It Was Only A Matter Of Time

[tvc184]

49 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Unreal. Portland police chief crying because the two suspects shot while reportedly attempting to use their vehicle as a weapon as they fled officers WERE affiliated with Tren de Aragua as stated by DHS.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

It seems like he is upset that the people shot weren’t citizens heading to work.

Oh my gosh, it’s horrible! The agents didn’t shoot innocent citizens! 

🤣🤣🤣

[Reagan]

These Are Who the Protesters Protect: DHS Drops List of the “Worst of the Worst” Captured in Minnesota!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

Okay, some new information to look at. 

I watched a video from Nate the Lawyer on YouTube. It covered the view from the a cell phone that the agent was holding (not a body cam). We probably all have seen it.

But, looking at it again, it changes part of the narrative. 

The officer is did not step in front the vehicle as some on social media have claimed. He was being taunted by the wife as she was trying to get in the vehicle. The driver turned her wheels to the left and backed up. That swung her vehicle to the right and pointed her car at the officer. She then put it in gear and drove at him.

Intentional? Accidental?

I don’t think it matters. There have been so many claims, however, that the officer stepped in front of the vehicle in order to justify shooting. Looking at it again, it does not appear to be true. He was standing near the headlight to the passenger side of the vehicle. The driver backed up the vehicle, pointing it at the agent and then turned into him and drove forward.

So many of the accusations from the start seem to be jumping the gun or wishful thinking to make ICE look bad. 

I know that for the people who have made up their minds, it will not matter. The decision on fault was likely made immediately and it won’t change. We sometimes get the qualifying comments of, I support the police but the agent should not have stepped in front of her. Well…. it turns out that he didn’t. 

 

[baddog]

5 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Okay, some new information to look at. 

I watched a video from Nate the Lawyer on YouTube. It covered the view from the a cell phone that the agent was holding (not a body cam). We probably all have seen it.

But, looking at it again, it changes part of the narrative. 

The officer is did not step in front the vehicle as some on social media have claimed. He was being taunted by the wife as she was trying to get in the vehicle. The driver turned her wheels to the left and backed up. That swung her vehicle to the right and pointed her car at the officer. She then put it in gear and drove at him.

Intentional? Accidental?

I don’t think it matters. There have been so many claims, however, that the officer stepped in front of the vehicle in order to justify shooting. Looking at it again, it does not appear to be true. He was standing near the headlight to the passenger side of the vehicle. The driver backed up the vehicle, pointing it at the agent and then turned into him and drove forward.

So many of the accusations from the start seem to be jumping the gun or wishful thinking to make ICE look bad. 

I know that for the people who have made up their minds, it will not matter. The decision on fault was likely made immediately and it won’t change. We sometimes get the qualifying comments of, I support the police but the agent should not have stepped in front of her. Well…. it turns out that he didn’t. 

 

A huge problem for me is the disproportionate numbers of people with phones/cameras vs the people carrying signs, especially during the Free Palestine protests on campuses. Those Youtube hits mean a lot. People will record events that they may even be against just for money. I am, however, glad that this incident was filmed for the officer’s sake even though his body cam footage removed all doubt for me. Actually, whatever msm reports about the situation, you can be assured the opposite is true.

[thetragichippy]

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Okay, some new information to look at. 

I watched a video from Nate the Lawyer on YouTube. It covered the view from the a cell phone that the agent was holding (not a body cam). We probably all have seen it.

But, looking at it again, it changes part of the narrative. 

The officer is did not step in front the vehicle as some on social media have claimed. He was being taunted by the wife as she was trying to get in the vehicle. The driver turned her wheels to the left and backed up. That swung her vehicle to the right and pointed her car at the officer. She then put it in gear and drove at him.

Intentional? Accidental?

I don’t think it matters. There have been so many claims, however, that the officer stepped in front of the vehicle in order to justify shooting. Looking at it again, it does not appear to be true. He was standing near the headlight to the passenger side of the vehicle. The driver backed up the vehicle, pointing it at the agent and then turned into him and drove forward.

So many of the accusations from the start seem to be jumping the gun or wishful thinking to make ICE look bad. 

I know that for the people who have made up their minds, it will not matter. The decision on fault was likely made immediately and it won’t change. We sometimes get the qualifying comments of, I support the police but the agent should not have stepped in front of her. Well…. it turns out that he didn’t. 

 

I try to look at things from how I would handle things......If this person was someone I knew or loved, after watching the video, my first response would of been why didn't you just listen to the officers.......actually, that is not true, my first response would of been what were they doing harassing cops.......

[OlDawg]

17 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I try to loom at things from how I would handle things......If this person was someone I knew or loved, after watching the video, my first response would of been why didn't you just listen to the officers.......actually, that is not true, my first response would of been what were they doing harassing cops.......

My reaction is the same. I wish she hadn't been shot. But, I can't blame the agent for a split second decision in hindsight. She shouldn't have put either of them in that situation. SHE created the situation. The local authorities who are flaunting federal law created the situation. Not the agent. Not Trump.

People say you shouldn't victim blame. Well...you should when they were disproportionately responsible for the blame.

[baddog]

 

[OlDawg]

The second video clip is one I don't think many have seen.

[tvc184]

55 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

My reaction is the same. I wish she hadn't been shot. But, I can't blame the agent for a split second decision in hindsight. She shouldn't have put either of them in that situation. SHE created the situation. The local authorities who are flaunting federal law created the situation. Not the agent. Not Trump.

People say you shouldn't victim blame. Well...you should when they were disproportionately responsible for the blame.

The local police chiefs in some cities have been disgusting. They are an embarrassment to the profession.

That’s because police chiefs are often chosen for political reasons and not law enforcement reasons. 

[baddog]

Could she have been a sacrificial lamb? Nothing surprises me when dems are involved.  Watch this video. It goes along with my “disproportionate” cameras to protesters. The guy calling for guns should be arrested for terroristic threats. 
 

adult language warning…..

 

[thetragichippy]

27 minutes ago, baddog said:

Could she have been a sacrificial lamb?

If the "wife" really loved her, she should hold herself at minimum 50% or more responsible for her death.  She is the one that was  telling her to drive off. 

[baddog]

Just now, thetragichippy said:

If the "wife" really loved her, she should hold herself at minimum 50% or more responsible for her death.  She is the one that was  telling her to drive off. 

She is also the beneficiary of a “Go Fund Me”.

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

She is also the beneficiary of a “Go Fund Me”.

Needs to be a way for the Labor Dept. to classify paid protestors as ‘temp/part-time employees.’ That would curb a lot of the actions that are causing risky situations.

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

She is also the beneficiary of a “Go Fund Me”.

Looking at criminal records and such, the left finds some questionable people to support. 

I think the “mother of 3” had at least 2 of her children taken away. 

Surely being a possible terrible mother doesn’t justify any use of force but there sometimes seems to be a pattern of who is supported. 

[baddog]

2 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

If the "wife" really loved her, she should hold herself at minimum 50% or more responsible for her death.  She is the one that was  telling her to drive off. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[OlDawg]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Looking at criminal records and such, the left finds some questionable people to support. 

I think the “mother of 3” had at least 2 of her children taken away. 

Surely being a possible terrible mother doesn’t justify any use of force but there sometimes seems to be a pattern of who is supported. 

Has her 6 year old enrolled in a private, self-described Social Justice school.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

According to this article, her 6 year old’s school had an influence on the victim’s participation in resisting ICE.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

School page. I use the term ‘school’ very loosely.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[OlDawg]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[tvc184]

12 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Has her 6 year old enrolled in a private, self-described Social Justice school.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

According to this article, her 6 year old’s school had an influence on the victim’s participation in resisting ICE.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

School page. I use the term ‘school’ very loosely.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Indoctrination is always best when started at a young age. 

[Reagan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

 

[Reagan]

 

One protester caught saying. "I did my shift"!   Find out who's paying them and prosecute!

[tvc184]

On 1/7/2026 at 11:39 PM, Reagan said:

One protester caught saying. "I did my shift"!   Find out who's paying them and prosecute!

Is it a crime to pay a person to protest? 

[OlDawg]

36 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Is it a crime to pay a person to protest? 

Only if you don't report income/payroll. You could also be held liable for their activity--if criminal. That's why I said the Labor Dept. needs to find a way to make them be considered 'employees' of some fashion where liability could be in play. They could still be paid protesters--which is entirely legal--but any illegal actions could be legally enforced easier with criminal penalties extending to the employers. People would also know they were paid instead of pretending to be a grass roots protest. That would paint the true picture for the public to judge.

This wouldn't infringe on the right to protest. But, may cut down on some of the more violent/illegal issues. Of course, individual protesters are still on their own with their civil protections and liabilities as stated under current law.

Nothing wrong with paid protesters as long as they--and their employers--obey the law.

Incidentally, States and localities attempting to sue using the 10th should be immediately shot down because of the Supremacy Clause. If a judge grants them an injunction, it should immediately go to SCOTUS, and be overruled.

[thetragichippy]

40 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Is it a crime to pay a person to protest? 

What if you can prove they are being paid to protest and trained/encouraged to break the law by impeding/blocking police vehicles, etc?  

[OlDawg]

20 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

What if you can prove they are being paid to protest and trained/encouraged to break the law by impeding/blocking police vehicles, etc?  

This would be very difficult to prove as no halfway intelligent person in this line of employment would leave a trail stipulating illegal training material. However--again--this is where liability could be charged, and the government has almost endless funds to prosecute a case. Typically, a losing proposition for the defendant. Just the threat of a lawsuit from the Feds would probably weed out some of the bad actors. The training materials would probably need to stipulate what was LEGAL, and ILLEGAL--and even have documentation showing the training had been received--to avoid liability.

I read a story about another firm that specializes in organizing and paying for protests. They specifically said they'd been approached by people in MN, and had turned them down, as they wouldn't participate in illegal activities during their sponsored protests. So, it can be done the right way.

Right now, the majority of these folks appear to be uneducated/useful idiot individuals. Some may even be lying about being paid, just to make themselves seem more important, and get attention.