very much valid, unlike your statement there. And yes, it could vary by state or country even. Yet, in all those cases, it comes from civil law, not Scripture.
She wasn't blocking traffic. She was waving cars around her. The officers vehicle was blocking the lane and she was behind it and only blocking a bit of the other lane. That officer was walking around her SUV and filming. She was being very friendly to him.
So a person cannot use examples from another situation to support a point. Are you the thread gatekeeper.
No it wasn't. You were using selected info to make out there was a crime committed by border patrol.
The initial reports had a lot of info that was not there later. And there will be more info that is leased that is not available now. But your willing to jump the gun and accuse them of murder.
Yet we have a direct report from the same administration and not a sneak or anonymous leak which states the officer recieved hospital treatment. Two conflicting reports. One from directly from head of DOHS and the other an anonymous we can't verify.
Yet the shooters own body cam shows him being hit and jolted. You hear the thud as the car hits him and his camera jolt. All these critics. Put yourself in his shoes with a car coming towards you from an agitator who was agaitating these officers throughout the day.
Even if that is correct it still does not negate that the officer was hit, that Good was agitating and put her foot on the accelerator and her partner yelled "drive baby drive" to encourgae her. That she was already breaking federal laws and then disobeyed requests to get out of the car. Rather agitated further.
Well that's nice.
She was waving people around her because there was plenty of room to drive forward. At least until the 2nd ICE truck pulled up. That is clear on the videos.
Park your car in the road exactly like she did and when the cops come explain to them that you are not blocking traffic and they can go around.
You've abused the privilege with all of your wanderings.
I am discussing with you the "internal bleeding" claim. Nothing else.
The "internal bleeding" claim was not part of the original reports or the very common ephemeral things of early reporting on events.
They are conflicting now? You just said they were the same.
As I said on the first challenge by anyone to my statement it can be found with a simple search:
kstp.com
Not a body cam, it was his cell phone.
What about the three shots? Do you hear those? If not, are you sure what you heard is a thud from a car?
As I said previously, just step back. A single step back takes him completely out of any question of danger.
Then he should have been smarter about standing "in front" of a car with a running engine when it "happened again".
The DOJ seems to be dropping any "investigation". We, however, can discuss whatever we want.
We are talking about an officer involved shooting with a fatality.
She drove off smoothly and made a partial 3-point (Y-) turn.
You seem to have convicted the dead woman of being a vehicular assaulter.
None of which are this case.We have just seen agitators destroying ICE vehicles, stealing guns, raiding a church and attacking federal officers with shovels and rocks. Trying to break in to federal buildings. Heavens knows if they were successfu;. What are they going to do, have a shot out with ICE, This is crazy.
