Jump to content

Crazy Cat

Members, Global Mod
  • Posts

    39,471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    670

Crazy Cat last won the day on January 6

Crazy Cat had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • City
    Somewhere
  • State
    Texas

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Naturalization (approved)
  • Local Office
    Dallas TX
  • Country
    Taiwan

Crazy Cat's Achievements

Recent Profile Visitors

103,887 profile views
  1. More good guys with guns......great. Maybe this will prevent some robberies. But I'm sure the leftists will think of another way to restrict the rights of Californians.
  2. Agree with that... On a side note, I don't think this is about ICE. If it was, why did we not see all these people impeding them during the Obama (Deporter N' Chief) administration? Could it be that hate for one man overshadows all else?
  3. Exactly. Military bases and/or mineral agreements are in the making.
  4. Someone needs to watch Nate The Lawyer's video.......posted above in this thread... Nate has experience as law enforcement, as a prosecutor, and as a defense attorney.
  5. Exactly.....Life doesn't happen in still frames or slow motion....and any 20/20 analysis using either should be invalid in a court of law....or anywhere else. Amazing that none of the leftists in main stream media will admit that.
  6. ***Thread has been moved to the Philippines regional forum for the PI experts to see since NBI is a Philippines process***
  7. The officer fired his shots in the time span of 1 or 2 seconds. He didn't wait until she was down the street. Since the first shot went through the front windshield, That is hardly after the fact. A reasonable person could see the driver as a continued threat for at least 2 seconds. I, as a reasonable person, see no issue with multiple shots being fired in this situation.
  8. Not the case here by any stretch of imagination........you are moving the goal post. The driver became a threat and the officer legally took action in self defense as soon as she pressed the gas pedal and moved forward.
  9. My prediction: The officer is going to file a LOT of civil lawsuits against a LOT of people for defamation....a LOT of people. Hillary is one of them. AOC is one of them. There are many more. You would think these people had learned not to be so careless.
  10. Any REASONABLE person placed in the shoes of the officer would likely conclude that a lunging vehicle posed a threat of serious injury.....pretty cut and dry, imo. Walz and Frey should be charged with incitement. They know ICE is not leaving, yet they have never told the activists to stop interfering with federal law enforcement actions. They are defying federal law. Walz (a sore loser) and Frey are insurrectionists who are encouraging activists to defy federal law. This is the wrong approach. If you don't like the laws, get them changed. The officer was performing his duty. He was legally documenting a stationary vehicle and its occupant for the record.....until she drove forward.....and hit him. When the car started moving, the driver became a threat.
  11. Other cases are irrelevant here. Was the officer supposed to wait until he was under the tires before fearing for his life and taking action? It's about criminal law. I'm sure her family will try to bring a civil lawsuit....but I don't think the Federal officials will charge him criminally, and I don't think the state can charge him criminally. https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force " Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.
  12. If this is before the interview, he can make the change on the DS-160 or at the time of the interview.
  13. Logical, unbiased analysis in my opinion. By law, this is self defense, imho. Her face expression is irrelevant. Her words are irrelevant. Her ACTIONS and the officer's perception of those actions in those 2 seconds are relevant.
  14. If he feared for his life in that split second, this is self defense. Game over..... It's actually cut and dry. Add, to the facts. that he actually hit him.
  15. Pretty low bar....and he failed.
×
×
  • Create New...