False narrative here. Watch the full length videos. This does not show what happened leading up to the issue. This lady was protesting ICE and physically driving her car into police officers. She refused multiple police orders, then attempted to murder a police officer with her car. She was justifiably shot in self defense.
Shooting the driver of a car that's driving at you is not self defense. Cars don't instantly stop if the driver is incapacitated. You'll likely make the situation even worse because the incapacitated driver's foot will press the accelerator down (exactly what happened here). If your actual intent is to defend yourself the only move that makes any sense is to get out of the way.
There is a zoomed in and slowed down video circulating that shows after the driver was told to exit the vehicle that they reversed the vehicle first and then placed the car into drive (when the LEO was directly in front of her car). The driver hit the accelerator hard enough that the tires spun before they finally gained traction and moved the vehicle forward towards the officer. The velocity in which the vehicle began moving before the shots were fired and ultimately slammed into the other vehicles seems to show that the accelerator was not gently pressed by the driver.
Did she panic? Was she given conflicting commands? That is unknown, but the actions of the vehicle itself are consistent with the driver pressing the accelerator to quickly move the vehicle forward when the LEO was directly in front of it.
The circumstances of the overall situation and the position of the vehicle before it was confronted and moved are consistent with someone attempting to block traffic on that street with their vehicle. The actions of the driver are consistent with someone attempting to evade.
If you watch the close up video from the 7 o’clock angle, you can clearly see that the tires don’t spin out by looking at the speed of the rims. Furthermore, imagine yourself in a situation where an aggressive, masked, armored, and armed person is trying to pull your door open while screaming in your face. You’re in full fight or flight mode, tunnel vision, scared, and confused. At this same time, unbeknownst to the driver, another agent had circled around counterclockwise behind the rear of the vehicle, up the right side in the vehicle’s blind spot, and across the front of the vehicle. Driver is still focused on the other ICE agent trying to yank her door open. Driver decides on the flight option, as obviously fight would be insane, and tries to leave the scene. Driver clearly turns to the right, trying to AVOID the agent that had crept around to the front while her back was turned. The driver isn’t a person with a violent criminal past and felony warrant. There is absolutely no reason for this level of aggression, corralling tactics, or escalation of force. This is not an appropriate way for law enforcement to interact with civilians in any sane society. The shooter immediately draws his weapon at the first sign of vehicle movement, while also placing his body at a 45° angle to the front corner of the vehicle. As the driver attempts to turn away at a relatively slow speed, the shooter brings weapon up, pushing shooting stance forward into the vehicle, even though he has an easy step away from the vehicles path. Even if he did get bumped by the vehicle, by the time the first shot is fired, he’s already positioned to the side of front quarter panel, out of the vehicles path (you can clearly see this not only in the video, but also in photos of the angle and placement of the bullet hole in the windshield). The threat of serious bodily injury or death is literally already passed, yet the shooter fires two more rounds point blank through the driver’s side window. It is after these final two rounds are fired that the vehicle actually accelerates. I speculate that the driver was likely already dead or incapacitated at this point, and lack of motor control caused weight of their leg to push into accelerator. It doesn’t matter if this person was protesting ICE, or blocking traffic. This is not justified self defense (the threat of death or serious bodily injury had already passed), there was no threat to anyone else, and this is not an appropriate way for law enforcement to interact with general civilian population. At a minimum this is a reckless disregard for public safety, manslaughter, and lack of professional discipline.
I'd add that since, as ICE claims, Ms. Good had already been non-violently interacting with them, they had the opportunity to note the license plate and, if they felt criminal charges for obstructing their operations were appropriate, they could just go to her (nearby) house and arrest her later.
There was absolutely no reason for the attempt to pull her out of her car, and even less for escalation to use deadly force and, IIUC, DOJ guidelines and DHS policies[1] back that up.
This was an execution, not a law enforcement officer "defending" himself. That the decision was made in the heat of the moment doesn't make it any less an execution.
What's more, shooting peaceful protestors (cf. First Amendment[0]) is illegal on its face:
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.*"
Well... it was said for a long time that Trump could execute someone on broadway and nobody would bat an eye, in fact that they would defend him. This effectively is precisely that, there is ample evidence that this was a cold blooded execution and yet there are plenty of people that are defending it. It's going to be a very interesting job for historians to look at this era to try to figure out how we collectively managed to go this far off the rails. We have no excuse either, the Germans at least could claim they didn't know (even if plenty of them did, it must have been true for some of them). For everybody with an internet connection that is not true.
Edit: this was a reddit link, but the post was deleted. If you zoom in and slowly scrub the video in the google drive you'll see the same thing though.
Clearly shows that, at the moment the officer fires, he is not in front of the vehicle at all. He actually moves FURTHER toward the vehicle and leans over the hood in order to get a better shot. The angle Trump tweeted of course makes it seem like she rammed him, but this is the better angle to see the timing. She reverses and cuts it hard right, and he has to lean TOWARD her vehicle.
- Officer at driver side window, reaches into vehicle while simultaneously trying to open the door (I cannot fathom why an officer would be reaching in the vehicle and attempting to open the door if he was giving the driver an order to move the vehicle, but perhaps there would be a reason for this). At this time the vehicle is moving backward, its tires turned to the left shifting the front of the vehicle to the right. The shooting officer comes into view but appears to be stationary. (This suggests that he was probably on the front right of the vehicle before the vehicle reversed). The reversing movement of the vehicle orients its front end to line up with him in front of the vehicle.
- Shooting officer is in front of the car just left of center of the hood when vehicle starts moving forward
- Vehicle tires spin before gaining traction and they are facing forward. The officer is directly in front of the vehicle at this moment
- Vehicle tires are straight towards the officer until after he unholsters his firearm, only at that point does the vehicle wheels start turning towards the right. Also at this point the vehicle begins moving towards the right and the officer begins moving towards his right (to avoid being hit).
- Officer is still at the front left corner of the vehicle when shooting but nearly clear. He is at an angle where it is possible for him to shoot through the windshield at the driver, his body dodges further to the right as he is firing his weapon. Additional shot appears to have been fired after he was cleared of the immediate danger.
The ex-FBI agent and police officer I've seen online said you don't stand in front of vehicle, and you don't execute someone for trying to leave the scene. When she backed up she was already turning to get parallel with the road when she went forward. The onlookers who were interviewed thought it was unjustified.
The administration told several lies. First that an officer was in the hospital because they were run over and fired in self defense. Then they said ICE was stuck in the snow and the woman was an agitator who weaponized her vehicle to go after them. Neither of these are true. This has often been the case with ICE incidents.
You do not back up if you plan to run someone over. You go forward right through them.
The person in front of her vehicle moved himself there, as she was backing up, in violation of training/procedure. Qualified immunity doesn't protect you if you aren't actually doing your job, and your job is to follow training/procedure.
Edit because throttled: They are trained/procedure dictates that they do not stand in front of vehicles. He had plenty of time as she backed up to get into proper/safe/required position. The officer is the professional in this situation and it is them who are obligated to follow required procedure, not the random mom (with a glove box full of her kids stuffed animals) that turned down the wrong street when an ICE action was taking place who is being yelled at to both move her car and get out of her car by armed agents who approached her vehicle.
You will have also see how she was waving cars past, she was not obstructing/blocking, the officer that shot her is whose car was blocking traffic, including her.
In addition, ICE is on video driving much more aggressively into civilians in front of/next to them. Are you saying that the ICE officers should be charged with attempted murder for that driving? That civilians would be justified in firing rounds into ICE vehicles in self defense in those situations and should not face criminal consequences were they to start responding as ICE did here?
In the video they shout contradictory directions for her to move move move and also shout for her to get out of the vehicle.
Doesn't look like that at all to me. He wasn't hit, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to stay standing whilst shooting her in the head multiple times. Shooting her in the head made no sense anyway because of course once you're dead you just accelerate. Nothing about what he did made any sense nor was appropriate. She was clearly just trying to escape.
Lon Horiuchi was charged with sniping an innocent woman holding a baby but I'll admit he wasn't convicted.
So it's totally possible the murderer gets locked up for a few years while facing trial and then released. Which would be at least a couple years sentence since murder trials take 1-2 years to prepare and you get basically no compensation for time spent imprisoned awaiting trial.
Again, “murder” is charge that requires conviction. People keep using it here when its not appropriate to do so. I realize they are caught up in the emotion and not viewing things pragmatically. I am trying to provide a window to let people see that this is probably not black and white.
I am not claiming that this officer did not cause the death of this woman. I am suggesting that because of LEOs having qualified immunity, this being a situation that happened very quickly, and that there are real questions about how this happened and why, that there is a high legal bar to overcome when analyzing it.
It’s going to be legally murky and that alone will make it very difficult to waive the immunity.
It is absolutely murder, and hair-splitting on definitions is famously the first line of defense of people who are 100% guilty and they know it.
Your claim about murder is bad and wrong on the same level as "I did not have sexual relations with 'that woman'." Stop language policing people and actually think about what has happened. This was an extrajudicial killing of a US Citizen by the US Government. That should scare anyone, but instead you're in all of the comments trying to split hairs about "how things would play out in a court of law." No one cares how things would play out in court, because no one trusts the US legal system to carry out justice. So it doesn't matter.
What matters is that this is murder and the US Justice system is about to start doing cartwheels to try and defend a system that is so clearly backwards and corrupt because the current POTUS administration has given up on "law and order" in favor of a grab for absolute power.
No, you do not get to tone police the word "murder" from everyone rightfully outraged with an above-it-all appeal to "impartial" but narrow legal definitions. We all know the legal system has been thoroughly corrupted, and there is the good chance this murderer will not actually be criminally charged and convicted of any types of legally-defined murder. This does not matter - in the eyes of We The People this is fucking Murder.
And the emotion here most certainly matters - this is an American mother, being gunned down in broad daylight, by chickenshit masked gangs who don't have an ounce of respect for the citizens of this country they're claiming to serve. And then an administration and its state media mouthpieces, instead of taking a moment to step back and reevaluate and try to prevent this from happening again, doubles down on nonsense narratives about how this American mother deserved to be summarily executed - full-throated support for the murderer. Anybody with half a brain that isn't caught in an info bubble of reactionary propaganda should be fucking angry.
> will not actually be criminally charged and convicted of any types of legally-defined murder.
Yes, that is my point. What you consider a corrupt legal system, I call one that tries to protect people who are accused of a crime until they are proven guilty. It’s not “guilty until proven innocent”…its the other way around.
> This does not matter - in the eyes of We The People this is fucking Murder. And the emotion here most certainly matters
Well, I guess the mob has spoken then and that is what is important—not law, not civility, only anger and anarchy. Good luck with that world you want to create, one day that lawless mob will come for you. Maybe you were deserve their brand of justice, or maybe not.
The general point is that there is a wider definition of "murder" than merely what the legal system has defined and proven. It's perfectly sensible to call someone a "murderer" before it has been diligently proven in a court of law. Especially when there are multiple videos of that person executing an American mother, and the restraint to not go after singled-out named people is already being exercised implicitly, as the murderer was wearing a mask.
But really, "lawless mob" and "anarchy" ? The larger push is that people's widespread outrage is needed to drive strong action by our institutions that still remain mostly intact (eg state governments) to get these masked terror squads out of our cities. These masked terror squads are precisely your "lawless mob" engaging in anarcho-tyranny, emboldened and legitimized by a con artist (now "president") who promised them contradictory-everything, but really just naked autocratic power red in tooth and claw.
We need to stop both-sidesing this, period. I get it - I'm a libertarian who was both-sidesing up through June of 2020. But really, stop. Pretending to somehow be above this just undermines support for taking action to defend our country.
Here is the reality, The actions Trump is taking regarding immigration enforcement are definitely consistent with the platform he ran on. None of this should be a shock to anyone. It’s not like Trump was an “unknown quantity”. Trump was still elected despite every thing we knew about him, how he managed the country, and what he wanted to do. I did not vote for him (not ever). I suspect many folks here did not vote for him, but plenty of people did vote for him, more than enough to get him elected and for congress to stay GOP controlled.
Our political system worked exactly as designed, the person and party that America wanted is running the country. The checks and balances are still in place too. It’s just that those checks and balances are largely in agreement with Trump at this time. America wanted and deserves exactly what it has right now.
Our overall republic is also working as designed, our states via our elected representatives have made immigration a federal issue. If states want that control given back, then it needs to be taken back in the same way it was given—via Congress. That’s how this shit works. We know from history what happens when states decide to take a different approach. Frankly, that is uglier and more dangerous than what we have now.
The nice thing is, we also have a chance to upend congress a bit this year. If America decides to do that, good for it. If it doesn’t, then you know where its mood still is. The good thing is he is definitely gone in 2028. At that point America again will give us clues to where its mood is by who it chooses to elect into leadership.
First, this has very little to do with any sort of mandate for immigration enforcement. Immigration is being used as a pretext to deploy revanchist terror squads that are attacking all of civil society, as we've seen with the murder of this American citizen mother. And yes, people should have seen this coming when they voted for him. But this is not what he openly campaigned on at all.
Second, winning an election does not imply a mandate to ignore the Constitution and act as a dictator. Nor does Congress and the Supreme Court abdicating their Constitutional duties in favor of enabling an autocrat running roughshod over our Constitutional rights with impunity mean that the Constitution is being followed "as designed".
But lastly, and this is really the only point I am asking you to agree with - if you think the only way we can put a firm stop to this is wait to Congressionally check the fascists in November, then surely you can agree that labeling this regime as unrepentant murderers of American mothers is a good way of building broad opposition from people who might otherwise think it doesn't concern them, yes?
> Then surely you can agree that labeling this regime as unrepentant murderers of American mothers is a good way of building broad opposition from people who might otherwise think it doesn't concern them, yes?
No. In fact I think jumping to conclusions, exaggerating, trying to use a tragedy to your advantage, obfuscation, and outright lying to try and manipulate public sentiment is perhaps the WORST way to try and move that needle.
Because what happens is what is happening now, more and more information trickles out and when that some of that info runs contrary to your narrative, people realize you have been trying to manipulate them and you lose your credibility. It creates reasonable doubt to all accounts about the situation and people simply reject it as evidence of anything.
We have seen first hand what the “don’t trust your lying eyes” approach has achieved…it’s achieved a second Trump administration.
Someone was murdered with plenty of video footage, it's reasonable to form some preliminary conclusions.
As you're appealing to a general concept of restraint, I presume you have much harsher criticism for the administration, which immediately dropped into pushing bald faced lies [0] and rejecting responsibility for the situation rather than taking even a moment to assess? Would you care to share that criticism here?
The flip side of this refrain of "don't trust your lying eyes" is outright lying by this administration "supported" by narrow video clips that don't tell the whole story. Like a clip of "stop" and the victim trying to drive away is pretty convincing, if you're not shown the other clip where another violent attacker was yelling "move move move".
[0] The basic known facts here are that ICE electively confronted and escalated a situation with an American citizen, did not follow their own mandate or rules of engagement, the woman was shot repeatedly, and then a nearby doctor tried to render emergency aid and was prevented from doing so, correct?
There is no more need for me to comment on this any further save this: As I predicted, additional footage is now emerging that is showing her actions well prior to the shooting, people coming out who knew her and are describing her connections to activism and affiliations to the media and investigators, and the very words of the woman’s partner as to what they were doing right after the incident on site were recorded. All of this will ultimately contribute into the overall legal analysis into this incident.
Edit:
Also, the ICE agent who shot her POV video in realtime of the incident has just been released and it includes the interaction with the the driver and what appears to be the driver’s partner.
Would you care to point at anything specific in these actions that show either one of them physically impeding or otherwise violently aggressing on ICE?
> people coming out who knew her and are describing her connections to activism and affiliations
... because what I'm seeing is a lot of handwaving and innueno.
> the very words of the woman’s partner as to what they were doing
Once again, care to quote anything specific?
I've always been one to go to primary sources, but I haven't seen the need to give this regime the benefit of the doubt since I combed through all those fake legal claims that Trump filed to support his "stolen election" hoax. I guess I'm going to have to break down and just watch this woman be executed over and over to see for myself. But I'd also think if there were facts here that demonstrated she was the initial physical aggressor (as opposed to inconveniently engaging in Constitutionally-protected observation, filming, and heckling), they could be stated quite plainly!
> I guess I'm going to have to break down and just watch this woman be executed over and over to see for myself.
Just like a jury will have to do should this come to trial. The act of judging someone for a crime often means you have to see all the evidence in detail even when it’s disturbing and difficult.
Sorry for continuing to make the judgement that I'd rather spend several more hours of quality time with my son than using that time to come down from the stress of seeing a woman be assaulted and executed again and again from many different angles. I guess I'm just not cut out to be "MAGA" material.
But I do have jury duty a few months from now, and if it requires me to do a similar thing then I will rise to the challenge for my civic duty. I have become quite conservative - supporting our remaining institutions of law and order is especially important in these days of rampant criminality by all three branches of the federal government.
If you want to make your case here, I have asked you two straightforward questions that you have so far thus avoided:
1. Would you care to describe anything specific shown by these videos where either Renee or her wife physically impede or otherwise violently aggress on ICE? (before their escalation into a high-stakes assault on her vehicle. also keep in mind this would be the beginning of forming a logical argument and that the principle of equity between those actions and the response still applies)
2. As you've been appealing to a general concept of restraining judgement, I presume you have much harsher criticism for the administration - as supposed leadership for the country, they immediately dropped into pushing bald faced lies and rejecting all responsibility rather than taking even a moment to examine, reflect, and work to prevent further tragedies regardless of fault. Would you care to share your own criticism here?
I think there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE. The driver ignored direct orders to exit the vehicle and chose to flee instead. Her act of fleeing created a dangerous situation where a law enforcement officer had to make a split second decision and still was physically struck by the vehicle. I think it’s up to investigators, prosecutors, judge, and jury to decide if action against the agent is appropriate understanding all of the evidence surrounding the incident. We have had the benefit of days of analysis with slowed down video from multiple vantage points. That officer had 2 seconds mere moments after being directly antagonized by one of the people from the vehicle.
The inconvenient truth here is that the constitution EXPECTS the executive branch to enforce the laws that congress passes. ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner many years ago. If we the people don’t like a law, we the people should undo it the way we originally “did” it…via congress.
I have never voted for Trump. I don’t like many of the things he does and says. I can be critical of the Trump messaging and rhetoric (including around this situation, which like the outraged—-is filled with excessive emotion and a rush to judgement). At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy.
> there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE
You are still handwaving while not pointing to specific evidence. Please tell me exactly what they did that physically interfered with or physically antagonized ICE? Does one of the videos show one of them straight up physically attacking an ICE agent, and it's just obvious or something?
Alternatively if the claim is that they had planned to physically interfere with ICE but never got the chance, then presumably there is the evidence of whatever physical items they had that look like part of a plan to interfere with ICE.
Because it feels like the continued lack of specifics in favor of handwaving and innuendo is an attempt to use protected first amendment activity - criticizing of government agents including heckling - into what seems like a cause of action for people who do not like the protected first amendment message. I keep asking because I know I could easily be wrong here, but I still have yet to see anything claiming any sort of physical attack or physical obstruction that would give credence to claims of obstruction that allegedly precipitated the assault on the car.
> ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner
As a high level goal, I'm mostly ambivalent about these! Maybe even slightly pro as I've come around to seeing the virtues in legibility, especially if there would be common law equitable judgement applied to situations created by the situation festering so long (cf adverse possession).
But a need to enforce immigration (or any other) law has absolutely zero bearing on whether citizens are allowed to criticize the agents for doing so. It also has absolutely zero bearing on justifying an escalation of what seems to be at most a minor physical skirmish into a summary execution by ignoring common sense rules of engagement (don't step in front of a car that is about to move) codified in the agents' own written procedures.
My problem is entirely with the methods by which it is being achieved - pointlessly cruel, inhumane, procedurally unconstitutional (as we're discussing), secretive and hidden instead of openly documented, directly contrary to the law for people that are here legally, denial of due process exacerbating the previous issues, etc. The cruelty deviates so far from the norms of free society, and is so completely unnecessary, that it informs my seeing this whole current call of enforcing immigration laws as a mere pretext for something much more dark and sinister.
Take a detour here - why hadn't immigration laws been fully enforced for the past two decades? My understanding is that the primary driver was businesses interests that rely on manual labor - they saw it was lucrative to kill the bargaining power of American labor by using undocumented workers with very little bargaining power or recourse. What really is the chance that those business interests have been finally made to take a back seat, versus those business interests now being content that labor's economic power has been fully smashed and this change is merely the next step in subjugating the common American? Most especially with the figurehead leading the charge being a business owner highly reliant on cheap undocumented labor in the industries of real estate development, hotels, golf courses?
> At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy.
If we're talking about lofty goals like the rule of law, then why are you not as concerned about the laws regarding freedom of speech or deprivation of life [, liberty, or property] contained in our country's very charter? Because what I see here is the creation of anarcho-tyranny - an unconstrained gang of masked thugs doing effectively whatever they feel like, enabled by a federal government that has stopped even attempting to enforce its own laws that would otherwise restrain them for the sake of our natural rights and liberties.
(I will also say, your criticism of Trump's statements there is quite tame given how aggressively dismissive those statements are from someone who is supposed to be leading the country rather than dividing it)
This conversation is not productive. This woman’s death was not about free speech and it’s not about Trump. It’s about decisions and actions that she made and the agent made in their interaction. There will be legal accountability performed by people who will see all of the available evidence, understand all of the policies, procedures, and legalities that govern something like this and will make judgments. Those people are not me and likely not you.
'The mob at the Boston Massacre were the ones in the wrong, good luck with your ungovernable new country'.
Fuck that un-American bullshit. The Redcoats that murdered those people in Boston way back when is what led to a free America because the MURDERERS were in the wrong. Learn some fucking American history/civics.
You want to abuse civility/civilization/rule of law into protection for the government extra-judicially murdering Americans in the street. Nah, fuck that. We got it right in Boston. Your deferring to authoritarianism because 'rule of law' is bullshit and anti a free people/nation/government of/for the people.
'The Redcoats were never prosecuted for the events in Boston. We can't refer to it as the Boston Massacre. Why are you even upset? The people in Boston FAFO and this is what happens'.
Can you point to me the part where she was interfering with their enforcement and duties? Because she was literally letting them pass, they chose to get out of their car and make her their problem. If you believe 'enforcing valid laws' means deliberately antagonizing people so that you can shoot them then you're already far gone. You just believe the law is a post-hoc rationalization for murder by the state.
> Can you point to me the part where she was interfering with their enforcement and duties?
So is it perfectly normal for a civilian vehicle to just be blocking a street at a 90 degree angle during an active ICE operation where there are other protestors present?
“Deliberately antagonizing” might be an explanation, perhaps “unintentional but poorly timed three point turn” is another. Either way, it’s interfering with the operation.
> You just believe the law is a post-hoc rationalization for murder by the state
No, I believe that Pierson v. Ray allows law enforcement the ability to be shielded from certain laws if the legality of the action is unclear or if it’s a reasonable human response within the circumstances. I don’t agree with it (as I said and you of course ignored). However that’s the law and it was an 8-1 SCOTUS decision…so it’s unlikely to change.
Your position is stopping (when an ice vehicle is blocking the road) is impeding their work and abnormal and that driving through is attempted murder. WTF is wrong with you? Heads you go to prison, tails you die. WTF?
The person who murdered her's unmarked vehicle was blocking the road so she stopped before going into the oncoming lane.
If you drive down a random street and there is a random truck in the middle, and lots of government officers, would you stop, or just drive through them without assessing the situation? Should you be killed if, in that situation, you stop instead of what, ramming through the truck blocking the road?
If a cop car is blocking the road, and there are cops standing around, should I just swerve around the cop car without slowing down, stopping to make sure it's safe to pass? If I stop to assess if I should pass in the oncoming lane, should I be murdered? Arresting for impeding the cop?
The MAGA world in a nutshell: they will find a way to justify anything at all, including murder at point blank range because the alternative would require them to admit fractional responsibility for the outcome and that's the one thing they really can not do.
I don't think you're just describing it, you're making it fit your narrative. There is no way she was trying to ram that officer, everyone knows it. He had walked in front of the car as she was reversing - why? He could at any point have stepped to the side and just let her escape, and if she'd done something wrong, the normal thing happens, she gets arrested, prosecuted if guilty and sentenced accordingly.
Instead, he chose to draw his weapon and kill her.
What the fuck is wrong with people defending this?
She was literally just driving down the street where there was an ice operation. The government employee that murdered her had the road blocked with his vehicle. She had to stop or drive into the oncoming lane. Traffic rules and basic safety state you stop, then proceed if safe into the oncoming lane. She waves a car to go in front of her to go before she does. She was then shouted at by agents that APPROACHED HER VEHICLE shouting 'move move move'. She then moved and was murdered.
That is what 'If you want to avoid the tragedies, avoid the situations where they can arise' refers to. Driving down a street in America. Driving down a fucking street in America deserves death in your book. Check yourself bro. You are lost as fuck.
Bro, you aren't anti qualified immunity, you are totally cool with it. You are cool with this mother being murdered, and her daughter left an orphan tonight, because she did what she was shouted at by the officers to do, which was 'move move move'.
You are OK with it today, because it is in alignment with your politics. Yesterday the right said J6 was a peaceful march, today a mom following basic traffic safety and the 'move move move' command yelled by government employees at her deserves being murdered because she 'move move move'd.'
> Bro, you aren't anti qualified immunity, you are totally cool with it.
> You are cool with this mother being murdered, and her daughter left an orphan tonight,
Nope, quite the opposite, I’m just not caught up in the heat of the moment they way you are.
When this is evaluated legally your emotion will not be taken into account. I specifically left emotion out of my observation and kept my observation as coldly specific as possible because that is how this will play out legally. Unless something changes drastically, no criminal legal ramifications will come of this.
> You are OK with it today, because it is in alignment with your politics
Nope again. My politics run across a spectrum and don’t directly align with any party. Recently I think the democrats have descended into utter lunacy, but GOP candidates almost never get my vote. In fact, in the last 15 years only a single GOP politician has gotten my vote and only because I knew his opponent personally and specifically voted against him.
You should probably not have stopped reading after “my vote”. You could have read further to the point where I described only voting GOP candidate once in the last 15 years…and only then because I was voting against his opponent who I knew personally, and because of that I knew they were corrupt. Perhaps I should have voted for the crook so I passed your acid test of democratic purity?
Your logic would defend the Boston massacre that started our country. Your default reaction is to be un-American.
Bro you shit posted FAFO to a 37 year old mom being murdered because she turned down a street that ice randomly had an unmarked car parked in the middle of. You aren't rational. You aren't middle of the road. You literally smuggly posted FAFO as your response to a mom with her call full of her childs stuffies, because she drove down the wrong street and ended up blocked by an unmarked car. That isn't normal, that isn't American. Like I said, check yourself, because you are lost. I left California for a red red state because I was middle. I know what 'middle' means. Middle means default being against arbitrary federal government use of force, especially when lethal. You can lie to yourself that you are middle. Don't lie to me, thanks.
Your totally rational position:
If ICE blocks the road with an unmarked car like in this case, if you stop, you are interfering with their activities.
If you don't stop, you are a threat to their life and they can kill you.
Normal people get emotional when that becomes the new normal from their government. Not post FAFO. And you never address anything contradictory to your position. You are purely posting talking points. You aren't middle of the road. You are all in on this. You own it as much as any MAGA bro.
ARMED GOVERNMENT AGENTS YELLED AT HER TO MOVE MOVE MOVE. THE AGENT IN QUESTION VIOLATED HIS TRAINING AND PROCEDURE. THE AGENT IN QUESTION STEPPED UP IN NO FEAR FOR HIS LIFE WHEN SHE WAS BACKING UP, HE DID NOT MOVE AWAY LIKE SOMEONE IN FEAR WOULD. SHE WAS A RANDOM MOM THAT DROVE DOWN THE WRONG STREET. You are a crappy American trying to justify/normalize this. You are a crappy American saying FAFO is valid procedure for law enforcement in the USA. You are allowing our country to devolve into something awful. You are cool with that. You are NOT middle of the road.
The government/cops can defend their actions without you. The middle position, and our job as Americans, is to hold our government accountable. Not justify a government where a mom can be murdered because she drove down the wrong street. You are lost. I was a libertarian dumb ass once, but I checked myself and realized I wasn't being honest. I wasn't being a good person nor American, I was being a political animal for shallow, unevenly applied weak/shallow political theory.
Just because people are demanding outrage doesn’t mean I have to shut off my brain and go along with it. Perhaps that is the way you want to operate, and good for you—you do you—but I don’t let my emotions overwhelm me about things like this.
You and others are essentially demanding that I believe a crafted narrative here and get all pissed off about it. It’s not a narrative that appears to supported by all of the confirmed information right now (and newsflash, I am not buying every detail the government is peddling either). I have seen a few comments on here purporting some “facts” that now appear to be in contradiction to some witness statements (non-ice/government and are protestors) on video that have even come out today.
That is the problem with crafting a narrative…sometimes information comes out and gets in the way of the story you want to tell. Lots of things being claimed in this crafted narrative (both yours and the governments) are easily proven or disproven and I am sure will be before this issue reaches a conclusion.
Bear in mind what I initially did here was posted was an assessment of what I observed in a video and how what was present within that video will likely make it difficult to get that agent’s qualified immunity waived and explained why. I have also responded to others who are suggesting violence as a response, countering that using your vote to change is the better way to go. You have probably seen me comment that when valid laws are being enforced, that interference with that enforcement can create problems for those doing the interference. You have seen me comment that we are where we are because America voted how it voted.
I stand by all of that no matter what the eventual conclusion of this event turns out to be.
> then attempted to murder a police officer with her car.
This is just false information. He was off to the left of her hood, and her wheels were hard to the right. He wasn't in front of her vehicle, she wasn't driving towards him, and she wasn't trying to murder anyone.
Maybe pg should come back to this board, and make HN his primary venue. Does he really like getting backscatter from all the bots and botlike humans on xitter? He could still syndicate there.
Meanwhile, HN certainly could stand to use an opinionated benevolent dictator (or at least tone-setter), not mere "both sides" moderation (as heroic as it has been). With such an anchor we might be able to constructively discuss these problems without getting derailed by the handful of reactionary flamebaiters.
The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.
It is unfortunately very true. For about 20 years I moderated a very large forum. We tried so hard to be even handed it was somewhat comical, and then one day I decided to just clean house. Things improved remarkably after that but there were always new people willing to see how far they could bend the rules. It's interesting how you get these new accounts on HN that immediately start lawyering with the rule book in hand. There is no way that that is organic.
Dan & Tom are so incredibly restrained, I'd be much more of a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later type because the longer such behavior goes on the more people will believe it is acceptable.
You all tried this narrative last time Ice shot someone up already. And the charges were dropped because it's a bullshit made up PR narrative to provide cover until time has passed.
Dude seriously, watch the video in slow motion and make a sane judgement.
There's no reason at all they should've done that. She wasn't even running over him or pointing a gun or anything. If they wanted to catch her they could've done it.
Did you read this link? This was what a Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News today, about this specific incident. Are you stating DHS who overseas ICE conducted a murder so they could spin far left talking points?
Keep justifying the murder of a 37 year old mom of a now orphaned child because it threatens your political position.
That's not why they are justifying it: they are justifying it because if they accept it they have to accept fractional responsibility for outcomes such as these and MAGA does not want anything to do with the negative fall out of their own actions.
From what I've observed solipsistic entitlement blaming everyone else while performing zero self-reflection is a core tenet of "MAGA". It's why boomers are attracted to it like flies to a rotting animal - they were promised everything for buying into the system and had the good life for "working hard", so if someone cannot repeat their "success" (nb. everything bubble) then it must be that person's own fault.
jacquesm is a longstanding member of this community with serious technical chops. He has fabricated his own fucking windmill, among many other awe-inducing projects.
I am an American, and I generally find his political judgements to be spot on, or if I disagree then at the very least enlightening. Frankly given the abjectly moronic siren song narratives too many of my "fellow countrymen" have fallen for, we could use more outside context from allied countries of the western world to steer us through these dark times. Remember when our friends the French tried to stop us from making that horrible Iraq War mistake and the thanks they got was "freedom fries" ?
Meanwhile, you seem to be some kind of fascist-cheerleader who relishes in trolling. All over this thread, you've spared no opportunity to rally support for agents of the state executing an American citizen and mother. I would tell you to get the fuck out of my country, whose values of individual liberty and limited government you clearly have no understanding or appreciation of, before Lady Liberty sticks her torch up your ass. But really you're just sick with social media psychosis, and you need help.
(if you want a breadcrumb you might be able to follow to start to get out, you've said you can see the "media manipulation" by "the left". perhaps you could look for the same type of manipulation by "the right", and then ask yourself who has the power right now)
> BTW - I come to hacker news to learn about entrepreneurs, programming, etc... not to argue politics. Let's go back to what this forum is for.
Most of your recent submissions and comments are political. I invite you to go back to posting about entrepreneurs, programming, and etc. if that’s what you’d rather be doing.
You just personally attacked jacquesm for not being an American, and then have the gall to complain about personal attacks? Yet another example of reactionary hypocrisy.
From what I (and apparently many others) have seen is that there is no merit to your assertions about what factually happened. It seems as if you're simply repeating what you've heard from the regime, government news sources (eg Fox), or some other bald-faced liars. I'm not saying you yourself are deliberately lying, rather you're caught in a filter bubble so strong it's causing you to rally around the killers of a fellow American citizen.
Sorry, but you're simply not a libertarian. An actual libertarian believes in individual liberty front and center - in this case the freedom for a non-violent woman to not be assaulted and then ultimately killed by government agents, for what amounts to Constitutionally-protected filming, criticism, and heckling. But there is certainly a strain of fake libertarianism whereby people will overindulge in the deductive parts of its framing, attracted to the idea that the violation of a precondition serves as a justification for a draconian response. But this is not libertarianism! Rather it is more appropriately described as cryptofascism.
On this specific topic, I am most certainly open to evidence that Renee physically impeded or assaulted ICE agents before they chose to create an an escalated high-stakes situation. So far I have yet to see any beyond vague allusions and innuendos.
For reference here no, I haven't spent much time on reddit since 2009 or so. When I do, it's mostly to find answers to technical questions. Some of the subs on the top banner of my current throwaways - /r/kubota, /r/woodstoving, /r/vorondesign, /r/buildapcsales. I haven't seem much political commentary in them.
But as far as HN? I'd say HN owns this problem. The way I see it, this topic isn't really politics per se but rather a societal sickness that is the direct result of the consumer surveillance industry that HN helped build.
Also perhaps maybe part of your frustration here comes from having characterized everyone who doesn't support summarily executing American citizens in the street as "far left wackos" ?
> Engage on the actual merits of the discussion rather than saying anyone who disagrees with you is supposedly a shill and a bad person.
> Am I wrong here?
Since you're asking for it: yes. But I can see how from your perspective it looks that way.
