Renee Nicole Good/ Alex Pretti/ Minneapolis

Tim Simmons

"No naive or mentally ill people on my side, just yours, thats for sure"

- Guy who is absolutely all in on Donald Trump and MAGA. 

Bentleyspop

Spartanacus said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Poncier said:

josevolution said:

I can’t imagine another 2 years of this 

We have 3 more years of this on tap.

plus whatever maga choads are left to pick up the slack after trump is dead. this will continue for probably another 10 years.

What does that mean?  Are you anticipating an early demise for our POTUS?  Even if that was the case, JD will pick up where he left off.  If not, he'll be the next president and serve 8 years.  And there are many other Patriots who will carry on trying to save our great nation from mass illegal migration and turning our country into a socialist shithole destined for failure. 

I know you guys mean well, and yes, I want legal weed, I want to save the environment, and I want the people (who work for it) to not be destitute...but the party would have been over if that dunce Kamala and grifter Walz won. 

I'm sure you're all nice people (I've chatted with many of you I'm sure at PJ shows), but your party is the party of the very naive and/or mentally ill, and if you can't see the forest through the trees...you better start looking more closely.

Out.

"Mentally ill"
I dont believe that any of us here, except for a very few brainwashed delusional cultists, are "mentaly ill" or "naive."

In order to believe ALL of the bs, conspiracy theories, dogwhistles, and lies and to then pay to parrot them on a LIBERAL bands fan forum in order to show fealty to a deranged demagogue wannabe, is definitely some mentally ill behavior. 

By the way the current regime is against protecting the environment so you better not be heard saying that too loudly or you could end up at CECOT.

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

I've seen that floating around online. I'm not sure how accurate it is, in terms of the timing of the shots.
I saw this video on CBS This Morning and they slow it down frame by frame, and stop just before the first shot. This is the frame just before the first shot was fired.


He was clearly in front of the car, and she had not started to turn her wheels when when he drew the gun, and I believe also when he fired the first shot. 
Now, that all being said, I don't think the shooting was necessary. He could have taken 2 steps to his right in the same amount of time it took to draw and fire his weapon. But he was in front of the car and the car was driving towards him when he drew his gun. Does that mean it is murder? I'm not sure, maybe, maybe manslaughter, maybe something else. 
I will say I believe if the first shot is justified, then the second and third ones are as well. If you justify one shot, then I don't expect the threat to be completely eliminated and the shooter to process the new information in the 0.45 seconds the whole shooting took place. So that's Why I'm just using the frame of the first one.
And I'll emphasize I said it wasn't necessary. What level that equates to, I don't know. 

Here's the CBS clip I watched. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPtyJ78kl0

mace1229

Tim Simmons said:

I'm surprised doxing is allowed here. You're putting up private information that may or may not even be true. You're basing this whole thing on one sentence that Noem said. You suddenly believe everything she says now and believe it to be completely accurate? Imagine sharing all this on the wrong guy. 

Tim Simmons

I am not the Minnesota Star Tribune. 

mace1229

Tim Simmons said:

I am not the Minnesota Star Tribune. 

you shared it, did you not? I don't see a difference. 

mickeyrat

seems to me there is no statute of limitations for murder in Minnesota.

Parksy

Self-defence? A breakdown of the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis | About That

Go Beavers

Spartanacus said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Poncier said:

josevolution said:

I can’t imagine another 2 years of this 

We have 3 more years of this on tap.

plus whatever maga choads are left to pick up the slack after trump is dead. this will continue for probably another 10 years.

What does that mean?  Are you anticipating an early demise for our POTUS?  Even if that was the case, JD will pick up where he left off.  If not, he'll be the next president and serve 8 years.  And there are many other Patriots who will carry on trying to save our great nation from mass illegal migration and turning our country into a socialist shithole destined for failure. 

I know you guys mean well, and yes, I want legal weed, I want to save the environment, and I want the people (who work for it) to not be destitute...but the party would have been over if that dunce Kamala and grifter Walz won. 

