Another mass shooting...

Quote something racist ive said.

Anyway.
Back on topic.

https://time.com/7340731/anti-semitism-australia-bondi-attack/

Its not even up for debate.
Since the start of the war in Gaza, Muslims have committed more terror attacks and "anti-semitic incidents" against Jews.

Figures from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) show that antisemitic incidents in Australia have reached historically high levels, at “almost five times the average annual number before October 7, 2023.”

And Jews have changed or are trying to change Australian laws in response.

Jewish leaders from the world's seven largest diaspora communities convened in Sydney earlier this month to call for action against antisemitism in Australia.

Speaking in the wake of the deadly attack on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had warned his Australian counterpart that the country's policies were fueling antisemitism.

"Three months ago I wrote to the Australian prime minister that your policy is pouring oil on the fire of antisemitism," he said, referring to a letter he sent to Anthony Albanese in August following Canberra's announcement that it would recognise Palestinian statehood.

We dont need to host a war between Jews and Muslims in Australia. We can just say no.

Of course the Coward would never say it openly


Well trained in the art of Tuckering "just askin questions"

I cannot provide a quotation of you saying something racist.

That's fine.

We dont need to host a war between Jews and Muslims in Australia.

How about just the occasional skirmish?

Quote from: disputeone on December 19, 2025, 04:55:23 PM

We dont need to host a war between Jews and Muslims in Australia.

How about just the occasional skirmish?

Do you think that's good for Australia?

Quote from: markjo on December 19, 2025, 07:33:53 PM

Quote from: disputeone on December 19, 2025, 04:55:23 PM

We dont need to host a war between Jews and Muslims in Australia.

How about just the occasional skirmish?

Do you think that's good for Australia?

Maybe not better, but less worse.

Fair.

I know the arguments, the car can be a fatal weapon, but this is what happens when your whole society is gun obsessed.

A 21yr old pregnant woman and her child shouldn’t have died over a suspected shoplifting. She didn’t floor the accelerator, she was edging forward, shoot the tires, step out of the way and follow her home, but no, kill them both and walk free, unreal.

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4ny1wd443o

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/who-was-renee-nicole-good-minneapolis-woman-killed-in-ice-shooting-identified/ar-AA1TLSI7

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2008961422911315969/vid/avc1/1280x720/imI41rNIBOvpFmZE.mp4?tag=14

?

Was this a justified shooting?

I dont think it was justified.

Didn't you guys want Ice to deport illegal brown people? Isn't that their job? Not to shoot American citizens.

American citizens shouldn't accelerate their SUVs towards an officer (or anyone else).

I don't think she was going to run over the ICE agent, but I think he believed she was going to run over him.

American citizens shouldn't accelerate their SUVs towards an officer (or anyone else).

I don't think she was going to run over the ICE agent, but I think he believed she was going to run over him.

The phrase 'reckless disregard' seems to pop up.

American citizens shouldn't accelerate their SUVs towards an officer (or anyone else).

I don't think she was going to run over the ICE agent, but I think he believed she was going to run over him.

That's fair, do ICE have the authority to make traffic stops and traffic arrests? Genuine question I have no idea.

Still this.

Didn't you guys want Ice to deport illegal brown people? Isn't that their job? Not to shoot American citizens.

Nevermind, I found it.

ICE agents do not have a general statutory power to make traffic stops for routine vehicle or moving violations; they may stop or detain people only when they have the requisite federal grounds—such as reasonable suspicion of immigration status or probable cause of a crime—and must respect Fourth Amendment limits and warrant rules

https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/legal-limits-ice-agents-traffic-stops-69ba32

That's why everyone is so sensitive about this I guess.

I'm usually pretty good at getting to the crux of an issue and I believe this is it.

ICE agents do not have a general statutory power to make traffic stops for routine vehicle or moving violations; they may stop or detain people only when they have the requisite federal grounds—such as reasonable suspicion of immigration status or probable cause of a crime—and must respect Fourth Amendment limits and warrant rules

https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/legal-limits-ice-agents-traffic-stops-69ba32

Stopping you car in the middle of the road is a traffic violation. It's not a federal crime.

I think the ICE agent will go down for manslaughter.

American citizens shouldn't accelerate their SUVs towards an officer (or anyone else).

I don't think she was going to run over the ICE agent, but I think he believed she was going to run over him.

Was she?  I didn't see any officer infront of her, only to the side while she made a K turn.

There's so much lying on both sides.
The officer was originally in front of the vehicle and moved to the side of it.

Here is the unedited video.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2008961422911315969/vid/avc1/1280x720/imI41rNIBOvpFmZE.mp4?tag=14

However I dont think its all that relevant.

I'm usually pretty good at getting to the crux of an issue and I believe this is it.

Quote

ICE agents do not have a general statutory power to make traffic stops for routine vehicle or moving violations; they may stop or detain people only when they have the requisite federal grounds—such as reasonable suspicion of immigration status or probable cause of a crime—and must respect Fourth Amendment limits and warrant rules

https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/legal-limits-ice-agents-traffic-stops-69ba32

Stopping you car in the middle of the road is a traffic violation. It's not a federal crime.

