Search results

I don't like the 'chicken biker' bit. But I agree with the rest.

And lethal force is only justified whilst there is still a danger. Every leading case on this matter in the US says that. By the time the first shot had been fired, it was clear that the agent was not in any danger. Hence, even a child could follow the logic that any further shots were not...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/15/dutch-far-right-influencer-eva-vlaardingerbroek-banned

History is certainly starting to rhyme. I wouldn't want to be Canadian at this time.

The argument that some are making in his favour is that, when the car initially starts moving forward, he did not realise the car was turning right or how slowly it would go. They say that, for all he knew, Renee was going to floor the throttle and drive straight at him. So, they argue that the...

I actually agree that his shooting skills were very good. And he used them very effectively to make sure Renee was shot dead. As the car went past him, he managed to slip on the ice, regain his footing, adjust his stance, reacquire the target, and shoot a controlled pair through the side window...

Mine too, because of Trump's influence and immunity etc. But that's a total cop out. The law is clear on separating the first shot from the others. However many times you try to deny it. The law says that when the danger is over, you must stop firing. So far you have misunderstood almost every...

Is this a new argument. About whether the agent put himself in jeopardy. If so, it has no bearing on the other issues we have been discussing.

It opens a whole new angle to discuss!

You are applying a completely different test based on completely different facts. Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014) was about a high speed car chase. To date you have been arguing that the agent shot Renee in self defence. You are now swerving to the argument that it was about protecting the general...

I have said all along that she made a mistake in not getting out of the car. Because, throughout this discussion, I have been objective and forensic!

I am much happier discussing the law than the mechanics of a shooting. So, I have had a look now. That case actually negates your argument. It says the courts have to look at the events preceding the shooting when assessing the risk. Are you saying that a smiling soccer mom, who tells the agent...

He hasn't been in the military for almost twenty years. He has spent most of two decades since in law enforcement. I think we can assume he has had masses of weapons training since and that he can understand the difference between self defence and intention to kill. Interestingly, when you read...

You are conflating military training, where the intention is to kill using rapid bursts, with law enforcement training, where the aim is to fire a controlled pair, reassess, and then fire another controlled pair if necessary. All the research shows that he had time and that the human brain can...

According to all the training and research, the agent had plenty of time to re-evaluate the threat and make an informed decision before firing the controlled pair. I know it seems very quick, but the human brain is amazing. Key Takeaways on Timing: Gap Between Pairs (Transition): When engaging...

We need to properly break down the sequence in this case. The agent leans forward and puts his hand on the bonnet of the car to steady himself, and then he fires the first shot. The car was moving, so he gets shoved backwards. He slips, regains his footing, twists his body and reacquires the...

It's the same as knocking down the East Wing and building the massive ballroom. He wants to massively expand the USA simply for own his aggrandisement.

For those interested in the big picture. Trump is now trying to imprison the governor of Minnesota. Simply for saying that he doesn't want ICE agents operating in his state. The US is hurtling into authoritarianism. https://time.com/7347082/doj-investigation-tim-walz/

War is coming. A big one. Trump is destroying all the guardrails which have kept us reasonably safe for eighty years.

I meant about Greenland, specifically. That is, after all, the subject of this thread. There are several posters on here who slavishly praise everything Trump does. I am asking how they feel about him taking Greenland. Is this finally a step too far. Or will they find a way to justify it.