I'm sure you're all nice people (I've chatted with many of you I'm sure at PJ shows), but your party is the party of the very naive and/or mentally ill, and if you can't see the forest through the trees...you better start looking more closely.

Out.

I’d like to meet a bot in person. 

Tim Simmons

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I am not the Minnesota Star Tribune. 

you shared it, did you not? I don't see a difference. 

So, don’t post news stories? 

Go Beavers

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I've seen that floating around online. I'm not sure how accurate it is, in terms of the timing of the shots.
I saw this video on CBS This Morning and they slow it down frame by frame, and stop just before the first shot. This is the frame just before the first shot was fired.


He was clearly in front of the car, and she had not started to turn her wheels when when he drew the gun, and I believe also when he fired the first shot. 
Now, that all being said, I don't think the shooting was necessary. He could have taken 2 steps to his right in the same amount of time it took to draw and fire his weapon. But he was in front of the car and the car was driving towards him when he drew his gun. Does that mean it is murder? I'm not sure, maybe, maybe manslaughter, maybe something else. 
I will say I believe if the first shot is justified, then the second and third ones are as well. If you justify one shot, then I don't expect the threat to be completely eliminated and the shooter to process the new information in the 0.45 seconds the whole shooting took place. So that's Why I'm just using the frame of the first one.
And I'll emphasize I said it wasn't necessary. What level that equates to, I don't know. 

Here's the CBS clip I watched. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPtyJ78kl0

You can see in the stills that when he fired the first shot he was clear of the front left corner or the car and her front wheels are turned to the right. 

josevolution

Spartanacus said:

josevolution said:

Spartanacus said:

Ijosevolution said:

A beautiful human being killed for absolutely no reason and it wasn’t an illegal immigrant that took her life 

It was a tragic situation, but she made several huge mistakes that lead to this as I'm sure you're aware of, so I'm not sure what you meant about "absolutely no reason."

1) She impeded federal agents at work and blocked the road, which lead to...
2) ...her being ordered to exit the vehicle, which she ignored, and then...
3) ...she drove towards an officer with a lethal weapon, which lead to...
4) ...her hitting him with said weapon, which if you saw the one video, you can clearly see.

The last two points are why she is unfortunately dead.  Would I be upset if I was her dad?  Yes.  But I'd also understand what lead to this.    

You can spin it anyway you want since you are a MAGA supporter tell us how did you see the events of 1/6/21 when that MAGA chick got shot for trespassing? I’ll be here waiting 

I didn't like it, just as you didn't like this one.  But yes, they were somewhat similar situations, and both were not heroes.  Both did put themselves in grave harm and paid the ultimate price.  Though Babbitt didn't have a 3000 pound killing machine that hit the dude who killed (not murdered) her. 

I think in that case, without knowing what was going to happen when people were literally breaking through the door's window and had them cornered (I believe), he did what he thought was right, and it worked.  If she wasn't shot and they all got into that room, it would have been an interesting stand off as I don't think the mob (probably containing at least some paid leftist actors/agitators) would have gotten violent, but who knows.  It sucked for her and it sucked for Good, but you know the saying, FAFO.

I agree the first two videos I saw of Good from the left side were questionable, but you have to admit that third video from the right side that was a little further out, clearly shows he was hit, and since he was almost killed by another whack job in a car a few months ago, it was definitely justified.  

Long story short...follow the rules and you will survive.

Bullshit ^^^^ paid agitators lol please go back to the bullshit class you must of missed some of it being taught by fuckface president! Done with you 

tempo_n_groove

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I've seen that floating around online. I'm not sure how accurate it is, in terms of the timing of the shots.
I saw this video on CBS This Morning and they slow it down frame by frame, and stop just before the first shot. This is the frame just before the first shot was fired.


