That's true. However there is some validity to the narrative that rather than the lady driving at the law enforcement officer, the officer jumped into the path of the vehicle.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Thoughts on the Trump presidency
- Thread starter Gloster
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
uglymonkey
Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 708
What ever it is , the optics look bad and are being spun to each narrative you believe in. Post truth indeed.
Absolutely and I don’t deny that. However, the car barely touched him and she was shot through the side window as she was driving away from him.
At least one shot went through the front windshield, you can see the hole in the first photo on https://apnews.com/photo-gallery/ph...shooting-ice-5c7fa8a1cb656feb04eaac65717c182a
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 883
This is what Trumps law is, shoot first, as questions later, no regard for any laws, The US, is in my opinion, a smoking powder keg, and it would not take much to set it off, Trump, and those round him, will gladly rule over the ashes, than to allow democracy to return.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,668
Is there a chance that it is a bullet that left, the video shows the shots through the side window, so is that an exit hole not an entry hole in the front windscreen.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
100%, both sides spinning this to suit their own agenda, truth unlikely to feature.
It's been pointed out elsewhere that an Obama era DHS handbook actually tells officers to avoid this exact situation. In this case the car accelerated and crashed into another car but it could have carried on down the street or gone into a nearby house.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...s-new-use-of-force-guidelines-critical-report (from 2014):
Regarding comments about UK armed police - I'd hope that they would be more professional. I know they've got their own history but nothing like the very trigger happy US law enforcement community.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...s-new-use-of-force-guidelines-critical-report (from 2014):
er, so precisely what appears to have happened here, with a car trying to do a 3 point turn at low speed and with wheels already turning away from the officers. Completely unjustified.
Regarding comments about UK armed police - I'd hope that they would be more professional. I know they've got their own history but nothing like the very trigger happy US law enforcement community.
I'm not a ballistics expert, but given how close to the side of the windscreen that is, I'm not sure how it misses the A pillar but manages to go through the windscreen in that direction.
The most high-profile case recently was Chris Kaba. Stopped by armed police on suspicion of weapons offences, tried to drive his car out of the roadblock and was shot. The officer was charged with murder and found not guilty.
The UK is actually a bit unusual in not routinely arming police officers:
Police firearm use by country - Wikipedia
(image shows a world atlas with 'routinely unarmed police officers' highlighted, in which very little of the map is highlighted, but the UK is)
Naturally if we don't have most officers routinely carrying guns, they're not going to shoot people very often. I think this is actually why our police are, on the whole, very good at de-escalation. There was a great documentary a few years ago of American police coming to the UK and being trained by Police Scotland in de-escalation:
Edit: I should change that to GB police actually. Northern Ireland police do have more officers carrying guns.
You can only configure communications channels you know about.
From what I've seen, and admittedly only from the one angle, but the driver first reverses back a couple of feet, then applies some right lock to the wheels before moving forward. This would suggest that they were in fact trying to avoid hitting someone or something, as opposed to simply attempting to ram someone or something. In the latter scenario, you'd expect them simply to floor it, rather than appear to make a careful move away.
But we'll have to see how this pans out. Clearly the federal administration have already made their minds up on the sequence of events, it's up to the state to try and get a factual perspective, if allowed of course.
There are plenty of communities and demographic groups that would say the shoot first policy has been around a lot longer. What may have changed now is that ICE officials at least no longer need their "targets" to be in said demographic groups, perhaps all they need is a "they're radical left" prompt to start firing....
Gloster
Veteran Member
It looks to me that with its expansion following Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill the ICE it met its requirements for more agents by accepting just about anyone who wanted the job. As the sort of people who are likely to want such jobs (at any time, not just in the current febrile situation) are likely to be gung-ho (and to hold certain political views) their behaviour is going to be even less controlled than the staff previously employed. As many of the ICE’s top leadership have been replaced by officials from the Border Patrol, which is, shall we say, even less selective about who it stops, you have an organisation that is a law to itself, but acting with the approval of the highest leadership of the country.
One feels that this incident is likely to be brushed under the carpet and the agent will get away with it. This will only embolden other agents and give them the feeling that they are above the law. If sanity doesn’t return (and I wouldn’t bet a bent ha’penny on that), it will eventually blow up, allowing the government to justify even more force and repressive measures.
One feels that this incident is likely to be brushed under the carpet and the agent will get away with it. This will only embolden other agents and give them the feeling that they are above the law. If sanity doesn’t return (and I wouldn’t bet a bent ha’penny on that), it will eventually blow up, allowing the government to justify even more force and repressive measures.