I think the ICE agent will go down for manslaughter.

There's so much lying on both sides.
The officer was originally in front of the vehicle and moved to the side of it.

Here is the unedited video.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2008961422911315969/vid/avc1/1280x720/imI41rNIBOvpFmZE.mp4?tag=14

However I dont think its all that relevant.

Quote from: disputeone on January 07, 2026, 08:54:52 PM

I'm usually pretty good at getting to the crux of an issue and I believe this is it.

Quote

ICE agents do not have a general statutory power to make traffic stops for routine vehicle or moving violations; they may stop or detain people only when they have the requisite federal grounds—such as reasonable suspicion of immigration status or probable cause of a crime—and must respect Fourth Amendment limits and warrant rules

https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/legal-limits-ice-agents-traffic-stops-69ba32

Stopping you car in the middle of the road is a traffic violation. It's not a federal crime.

I think the ICE agent will go down for manslaughter.

thanks for the video.

Yeah, he put himself infront of the car and his first inctinct is to shoot someone who might floor it.

Why are such stupid people in any law enforcement?
Why are they trained to shoot the driver comming at them at point blank nstead of moving?

If a police officer comes to your vehicle and tells you to get out of your vehicle, you have to get out. I think this is a rule that applies all over the world. In addition, the woman obstructs traffic and the police feel under pressured by the presence of vehicles around.  After all, that woman could also be a terrorist and the police have to stop and control it, for the sake of the rest. The police officer did not have to behave this way, but his behavior is not completely illegal. They are not traffic police, they are community police. If there were traffic police, there would be no authority to shoot. Ice has the authority to use weapons. If Ice stopped you, it might not just be because you were disrupting traffic. I don't think the police will be punished.

If a police officer comes to your vehicle and tells you to get out of your vehicle, you have to get out. I think this is a rule that applies all over the world. In addition, the woman obstructs traffic and the police feel under pressured by the presence of vehicles around.  After all, that woman could also be a terrorist and the police have to stop and control it, for the sake of the rest. The police officer did not have to behave this way, but his behavior is not completely illegal. They are not traffic police, they are community police. If there were traffic police, there would be no authority to shoot. Ice has the authority to use weapons. If Ice stopped you, it might not just be because you were disrupting traffic. I don't think the police will be punished.

But that is not a police officer.
That is an immigration officer.

It would be if the security guard at a store told a woman on the street to stop her car.

thanks for the video.

Yeah, he put himself infront of the car and his first inctinct is to shoot someone who might floor it.

Why are such stupid people in any law enforcement?
Why are they trained to shoot the driver comming at them at point blank nstead of moving?

Well its kind of like what you said.
If it was a police officer who had placed the woman under arrest and she attempted to flee, you can argue that the police officer can stand in front of the car to stop them running away and shoot them if they drive towards them.

ICE will need to prove they had a justification for placing this woman under arrest.

If I was the prosecution I'd be arguing that ICE cant arrest citizens for traffic violations, and if I was the defense I would argue that she was obstructing a public officer which gave ICE authority to arrest her.

Still I think a good prosecutor will have the ICE agent on a lesser manslaughter charge.

But that is not a police officer.
That is an immigration officer.

It would be if the security guard at a store told a woman on the street to stop her car.

I don't know about the immigration officer's authority to use a gun, but he's a cop and not a traffic cop. I looked at this.

Still I think a good prosecutor will have the ICE agent on a lesser manslaughter charge.

Apparently the police did not come to shoot her, and he fired a defensive reflex panicking as the woman suddenly moved her vehicle towards him. If I were a defensive lawyer, he would definitely not be punished.

Quote from: Lorddave on January 08, 2026, 02:01:55 AM

But that is not a police officer.
That is an immigration officer.

It would be if the security guard at a store told a woman on the street to stop her car.

I don't know about the immigration officer's authority to use a gun, but he's a cop and not a traffic cop. I looked at this.

They can shoot people who are a clear danger to them.
He is not a cop.  He can't say "You are not allowed to block the road, I am arresting you."

Quote from: Lorddave on January 08, 2026, 01:48:26 AM

thanks for the video.

Yeah, he put himself infront of the car and his first inctinct is to shoot someone who might floor it.

Why are such stupid people in any law enforcement?
Why are they trained to shoot the driver comming at them at point blank nstead of moving?

Well its kind of like what you said.
If it was a police officer who had placed the woman under arrest and she attempted to flee, you can argue that the police officer can stand in front of the car to stop them running away and shoot them if they drive towards them.

ICE will need to prove they had a justification for placing this woman under arrest.

If I was the prosecution I'd be arguing that ICE cant arrest citizens for traffic violations, and if I was the defense I would argue that she was obstructing a public officer which gave ICE authority to arrest her.

Still I think a good prosecutor will have the ICE agent on a lesser manslaughter charge.

You could argue, but what kind of world should we live in if "Trying to flee in a car that you're infront of" means "I need to kill you."
That man was trained to immediately shoot the driver instead of getting out of the way.  His reaction is exactly that: he saw the car move and instantly went for the gun.  Which causes the car to keep moving anyway.

He proved he was in no danger by not being hit by a car that didn't stop until it crashed.


The ICE agent won't be charged with anything.  He'll be given a pat on the back and a "good job!  here's a bonus for killing that protester."

Quote from: disputeone on January 08, 2026, 02:24:14 AM

Still I think a good prosecutor will have the ICE agent on a lesser manslaughter charge.

Apparently the police did not come to shoot her, and he fired a defensive reflex panicking as the woman suddenly moved her vehicle towards him. If I were a defensive lawyer, he would definitely not be punished.

Except why is his defense reflect to shoot?
The car would not stop in time.  If she wanted to hit him, killing her would not change that.  But the car did not hit him so he was in no danger.

Quote from: Lorddave on January 08, 2026, 02:01:55 AM

But that is not a police officer.
That is an immigration officer.

It would be if the security guard at a store told a woman on the street to stop her car.

I don't know about the immigration officer's authority to use a gun, but he's a cop and not a traffic cop. I looked at this.

The person who shot the woman is an ICE agent which is a federal law enforcement agency with different powers to the police.

The Power to Question, Stop, and Arrest

The authority of an ICE agent to interact with an individual is governed by a series of legal standards, from a casual question to a full custodial arrest. Each step requires a higher level of evidence and is constrained by constitutional rights.
What ICE Agents Can Do

Questioning

The INA grants ICE agents the authority to question any person they believe to be a noncitizen about their right to be or remain in the U.S. This is a broad power that doesn’t require any specific suspicion of wrongdoing.

Investigative Stops

Under a standard established by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, an ICE agent can briefly stop and detain a person for questioning if the agent has “reasonable suspicion” that the person is violating immigration law or any other federal law.

This suspicion must be based on “specific articulable facts” – objective information that points to illegal activity – not just a “hunch” or a guess. However, what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” can be subjective and is often disputed in court.

Vehicle Stops

The same “reasonable suspicion” standard applies to stopping a vehicle. Agents must have objective facts that reasonably suggest the vehicle contains undocumented noncitizens. These facts can include the vehicle’s characteristics, its location, the time of day, and the behavior of its occupants, but cannot be based on race or ethnicity alone.

Arrests with a Warrant

An ICE agent can arrest a person based on an administrative warrant, such as a Form I-200, “Warrant for Arrest of Alien.” This type of warrant is issued by an authorized ICE official, not a judge, and requires the agent to establish “probable cause to believe” that the individual named in the warrant is subject to removal from the U.S.

Warrantless Arrests

The INA gives ICE agents the power to make arrests without a warrant in specific situations. The most common scenario requires the agent to have “reason to believe” (a standard legally interpreted as probable cause) that a person is in the U.S. in violation of immigration law AND is “likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”

The authority for a warrantless arrest often hinges on a subjective judgment by the agent: whether the person is “likely to escape.” This creates a significant gray area, granting agents considerable discretion.

This single determination at the moment of encounter is the legal factor that separates a lawful warrantless arrest from an unlawful one. This effectively gives agents broad authority to conduct warrantless arrests in most noncustodial settings.

https://govfacts.org/rights-freedoms/rights-interacting-authorities/what-ice-agents-can-and-cannot-do/#the-power-to-question-stop-and-arrest

The ICE agent won't be charged with anything.  He'll be given a pat on the back and a "good job!  here's a bonus for killing that protester."

I think youre wrong, I just dont think ICE can prove that they had the authority to arrest this woman. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they are much smarter than me and can see something I cant.

Maybe.

They can shoot people who are a clear danger to them.
He is not a cop.  He can't say "You are not allowed to block the road, I am arresting you."

Apparently the reason for the shooting was not an objection to the arrest. She drove his vehicle into the police. This is a justification for the police. We cannot say that heis guilty, just as we cannot say that it is innocent. It may or may not be justified, the outcome varies by attorney, criminal attorney, and judge.

Citizen's arrest, anyone?

Citizen's arrest, anyone?

Its not that bad yet Torve.
I still think ICE has a chance to prove she was obstructing them in their official duties, but its not that likely because she's on video waving the ICE agents through and therefore not obstructing them at that time.

ICE might be able to prove that she was obstructing them prior to the arrest but again a good prosecutor is going to have them on the fact she should have been arrested at the time when she was obstructing them. It might come out that this woman was just driving around harassing ICE for an hour before this happened but at the moment we dont know. Even in that case it would have been more expedient for ICE to call the local police and have them deal with her.

Trump should apologise for getting the facts wrong and saying the ICE agent was put in hospital because he was hit by the car.

Trump should apologise for getting the facts wrong and saying the ICE agent was put in hospital because he was hit by the car.

Justlike GW Bush never apologized, saying that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Trump will not either. You know, the narcissist is always right. If he says the vehicle hit the police officer, it may have happened, it may have happened in this universe or a parallel universe. There's no need to question this, he doesn't lie and won't apologize for it. Exact information.

wise talks like he is firmly grounded in reality. Why can't you be like that, dispute?