He was clearly in front of the car, and she had not started to turn her wheels when when he drew the gun, and I believe also when he fired the first shot. 
Now, that all being said, I don't think the shooting was necessary. He could have taken 2 steps to his right in the same amount of time it took to draw and fire his weapon. But he was in front of the car and the car was driving towards him when he drew his gun. Does that mean it is murder? I'm not sure, maybe, maybe manslaughter, maybe something else. 
I will say I believe if the first shot is justified, then the second and third ones are as well. If you justify one shot, then I don't expect the threat to be completely eliminated and the shooter to process the new information in the 0.45 seconds the whole shooting took place. So that's Why I'm just using the frame of the first one.
And I'll emphasize I said it wasn't necessary. What level that equates to, I don't know. 

Here's the CBS clip I watched. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPtyJ78kl0

You can see in the stills that when he fired the first shot he was clear of the front left corner or the car and her front wheels are turned to the right. 

This was the same officer that was dragged by a vehicle a few years earlier or so I read online.

He was in front of the vehicle when he drew down and was aiming as the car came towards him.

Did he know she was turning away in that instance?  No.  He sees a vehicle coming his way.

Everyone needs to be in the situation and not in hindsight.

Halifax2TheMax

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I've seen that floating around online. I'm not sure how accurate it is, in terms of the timing of the shots.
I saw this video on CBS This Morning and they slow it down frame by frame, and stop just before the first shot. This is the frame just before the first shot was fired.


He was clearly in front of the car, and she had not started to turn her wheels when when he drew the gun, and I believe also when he fired the first shot. 
Now, that all being said, I don't think the shooting was necessary. He could have taken 2 steps to his right in the same amount of time it took to draw and fire his weapon. But he was in front of the car and the car was driving towards him when he drew his gun. Does that mean it is murder? I'm not sure, maybe, maybe manslaughter, maybe something else. 
I will say I believe if the first shot is justified, then the second and third ones are as well. If you justify one shot, then I don't expect the threat to be completely eliminated and the shooter to process the new information in the 0.45 seconds the whole shooting took place. So that's Why I'm just using the frame of the first one.
And I'll emphasize I said it wasn't necessary. What level that equates to, I don't know. 

Here's the CBS clip I watched. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPtyJ78kl0

You can see in the stills that when he fired the first shot he was clear of the front left corner or the car and her front wheels are turned to the right. 

This was the same officer that was dragged by a vehicle a few years earlier or so I read online.

He was in front of the vehicle when he drew down and was aiming as the car came towards him.

Did he know she was turning away in that instance?  No.  He sees a vehicle coming his way.

Everyone needs to be in the situation and not in hindsight.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Douche didn’t learn his lesson after being dragged down the street last time. May have ignored training and protocols for vehicle stops as well. But sure, let’s blame the victim.

Some seem so okay with the Goon Squads surging across the country. Your, general you, time will come. Give it time and a lack of “other” perceived enemies.

josevolution

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I've seen that floating around online. I'm not sure how accurate it is, in terms of the timing of the shots.
I saw this video on CBS This Morning and they slow it down frame by frame, and stop just before the first shot. This is the frame just before the first shot was fired.


He was clearly in front of the car, and she had not started to turn her wheels when when he drew the gun, and I believe also when he fired the first shot. 
Now, that all being said, I don't think the shooting was necessary. He could have taken 2 steps to his right in the same amount of time it took to draw and fire his weapon. But he was in front of the car and the car was driving towards him when he drew his gun. Does that mean it is murder? I'm not sure, maybe, maybe manslaughter, maybe something else. 
I will say I believe if the first shot is justified, then the second and third ones are as well. If you justify one shot, then I don't expect the threat to be completely eliminated and the shooter to process the new information in the 0.45 seconds the whole shooting took place. So that's Why I'm just using the frame of the first one.
And I'll emphasize I said it wasn't necessary. What level that equates to, I don't know. 

Here's the CBS clip I watched. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPtyJ78kl0

You can see in the stills that when he fired the first shot he was clear of the front left corner or the car and her front wheels are turned to the right. 

This was the same officer that was dragged by a vehicle a few years earlier or so I read online.

