Trumps Presidency 2025

[Tigerbomb13]

 

[Tigerbomb13]

 

[pfife]

6 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Walz callin

When the left er...... the right gets caught grifting err.... murdering they point the at the other side. 

hypocrite.

Edited yesterday at 04:35 AM by pfife

[pfife]

6 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Prediction #2.

The ICE Agent becomes a right wing celebrity, escapes charges, and speaks at the 2028 GOP Convention.

For sure

[Dan Gilmore]

1 hour ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

 

Quoting this great response-I no more likes available to me here today.

[oblong]

Where's all the 2nd amendment folks?  The Randy Weaver/New World Order types that were prominent in the 90's.  Mark Scott is dead, I know, but he had a following.  I'm starting to think all their talk and fear about the feds taking over was simply bull****.

[mtutiger]

8 hours ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

 

Have these Republicans seen who is President and how he speaks and drops expletives?

Their "Disney ears" are quite selective, aren't they?

[mtutiger]

7 hours ago, pfife said:

When the left er...... the right gets caught grifting err.... murdering they point the at the other side. 

hypocrite.

Also funny coming from the guy that is constantly posting Twitter links from said right wing grifters caught grifting lol

[Tigerbomb13]

 

[romad1]

21 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

 

The NBC Evening News bent over backwards to portray Trump's statements as plausible. 

 

[CMRivdogs]

3 hours ago, oblong said:

Where's all the 2nd amendment folks?  The Randy Weaver/New World Order types that were prominent in the 90's.  Mark Scott is dead, I know, but he had a following.  I'm starting to think all their talk and fear about the feds taking over was simply bull****.

They are the ones rooting for more ICE destruction and deportations. Plus around here they are the one moaning about planned construction of local government buildings that will replace ones that have outlived their usefulness and are no longer cost effective. 

Edited yesterday at 02:28 PM by CMRivdogs

[Tigermojo]

Words worse than "deplorable" (shameful, lamentable) describe a deeper moral depravity or extreme horror, with stronger terms including abhorrent, atrocious, execrable, heinous, repugnant, vile, diabolical, or monstrous, indicating something beyond just regrettable to truly evil, vile, or causing extreme disgust and terror. 

[CMRivdogs]

 

[Tigerbomb13]

****ing monsters these people are. 

[Tigerbomb13]

These people are really ****ing weird. 
 

 

[romad1]

25 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

These people are really ****ing weird. 
 

 

They want you finding your future spouse in the church. 

[buddha]

under fourth amendment case law, whether an officer used unreasonable force is judged by an "objective reaaonableness" standard.  in general, it is unreasonable for an officer to kill someone; however, where an officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

that's the law.  does it apply here?  up to your interpretation.

she accelerates her car directly toward the officer.  that's likely enough evidence to give the officer qualified immunity for using deadly force to stop the car.

i - like i think almost everyone else on this board - think ICE officers started this, exacerbated it, handled this extremely poorly, and should not have shot her.  period.  the officer should not have been standing in front of the car and the other officer should not have approached her in such a belligerent manner.  to me, ICE caused this.  99% (the other 1% is that she shouldnt have disobeyed the officer, no matter if he was being an ass hole or not).

but legally, i think the officer is probably going to be immune from prosecution or liability.  my only question is concerning the subsequent shots.  the car is past him.  does he have reasonable cause to fire two shots into the car at that point?  his argument will be that he can use deadly force to stop a fleeing person who is a reasonable threat to others, and that since she drove her car directly at him, that gives him the authority to use such force because she continues to be a threat.  i dont know if that argument is a good one or not, but i suspect it likely will be.

the "shoot out the tires" argument is a non-entity.  you dont shoot out the tires, you ONLY use force if you think your life or the lives of others are threatened.  if not, you dont pull the gun at all.  you never "shoot out the tires."  shoot to kill or dont shoot at all.   its different than a pit manuever or putting spikes on the road (and those are constitutionally questionable at this point too).

[The Ronz]

42 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

These people are really ****ing weird. 
 

 

 

Lebensborn.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[guy incognito]

8 minutes ago, The Ronz said:

 

Lebensborn.

That’s always been an obvious (to me anyway) subtext to the right’s abortion obsession. They really don’t like that white, middle-class Christian women aren’t pumping out an adequate number of babies to maintain the country’s demographics as they’re “supposed” to be.

 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by guy incognito

[guy incognito]

“We executed one of you yesterday.”
 

https://www.threads.com/@amay.a100/post/DTQaqJ9Da6s?xmt=AQF0Q3A8P4DsSjkO81VJ_kVnORJIDfg0q-keLe8RkRjVyn3qkVWrEmexD7K45HiA9AfVdMvi&slof=1

[Tigeraholic1]

57 minutes ago, buddha said:

under fourth amendment case law, whether an officer used unreasonable force is judged by an "objective reaaonableness" standard.  in general, it is unreasonable for an officer to kill someone; however, where an officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

that's the law.  does it apply here?  up to your interpretation.

she accelerates her car directly toward the officer.  that's likely enough evidence to give the officer qualified immunity for using deadly force to stop the car.

i - like i think almost everyone else on this board - think ICE officers started this, exacerbated it, handled this extremely poorly, and should not have shot her.  period.  the officer should not have been standing in front of the car and the other officer should not have approached her in such a belligerent manner.  to me, ICE caused this.  99% (the other 1% is that she shouldnt have disobeyed the officer, no matter if he was being an ass hole or not).

but legally, i think the officer is probably going to be immune from prosecution or liability.  my only question is concerning the subsequent shots.  the car is past him.  does he have reasonable cause to fire two shots into the car at that point?  his argument will be that he can use deadly force to stop a fleeing person who is a reasonable threat to others, and that since she drove her car directly at him, that gives him the authority to use such force because she continues to be a threat.  i dont know if that argument is a good one or not, but i suspect it likely will be.

the "shoot out the tires" argument is a non-entity.  you dont shoot out the tires, you ONLY use force if you think your life or the lives of others are threatened.  if not, you dont pull the gun at all.  you never "shoot out the tires."  shoot to kill or dont shoot at all.   its different than a pit manuever or putting spikes on the road (and those are constitutionally questionable at this point too).

This video angle will be used by his defense.

 

 

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Tigeraholic1

[Sports_Freak]

Climate change is a hoax? And yet, for the 2nd year in a row, I'm outside raking leaves in...January. Our president is an idiot.

[LaceyLou]

51 minutes ago, guy incognito said:

That’s always been an obvious (to me anyway) subtext to the right’s abortion obsession. They really don’t like that white, middle-class Christian women aren’t pumping out an adequate number of babies to maintain the country’s demographics as they’re “supposed” to be.

 

 

They also don't like that women in general are able to be in control of their bodies and lives. There's nothing worse to them than an independent, childless cat lady. 

[Shades of Deivi Cruz]

8 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

This video angle will be used by his defense.

 

 

 

 

Holy sped up video, Batman!