ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[Ducbutter]

C'mon guys. It's just freedom of speech.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amy-cu...urban-n2669589

https://www.startribune.com/white-ho...olis/601564855

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/20118...urban-n2669589

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

C'mon guys. It's just freedom of speech.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amy-cu...urban-n2669589

https://www.startribune.com/white-ho...olis/601564855

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/20118...urban-n2669589

It's cute that you believe those sources.

Wonder if the feds will follow their Chicago pattern -

1. File charges.
2. Dismiss charges.

[Ducbutter]

Bwwaaaahahahahagahahaha!

[Mort Watt]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

FAFO is the MAGA equivalence of Cancel Culture.

A-fucking-men.

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

C'mon guys. It's just freedom of speech.....

And more smarmy what-aboutism.

And misrepresentation.

With healthy lying thrown in for good measure.

Great dialog though!

(although Wacko might be pissed you stole his tag line...)

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Bwwaaaahahahahagahahaha!

.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

And more smarmy what-aboutism.

And misrepresentation.

With healthy lying thrown in for good measure.

Great dialog though!

(although Wacko might be pissed you stole his tag line...)
.

All meaning drivel if you can't prove it. You can't

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

Great dialog though!
(although Wacko might be pissed you stole his tag line...)



.

Didn't realize he had that copyrighted.
Apologies to Waco!

[Ducbutter]

That's "meaningless".

[txdot-guy]

The New York Times pulled all the available video from the shooting and synchronized all the footage into a multi view version that shows the scene in quite some detail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/v...is-videos.html

Video Analysis of ICE Shooting Sheds Light on Contested Moments

Newly available videos and existing footage synchronized and assessed by The Times provide a frame-by-frame look at how an ICE officer ended up shooting and killing a motorist in Minneapolis.

Unfortunately I am unaware if the article is available elsewhere so some may not be able to view it.

Take it for what it’s worth. I found it quite compelling.

[Mort Watt]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

C'mon guys. It's just freedom of speech.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amy-cu...urban-n2669589

https://www.startribune.com/white-ho...olis/601564855

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/20118...urban-n2669589

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

...

And more smarmy what-aboutism.

And misrepresentation.

With healthy lying thrown in for good measure.....

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

All meaning drivel if you can't prove it. You can't....

And now you too with the "please do my work for me and help prove a negative." I shouldn't be surprised, since you've devolved to sources like Town Hall...but I'm sure it's just another case of my failure to parse your sophisticated tongue in cheek... Faak.

.

[Mort Watt]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The New York Times pulled all the available video from the shooting and synchronized all the footage into a multi view version that shows the scene in quite some detail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/v...is-videos.html

Video Analysis of ICE Shooting Sheds Light on Contested Moments

Newly available videos and existing footage synchronized and assessed by The Times provide a frame-by-frame look at how an ICE officer ended up shooting and killing a motorist in Minneapolis.

Unfortunately I am unaware if the article is available elsewhere so some may not be able to view it.

Take it for what it’s worth. I found it quite compelling.

'Tis a shame it will require a bit of work and indulgence by most to access it, as it is well worth the effort that most here will not expend.

The summary: combine overly aggressive militaristic techniques with sloppy execution....and what could go wrong?

Even ICE's own guidelines state that Agents should not step in front of a motor vehicle.

As someone said elsewhere...he could have let her drive away, then followed up as necessary, since they already had her fucking license plate number.

She was a threat to no one.

.

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

A-fucking-men.




And more smarmy what-aboutism.

And misrepresentation.

With healthy lying thrown in for good measure.

Great dialog though!

(although Wacko might be pissed you stole his tag line...)



.

Yeah, I have no idea what he thinks this proves, especially about the 1st amendment. I do love the way the same scene twice counts for him as two sources. You know, the one where people are having a conversation (I notice how the video doesn't start until after what we have to assume is a terrifying tactical stop.), and the man-held-hostage???????? says a couple times that he understands and appreciates what they're doing.
The other shows "several blocks" closed (we get to see maybe one that shows people being a community, so take their word for the all the other blocks), but by the end of the video with the truck and cars going through, maybe not closed.

Honestly, I don't know who gobbles this up, but a little inspection shows ^^^^^^^^^.

Oh yeah, we don't buy DHS bs anymore--Ross's internal bleeding stopped yet? Too much lying on too many fronts (latest fave is the 6-month-old they gassed when a father was trying to get his children out of the hellscape they're trying to create - https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.../3mcksrvst2c2h)

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

And now you too with the "please do my work for me and help prove a negative." I shouldn't be surprised, since you've devolved to sources like Town Hall...but I'm sure it's just another case of my failure to parse your sophisticated tongue in cheek... Faak.

.

Nobody is asking you to prove a negative. You made three claims of things I allegedly did. Give us proof. It should be easy for you if it's so clear cut. For instance, what did I misrepresent and how? Etc.
I haven't seen the Times articled that's linked but I'm guessing it affirms what I said about the direction of Good's front wheels when her wheels spun. Otherwise you'd be on here crowing about me being wrong.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

Yeah, I have no idea

Gotta be the most accurate thing I've seen you post!


Snick!

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Gotta be the most accurate thing I've seen you post!


Snick!

Gotta wonder why you throw up "arguments" then have absolutely no ability to respond to any reasoned challenge. None. In fact, you can't seem to make it through a complete sentence. I'm sorry, honey, that has to be hard.

[Mort Watt]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

....You made three claims of things I allegedly did.....

Or they could be....opinions?....criticisms? ....even...clarifications?

The post above mine is somewhat accurate, if exaggerated. You don't post for long periods. Then often wade into these arguments with posts that are difficult to understand or place into context. I often think I am missing some kind of (somewhat) subtle humor....but you soon discredit that.

Maybe state your opinions more bluntly once in awhile. Then we could actually discuss, rather than snipe.

(meanwhile....I will work on my end, starting with posting more emojis...)

So. Let's get to it, shall we?

Please elaborate a bit on these links that you posted:

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

C'mon guys. It's just freedom of speech.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amy-cu...urban-n2669589

https://www.startribune.com/white-ho...olis/601564855

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/20118...urban-n2669589

What exactly is your point? How is it related to the comment about "free speech"?

Are you...

Defending ICE?

Defending Protesters?

Calling out posters in this thread for particular statements you disagree with?

Or agree with?

Your clarifcations are welcome. Really.

.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

Or they could be....opinions?....criticisms? ....even...clarifications?

The post above mine is somewhat accurate, if exaggerated. You don't post for long periods. Then often wade into these arguments with posts that are difficult to understand or place into context. I often think I am missing some kind of (somewhat) subtle humor....but you soon discredit that.

Maybe state your opinions more bluntly once in awhile. Then we could actually discuss, rather than snipe.

(meanwhile....I will work on my end, starting with posting more emojis...)

So. Let's get to it, shall we?

Please elaborate a bit on these links that you posted:



What exactly is your point? How is it related to the comment about "free speech"?

Are you...

Defending ICE?

Defending Protesters?

Calling out posters in this thread for particular statements you disagree with?

Or agree with?

Your clarifcations are welcome. Really.

.

I post here when and how I see fit. If you don't like that, I don't really care. Respond, don't respond, Makes no difference to me.
I owe you nothing, but I'll indulge you. My position on the shooting hews closest to Vita's in the thread he started in the political forum. Not exactly, but there's not a lot to quibble with there.
I posted those links for multiple reasons but the fact that you and Siddartha don't get the irony of those clowns in Minnesota setting up check points to control who enters their neighborhood while attacking ICE for doing that on a national level is...illuminating.