Today's Protest - Photos

Joe : You should have passed out KDC cards and let them know about this forum so they can actually converse with people about their issues.I want to learn why it is necessary to interfere with law enforcement rather than engage in the passion of activism to change the law. If you change the law, the agency that enforces it has no justification to exist.I want to learn why people are being trained to break laws in order to interfere with public safety measures (enforcing Congressional laws). That seems like people are being used as pawns to put their lives, safety, freedom, and employment at risk simply for the purpose of spreading false and misleading information. I'd like to discuss that with them.You also left out the lady with the Gestapo sign and the one with images of pigs wearing police uniforms. They didn't seem like they were prepared for an intelligent conversation. Those kind of theatrics are a great way to let other people know that you cannot be reasoned with.I wish those people would post here so we can talk. I can read their signs but I have follow up questions. The opportunity to engage here is 24/7 and not the narrow limited hours of their exhibition where people interested in conversation have to find a place to park, and then begin hunting for someone willing and able to engage in a well reasoned conversation.

Sophos2
Though your posted response is from the character of a hypothetical prosecutor, I'm going to continue responding as if this is a conversation with you.You are reinforcing points that I have made that you previously dismissed. It is interesting how your prosecution character is now acknowledging them and validating them. I won't take the time to quote all those examples, but I will include some.When you say, "However, the same policies are equally clear that officers are not trained to shoot vehicles, are not trained to disable vehicles with firearms, and are instructed that bullets are unlikely to stop a moving car", you are totally ignoring that I previously addressed this. Again, the officer appears to be targeting the driver of the vehicle, not the vehicle.- - - - - - - -
>> it is about what a reasonable officer, bound by policy and constitutional limits, did in a measurable span of real time. This has been the focus of my sustained commentary since the day of the shooting, while you and others have focused on Noem's quick public statements (which now appear extremely on point), "but she was just dropping off her child at daycare", and comments such as "but she was scared because officers were unidentified and rushing the car" (the officer's POV video demonstrates without a doubt that the 2 ladies knew very well that they were ICE agents)- - - - - - - -
>> when the driver's actions pose an immediate and ongoing lethal threat to officers or othersExactly. I have described the driver's actions, while you speculated about the driver's intent. Nowhere in the (probably AI's) prosecutor response does he address intent of the driver as having any role in diminishing the officer's response.- - - - - - - -
>> Critically, the video evidence shows that between the first and subsequent shots, circumstances materially changed. A fellow officer who had been in jeopardy became disengaged from the vehicle. That disengagement is not speculative; it is visible and contemporaneous with the later shots. Once the other officer was no longer being dragged or directly endangered by the vehicle, the immediate threat to life had diminished. At that moment, the legal justification for continued lethal force is no longer presumed; it must be affirmatively established. The prosecution would argue that it cannot be. The officer's training is central here, but not in the way the you suggest. Officers are trained that firearms are tools to stop people, not machines-but only when lethal force is justified. Training does not authorize firing reflexively until a magazine is empty; it requires continuous threat assessment. The law expects officers, even under stress, to reassess when new information becomes apparent. The detachment of the fellow officer was precisely the kind of new information that should have triggered that reassessment. Moreover, the fact that only a single round struck the vehicle (through the windshield toward the driver) undermines any claim that the later shots were necessary to stop an ongoing lethal threat. Those subsequent rounds did not correspond with a new acceleration, a renewed attempt to strike an officer, or a fresh act that increased danger. Instead, they followed the same initial movement, after the most acute risk had already abated. From a prosecutorial standpoint, that timing matters. This is not about accusing the officer of trying to disable a vehicle or prevent flight; no credible evidence supports that theory, and there isn't need not advance it. The issue is narrower and more legally grounded: whether the continued use of deadly force remained objectively reasonable once the immediate threat to officers had ended. The prosecution would argue that while the first shot may fall within the margins of lawful reaction, the additional shots crossed that boundary, transforming a potentially justified act into an unjustified one under established use-of-force standards. If that's the argument, the entire quote comes down to the following response. How much time would you say passed between the 1st and 2nd shots as well as the 2nd and 3rd shots? Is that sufficient time to accurately assess all relevant information and intercept the brain to body response? Would the average officer be capable under those circumstances? Who would you put on the stand to attempt making the case that the answer is yes? I'm asking that because when deadly force is used in a compressed time frame measured in fractions of a second, courts ROUTINELY analyze the volley as part of one continuous use of force event, unless there is a clear and significant break in time, one that represents an opportunity for conscious reassessment. Your prosecutor also added a misleading statement about "until a magazine is empty". If he does that in court (insinuating that is what happened) the dishonest prosecutor gets admonished and just lost credibility in front of a jury.Based on the flaws in the AI prosecutor's reasoning and that your query does not appear to identify the history of this exchange, I'm not sure it's worth my time to keep repeating the same information. I'll probably still read your next post from the AI prosecution character, but my enthusiasm for responding has waned.

Joe : You should have passed out KDC cards and let them know about this forum so they can actually converse with people about their issues.I want to learn why it is necessary to interfere with law enforcement rather than engage in the passion of activism to change the law. If you change the law, the agency that enforces it has no justification to exist.I want to learn why people are being trained to break laws in order to interfere with public safety measures (enforcing Congressional laws). That seems like people are being used as pawns to put their lives, safety, freedom, and employment at risk simply for the purpose of spreading false and misleading information. I'd like to discuss that with them.You also left out the lady with the Gestapo sign and the one with images of pigs wearing police uniforms. They didn't seem like they were prepared for an intelligent conversation. Those kind of theatrics are a great way to let other people know that you cannot be reasoned with.I wish those people would post here so we can talk. I can read their signs but I have follow up questions. The opportunity to engage here is 24/7 and not the narrow limited hours of their exhibition where people interested in conversation have to find a place to park, and then begin hunting for someone willing and able to engage in a well reasoned conversation.

You should have passed out KDC cards and let them know about this forum so they can actually converse with people about their issues.

Joe : It was an unnecessary voluntary sacrifice...she did not accomplish anything. It is clear now that the officer was in his right to do what he did. People should know the law and their rights so they don't interfere and get hurt .

They can't even admit the illegal issue is problematic.

Joe : Very sparse…..Kingwood people are not "into attempting to murder Federal agents"…..these are probably mostly PAID ACTIVISTS.Please keep the forums civil. Gray box info   Details+Dispute