He was in front of the vehicle when he drew down and was aiming as the car came towards him.

Did he know she was turning away in that instance?  No.  He sees a vehicle coming his way.

Everyone needs to be in the situation and not in hindsight.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Douche didn’t learn his lesson after being dragged down the street last time. May have ignored training and protocols for vehicle stops as well. But sure, let’s blame the victim.

Some seem so okay with the Goon Squads surging across the country. Your, general you, time will come. Give it time and a lack of “other” perceived enemies.

Exactly I saw multiple ex ice & law officers stating that rule #1 never standing front or back of vehicles! The idiot agent was looking to kill that’s my opinion and mine alone but he def failed retraining on how to approach vehicles! 

Tim Simmons

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I've seen that floating around online. I'm not sure how accurate it is, in terms of the timing of the shots.
I saw this video on CBS This Morning and they slow it down frame by frame, and stop just before the first shot. This is the frame just before the first shot was fired.


He was clearly in front of the car, and she had not started to turn her wheels when when he drew the gun, and I believe also when he fired the first shot. 
Now, that all being said, I don't think the shooting was necessary. He could have taken 2 steps to his right in the same amount of time it took to draw and fire his weapon. But he was in front of the car and the car was driving towards him when he drew his gun. Does that mean it is murder? I'm not sure, maybe, maybe manslaughter, maybe something else. 
I will say I believe if the first shot is justified, then the second and third ones are as well. If you justify one shot, then I don't expect the threat to be completely eliminated and the shooter to process the new information in the 0.45 seconds the whole shooting took place. So that's Why I'm just using the frame of the first one.
And I'll emphasize I said it wasn't necessary. What level that equates to, I don't know. 

Here's the CBS clip I watched. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPtyJ78kl0

You can see in the stills that when he fired the first shot he was clear of the front left corner or the car and her front wheels are turned to the right. 

This was the same officer that was dragged by a vehicle a few years earlier or so I read online.

He was in front of the vehicle when he drew down and was aiming as the car came towards him.

Did he know she was turning away in that instance?  No.  He sees a vehicle coming his way.

Everyone needs to be in the situation and not in hindsight.

fair. But we also don't need to give him the benefit of the doubt for firing 3 shots into someones face. 

Tim Simmons

The biggest issue for me is the callousness of the FAFO mentality in that we are fine with police/agents just ending peoples lives. Its quite literally shoot first ask questions later. And theres a solid portion of Americans who are like, yeah, thats the way it should be.

brianlux

Tim Simmons said:

I should have stopped with “paid leftist agitators”, but it’s Friday and I guess I’m in a let it ride mode. 

Are there still people actually saying that?  Too funny (funny weird, not funny "ha ha").

nicknyr15

Is the Portland in the title necessary? I don’t know all the details but they seem like two very different circumstances. 

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I've seen that floating around online. I'm not sure how accurate it is, in terms of the timing of the shots.
I saw this video on CBS This Morning and they slow it down frame by frame, and stop just before the first shot. This is the frame just before the first shot was fired.


He was clearly in front of the car, and she had not started to turn her wheels when when he drew the gun, and I believe also when he fired the first shot. 
Now, that all being said, I don't think the shooting was necessary. He could have taken 2 steps to his right in the same amount of time it took to draw and fire his weapon. But he was in front of the car and the car was driving towards him when he drew his gun. Does that mean it is murder? I'm not sure, maybe, maybe manslaughter, maybe something else. 
I will say I believe if the first shot is justified, then the second and third ones are as well. If you justify one shot, then I don't expect the threat to be completely eliminated and the shooter to process the new information in the 0.45 seconds the whole shooting took place. So that's Why I'm just using the frame of the first one.
And I'll emphasize I said it wasn't necessary. What level that equates to, I don't know. 

Here's the CBS clip I watched. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPtyJ78kl0

justified? That's a horrible take. She was a female with no weapon. It is totally against procedure to fire at a moving car in that situation.