Of the parties involved, which person had the ability to make sure that the interaction in its entirety never occurred? One person was where their job required them to be, the other person was there to interfere, by choice. Did she deserve to die? No. Is it her fault that she is dead…absolutely.
Poor dog in the back I hope he’s ok
I would say the dog killer in charge of Homeland is responsible because we know massive deportations of illegals can happen without so much as a notice by anyone but those being deported. Trump hasn't even gotten to Obama numbers yet. I can only conclude that the way they're conducing operations isn't a bug, it's a feature.Of the parties involved, which person had the ability to make sure that the interaction in its entirety never occurred? One person was where their job required them to be, the other person was there to interfere, by choice. Did she deserve to die? No. Was it her fault that she is dead…absolutely.
To the second part of your comment: the person there doing their job did it poorly. Period. It's extremely poor judgement to be filming with your phone in one hand and drop it to reach for your gun. We can't drive while holding our phones but we can shoot people while doing so?Of the parties involved, which person had the ability to make sure that the interaction in its entirety never occurred? One person was where their job required them to be, the other person was there to interfere, by choice. Did she deserve to die? No. Was it her fault that she is dead…absolutely.
Kristi Noem would want the dog dead, too. Could be the agent will face disciplinary action for not finishing the job.Poor dog in the back I hope he’s ok
He was likely just filming the situation, with no intent to shoot anyone. If you watch the video from days ago, he didn't even reach for his gun until the car was coming at him and tires were still pointing at him as he reached for the gun. And this has nothing to do with people driving and holding phones.To the second part of your comment: the person there doing their job did it poorly. Period. It's extremely poor judgement to be filming with your phone in one hand and drop it to reach for your gun. We can't drive while holding our phones but we can shoot people while doing so?
You can’t know his intent any more than someone who says he did intend to shoot her. Disagree with your point about the phone not being a distraction to his focus, though. Seems self evident.He was likely just filming the situation, with no intent to shoot anyone. If you watch the video from days ago, he didn't even reach for his gun until the car was coming at him and tires were still pointing at him as he reached for the gun. And this has nothing to do with people driving and holding phones.
OK lolYou can’t know his intent any more than someone who says he did intend to shoot her. Disagree with your point about the phone not being a distraction to his focus, though. Seems self evident.
Your “logic” is fun. Are you sure it isn’t the fault of the gun manufacturer? Or maybe if the ICE officer’s mother never had him, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.I would say the dog killer in charge of Homeland is responsible because we know massive deportations of illegals can happen without so much as a notice by anyone but those being deported. Trump hasn't even gotten to Obama numbers yet. I can only conclude that the way they're conducing operations isn't a bug, it's a feature.
If he didn’t have a body cam then I think it was entirely appropriate to get film evidence (with his phone) of these fucktards interfering with his ability to perform his duties. And ya, as soon as she started driving at him, it was also appropriate to drop the fucking phone and reach for his firearm.To the second part of your comment: the person there doing their job did it poorly. Period. It's extremely poor judgement to be filming with your phone in one hand and drop it to reach for your gun. We can't drive while holding our phones but we can shoot people while doing so?
Are we sure we’re reserving judgment? Doesn’t sound like it.If he didn’t have a body cam then I think it was entirely appropriate to get film evidence (with his phone) of these fucktards interfering with his ability to perform his duties. And ya, as soon as she started driving at him, it was also appropriate to drop the fucking phone and reach for his firearm.
Do I believe he needed to take the shot to protect his life? I’m reserving my judgment until I’ve seen all of the evidence. Then again, I’ve never been in that situation. Regardless, it’s her fault that she is dead. She never should have been there doing what she was doing…period.
And as an aside, in America we spell judgment with one “e”.
Come on sharkey, you of all people should know who is at fault. It is our founding fathers because they wrote on a piece of paper right to bear arms. It was there fault!Your “logic” is fun. Are you sure it isn’t the fault of the gun manufacturer? Or maybe if the ICE officer’s mother never had him, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
As a 2A supporter and owner of NFA items, I’m not sure I follow your logic either.Your “logic” is fun. Are you sure it isn’t the fault of the gun manufacturer? Or maybe if the ICE officer’s mother never had him, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Two things can be true at the same time. In my opinion, she is responsible for her own death because she intentionally put herself in harms way and intentionally interfered with an officer’s performance of his duties, then she disobeyed lawful direction, and then she attempted to flee and quite likely used her vehicle to display force.Are we sure we’re reserving judgment? Doesn’t sound like it.
Dafuq does that have to do with anything? I have cool things that go bang and also things to make the bang less loud.As a 2A supporter and owner of NFA items, I’m not sure I follow your logic either.