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.

 

[Bloods86]

Onto hyperbole now? Where is the evidence that all three bullets he discharged hit her in the face? Really? A moving target and after being struck with a vehicle? What was this guy Special Forces?



So that would be your instruction to all law enforcement would it? If you are trying to arrest someone and they try to leave, let them go. Especially if you have their car rego number and you're in Minnesota, because we all know no one steals cars in Minnesota.

No, the instruction would be to not escalate the situation, not place yourself in front of a just moving vehicle while others are trying to drag the driver out because you have no idea what could happen with the vehicle while that's happening, move out of the way and not shoot.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

He said "based on the attached clip". Full context.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115855701696773990



Even in the longest and clearest video we've seen (posted by darrenmorgan) it's clear stuff happened prior that we aren't seeing. Until more footage is available or they release bodycam evidence I wouldn't assume Noem is lying.

So this driver should be shot in the face, you would support that yeah?

 

[Jamolad]

Onto hyperbole now? Where is the evidence that all three bullets he discharged hit her in the face? Really? A moving target and after being struck with a vehicle? What was this guy Special Forces?



So that would be your instruction to all law enforcement would it? If you are trying to arrest someone and they try to leave, let them go. Especially if you have their car rego number and you're in Minnesota, because we all know no one steals cars in Minnesota.

**** me, even if you look at the scenario you think actually happened, those rules of engagement you say you know "exactly" say this was not a justified shooting.

What changes do you insist on the below AI prompt to be an accurate description of the scenario you saw on all the different angles:



Quoting the exact passages that govern when a United States ICE agent can draw their firearm and fire it to use deadly force, consider the following scenario and determine if it would be a justified shooting under those guidelines/policies:

A convoy of ICE agents in pickup trucks was being deliberately blocked/obstructed by a US citizen in their private vehicle, as a form or protest against ICE.

Agents got out of their vehicles, the woman reversed her vehicle, there were ICE agents on all sides of the vehicle including in front of the vehicle.

The lady deliberately tried to run over the ICE agent in front of her car, he was able to mostly jump out of the way but was clipped by the vehicle at very low speed. He did not lose his footing and received very minor injuries that did not require being admitted to hospital.

The ICE agent then fired at the woman 3 times, including at point-blank range through the side window of the car as she passed him by. She died of her gunshot wounds.

Would the ICE agent's actions be lawful/justified. Please quote exact guidelines/policy.


Tell me what changes you want to accurately describe what you saw in those videos, and then we'll throw it into ChatGPT. I will help you out here - you do need to make changes to the above version of events, because right now the rules of engagement that you know "exactly" says:

Probably not justified unless a court or internal review determines that:

1. The woman’s actions posed a legitimate imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm at the exact moment the shots were fired, and
2. The agent had no safe, feasible alternative to avoid that threat.

Given your scenario — low-speed impact, minor injury, and an opportunity to avoid harm without firing — many legal analysts and federal policies would conclude the use of deadly force was excessive and not justified by the standards above.

Oh dear.

I know you said you know them exactly, but you want to refresh on:

1. Federal Regulatory Standard Governing ICE Use of Force (8 C.F.R. § 287.8)
2. DHS Department-Wide Use of Force Policy (DHS Policy)
3. Law Enforcement Constitutional Standards (Fourth Amendment)

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

When the 'crime' is impeding/blocking the road, and she was in the process of leaving?

Yes, when the other option is shooting them thats very obviously exactly what you do, you bootlicking fascist psycho

She'd been harassing them all day. How do you know they didn't let her go on an earlier occasion? The crime is impeding or obstructing a federal officer in the course of their duties. It appears she'd been doing so all day. How many times would Officer Bourbons let people go when they resist any attempt made to arrest them to stop them from continuing their unlawful activity?

 

[faible]

TIL: Impeding is punishable by murder.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

No, the instruction would be to not escalate the situation, not place yourself in front of a just moving vehicle while others are trying to drag the driver out because you have no idea what could happen with the vehicle while that's happening, move out of the way and not shoot.

If you watch @darrenmorgan's video you will see that the officer who shot her was on the right hand/passenger side of the vehicle. When Renee reversed LH down that reoriented the car so that he was now in front of the vehicle. Prior to that he was trying to speak to her through the passenger door. He may have been trying to open the passenger door also.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Bondi hero Ahmed Al-Ahmed just landed in New York (for further treatment for his injuries) and told reporters he loves Trump!

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

**** me, even if you look at the scenario you think actually happened, those rules of engagement you say you know "exactly" say this was not a justified shooting.

What changes do you insist on the below AI prompt to be an accurate description of the scenario you saw on all the different angles:



Quoting the exact passages that govern when a United States ICE agent can draw their firearm and fire it to use deadly force, consider the following scenario and determine if it would be a justified shooting under those guidelines/policies:

A convoy of ICE agents in pickup trucks was being deliberately blocked/obstructed by a US citizen in their private vehicle, as a form or protest against ICE.

Agents got out of their vehicles, the woman reversed her vehicle, there were ICE agents on all sides of the vehicle including in front of the vehicle.

The lady deliberately tried to run over the ICE agent in front of her car, he was able to mostly jump out of the way but was clipped by the vehicle at very low speed. He did not lose his footing and received very minor injuries that did not require being admitted to hospital.

The ICE agent then fired at the woman 3 times, including at point-blank range through the side window of the car as she passed him by. She died of her gunshot wounds.

Would the ICE agent's actions be lawful/justified. Please quote exact guidelines/policy.


Tell me what changes you want to accurately describe what you saw in those videos, and then we'll throw it into ChatGPT. I will help you out here - you do need to make changes to the above version of events, because right now the rules of engagement that you know "exactly" says:

Probably not justified unless a court or internal review determines that:

1. The woman’s actions posed a legitimate imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm at the exact moment the shots were fired, and
2. The agent had no safe, feasible alternative to avoid that threat.

Given your scenario — low-speed impact, minor injury, and an opportunity to avoid harm without firing — many legal analysts and federal policies would conclude the use of deadly force was excessive and not justified by the standards above.

Oh dear.

I know you said you know them exactly, but you want to refresh on:

1. Federal Regulatory Standard Governing ICE Use of Force (8 C.F.R. § 287.8)
2. DHS Department-Wide Use of Force Policy (DHS Policy)
3. Law Enforcement Constitutional Standards (Fourth Amendment)

Mate if you want to construct a straw man argument and feed it into ChatGPT be my guest. I'm sure it will give you what you want. The biggest problem with your straw man prompts at the moment is your claim that he fired all three shots through the side window after he was no longer in any danger. Watch Darren's video again pausing and listening for the shots and you'll see this is clearly false information.

This might help you too.

 

[Bloods86]

If you watch @darrenmorgan's video you will see that the officer who shot her was on the right hand/passenger side of the vehicle. When Renee reversed LH down that reoriented the car so that he was now in front of the vehicle. Prior to that he was trying to speak to her through the passenger door. He may have been trying to open the passenger door also.

The car didn't move that much so that he was around at the passenger door then suddenly in front. He was moving around the front already.

Regardless, the others seemed to want to escalate the situation with their demeanour and he definitely escalated the situation by pulling his gun and then firing.

 

[60 Yards Out]

He said "based on the attached clip". Full context.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115855701696773990



Even in the longest and clearest video we've seen (posted by darrenmorgan) it's clear stuff happened prior that we aren't seeing. Until more footage is available or they release bodycam evidence I wouldn't assume Noem is lying.

The rules are different for Noem and her like. You assume they are lying unless proven otherwise.

 

[Bloods86]

Bondi hero Ahmed Al-Ahmed just landed in New York (for further treatment for his injuries) and told reporters he loves Trump!

Maybe he does specifically, maybe he loves everyone, but I reckon if I'd landed in current day USA for medical treatment, and especially as a Muslim man from another country, I'd probably say nice things too.

 

[Jamolad]

View attachment 2507053

Mate if you want to construct a straw man argument and feed it into ChatGPT be my guest. I'm sure it will give you what you want. The biggest problem with your straw man prompts at the moment is your claim that he fired all three shots through the side window after he was no longer in any danger. Watch Darren's video again pausing and listening for the shots and you'll see this is clearly false information.

This might help you too.

View attachment 2507048

That's a good start - let's change it to none through the side window, and all 3 through the windscreen.
That is not true - should change it to 1 through windscreen and 2 through side window - but let's go all 3 through windscreen.

Remember, this is your version of events I am trying to document, so tell me what else you want changed to accurately reflect what you have seen in the videos.



Quoting the exact passages that govern when a United States ICE agent can draw their firearm and fire it to use deadly force, consider the following scenario and determine if it would be a justified shooting under those guidelines/policies:

A convoy of ICE agents in pickup trucks was being deliberately blocked/obstructed by a US citizen in their private vehicle, as a form of protest against ICE.

Agents got out of their vehicles, the woman reversed her vehicle, there were ICE agents on all sides of the vehicle including in front of the vehicle.

The lady engaged Drive and deliberately tried to run over the ICE agent in front of her car, he was able to mostly jump out of the way but was clipped by the vehicle at very low speed. He did not lose his footing and received very minor injuries that did not require being admitted to hospital.

