NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 5

[Kurve]

Here is PART 4

Donald Trump was sworn in as president of the United States on Monday 20th January, 2025 in Washington DC.

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Take Note

Anti-trans commentary and nastiness will be deleted and warnings issued.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

View attachment 2507157

No window cracked coz it was down to show the next two bullets. What a piece of shit. Hope he enjoys jail.

 

[Werewolf]

I’ve only just seen this but you can see she’s trying to turn and move forward and not actually hit him. The guy had absolutely no need to shoot at her. Stop trying to justify this shit.

The first shot was possibly justified, but the last two shots were fired when the agent was out of the way and therefore unnecessary. I think he's in a lot of trouble for this

 

[Jamolad]

Quoting the exact parts of the relevant legislation including those that outline when a United States ICE agent can draw their firearm and fire it in self defense, consider the following scenario and determine if the officer using their weapon would be acting unlawfully.

A group of ICE agents in several vehicles are being deliberately blocked obstructed by a US citizen using her own vehicle in an attempt to impede their legitimate enforcement activities, an activity she had reportedly been engaging in all day according to the relevant Department head.

Several agents alighted from their vehicles and asked the woman to step out of her vehicle. The woman ignored their requests, instead reversing her vehicle which was parked perpendicular to the road in the middle of said road obstructing their path. She did this in order to position her vehicle better, to make her escape. There were ICE agents near her vehicle including one in front and one at the side.

The woman engaged drive and deliberately drove directly at the ICE agent in front of her car in a deliberate attempt to either kill or injure him. He unholstered his weapon as the car approached him but the woman continued driving towards the ICE agent at pace. He was struck by her car immediately after he had taken one shot in self defense and he followed that shot with two additional shots immediately after the first. All three shots were discharged in less than one second. He slipped and stumbled a little on the icy road as her car struck him and as he fired the second and third bullets, but he did not fall over. Within two seconds of discharging the third bullet and after her car had left his vicinity the ICE Agent holstered his weapon and limped off to check on the condition of the woman driver. He reportedly received minor injuries that were seen to in a local hospital. The woman was struck by at least one bullet and was declared dead later in a local hospital.

Where you say "continued driving towards the ICE agent at pace", it wants to know approximately what pace and if it was possible for the agent to have gotten out of harm's way.

So, what speed do you think the Honda Pilot got to over that distance, from a standing start on an icy road - and do I tell it he could possibly have got out of the way or it was impossible for him to get out of the way?

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

The first shot was possibly justified, but the last two shots were fired when the agent was out of the way and therefore unnecessary. I think he's in a lot of trouble for this

The far-left and Antifa haven been urging violence against ICE for months. At one point an Antifa cell carried out an ambush shooting in Texas on the Prairieland facility. Seven have pleaded guilty to a federal terrorism charges. In Dallas, an ICE facility was shot up by an anti-ICE activist, killing several. ICE officers are fearing for their lives and then someone deliberately tries to run them over using a 2 ton SUV after harassing them all day.He discharged all three shots within a second and immediately holstered his weapon once the danger had past. There certainly won't be any Federal charges levelled at him. If the State of Minnesota decides to charge him I think he'll be found not guilty. Most here probably vehemently disagree but then again they probably thought Kyle Rittenhouse would go down too.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Where you say "continued driving towards the ICE agent at pace", it wants to know approximately what pace and if it was possible for the agent to have gotten out of harm's way.

So, what speed do you think the Honda Pilot got to over that distance, from a standing start on an icy road - and do I tell it he could possibly have got out of the way or it was impossible for him to get out of the way?

Drop the "at pace" reference and instead change the following sentence ...

The woman engaged drive and deliberately drove directly at the ICE agent in front of her car in a deliberate attempt to either kill or injure him.

To this.

The woman engaged drive and deliberately drove directly at the ICE agent standing less than 2 metres away from the front of her car in a deliberate attempt to either kill or injure him.

 

[Werewolf]

The far-left and Antifa haven been urging violence against ICE for months. At one point an Antifa cell carried out an ambush shooting in Texas on the Prairieland facility. Seven have pleaded guilty to a federal terrorism charge. In Dallas, an ICE facility was shot up by an anti-ICE activist, killing several. ICE officers are fearing for their lives and then someone deliberately tries to run them over using a 2 ton SUV after harassing them all day.He discharged all three shots within a second and immediately holstered his weapon once the danger had past. There certainly won't be any Federal charges levelled at him. If the State of Minnesota decides to charge him I think he'll be found not guilty. Most here probably vehemently disagree but then again they probably thought Kyle Rittenhouse would go down too.

Rittenhouse was a clear cut case of self defence, although it wasn't a great idea of his to get himself involved in that situation.

 

[Jamolad]

Drop the "at pace" reference and instead change the following sentence ...

The woman engaged drive and deliberately drove directly at the ICE agent in front of her car in a deliberate attempt to either kill or injure him.

To this.

The woman engaged drive and deliberately drove directly at the ICE agent standing less than 2 metres away from the front of her car in a deliberate attempt to either kill or injure him.

Done. Will share the full/all explanation if you want but the crux of it is what you described is more than likely a justified shooting.

Under current U.S. federal law and policies:

• ICE agents may lawfully draw and fire a firearm — including deadly force — only if they have reasonable grounds to believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others. Legal Information Institute+1
• Using a vehicle as a weapon against an agent can meet that threshold if the threat is immediate and unavoidable.
• Shooting at or into a moving vehicle is generally discouraged unless the vehicle itself presents a deadly threat that cannot reasonably be avoided by other means. Customs and Border Protection

Applied to your scenario:
If the woman was actively using her vehicle as a weapon, driving directly at the officer with intent to injure or kill, then under 8 CFR 287.8(a) and federal use-of-force policy the officer’s use of deadly force could be lawful because he reasonably perceived an imminent threat to his life or serious bodily injury. Whether firing three shots in under one second was reasonable would depend on whether the threat persisted for that duration.

The ultimate determination would be made through formal internal review and/or criminal proceedings, looking at the totality of circumstances, including whether alternatives (retreat, cover, de-escalation) existed.

Of course, I did then have to ask it this follow-up:

Does that scenario above align with the video footage of the ICE shooting in Minnesota, or are there differences in that scenario to what is actually shown in the shooting videos?

Yes — there are important differences between the hypothetical scenario you described and what multiple independent videos and news reports of the actual ICE shooting in Minneapolis appear to show, according to available footage and reporting. The differences matter legally and factually when assessing whether the use of force aligns with the dead-force policies we discussed earlier.

Below is a comparison of the actual video footage and reporting with the elements of the hypothetical scenario.

What the Actual Footage and Reporting Appear to Show

1. ICE agents approached a parked vehicle that appeared to be blocking the road.
Videos show agents walking up to the SUV and attempting to engage the driver, including grabbing the door handle and ordering the driver to get out. ABC

2. The vehicle was initially stopped and then moved (reversed and then forward).
The SUV reversed briefly and then began moving forward as agents were near it. ABC

3. An ICE agent fired as the vehicle moved forward, with shots into the windshield and window.
One agent pulled his weapon as the front of the vehicle moved, firing at least three shots into or toward the vehicle.
ABC

4. Multiple video angles have circulated, and interpretations differ.
Some bystander video suggests the agent was near the front of the car and shot as it moved forward; another angle raises doubt about whether the vehicle actually made contact or was directed toward the agent. ABC+1

5. Uncertainty whether a bad collision occurred before shots were fired.
It is unclear from videos whether the agent was struck or even significantly contacted by the vehicle before firing; one credible video shows the agent fully upright and walking afterward, with no obvious severe injury. ABC

6. Official statements and eyewitnesses differ.

• DHS and federal officials claim the driver attempted to use the vehicle as a weapon and that shots were defensive. ABC News
• Local leaders, eyewitnesses, and some video analysts dispute that narrative, stating the vehicle was turning away and may not have posed a clear deadly threat at the moment shots were fired. ABC News+1

