[Faust]

Originally Posted by Yanni ↗

"U.S. citizen, former f---ing veteran," says her wife, standing outside the passenger side of the SUV holding up her phone. "You wanna come at us, you wanna come at us, I say go get yourself some lunch big boy."

“ former f---ing veteran”

That doesn’t make sense btw, you either are a veteran or not. You cannot be a former veteran can you?

[spyderguard]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

“ former f---ing veteran”

That doesn’t make sense btw, you either are a veteran or not. You cannot be a former veteran can you?

He must have reenlisted

[sincerelywithlove]

She was an idiot. He was an idiot. Hopefully he ends up dead, too...wrong on both sides. Take him out.

[WonderMomma]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

“ former f---ing veteran”

That doesn’t make sense btw, you either are a veteran or not. You cannot be a former veteran can you?

I think she just misspoke in the heat of the moment. Probably meant former military. I wouldn’t read too much into it. What is much more revealing is the entire dialogue overall. She absolutely escalated this situation, by mouthing off the way she did.

[Rikbikboo]

Originally Posted by sincerelywithlove ↗

She was an idiot. He was an idiot. Hopefully he ends up dead, too...wrong on both sides. Take him out.

Well..... 2 wrongs dont make a right.

However.... 3 lefts do make a right fyi

[ironmike]

I wish there was a foolproof way to solve the issue of people being in America who haven't been vetted and I guess it's easy for me to have an opinion because I have no skin in the game.
I don't think most people disagree with tightening up the inbound process and shipping out people who weren't vetted and commit a crime. That leaves people not vetted who come here with no ill intent and haven't harmed anyone or broke the law. Perhaps let attrition manage that group. That said, we can easily burn through a 12 pack debating if just looking the other way is appropriate for not following the rules. We have laws for a reason. How we uphold and enforce those laws is something we'll never stop arguing about nor are we ever going to be free of fuckery.
I can say this, I have a time share package that gives me several weeks a year with a choice of resorts throughout the Caribbean, Mexico, South America and Europe. I did some research into what happens to visitors in many of these countries who commit a crime (particularly south of our border) or are caught being there illegally, and trust me when I tell you it's not something you ever want to be involved in. I've mentioned we're always subject to the 10/80/10 rules of the human race in America but in some of these places in the world its more like 0/50/50. I guess count your blessings it's no where near as fucked up here.
I'm actually letting this travel package expire and will convert to something where my stays are in the US. Many places I vacationed away from the US the suggestion for visitors has transitioned from being careful when leaving the resort to don't leave the resort. America isn't perfect but it's a heck of a lot safer, unless you chose to vacation in downtown St. Louis.

[pa28Pilot]

She didn't deserve to die, but she did push the buttons of someone holding a gun who clearly just needed a reason.

Darwinism, and a severe case of FAFO.

[wolfie]

She hardly was an innocent bystander. To portray that is misleading. Blaming people who voted for Trump is near sighted at best. The last administration allowed the people to cross illegally actually encouraged it. Some culpability there too IMO.

[Bleed]

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

....

At roughly the same second this is happening, her wife is banging on the passenger door yelling "Drive, drive!" Ross is now crossing along the front of her vehicle, but her attention was focused entirely on the one banging on her door. Hearing her wife, she backs backs up to get a clearer angle and then starts to accelerate to flee. At this point, she seems to look up and see that Ross is now just left of midline in front of her, so she immediately reacts by turning her tires hard right to avoid hitting him, which we can clearly see. He is either LIGHTLY bumped by her fender or sidesteps it entirely. If he was impacted it was so gentle as to not cause him to fall over, to lose his footing, to drop his gun, or to drop his phone. In fact, he doesn't even stop filming.

Sidenote: DHS policy clearly states that lethal force against the occupant is permissible ONLY if the LEO has clear reason to believe that he will suffer "imminent death" or "serious bodily harm" if he does ANYthing other than fire that gun at that moment. That's the codified standard in their policy manual.
It doesn't matter that her car may be considered a deadly weapon. It matters whether or not he had legitimate cause to think he would be KILLED or seriously maimed if he did not shoot her.

Bearing in mind that between her speed and the angle, if she hit him at all he did not even lose his grip on his phone or his footing.

As seen here..

[LivingLife]

The woman was murdered there is no justifying the agents actions. Whether the woman was right or wrong or could have prevented it , the cop should not have executed her man. Even in the Middle East we had strict ROE and regular military units had to literally get shot at or have eyes on a firearm to even shoot which gave the enemy a huge advantage that they used and caused a lot of US service members deaths, and that was during war time. I truly see some type of civil disputes happening in the medium term future in this country. God Speed all