The ICE agent then fired at the woman 3 times through the windscreen, including at point-blank range through the side window of the car as she passed him by. She died of her gunshot wounds.

Would the ICE agent's actions be lawful/justified. Please quote exact guidelines/policy.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

The car didn't move that much so that he was around at the passenger door then suddenly in front. He was moving around the front already.

It's possible he took a step or two in that direction as she reversed but I can't see that in the footage we have so far. It's not just the change in the angle of the car from her LH down reverse that reoriented his position in relation to the car. It's also the distance she travelled in reverse, in combination with what I'll agree was a relatively modest angle change.

Regardless, the others seemed to want to escalate the situation with their demeanour and he definitely escalated the situation by pulling his gun and then firing.

Watch the video again. He didn't even unholster his gun until the car started moving towards him. She escalated the situation.

 

[Iamcarlton]

Maybe he does specifically, maybe he loves everyone, but I reckon if I'd landed in current day USA for medical treatment, and especially as a Muslim man from another country, I'd probably say nice things too.

Thats way too much logic for the pedos fanboys to comprehend

 

[Bloods86]

Watch the video again. He didn't even unholster his gun until the car started moving towards him. She escalated the situation.

He had his hand on / was unholstering his gun as the vehicle started moving forward. Given she was simply impeding traffic (kind of) or at worst backing away in a getaway attempt, why was he going for his gun already?

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

That's a good start - let's change it to none through the side window, and all 3 through the windscreen.
That is not true - should change it to 1 through windscreen and 2 through side window - but let's go all 3 through windscreen.

Remember, this is your version of events I am trying to document, so tell me what else you want changed to accurately reflect what you have seen in the videos.



Quoting the exact passages that govern when a United States ICE agent can draw their firearm and fire it to use deadly force, consider the following scenario and determine if it would be a justified shooting under those guidelines/policies:

A convoy of ICE agents in pickup trucks was being deliberately blocked/obstructed by a US citizen in their private vehicle, as a form of protest against ICE.

Agents got out of their vehicles, the woman reversed her vehicle, there were ICE agents on all sides of the vehicle including in front of the vehicle.

The lady engaged Drive and deliberately tried to run over the ICE agent in front of her car, he was able to mostly jump out of the way but was clipped by the vehicle at very low speed. He did not lose his footing and received very minor injuries that did not require being admitted to hospital.

The ICE agent then fired at the woman 3 times through the windscreen, including at point-blank range through the side window of the car as she passed him by. She died of her gunshot wounds.

Would the ICE agent's actions be lawful/justified. Please quote exact guidelines/policy.

Look, I appreciate the effort you are putting into this but rather than replying on me to point out the potential flaws in your prompts why don't you just watch the video without the presuppositions you've been fed by your algorithm getting in the way? For a start LOL at the "he did not lose his footing" stuff. He's standing a road in icy temperatures and you can literally see his foot sliding on the road. Slow the video down to 0.25 speed if you can't see it. There are at least two other major problems with your prompts as they stand and a few more minor issues. Go back and watch the video and work them out for yourself.

 

[60 Yards Out]

She'd been harassing them all day. How do you know they didn't let her go on an earlier occasion? The crime is impeding or obstructing a federal officer in the course of their duties. It appears she'd been doing so all day. How many times would Officer Bourbons let people go when they resist any attempt made to arrest them to stop them from continuing their unlawful activity?

“It appears”?
Where? When? Has anyone actually seen it?

 

[darrenmorgan]

He had his hand on / was unholstering his gun as the vehicle started moving forward. Given she was simply impeding traffic (kind of) or at worst backing away in a getaway attempt, why was he going for his gun already?

They also didn’t identify themselves at all. They just screamed “get the **** out of the car” and tried opening the door. She has every reason to be scared/want to get out of there. Actual police would Clearly identify themselves and give direction such as “turn the car off, put your hands on the wheel” not run towards the car screaming “get the **** out of the car! and start pulling weapons”

 

[Jamolad]

Look, I appreciate the effort you are putting into this but rather than replying on me to point out the potential flaws in your prompts why don't you just watch the video without the presuppositions you've been fed by your algorithm getting in the way? For a start LOL at the "he did not lose his footing" stuff. He's standing a road in icy temperatures and you can literally see his foot sliding on the road. Slow the video down to 0.25 speed if you can't see it. There are at least two other major problems with your prompts as they stand and a few more minor issues. Go back and watch the video and work them out for yourself.

Ok, we'll change "does not lose his footing" to be "he slips on the icy road and stumbles but does not fall over".

Are you ok with that? And tell me the two other changes.

Or it would be easy if you type out the exact sequence of events as you saw them in the video. That is all I am trying to do is submit the exact scenario that you saw in your words. So refine that prompt so it is what you saw, please...it will make it much easier.

 

[Bloods86]

They also didn’t identify themselves at all. They just screamed “get the ** out of the car” and tried opening the door. She has every reason to be scared/want to get out of there. Actual police would Clearly identify themselves and give direction such as “turn the car off, put your hands on the wheel” not run towards the car screaming “get the ** out of the car! and start pulling weapons”

Some media reports witnesses saying there were contradictory demands e.g. to leave and to get out of the car, though the video I've seen only has the latter audible. It's possible there was an earlier or quieter request.

In any case, training should tell you civilians can get spooked so you should identify yourself, explain why you're doing what you're doing, give them every opportunity to comply without feeling threatened. Especially for just blocking a lane of traffic.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

He had his hand on / was unholstering his gun as the vehicle started moving forward. Given she was simply impeding traffic (kind of) or at worst backing away in a getaway attempt, why was he going for his gun already?

This is the point in the video where she had engaged drive and the front wheels start to spin not gripping on the icy road. Most Honda Pilots are 2WD but you can get AWD as an extra. The other officer is in the way so we can't see if he has his hand on the gun at this point. He hasn't unholstered yet though because that is clearly seen later. He didn't unholster until the car lurched forward at him and even then he seemed to delay taking that shot until the last possible moment. It's all quite clear if you slow the video down to 0.25 speed.

 

[Bloods86]

View attachment 2507063

This is the point in the video where she hand engaged drive and the front wheels start to spin not gripping on the icy road. Most Honda Pilots are 2WD but you can get AWD as an extra. The other officer is in the way so we can't see if he has his hand on the gun at this point. He hasn't unholstered yet though because that is clearly seen later. He didn't unholster until the car lurched forward at him and even then he seemed to delay taking that shot until the last possible moment. It's all quite clear is you slow the video down to 0.25 speed.

"All quite clear" but "we can't see". Ok then.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

They also didn’t identify themselves at all. They just screamed “get the ** out of the car” and tried opening the door. She has every reason to be scared/want to get out of there. Actual police would Clearly identify themselves and give direction such as “turn the car off, put your hands on the wheel” not run towards the car screaming “get the ** out of the car! and start pulling weapons”

Putting aside the fact that she was literally there trying to obstruct ICE officers and had been doing so all day, there is no proof they didn't show her their identification. We can't even see the officer under all the scrutiny in your video when he approached her passenger window for instance, but by all means let's run with "SHe hAd nO iDea tHey weRe laW enForceMent!!!!"

 

[darrenmorgan]

Putting aside the fact that she was literally there trying to obstruct ICE officers and had been doing so all day, there is no proof they didn't show her their identification. We can't even see the officer in under all the scrutiny in your video when he approached her passenger window for instance, but by all means let's run with "SHe hAd nO iDea tHey weRe laW enForceMent!!!!"

View attachment 2507074

What about this little fact then?

‘The official DHS Use of Force policy (updated February 2023) and DOJ guidelines establish strict limits on shooting at moving vehicles. These policies generally support the logic in your image:
The "Moving Out of the Way" Requirement: Federal policy states that firearms should not be discharged solely to disable a vehicle. Agents are instructed that if they are in the path of a vehicle, they must attempt to move to a position of safety rather than discharging a firearm, if feasible.
The "Vehicle as Weapon" Exception: An officer can only shoot if (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening them with deadly force by other means (like a gun) or (2) the vehicle is being operated in a manner that threatens imminent death or serious injury and no reasonable alternative exists.
Proactive Danger: Most police training—including federal standards—emphasizes that officers should not "step in front" of a moving vehicle to block it, as this creates the very "danger" they then use to justify deadly force.
2. Is the Interpretation "Reasonable"?
The argument in your image (that the agent had time to move and shouldn't have fired) is considered highly reasonable by legal experts and local officials in this specific case:
The Video Evidence: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey stated publicly on January 7, 2026, that he viewed video of the Renee Nicole Good shooting and that it did not appear the driver was attempting to hit the agents. This directly contradicts the DHS claim that she "weaponized her vehicle."
The "Created Danger" Doctrine: Under recent legal shifts (including the Barnes v. Felix Supreme Court context in 2025), if an agent "ran in front" of the car (as your image alleges), the shooting may be ruled unreasonable because the officer's own reckless actions created the life-threatening situation.
Frequency of Incidents: Reports show that federal agents have fired at vehicles at least six times in the last few months (including a December 2025 shooting in Maryland), leading critics to argue that ICE is ignoring "best practice" de-escalation tactics used by municipal police.’

 

[Glacier]

No one has murdered anyone.

You’re a sick **** mate