US Politics Thread

[Kieran]

But I have explained my theories, and I don't believe I've drawn any real conclusions.

You drew a conclusion that the agent wasn't in fear of his life. Then you drew a conclusion that he intended to shoot her. Both of these conclusions are baseless wishful thinking on your part. You're trying to frame the officer in the worst possible light, while denying what's blatantly obvious in front of you with regards to the woman who stupidly and brazenly provoked her own death.

Typically, you're following the party line, but that's never a surprise to me. She had a young child, and if she'd followed the law, she'd be alive and the kid would have a mother, still. She obviously had better things to do that day than think of the kid.

She had been ordered to get out of the car. You say this isn't a crime, but it is.a crime, if the agent has concluded that she's obstructing law enforcement.

And when she then tried to flee and hit the officer - with her car - that's a crime. Being even tapped by a car can cause a fatality, so I wish you'd stop pretending it was a frivolous thing. It led directly to her death. It might just as easily have led to his death. ICE agents could reasonably feel she was a threat to their safety once she spun her car out of control and hit one of them.

You know what I was saying. I said that he could easily have stepped back from the car, which was turning away from him. Instead, he stood his ground so he could shoot her. Many cops have said he should have stepped back.

In a split second, you expect him to draw such conclusions? "Say, why don't I just step aside and let this dame go? She's out of control, but what the heck." In the same split second, he ought to have checked her tyres to see which way they were facing, and while he's at that he can see if there's a bald tyre in there somewhere. All while he's being hit by an out of control vehicle that's trying race away without any regard for his safety.

Yeah, sure. That all makes perfect sense. But remember, had he let her go, she may have been a danger to others too, including other ICE agents. The killing was an avoidable tragedy, brought to us by a defective political mindset that suggests there can be no consequences to their actions because they're the good guys, default setting.

An alternative to this is that she respects the law, and she lets them get on with their difficult, constantly interrupted work.

And she lives.

I think they're kind of cowboys because they extend their actions well-beyond their proscribed duties. Interacting with citizens is not part of their job. They should try harder to avoid it than they do.

In case you hadn't noticed, the citizens turn into feral activists soon as there's an opportunity to cause trouble, so avoiding them is quite difficult. Barack Obama managed it, but that's because these vigilantes aren't bothered about the What of these things, as in, "What are we protesting against today", but rather it's the Who that triggers them, as in "Who can we fuck up today to cause further destabilise things further?"

The first cop told that woman to "get out of the fucking car!" and reached at her door and into her car. This is aggressive behavior and was uncalled for. The 2nd cop drew his gun. They are not allowed to shoot at people attempting to leave, merely to try to stop them. She was turning her wheel hard to the right, with the cop standing on the left, and this is recorded by HIS camera. He should have been able to see her intent. Instead, he shot her.

How do you propose they "try to stop them"? Particularly when the woman drove recklessly and hit an officer with her car? "He should have been able to see her intent?" How? He probably hoped she had sense to STFU and get out of the car. Suddenly she jerks forward, hits him and he fired. You don't know if that man intended to kill her, but she hit him with a fricking car. I discussed this above.

You pointed out for things that I said, and they weren't crimes. Tell me which ones were crimes. She did graze the cop, most likely, who was standing toward the front of her vehicle. Which he shouldn't have done, according to the retired ICE cop in a video above. She did not block anyone in. She does not have to get out of her car when subjected to such abuse, and with no reason. ICE is not supposed to do the job of local police.

This paragraph is seriously weird. I pointed out the crimes. Once they see she's obstructing their work, she has to obey them, and get out of the car - he's not politely asking her out, because he has no time for this. It's non-negotiable. She doesn't get to decide. "Such abuse, and no reason?" I think the officer was being polite at that stage. These two women had no business to be mocking officers like that. Don't you understood that there are statistics showing a 1300% increase in violent attacks on ICE agents, and a 3200% increase in attacks using vehicles. Your so-called Sanctuary Politicians are raising the temperature, including the man who would have been your VP, if Americas had been foolish enough the elect The Meme.

And yes, ICE is not the police. People need to understand that, and the sooner they do, the better: then they can become even more successful than they have been at doing their jobs...

 

[Kieran]

I do like to think he's just blustering, but his two favorite parts of his job seem to be Commander in Chief, and redecorator in Chief. I agree that damage has been done to NATO, along with several other things he's done this past year. He has no respect for our allies in Europe, and no respect for our alliances, much less an understanding of why we need to keep them strong. I don't mind that he's woken them up a bit about the need to be more independent about defending themselves. That's a good thing.

But this saber-rattling over Greenland is pointless. We can have more bases if we want them. Greenland has said so, and I'm sure Denmark would agree. I don't see how we'd be in better shape if we "owned" it. I can tell you, though, we'd probably ruin it.

There goes his Nobel Peace Prize. Though Machado has offered to give him hers. It won't make him the recipient, but he'll put it with the bling on his Oval Office mantel, anyway.

They devalued the Nobel Peace Prize when they gave it to Obama. But I agree with you, funny enough about the weirdness and inappropriateness of his mouthing off about Greenland, but I still think there's some method in his madness. Geopolitically, it would be perfect for America, in relation to any threat from Russia, and given that Trump doesn't trust NATO allies to pay their bills on time, he's right to also to be prepared for a post-NATO world. I'm not saying that's desirable, but it's practical. I wouldn't be surprised to see some horse trading with both Denmark and Greenland that's beneficial to the USA, while keeping the status of Greenland as being whatever they want it to be.

 

[Kieran]

Here are two instructional videos regarding the killing of Renee Good. The first video shows “activists” completely entrapping an ICE vehicle, which means they’ve given them reasonable cause to use ultimate force to escape this. You can’t trap law enforcement agents and expect them act politely, as per Supt. Snelling of the Chicago PD, posted above.

This is a crime, but it’s also very dangerous to the agents and the criminals:



And this new video shows Good blocking the road, waving some traffic through, and preparing to obstruct the agents who are doing their job, while she’s beeping the horn and dancing in her car.

Again, reasonable cause for the agents to suspect a trap and behave accordingly:

 

[Moxie]

A vid snuck thru to make me aware Republicans are revolting against Trump! As much as they've collectively tried to overturn the ACA since 2011, they went ahead to approve & extend funding! Such idiots! They truly are hurting themselves & their Red States more than anyone! It should be a bloodbath thru the next series of elections! They've already lost a few seats that were secure in deep conservative districts! It can only get worse, but I'm not sure it'll be enuf for the country to recover from this past year of utter insanity!

The most vulnerable Republicans are revolting against Trump, in some ways. It's good that they voted to extend the funding, which could help their own constituents. IF it passes the Senate. But at least they'll have the "cover" of having voted for it. Which may not be enough.

Trump was trying to get them to come up with their own version of a health care plan. Well, the Republicans have been complaining about ACA, aka Obamacare for almost 16 years now. They keep swearing they will "repeal and replace," but they have nothing! The fact is, it's the best we've come up with, and everyone likes it. Millions more Americans are insured than there were before ACA. It's not perfect, but it's some health care, in the face of our horrifyingly broken system, which wildly favors the insurance companies. At least some Republicans realize they'd better support it, since they have nothing else, and their constituents will ride them out on a rail if they lose it.

 

[Federberg]

I do like to think he's just blustering, but his two favorite parts of his job seem to be Commander in Chief, and redecorator in Chief. I agree that damage has been done to NATO, along with several other things he's done this past year. He has no respect for our allies in Europe, and no respect for our alliances, much less an understanding of why we need to keep them strong. I don't mind that he's woken them up a bit about the need to be more independent about defending themselves. That's a good thing.

But this saber-rattling over Greenland is pointless. We can have more bases if we want them. Greenland has said so, and I'm sure Denmark would agree. I don't see how we'd be in better shape if we "owned" it. I can tell you, though, we'd probably ruin it.

There goes his Nobel Peace Prize. Though Machado has offered to give him hers. It won't make him the recipient, but he'll put it with the bling on his Oval Office mantel, anyway.

oh he's never getting the Peace Prize. He wants it too much and stuff like Greenland and prevarications over Russia-Ukraine will stop the Swedes from ever giving it to him. I think his primary issue is legacy at this point. As a smart political watcher observed recently he's already acting like a lame duck President. Btw... did you see his WH meeting with the oil executives? What the hell was that??

 

[Federberg]

Wow!

 

[Federberg]

To get John Authers’ newsletter delivered directly to your inbox, sign up here. Powell vows to fight back against Fed prosecution. The US jo

View in browser​ ​ ​ ​

​

To get John Authers’ newsletter delivered directly to your inbox, sign up here. Today’s Points:​ Powell vows to fight back against Fed prosecution. The US jobs market is still growing (just about). That means another stock market record, and (probably) no more Fed cuts. Key for the next 11 months — Trump really wants to win the midterms. AND: More affordability anthems.

Punishing Powell​ It’s come to this. Sunday night brought news that the Federal Reserve was being served grand jury subpoenas threatening a criminal indictment, on the basis that Chairman Jerome Powell allegedly misled Congress last year in testimony on the ongoing refurbishment of the central bank’s buildings. It is a bizarre, dangerous and self-wounding approach that cannot help the US or its monetary system. The Fed’s governance isn’t simple, and its independence in its current form raises many valid issues about democratic accountability. But that doesn’t for a second justify using the Department of Justice and the law to bully the institution or a public servant who is about to leave his job in any case. Powell has made several serious errors during almost eight years in office. Leaving rates at zero throughout 2021 as inflation took hold was a policy error for the ages. But that isn’t a justification for pursuing indictment on an unrelated topic — and Powell has, for the first time after months of pressure, come out swinging. His statement Sunday night needs to be viewed in full. The key passage dismisses the refurbishment issue: Those are pretexts. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions — or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation. Powell is correct about this. He could have run monetary policy better, but the threat of prosecution as a bludgeon is not the way to get better results in the future. Trump and Powell tour the Fed’s $2.5 billion renovation project last July. Photographer: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images What makes this so bizarre is that it is unnecessary. It’s a repetition of the tactic that the Trump administration has been using in trying to fire Lisa Cook as a Fed governor, on allegations of mortgage fraud (which look very flimsy). It’s unclear that prosecuting her would succeed, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments next week on whether the president has the right to fire her, given the central bank’s independent status. If the administration wants to set a precedent that it can push the Fed about, that’s the forum to do it. There is at least some politically ruthless logic in firing Cook, as her term has a decade to run and President Donald Trump is keen to get more votes friendly to his agenda on the board. Powell leaves the chairmanship in May. He could carry on as a governor for another two years, but most assume he’ll resign. Pursuing prosecution might, if anything, make him more likely to stay around. The Fed’s regional presidencies will be renewed shortly, so the chance to remake the central bank’s governing body is gone for now. And the political optics are bad. If it can really be a criminal offense to spend too much refurbishing an historic Washington building, it might set a precedent for examining the recent demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Further, the administration last week came up with a number of measures that could help it deal with the issue of affordability without involving the central bank — see below for measures such as buying up mortgage bonds and capping credit card rates. These may or may not be good policy, but they’re far more credible, and likely far more effective, than bullying an old man as he steps out the door. Market reaction needs to incorporate both that this is a terrible idea and that it’s unlikely to succeed. To the extent that it implies an erratic White House will be trying ever harder to set monetary policy, logic suggests that it should be good for gold (which jumped to a new record in Asian trading), and bad for the dollar (which took a dip after a recent rally). Here’s what happened as of 10 p.m. EST on Sunday night: One final point for now (Points of Return will doubtless have to return to this) is that the latest data suggested there need be little urgency over pushing down interest rates… ​ ​ Employment​ Things could be much worse. As US data begins to awaken from the slumber imposed by last year’s government shutdown, the picture remains murky but still doesn’t show any great risk of an imminent recession. Friday’s download of employment data showed a very low rise (but still a rise) of 50,000 in non-farm payrolls, while the unemployment rate — which is calculated via a different survey — showed a slight decline. The labor market is slowing, but not at anything like the pace that might suggest a major downturn ahead. Added to the official data, initial claims for jobless insurance — about as good a real-time indicator of the jobs market as we have — dropped to their lowest since April 2024, while there have been fewer layoffs than at any time last year: To apply a much-watched indicator, the Sahm Rule (named for economist and Bloomberg Opinion colleague Claudia Sahm) predicts a recession if unemployment rises by more than half a percentage point within a year. It was briefly triggered in late 2024, prompting sharp interest rate cuts from the Fed. That was a false signal, and the indicator hasn’t sent such a warning again: In such circumstances, it’s hard to justify a rate cut. Fed funds futures moved to eliminate almost any chance of easier money at the Federal Open Market Committee’s meeting later this month. The chance of a cut is now only 5%. Perhaps more importantly, the chance of a cut at any of the last three meetings under Powell’s chairmanship has dipped below 50%. This is how the projected rate after his farewell meeting in April has moved since 2024. The recession scare sparked by the Sahm Rule in late 2024 is long gone: A further reason for Fed caution comes from inflation expectations, which are creeping upward. Both the New York Fed’s regular survey of consumer expectations and the rate projected by the swaps markets had dropped close to the Fed 2% target, and have now ticked up again. This isn’t cause for great alarm, but it does counsel against any more rate cuts: A dwindling chance of cheap money is usually bad news for stocks, particularly at a time when they’ve been driven by liquidity. But the S&P 500 in fact managed to surge to a fresh record by Friday’s close. That’s because the Fed begins to seem less important than fiscal policy, and the administration’s increasingly imaginative efforts to carry out monetary policy without the central bank. Earnings season starts this week amid rising optimism. Expectations for this year and next have surged over the last six months. That reflects hopes that artificial intelligence will begin to engineer a real improvement in productivity. It’s also a reflection of the anticipation of fiscal juice as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act tax cuts begin to be felt, and the administration splashes money on defense: Perhaps more significantly, the president announced Thursday that he wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance agencies still under federal control, to buy $200 billion in mortgage-backed bonds. That is basically quantitative easing, previously the purview of the Fed, aimed directly at making mortgages cheaper. It’s also a recognition that the Fed can’t control the long-term yields that drive mortgage rates using its target overnight rates. That move brought the 30-year benchmark mortgage bond yield down below 5% to its lowest since September 2024. The Fed had cut six times since then, while mortgage yields wavered higher: This administration wants lower interest rates and more affordable housing. It’s worked out that it can’t force the Fed to play along with this, and that the central bank can’t make this happen if it wants to. Now, the government has shown how willing it is to take destiny into its own hands. QE when operated by the Fed was great for share prices. There’s no reason to expect any difference when the bond-buying is being directed by the federal government. No wonder the US stock market is at another record. Politics Matter...​ The US has midterm elections in November, with history suggesting that the Republicans are highly likely to cede control of the House of Representatives (second-term incumbents almost always suffer a heavy wave against them). History also offers a sensible playbook for presidents under pressure. First, they should look for some foreign policy victories to rally the populace and distract from problems at home. Second, they should look for quick wins that can make people feel a little better off in time for the election. The last week suggests that the White House is following this strategy to the letter. If the US is keen to throw its military weight about in foreign policy, as seems clearly the case, then it follows that everyone else will feel the need to rearm. That is, of course, a Trump 2.0 policy aim. And the stock market has moved on the assumption that he’ll get what he wants. The rally in non-US defense stocks since the abduction of Nicolas Maduro has been spectacular. In dollar terms, European aerospace and defense stocks have now almost doubled since Trump’s reelection, compared to a gain of only 20.4% in the S&P 500: The administration is also throwing the kitchen sink at affordability problems at home. Beyond the intervention in the mortgage market, there is a proposal to cap credit card interest rates at 10%, and to stop private equity firms from acting as landlords (neither of which would likely be market-positive but would plainly be popular). The imperatives of reelection push Trump toward policies the market dislikes (such as clamping down on institutional landlords) and loves (a new version of QE for mortgages). Its actions also require responses elsewhere which — as has happened spectacularly for defense stocks — can be positive. Either way, these midterm elections promise to be unusually consequential for markets.

​

 

[Federberg]

 

[Federberg]

I don't disagree with this guy. Balance of risks with people who aren't trained to handle urban situations like this. You have to be careful! But let me be extremely clear, I don't believe that was a good shooting, or even a justified one. I'm just being pragmatic about the right way to handle these folks. I hear the guy was filming with his mobile phone? Seriously!!??

 

[Federberg]

Jake Tapper asked Kristi Noem a great question about if the shooting in Minneapolis was righteous, then presumably by that standard on Jan 6th the police could have opened fire on the protesters. She didn't handle that well!

 

[Fiero425]

Jake Tapper asked Kristi Noem a great question about if the shooting in Minneapolis was righteous, then presumably by that standard on Jan 6th the police could have opened fire on the protesters. She didn't handle that well!

IDK why they didn't open fire on those A-#oles on Jan. 6th! They only killed 1; a woman & former marine who tried brk'n into a congressional area!

 

[Kieran]

I remember watching Larry Elder giving similar advice that he was given by his dad: when the cops stop you, keep your hands on the wheel at 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock and do what they ask you to do. The problem here is that people like Renee Good think they know better and that they’re above the law.

Their attitude is both dangerous and despicable…

 

[Moxie]

I was all in with this guys message, in terms of content, and logical sense, until we got to the end and he went into his rant about the liberal media, and how they teach people to disrespect the police, be aggressive, etc. That seemed dissonant to me for someone who claims to be a radical since back in the day. Also, the look was wrong. (Too polished. More Jeff Goldblum than Jeff Bridges as The Dude.) But the weird thing was the "Betsy Ross" flag behind him. So I looked it up. Yes, it's a right-wing symbol.

I think the guy is an actor.

But, if we leave off the last bit, the tirade blaming the left-wing media for this, and, sort of the victim, too; and also when he says when we protest we step over the line of the law, which isn't necessarily true; the video makes some good points. I'll use my earlier phrase, (which @mrzz "stole" from me...LOL!): if you're bringing whistles to a gun fight, you best cooperate when they get aggressive. We are learning that they are willing to use those guns. Being in the right doesn't help if you're dead.

 

[Moxie]

I remember watching Larry Elder giving similar advice that he was given by his dad: when the cops stop you, keep your hands on the wheel at 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock and do what they ask you to do. The problem here is that people like Renee Good think they know better and that they’re above the law.

Their attitude is both dangerous and despicable…

I don't think it's about thinking she's above the law. I think she believed she was within her rights, and protected by the law. Here me out on this.

You mention watching Larry Elder having been told by his dad to do the 10 and 2 when you get stopped. What that means is do everything you can do to keep the cops from being afraid of you. Larry Elder is black. This is what, from what I understand, part of "the talk" that black parents have with their boys, especially. Wise.

I will tell you an incident of me being in a car with my boyfriend, years back, and his friend, who was speeding on the highway. We talked about how fast he was driving. Sure enough, we got stopped. He pulled right over, and put his hands at 10 and 2, and waited for instructions. He was a white guy, but Israeli, if that means anything. We talked about what he did, after. No one had ever taught ME to do that. Probably because I'm a white woman, middle class, and not likely to have any problems. I have been stopped for speeding, several times. While I am respectful, I have never thought about where my hands are, what I'm reaching for, or asking permission. I have never had the least problem. I've even talked myself out of tickets.

Here's the point: Some people, especially if they're middle class and white, and especially if they're women, think that the law is there to protect them, and not hurt them. That protesting is a right, and is protected speech.

Those women were being cavalier, and they were taunting those ICE agents. IMO, they felt protected by a certain privilege that they don't even recognize. Which, it turns out, didn't protect them.

I offer that as some explanation as to where they might have been coming from. As I said before, it was childish behavior. And, yes, dangerous behavior. I don't see what is despicable about it. But still, no one deserved to killed for it.

 

[Moxie]

 

[Kieran]

I don't think it's about thinking she's above the law. I think she believed she was within her rights, and protected by the law. Here me out on this.

You mention watching Larry Elder having been told by his dad to do the 10 and 2 when you get stopped. What that means is do everything you can do to keep the cops from being afraid of you. Larry Elder is black. This is what, from what I understand, part of "the talk" that black parents have with their boys, especially. Wise.

I will tell you an incident of me being in a car with my boyfriend, years back, and his friend, who was speeding on the highway. We talked about how fast he was driving. Sure enough, we got stopped. He pulled right over, and put his hands at 10 and 2, and waited for instructions. He was a white guy, but Israeli, if that means anything. We talked about what he did, after. No one had ever taught ME to do that. Probably because I'm a white woman, middle class, and not likely to have any problems. I have been stopped for speeding, several times. While I am respectful, I have never thought about where my hands are, what I'm reaching for, or asking permission. I have never had the least problem. I've even talked myself out of tickets.

Here's the point: Some people, especially if they're middle class and white, and especially if they're women, think that the law is there to protect them, and not hurt them. That protesting is a right, and is protected speech.

Those women were being cavalier, and they were taunting those ICE agents. IMO, they felt protected by a certain privilege that they don't even recognize. Which, it turns out, didn't protect them.

I offer that as some explanation as to where they might have been coming from. As I said before, it was childish behavior. And, yes, dangerous behavior. I don't see what is despicable about it. But still, no one deserved to killed for it.

Ok, hear me out.

First off, I don’t know what his being Israeli has to do with it, but anyway. But he was wise. And bear this in mind - as you know, the 10 and 2 is meant to help the officer see the driver isn’t a threat to them. Imagine how reassuring that is to an officer, in a country with so many guns.

But once she has obstructed the officers in doing their job, they were entitled to ask her to leave the car, and I’m sure your wonderful boyfriend would have done so, if asked.

She was the opposite to compliant. But also your description of your “White Privilege” isn’t applicable here. It is an assumption on your part that police are racist, which is unfortunately a problematic which the left wing have created.

Secondly, they weren’t protesting, they were obstructing. They were blocking the road. You can see that clearly from the last video I posted.

Thirdly, you say she felt “protected by the law”, and yet she was breaking that same law, by trying to stop ICE from doing their job. I would give you an opposing theory: she felt contempt for both the law and the law enforcement agents, whose job has become more dangerous over the last year, as I’ve shown through state figures, and both these women thought it would be nice and jolly to go wind them up, just as others have done when they surround and trap ICE agents.

The cars that are blocking law enforcement officers, it is reasonable to assume that they are a threat. Your country is violent, and violently opposed to police, when it suits.

The cop - I believe - fired out of fear and frustration. Should he done better? Other cops might have, but the fact of the matter is, you cannot decide as a citizen that the law enforcement agents will be able to shrug off every illegal activity with a grin, especially when it comes to hitting them with a deadly weapon.

Which she did.

If she’d followed the law, she would still be alive, her child would still have a mother, and that poor man wouldn’t have had to go through that hellish moment.

Bear this in mind: you have made assumptions all along that are based on the suggestion that she wasn’t doing anything wrong, she wasn’t obstructing them. That he wasn’t afraid. That her hitting him with a car wasn’t important, it was only a tap. You have to accept at some level that this framing of it is not accurate, and that she was obstructing them, as well as, as you say, “behaving childishly” and that she was complicit in the outcome. Your side of the aisle have serious issues with law and order - including expecting too much from them in the most drastic and extreme conditions - and that’s a problem for your poorly appreciated law enforcement officers.

Your last words:

it was childish behavior. And, yes, dangerous behavior. I don't see what is despicable about it. But still, no one deserved to killed for it.

I’m glad you accept it was dangerous behaviour - you might also accept that the officer didn’t deserve that, either…

 

[Federberg]

View attachment 10399

this is the key thing that my friends who seem to be defending the ICE agents seem to be missing. The first shot you can claim... maybe(?)... is self defence. But the next two? Nope.. sorry.. no!

My thing is... don't be getting in their way in the first place. Not if you want to live. You don't pet a rabid dog

 

[Kieran]

this is the key thing that my friends who seem to be defending the ICE agents seem to be missing. The first shot you can claim... maybe(?)... is self defence. But the next two? Nope.. sorry.. no!

My thing is... don't be getting in their way in the first place. Not if you want to live. You don't pet a rabid dog

He was hit by a deadly weapon. Had she gotten away she might have hit other officers too, or members of the public.

It’s easy to second guess these things but in real time?

 

[Federberg]

He was hit by a deadly weapon. Had she gotten away she might have hit other officers too, or members of the public.

It’s easy to second guess these things but in real time?

I think that's a very generous interpretation of what we all saw. She was turning away from him and the other officers. It's not clear to me how that could have been identified as a threat. But we'll agree to disagree on this one

 

[Kieran]

I think that's a very generous interpretation of what we all saw. She was turning away from him and the other officers. It's not clear to me how that could have been identified as a threat. But we'll agree to disagree on this one

Well for the officer, whatever direction she was fleeing from the crime, she hit him. Hitting him with the car cannot be interpreted favourably on her part. After this, she might have been a threat to anyone on that street. How could her know differently? She held the agents in contempt.

But I agree with you totally, this one is going to run and run, and it’s hard to get my friends on the left even to agree that hitting him with the car was a bad thing..