Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Scenes like this are avoidable but radical left wing activist, Mayor Johnson, Governor Pritzker & his comrades around the city believe that encouraging ppl to be disruptive is productive. I’m not sure who hit the Chicago Police Officer with that SUV I don’t believe it was an ICE Agents...

22,737 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

This dad called 911 because his seven year old autistic son wasn’t behaving and was having a tantrum. The officer that spoke with him told the father that it was completely inappropriate to call the police over this. He said they have an entire town to protect and three officers responded and then asks the dad while chuckling - “can’t handle a seven year old?” The dad tells him that he has called 911 twice before but no one has ever got mad at him like this officer. The officer tells him that they are approaching charging him with false summoning a police officer. He also tells him that if he can’t handle a seven year then maybe they should get CYS involved because clearly the dad needs parenting classes. 😳 Many said the officer was rude and didn’t have to be. That his job is to protect and SERVE the community and that the family was just reaching out, that he needed support and someone to to talk to because they have no idea how hard it is to raise an autistic child? But others said this is not a job for a police officer, that they aren’t counselors and therapists and that there are many resources available through the city that he should using. 💯 I am team police officer. Some may find it rude but this is not in their job description. And being the third time? You have to put a stop to the 911 calls. What do you think? Do you think the officer had a right to be upset and talk the way he was talking to the dad being that this is the third time this has happened? Or, do you think he should have had more compassion for the father?

👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

26,300 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

Tim Dillon: “Does your source—who’s a highly-placed Trump confidant—believe there’s any potential that forces outside of this gunman were responsible for Charlie Kirk’s assassination?” Max Blumenthal: “Yes.” “They don’t accept the official story.” Dillon: “A highly-placed person in the Trump inner circle doesn’t believe the official story of Charlie's murder?” Blumenthal: “No one does, but the phrase I remember hearing is, ‘it feels like there’s more at play here.’” “That’s not the only person with more power than me in Washington that I’m hearing that from.” Dillon: “So you’re hearing from multiple people that are connected and tapped in, that they believe that there’s more at play or more to the story than simply one radicalized young man?” Blumenthal: “Subsequent to publishing this story from another source who I would describe as an Administration insider, that corroborated the account in this story.” “First, that, Charlie Kirk was actively and aggressively personally lobbying Trump against bombing Iran in June.” “Two, that right now the FBI is not being forthcoming and there’s a lot of frustration with the FBI not sharing information.” Dillon: “That’s pretty shocking.” Blumenthal: “There was this pre-fabricated narrative on the right that the killer was a leftist or a Muslim.” “They clearly wanted that.” “Now, people on the left are saying he was a groyper.” “I don’t know what will be the case, but the reason I wrote this story was because I was able to get this background about Charlie Kirk and … what was coloring his final days, and the kind of pressure he was under—which tells a larger story about Israeli influence in the US.” “I didn’t report this story to prove that Israel has a direct role in his assassination.” “But there is a real reason why many people who are not able to talk to people with any proximity to power believe that is the case, and it’s because of the way Israel’s conducting itself around the globe.” Tim Dillon Max Blumenthal

Holden Culotta

1,039,493 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

This dude unloads on cop in a who is in the right type situation. We are in Adam's county PA where a Law Enforcement Ranger pulls over a man because he is saying he could not see his tag. By the officers own admission he was able to see the tag as he got closer but proceeded with the stop. As per usual the officer asks for ID and the man in truck went to work on this officer telling him this is an illegal stop as no crime has been committed so he is not required to provide ID. Through out the interaction he asks the officer if he is free to go and the officer doubles down on detainment. However at the same time when asked the officer was not able to articulate a crime. The man also asked for a sergeant and the officer never compiled by getting a supervisor on scene which honestly would have been the best move. There are two ways to look at this interaction. The eyes of the officer: The officer calmly maintains that the traffic stop is entirely lawful. In the United States, law enforcement needs reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. An obscured license plate or illegally dark window tint satisfies that standard in almost every jurisdiction. Furthermore, once a lawful traffic stop is initiated, a driver is legally required to produce a valid driver's license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration. The driver's perspective: The driver claims that his tags are legit and the officer was able to see that when he ran them. He argues that because the ranger claimed at first he could not see the tags but now he can as he approached the vehicle. Since the officer admitted he can now see the tags and there is no problem with the tags, the initial stop was "erroneous" and constitutes an illegal search and seizure. He also details a personal grievance with local law enforcement, claiming a local district attorney and police officers have been "terrorizing" him. What is your take on this stop? Was this a case of an officer error where with the cop trying to save face by digging for a reason for the stop, or was this a legal stop and this officer deserves praise for staying calm while dealing with this man's outbursts? Share your thoughts below.

Giggling Ganon

192,103 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen

What I saw was an ICE vehicle attempting to leave an area that was in a near riot condition, a civilian vehicle then suddenly moved in front of it to block its departure. I then saw an ICE officer approach that vehicle and issue a lawful order to the driver to get out of the car. Instead of complying with that order, the driver backed up, pointed the car in the direction of another officer, and then shifted into drive, stepping on the gas while an officer had his hand on the door then accelerated in the direction of the other ICE officer at the moment he fired into the vehicle. That’s what the video shows, and we all have eyes and we all can see it. There are a lot of questions that it raises, starting with the perspective of the officer who fired at this approaching vehicle. Was the car indeed pointed directly at him when he fired? It certainly appeared that way to me from the video we’ve seen. I assume the officer was wearing a body camera and we’ll get a better idea of his perspective in the course of the investigation. There’s the question of why the driver attempted to block the ICE vehicle as it was leaving, why the driver felt motivated to obstruct clearly uniformed federal law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties, why she willfully refused to comply with a lawful order by those officers, and why she pointed her vehicle toward another officer while hitting the gas. I suspect that a great deal of motivation was exactly from the kind of incendiary rhetoric we hear everyday from our radical democratic colleagues. It is a direct attack on the rule of law. Our ICE officers are enforcing federal law as the Congress wrote it. The Democrats here don’t like that law, they object to its enforcement, and they are actively encouraging citizens to obstruct its enforcement. In a nation of laws, the answer is not to obstruct the law, but to change it. We’re sitting in the very institution that writes these laws. If they believe the laws that enforce our nations sovereignty are wrong? Then they should make the case to change them. And Ms. Ross, I point out that when the Democrats had the majority and our nation was suffering through the worst illegal mass migration in its history, the immigration subcommittee under Democratic control held not a single hearing on that crisis as it unfolded, not one. I suspect their encouragement of disobedience to the law had a large role to play in the mind of the driver and in the minds of the increasingly violent mobs that our colleagues are deliberately inciting. As Lincoln said to their predecessors, “There is no grievance is a fit object for redress by mob law.” How sad the same words need to be repeated here. Before the House Judiciary Committee that’s supposed to be dedicated to the rule of law.

Tom McClintock

354,436 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten