> You’ve Got A Big Problem, Baggers. Your Execution Was Caught On Video. Really High Quality Video. Pic.

Tom Leykis wrote:

Still ANGY, and making shyt up.  It usually WORKS!!!   

SHUT UP, COCKSUCKER!
\

wrote:

MOMMY, HOW DO GLASS BALLISTICS WORK?
\


The first shot was head-on from the front of the vehicle (as many eye-witnesses testified to - he was leaning over the hood when he took the first shot), and the second and third shots were through the driver's window.

Edit: Interview with a witness who says "an ICE agent stepped in front of her vehicle and point blank shot her through her windshield."

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/07/us/video … ily-heller

Eye witness accounts can be mistaken. The video doesn't lie.

At this point he has aimed his weapon but not yet fired. He is already on the side of the vehicle, not in front. Stop lying.

CIFotoDumpRandom51960360.jpg

wrote:

You're intentionally misconstruing the video.  You know you're wrong, you've been proven wrong (with supporting evidence), and - per usual - you continue to argue in bad faith.

I've defeated you yet again - it's getting boring, really.

Why don't you stop lying and just go back to your original - acceptable, but disgusting - defense that you don't care who ICE kills?

The image does not lie. You do. But the image doesn't. He has not fired yet. He is already on the side of the car. The image does not lie. The image does not lie. The image does not lie.

CIFotoDumpRandom51960360.jpg

Tom Leykis wrote:

Still ANGY, and making shyt up.  It usually WORKS!!!   

Just leave room in case the making shyt up part turns out to be true.

Spanky wrote:

Why don't you stop lying and just go back to your original - acceptable, but disgusting - defense that you don't care who ICE kills?

The image does not lie. You do. But the image doesn't. He has not fired yet. He is already on the side of the car. The image does not lie. The image does not lie. The image does not lie.

The image is static - why do you think that proves "he has not fired yet?"  Why do you only post stills and not the complete sequence?  Are the eyewitnesses lying, too?

You've lost, and predictably you refuse to concede, hoping you'll suck me into another waste of time.

You won't.  The video is clear.  The eyewitness testimony is clear.

PS:

"Emily Heller told Minneapolis Public Radio that she saw a car, which appeared to be part of a protest against federal law enforcement operations, blocking traffic. The witness said she heard ICE agents telling the female driver to 'get out of here.'

'She was trying to turn around, and the ICE agent was in front of her car, and he pulled out a gun and put it right in — like, his midriff was on her bumper — and he reached across the hood of the car and shot her in the face'"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/live/minn … 59133.html

Apparently that video is having some impact:

https://x.com/aidnmclaughlin/status/2009274309680714033

wrote:

Yes, yes, yes - I'm the one lying or am stupid or etc., says the guy who keeps ignoring the eyewitnesses who were actually there when it happened. 

Sorry, but I know what the video shows (not curated photos of a partial sequence), and I know what the eyewitnesses have stated. 

End of discussion - you've lost again.

You clearly have never ready about the unreliability of eyewitnesses. Not surprising. You are incredibly uninformed.

Spanky wrote:

You clearly have never ready about the unreliability of eyewitnesses. Not surprising. You are incredibly uninformed.

Says the man who's basing his argument on something he came across in the WaPo:

https://archive.ph/Qtnp6 [Caution (Redirect)]

If the WaPo says so, it must be true!  Even if the people who actually witnessed what happened say otherwise! 

Nevermind that the WaPo piece is based on absolutely nothing but the tendentious opinions of two WaPo reporters.  Not forensic media experts, just two WaPo reporters who - like you - don't provide the whole picture (nor the unbiased testimonies of those who saw it happen).

wrote:

Says the man who's basing his argument on something he came across in the WaPo:

https://archive.ph/Qtnp6 [Caution (Redirect)]

If the WaPo says so, it must be true!  Even if the people who actually witnessed what happened say otherwise! 

Nevermind that the WaPo piece is based on absolutely nothing but the tendentious opinions of two WaPo reporters.  Not forensic media experts, just two WaPo reporters who - like you - don't provide the whole picture (nor the unbiased testimonies of those who saw it happen).

The first image in this thread is from the WaPo article. The other image is my own after viewing the video myself and scrubbing through.

You clearly have never ready about the unreliability of eyewitnesses. Not surprising. You are incredibly uninformed.

You also lie when you say that WaPo has not shared witness accounts. They have.