---

Differences Between the Scenario You Described and the Minneapolis Incident​

Your Hypothetical	Actual Footage & Reporting
The vehicle deliberately drove toward the officer with clear intent to run him over.	It is unclear whether the movement forward was intentional aggression toward the officer; videos suggest the SUV was trying to move away/right and not directly aimed at the agent. ABC
The agent was clearly clipped and injured before firing.	Videos show the agent remained upright and ambulatory after the incident, suggesting no serious injury, and it’s inconclusive whether contact occurred before shots were fired. ABC
The agent fired after the suspect was driving away.	The agent appears to have fired as the vehicle was moving forward, not clearly after the threat had entirely passed, although context and intent remain disputed. ABC
There were multiple ICE agents present but no conflicting orders.	Video and witness accounts indicate conflicting actions/orders before the vehicle moved — e.g., the agent grabbing the door handle while another agent moves in front of the vehicle. ABC

---

Why These Differences Matter for Use-of-Force Analysis​

Under the ICE fatal force standards:

• Deadly force is justified only if the officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury at the exact moment they fire.
  (DHS/ICE Policy: “deadly force only when … reasonable belief that subject poses imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death…”). ABC
• Threats that are no longer imminent — for example, a person fleeing or turning away — do not justify deadly force.
  (DHS/ICE Policy: “deadly force is not authorized solely to prevent escape … force used only when no safe alternative exists”). ABC

In your hypothetical, the key element justifying deadly force would be a clear, deliberate act to use the vehicle as a weapon — i.e., intent and imminent danger at the moment shots are fired. But in the Minneapolis footage, it is contested whether:

• The vehicle was actually being used as a weapon against the agent at the time the agent fired.
• The agent was subject to an imminent and unavoidable threat of serious harm when shots were fired.

Because multiple angles suggest the SUV was moving away or to the side rather than directly at the agent, and because the agent appears unharmed afterward, this contrasts with an unequivocal deliberate attempted vehicle attack scenario. ABC

---

Summary​

• Your original hypothetical (deliberate attempt to run down an agent at low speed, minor injury, then shot while fleeing) is clearly framed in terms of intent and threat assessment under policy.
• In the actual Minneapolis incident, video evidence and reporting show a more complex set of movements: the SUV was stopped, then moved — and the agent shot as it moved forward — but there is significant dispute about whether the vehicle was being used as a weapon toward the agent at that moment, or whether it was simply moving away/turning with no clear intention to harm. ABC
• The real footage differs from the clear “intent to run over” narrative: it appears the context was less direct and is under dispute in public reporting and official accounts. ABC

---

If you want, I can also compare specific frame-by-frame elements of the released videos to strengthen the analysis of what the footage actually shows versus interpretations being made in various media reports.

 

[bok_party]

The first shot was possibly justified, but the last two shots were fired when the agent was out of the way and therefore unnecessary. I think he's in a lot of trouble for this

Where’s the first shot supposed to be aimed though? If they were on foot, you’d probably aim for a leg. Maybe a shoulder in this instance? Regardless, I don’t think it was necessary to shoot at all. Would have been easy to just follow her in their cars to her next location.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Done. Will share the full/all explanation if you want but the crux of it is what you described is more than likely a justified shooting.



Of course, I did then have to ask it this follow-up:

Does that scenario above align with the video footage of the ICE shooting in Minnesota, or are there differences in that scenario to what is actually shown in the shooting videos?

If you want, I can also compare specific frame-by-frame elements of the released videos to strengthen the analysis of what the footage actually shows versus interpretations being made in various media reports.

Good work. To me the most important frame is this one and those in the second or two following it. This is the point in the video where she had engaged drive and the front wheels start to spin (not fully gripping on the slippery road). This would have been the first instant he was aware she would likely start driving at him and he still hasn't unholstered his weapon. Note the front wheels are turned towards him.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

 

[Jamolad]

Good work. To me the most important frame is this one and those in the second or two following it. This is the point in the video where she had engaged drive and the front wheels start to spin (not fully gripping on the slippery road). This would have been the first instant he was aware she would likely start driving at him and he still hasn't unholstered his weapon. Note the front wheels are turned towards him.

View attachment 2507193

You do understand that its second response it is describing all the things in your version of the event that it says is either not true or is not clear in the videos available online? it particularly disagrees with your assertion she was trying to run him over, and whether he was really ever in any danger (and called BS on him being injured too).

Curious, if I said there was footage showing she successfully waved the first ICE vehicle through, and then she also waved through the second ICE vehicle (the shooter's vehicle) but they chose instead to stop and engage, would you insist she was blocking them? Even if the footage shows her waving the first vehicle through and that first vehicle easily driving through without issue, and she is waving the shooter's vehicle through to do the same - if the video showed exactly that, would you reconsider whether she was actually blocking them?

Or would you argue she was gesturing but it is not clear what she was saying, and for all we know she was gesturing for them to get our their car and shoot her in the face?

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Curious, if I said there was footage showing she successfully waved the first ICE vehicle through, and then she also waved through the second ICE vehicle (the shooter's vehicle) but they chose instead to stop and engage, would you insist she was blocking them?

We've all seen the same videos mate. She waved one car through. It looks like a civilian car to me (not a pickup and no blue lights). She has blocked the road to impede ICE. She's been harassing them all day. There's every reason for them to believe if they attempted to pass through in front of her that she would have used her vehicle to ram them off the road into the thick show hoping to get their vehicle stuck like one of their other vehicles did.

Remember the cartwheels many on the left did to justify Luigi Mangione shooting that CEO and their reasoning as to why it didn't constitute murder? Their arguments today are pretty ironic against that background don't you think?

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

She shouldn't blame herself. Soros, AOC, Walz et al maybe.

 

[Satan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-minnesota-ice-shooting-video.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 

[60 Yards Out]

“You're removing their money. So if you remove the illegals, you're removing the people that vote for them. If you remove their money laundering schemes, you're removing the money that pays for the illegals to be here to vote for them.
And it's making them angrier and angrier and angrier. Trump is doing this on purpose because he knows what this will do. It will drive them from a information war to a physical war where he can use the Insurrection Act.
And remember, you don't just use it right now. Now, you wait until the country sees the physical war. You wait until you see it out in California, out in Colorado, out in Washington, out in Oregon, out in Illinois, out in New York, in all these locations.
Because once they start doing this, this is when Trump can use the Insurrection Act. And we have to remember, the Insurrection Act is not just for those individuals that are out on the streets destroying businesses, hurting people, going after ICE agents. It's also for those individuals, those mayors, those governors that have been pushing the people to do this, that have been going against Trump every step of[…]”

From X22 Report: [DS] Feeling The Pain,[DS]/D’s Are Moving From Information War To Physical War,Buckle Up – Ep. 3813, 8 Jan 2026

This material may be protected by copyright.

Easily the best bit:
“This material may be protected by copyright.”

 

[Satan]

 

[UltraEgo]

View attachment 2507221

She shouldn't blame herself. Soros, AOC, Walz et al maybe.

"anti-ICE militant"

 

[Mofra]

Bizzaro world.

People who beat the shit out of cops at the Capital were peaceful protesters who deserved a pardon.

A woman driving her car away from ICE deserves to be shot on the face.

 

[faible]

NYT analysis of the video, embed doesn’t autoplay but the link should click through

 

[Satan]

 

[faible]

Sovereign citizen you idiot

Didn’t take you as a guy to support state sanctioned violence, but here we are.

 

[Satan]

 

[Mofra]

It's a green flag for ICE to shoot more people.

The FBI are now apparently blocking any state investigation.

There are people cheering on the modern day Gestapo and celebrating people being shot on the streets.

The US is in deep trouble - all along the backdrop of US forces building up and training in the UK, threats of taking Greenland, and a mooted explosion in the defence budget from 1 trillion to 1.5 trillion.

 

[Satan]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-administration-mulls-payments-sway-greenlanders-join-us-2026-01-08/

Trump bribing ?

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

****ing shocker that he was trained by the IDF