The shots were also fired and continued to be fired when the car had already "missed" the officer, who was not at risk of being run over. She was driving away. Officer lost his **** because he and his colleagues been harassed all day by citizens obstructing them in their duties and shot her; that is murder.
EYFanatic
Member
In response to the latest threats of the US taking Greenland and even parts of Denmark itself by military force, the Danes have told their armed forces "shoot them" in accordance with a law from 1952
If that happens, surely Article 5 and its a pile on?
If that happens, surely Article 5 and its a pile on?
If you'd said this to me 10 years ago I might have agreed.
But I genuinely don't put this sort of thing past Trump in his second term.
I'm not quite so confident it won't happen (but it's certainly on the low end of the range of things that might happen!) but I completely agree that if the US decides to take Greenland by force there's no-one that could stop them doing so. That's the simple reality of the situation. The US remains the pre-eminent global military superpower. China is making strides and in their own backyard of the Western Pacific I think the US would have the fight of its life on their hands (and I'm not sure they'd win, they don't have the defence industrial base for a prolonged war, China does). But in the North Atlantic? There is no realistic combination of states that could prevent the US invading Greenland.
People who talk about some sort of heroic defence of Greenland or even retaking it are not serious people. Apart from anything else if that did happen we'd need to immediately strengthen, even further, our eastern front against Russia as NATO would have just died.
DerekC
Established Member
Somewhere between 30 and 100 people killed in Venezuela [1]; [2], to arrest one person accused of drug smuggling, which kind of gives the lie to it being a normal law enforcement operation. I get the feeling that Trump is now hooked on watching US forces in action at his command. He and his mob were watching the Venezuela show live [3) and he has reputedly watched several of the (accused but unproven) drug smuggling boats being destroyed. Enjoying watching these things is another sign of derangement, in my book. He gets a really big high out of it and wants more.
[1] - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10452/
[2] - https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuela-says-100-were-killed-us-operation-capture-maduro-report
[3] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdred61epg4o
[1] - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10452/
[2] - https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuela-says-100-were-killed-us-operation-capture-maduro-report
[3] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdred61epg4o
Last edited:
uglymonkey
Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 708
I don't think we are up to much anyway, we had to send a tanker, a tanker to help the US board that Russian tanker as we no longer have destroyers and frigates available in sufficient numbers should they need maintainence or leave for heavens sake.
DerekC
Established Member
Perhaps it's time to bring a little unpredictability into the equation. The Danes fighting back and taking a few of the US forces with them wouldn't have any military significance, but it would play very badly back home. The idea that it might happen could be a factor in tipping the balance towards a peaceful solution. Just sitting around saying that there's no way to stop them will just encourage Trump to think that force is the easiest way.
Not that I enjoy defending Trump, but this isn't much different to e.g. Obama watching the capture of Bin Laden. The US President is the commander in chief and if they're going to authorise something as severe as capturing a head of state, they really ought to be in the room where the orders are being given and monitoring the situation.
The ridiculous thing about Trump and the capturing of Maduro was that he did it from Mar-a-Lago instead of the White House, with one person on a laptop looking like my 7 year old niece trying to work out how to print colouring in sheets, and a giant screen with nothing open but three X tabs.
DerekC
Established Member
You haven't thought that maybe something needed refuelling?
Sorry yes, to be clear, if Trump ordered the invasion of Greenland then whatever Danish forces are there should attempt to resist. But no-one should expect success no matter the scale of resisting force involved (for instance if some sort European defensive deployment was made to Greenland).
The difference for me was that Obama watched it from White House Situation Room with it's dedicated and secure facilities. Trump watched if from a hastily put together tent in the Mar-a-Lago ballroom. That's the difference for me between the two. For something as serious as invading a sovereign nation I would expect the commander in chief to be in the Situation Room where they can easily have all the relevant information passed to them via established secure communication facilities.
Edit: Missed your edit, we're in agreement after all
uglymonkey
Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 708
Agreed but we were using it as a warship as we didn't have anything else!
We were? I thought we were using it as a tanker to refuel US assets? What warship mission was it fulfilling?
I don't doubt the anaemic state of the Royal Navy but I'm not sure that this is the best example of that.
Although China's Navy is no joke when it comes to size and equipment, it's still not quite as tested and experienced in battle as the US Navy, and the US still has the edge in logistics whereas China is still unable to project force outside of it's home territory. That said I'm sure the Americans are determined to ensure it doesn't reach that point which is why they're wanting to turn their focus to the Asia Pacific region while leaving Europe to largely deal with Russia.
With regards to potentially annexing Greenland though I think it's likely just another case of Trump's bark being worse than his bite (it's quite typical of big-mouthed folk to be unable to actually back themselves up), and I think the same powerful influential people behind the scenes will do their best to make sure it never happens lest it spells the end of NATO. The only issue for them is Trump being a loose cannon that they might want to get rid of.
Yes and I'm amazed the US is so happy for Trump to continue conducting top secret activity from Mar-a-Lago. This should've ended when the classified documents were confiscated from his bathroom. It would be like Yvette Cooper taking UK Top Secret documents to her home in Yorkshire, which we would be mortified at.The difference for me was that Obama watched it from White House Situation Room with it's dedicated and secure facilities. Trump watched if from a hastily put together tent in the Mar-a-Lago ballroom. That's the difference for me between the two. For something as serious as invading a sovereign nation I would expect the commander in chief to be in the Situation Room where they can easily have all the relevant information passed to them via established secure communication facilities.
Edit: Missed your edit, we're in agreement after all
Though when is the last time that the US Navy fought a real battle against a peer opponent (which is what China is)? World War 2? I don't doubt the power and capability of the US Navy but I also don't think it's sensible to assume that the PLAN are likely to be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to experience of real peer on peer combat. Plus the US may have some edge in logistics but then they need to, they've got to cross the entire Pacific. The Chinese will be fighting in their own backyard so weaker logistics isn't a particular problem from their point of view.
But the main issue is simple industrial capacity. After the first few clashes it's highly likely that the US Navy will have lost ships and will be draining their magazines at a high rate. Who between the two nations has the greater ability to replace lost warships and refill their ships magazines? Last year alone the PLAN commissioned an aircraft carrier, an amphibious assault ship, eight destroyers and six frigates (basically a European navy's worth of shipping). All of those ships were modern designs. The US Navy appears to have managed to commission one littoral combat ship (a class so useless their already being retired even as the last few enter service) in the same time period and continues to build Arleigh Burke class destroyers which can trace their genesis back to the 1980s. Their attempt to commission a new frigate fell apart and who knows when they'll manage to get a new destroyer class under construction (Burkes are going to be being built out into the 2030s).
The US Navy is already smaller than the PLAN and that's a trend that's only going to go one way. No matter how good US Navy ships and sailors are in comparison to their PLAN equivalents (and I think it's dangerous to assume that there is still a huge qualitative difference) eventually quantity has a quality all of its own.
If the US and China go to war anytime soon the US Navy has to hope that they (and the USAF) can somehow deliver a killer blow within the opening few weeks because past that they might struggle to stay in the fight.
They've been trying to do that for more than a decade and yet very few of the steps needed (such as ramping up warship production) have been taken. The mood music is certainly changing under the Trump administration but we'll see if it leads anywhere.
You assume that there are people behind the scenes who would be upset at that outcome. I'm not convinced that's the case. I reckon there's a fair few people behind Trump who actively want NATO to end.
As with so much of what Trump does, who is going to stop him? Congress doesn't care and he owns the Justice Department so their hardly going to take action against him. His base still worship him so they don't care either so there's no real political blowback to be felt. At least over here if Cooper did something like that it's likely that the Police and CPS would deal with her due to them being operationally independent even if Starmer didn't himself.
Jeez, Vance has really done it now.
"A tragedy of her own making", he says, seeming to let off the hook the ICE agent who killed her. See: https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/...h-was-a-tragedy-of-her-own-making/ar-AA1TOtGC
Any decent senior US politician would do a thorough investigation of ICE and root out extremism right away, not suck up to them. The Mayor of Minneapolis is absolutely right. Including the expletive. They do need to get the hell out of places where they're not wanted. To my mind, the homegrown Right is a far bigger threat to the USA than the immigrants that ICE seem to want to "protect" the country from.
"A tragedy of her own making", he says, seeming to let off the hook the ICE agent who killed her. See: https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/...h-was-a-tragedy-of-her-own-making/ar-AA1TOtGC
No, it's a killing at the hands of an ICE officer who had absolutely no reason to do so. Even if she was "interfering with their work", as the US Right say (not that I believe a single word of the US Right, as IMO they are serial liars), that does not in any way sanction this killing. Do we all have the right to go around shooting people who are "interfering with our work"? Of course not. The killer needs to be given "life means life" imprisonment at the absolute least. But of course, being an agent of the State dogma, they will doubtless not even get as much as a fine and be allowed to stay in their job.
Any decent senior US politician would do a thorough investigation of ICE and root out extremism right away, not suck up to them. The Mayor of Minneapolis is absolutely right. Including the expletive. They do need to get the hell out of places where they're not wanted. To my mind, the homegrown Right is a far bigger threat to the USA than the immigrants that ICE seem to want to "protect" the country from.
Last edited: