Notorious PJB's banner

Notorious PJB

@PJBrizzle • 8,825 subscribers

Corporate Streetfighter & Former Fixer - From the Outfit to the White House - 🏳️‍🌈Ally - All posts/replies are my opinion

Shorts

Exactly. While this is true, it’s also irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Ross was at fault, period. Here’s why: First off, it’s against DHS policy & training for an officer to approach a vehicle from the front in this situation, and this “officer-induced jeopardy” negates the officers use of force claim and puts him at fault, period. There’s no debate on this as video evidence from multiple sources clearly show Ross stopping in front of her vehicle, and then taking the time to shift his phone from his right hand to his left so he can draw his weapon…BEFORE she even started moving. THIS is simply reality, and the conversation should end here. Second, it’s against DHS Use of Deadly Force policy (which is codified law) to fire at a moving vehicle that doesn’t pose imminent danger to officers, and even if they ARE in danger, it mandates deescalation before using deadly force, which EXPRESSLY states simply “moving out of the way” of a vehicle as a correct course of action before using deadly force (see attached doc below). Third, there is already well-established legal precedent governing these EXACT types of situations, and this officer would likely be found guilty by any jury in the U.S. For example: Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.” Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.” Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.” Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.” Fifth, the videos/pics below CLEARLY show the officer was NOT in immediate danger, and the woman was moving away from him when he fired his FIRST shot when he was already clear to the left of the vehicle, and he fired the second & third shots point-blank into her face from the SIDE of the vehicle as she passed. That alone is enough to send him to prison, even if his first shot was somehow inexplicably deemed to be justified.

Exactly. While this is true, it’s also irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Ross was at fault, period. Here’s why: First off, it’s against DHS policy & training for an officer to approach a vehicle from the front in this situation, and this “officer-induced jeopardy” negates the officers use of force claim and puts him at fault, period. There’s no debate on this as video evidence from multiple sources clearly show Ross stopping in front of her vehicle, and then taking the time to shift his phone from his right hand to his left so he can draw his weapon…BEFORE she even started moving. THIS is simply reality, and the conversation should end here. Second, it’s against DHS Use of Deadly Force policy (which is codified law) to fire at a moving vehicle that doesn’t pose imminent danger to officers, and even if they ARE in danger, it mandates deescalation before using deadly force, which EXPRESSLY states simply “moving out of the way” of a vehicle as a correct course of action before using deadly force (see attached doc below). Third, there is already well-established legal precedent governing these EXACT types of situations, and this officer would likely be found guilty by any jury in the U.S. For example: Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.” Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.” Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.” Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.” Fifth, the videos/pics below CLEARLY show the officer was NOT in immediate danger, and the woman was moving away from him when he fired his FIRST shot when he was already clear to the left of the vehicle, and he fired the second & third shots point-blank into her face from the SIDE of the vehicle as she passed. That alone is enough to send him to prison, even if his first shot was somehow inexplicably deemed to be justified.

18,329 Aufrufe

Videos

Anya Rossi

sweetdream.ai

SweetDream.ai•Sponsored•Livecam

Watch Anya Live

Anya is streaming live right now! Join her private show and enjoy exclusive content.

Exclusive private shows

1.2k viewers online

Private Show

Join now for exclusive access

Free preview available • Premium content

Oh. My. Gawd. Swing…and a miss 😂😂😂 Sen. Katie Biggs’ Republican response to the SOTU was a hilarious, pathetically-contrived, disingenuous disaster of blatant bullshit and breathless, bizarrely overacted pseudo-drama. This is what happens when sociopaths attempt to mimic & modulate human emotion or “concern” and “empathy”, lol. Here’s a two minute clip that will put it all in perspective for you…and will likely be all you can stand to watch of this bizarre shitshow. The tattered remains of the MAGA-mutated GOP is in its death-throes… They’re finished.

Oh. My. Gawd. Swing…and a miss 😂😂😂 Sen. Katie Biggs’ Republican response to the SOTU was a hilarious, pathetically-contrived, disingenuous disaster of blatant bullshit and breathless, bizarrely overacted pseudo-drama. This is what happens when sociopaths attempt to mimic & modulate human emotion or “concern” and “empathy”, lol. Here’s a two minute clip that will put it all in perspective for you…and will likely be all you can stand to watch of this bizarre shitshow. The tattered remains of the MAGA-mutated GOP is in its death-throes… They’re finished.

808,516 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

“Sergeant, describe what you’re seeing in the war-zone of Portland…” “Uh…War-zone, sir? I’m not sure that’s an accurate description. You see, we were just accosted by a six-foot frog…yes sir, a big green frog, who mocked us while onlookers laughed & shot videos. It was confusing, to say the least, and not something we trained for. I guess I’m not quite sure WHAT you’d call Portland, but it’s certainly not a ‘war-zone’. Based on what we’ve seen so far, it appears to be more of a bizarre amusement park with legalized weed and good coffee, and, to be honest, sir…none of us are quite sure what we’re supposed to be doing here”.

“Sergeant, describe what you’re seeing in the war-zone of Portland…” “Uh…War-zone, sir? I’m not sure that’s an accurate description. You see, we were just accosted by a six-foot frog…yes sir, a big green frog, who mocked us while onlookers laughed & shot videos. It was confusing, to say the least, and not something we trained for. I guess I’m not quite sure WHAT you’d call Portland, but it’s certainly not a ‘war-zone’. Based on what we’ve seen so far, it appears to be more of a bizarre amusement park with legalized weed and good coffee, and, to be honest, sir…none of us are quite sure what we’re supposed to be doing here”.

73,976 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

LOL 🤦‍♂️. All this proves is how terrified Trump is that his lethally ignorant & gullible followers may find out the truth about how damaging his boneheaded tariffs actually are. While the clip the Canadians used summed up Reagan’s views on how stupid & damaging blanket tariffs are, I’VE INCLUDED HIS ENTIRE SPEECH BELOW, WHICH HE GOES EVEN HARDER ON THE CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS OF IDIOTIC TARIFFS LIKE TRUMP’S. Don’t let these sociopathic, compulsively dishonest MAGAs lie to the American public, RETWEET.

LOL 🤦‍♂️. All this proves is how terrified Trump is that his lethally ignorant & gullible followers may find out the truth about how damaging his boneheaded tariffs actually are. While the clip the Canadians used summed up Reagan’s views on how stupid & damaging blanket tariffs are, I’VE INCLUDED HIS ENTIRE SPEECH BELOW, WHICH HE GOES EVEN HARDER ON THE CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS OF IDIOTIC TARIFFS LIKE TRUMP’S. Don’t let these sociopathic, compulsively dishonest MAGAs lie to the American public, RETWEET.

45,462 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

So….Hateful MAGA white-supremacist & misogynist Nicholas J. Fuentes was doxxed after his “Your body, MY choice” bullshit (see video below), and it turns out he lives near some of my old stomping grounds just outside of Chicago… How unfortunate for him, lol. Rest-assured there are individuals within that neighborhood and the surrounding areas who take a keen, hands-on interest in protecting their female family-members, friends, & neighbors from predatory scumbags like Fuentes…who also aren’t pleased he’s made Berwyn look bad. I can’t confirm it, of course, but reliable word on the street is Fuentes’ should probably find another residence outside of Illinois to spew his hate from, and his parents might benefit from selling their properties in Berwyn, La Grange, etc. to any individuals who happen to make a somewhat fair offer within the next week or so… RETWEET so Fuentes gets the word.

So….Hateful MAGA white-supremacist & misogynist Nicholas J. Fuentes was doxxed after his “Your body, MY choice” bullshit (see video below), and it turns out he lives near some of my old stomping grounds just outside of Chicago… How unfortunate for him, lol. Rest-assured there are individuals within that neighborhood and the surrounding areas who take a keen, hands-on interest in protecting their female family-members, friends, & neighbors from predatory scumbags like Fuentes…who also aren’t pleased he’s made Berwyn look bad. I can’t confirm it, of course, but reliable word on the street is Fuentes’ should probably find another residence outside of Illinois to spew his hate from, and his parents might benefit from selling their properties in Berwyn, La Grange, etc. to any individuals who happen to make a somewhat fair offer within the next week or so… RETWEET so Fuentes gets the word.

65,901 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Exactly. The Minnesota shooting was CLEARLY unjustified. The irresponsible & untrained officer fired the fatal shots point-blank into her face from the SIDE of her vehicle as she was passing him, and she CLEARLY steered away from him. His behavior goes directly against the DHS’s own rules for approaching vehicles AND those for using deadly force. Federal rules for deadly force are explicit. 8 CFR 287.8 permits deadly force only when there is an immediate threat of death or serious injury. DHS policy REQUIRES minimum force and de-escalation. Tennessee v. Garner prohibits shooting an unarmed person who is not posing a lethal threat. The video & photo below speak for themselves. A private citizen who killed someone this way would already be in custody and charged with homicide. ICE is hiding behind a false self-defense narrative that collapses the moment you watch the footage. As you mentioned, there is already well-established legal precedence pertaining to this exact type of situation. Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.” Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.” Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.” Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.” Will anyone be held accountable? Of course not. Donald Trump is in office.

Exactly. The Minnesota shooting was CLEARLY unjustified. The irresponsible & untrained officer fired the fatal shots point-blank into her face from the SIDE of her vehicle as she was passing him, and she CLEARLY steered away from him. His behavior goes directly against the DHS’s own rules for approaching vehicles AND those for using deadly force. Federal rules for deadly force are explicit. 8 CFR 287.8 permits deadly force only when there is an immediate threat of death or serious injury. DHS policy REQUIRES minimum force and de-escalation. Tennessee v. Garner prohibits shooting an unarmed person who is not posing a lethal threat. The video & photo below speak for themselves. A private citizen who killed someone this way would already be in custody and charged with homicide. ICE is hiding behind a false self-defense narrative that collapses the moment you watch the footage. As you mentioned, there is already well-established legal precedence pertaining to this exact type of situation. Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.” Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.” Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.” Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.” Will anyone be held accountable? Of course not. Donald Trump is in office.

25,915 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Exactly. While this is true, it’s also irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Ross was at fault, period. Here’s why: First off, it’s against DHS policy & training for an officer to approach a vehicle from the front in this situation, and this “officer-induced jeopardy” negates the officers use of force claim and puts him at fault, period. There’s no debate on this as video evidence from multiple sources clearly show Ross stopping in front of her vehicle, and then taking the time to shift his phone from his right hand to his left so he can draw his weapon…BEFORE she even started moving. THIS is simply reality, and the conversation should end here. Second, it’s against DHS Use of Deadly Force policy (which is codified law) to fire at a moving vehicle that doesn’t pose imminent danger to officers, and even if they ARE in danger, it mandates deescalation before using deadly force, which EXPRESSLY states simply “moving out of the way” of a vehicle as a correct course of action before using deadly force (see attached doc below). Third, there is already well-established legal precedent governing these EXACT types of situations, and this officer would likely be found guilty by any jury in the U.S. For example: Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.” Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.” Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.” Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.” Fifth, the videos/pics below CLEARLY show the officer was NOT in immediate danger, and the woman was moving away from him when he fired his FIRST shot when he was already clear to the left of the vehicle, and he fired the second & third shots point-blank into her face from the SIDE of the vehicle as she passed. That alone is enough to send him to prison, even if his first shot was somehow inexplicably deemed to be justified.

Exactly. While this is true, it’s also irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Ross was at fault, period. Here’s why: First off, it’s against DHS policy & training for an officer to approach a vehicle from the front in this situation, and this “officer-induced jeopardy” negates the officers use of force claim and puts him at fault, period. There’s no debate on this as video evidence from multiple sources clearly show Ross stopping in front of her vehicle, and then taking the time to shift his phone from his right hand to his left so he can draw his weapon…BEFORE she even started moving. THIS is simply reality, and the conversation should end here. Second, it’s against DHS Use of Deadly Force policy (which is codified law) to fire at a moving vehicle that doesn’t pose imminent danger to officers, and even if they ARE in danger, it mandates deescalation before using deadly force, which EXPRESSLY states simply “moving out of the way” of a vehicle as a correct course of action before using deadly force (see attached doc below). Third, there is already well-established legal precedent governing these EXACT types of situations, and this officer would likely be found guilty by any jury in the U.S. For example: Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.” Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.” Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.” Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.” Fifth, the videos/pics below CLEARLY show the officer was NOT in immediate danger, and the woman was moving away from him when he fired his FIRST shot when he was already clear to the left of the vehicle, and he fired the second & third shots point-blank into her face from the SIDE of the vehicle as she passed. That alone is enough to send him to prison, even if his first shot was somehow inexplicably deemed to be justified.

18,329 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Keine weiteren Inhalte verfügbar