I've watched them all repeatedly. It's clear she was blocked in at the front, trying to pull out, and yielded, waving the ICE vehicles to go around front.
They instead got out, needlessly attempted to drag her from her vehicle, and she freaked out and tried to GTFO by turning right to avoid hitting any of them. She was shot and killed for it.
- That she was in fear for her life (smiling and laughing about it 10 seconds beforehand, gleefully pulling away with excitement like it's a video game)
I'm glad we have this footage to see the truth now.
One thing that I, and many others, have issue with is the fact that the agents are masked, which makes it hard to hold specific actors accountable. With the way they've been deploying facial recognition against citizens, I feel like using it against ICE agents would just be sousveillance.
Especially with the second video, it seems like there should be enough footage of the guy's face to figure it out. Ideally her relatives could then SUE, but qualified immunity is some powerful bullshit. At the very least, maybe we could track bad actors. Does the guy regularly use unnecessary force?
The counter argument is "if you DOX people, especially unpopular people, they'll be subject to death threats, possible violence, etc. and you'll be partially responsible", but man, it's obvious that the agency itself isn't holding its people accountable. I'd want to know if he was in my city, still performing ICE activities.
Ideally a lawsuit? The only sane outcome of this in a civilized society is that the perpetrator stands trial for murder.
If that does not happen the already slim distinction between US law enforcement and a paramilitary execution squad loyal to the president will have dissappeared entirely.
Oh yeah, absolutely! I should have said that instead, but I'm so pessimistic about the courts charging LEOs with crimes that I kinda just skipped that option by default
Even if there is a perceived slim chance of success I still think charges should be brought forward. At the very least it might make some of these psychopaths hesitate to do the same. Maybe. And while they are at it maybe an investigation that produces names on who ordered these guys to act so brazen.
If you cant nail the guy who did this go after those who are above in rank. Maybe there's a "paper trail" on giving orders to do such thing?
People have to fight back or this lady definitely wont be the last.
Holy shit why didn't they play the middle video they legit murdered that girl and when they saw what happend they ran away. The gull, they are legit law enforcement running away from the problem they just created every dude back off instead of trying to help that lady after what happened.
Edit: Context here because they are literally doing a pincer move on this lady's car all wearing masks and with at least 1 gun drawn. All issuing different commends backup, get out, this is way hiring amateurs off the street to play cop is a bad idea. Trained people don't esclate this way
Edit2: She definite hits the cop before he shots but where is that 5'th video of the lady right up in the pincer cop's face. She's video taping him
In regards to edit 2, she does not hit the cop. You can see him literally wait until she's out of reverse while hovering his hand on his sidearm, putting himself in the front of the car - so that ANY movement from her after leaving reverse would result in shooting her.
Watch the distant video she bumps him he fires. I'd argue his gun seems drawn before he's hit which would make me panic and gas it. Regardless though these thugs just shouldn't have been there, ultimately that would be saving lives.
Why would I watch the obfuscated view? Watch it up close and on the side closest to the so-called "hit" cop - as you say (and silently edited out to "bump"):
Watch the one titled "LEFT-full-duration". Watch it in slow motion. Everything in my GP is correct:
1.) The lady reversed to make room to drive away AFTER conflicting orders to "get out of there" and to "get out of the car";
2.) An ICE agent got in front of her car mid-reverse and hovered for his sidearm;
3.) The lady gets out of reverse and turns her wheels to face to the right, the ICE agent is now middle-left of her car, and commits to drawing his weapon;
4.) Lady commits to her right turn and didn't hit the cop, as evidenced by the fact that he was literally out of the way, he didn't lose footing, and most of all - he was able to shoot the driver at point-black from the driver's side window. If the car was aimed for him - let alone if he was hit, it would have been physically impossible for ANY of those to occur on their own AND ESPECIALLY in combination - most of all, the point-blank shot from the driver's side window.
The agent who fired NEEDS to be tried for murder, simple as.
I don't think murder charges will deter anything at this point. I don't know anything about US laws, but these activities deserve to be charged with and treated as acts of terrorism. At least the foreign nations need to start designating and sanctioning ICE as a state-sponsored terrorist organization involved in criminal activities including criminal intimidation, arbitrary detention, kidnapping, child abuse, hostage taking, human trafficking and murder. Their known leadetship and agents should be captured and tried at Hague if they step outside the US. Deal with them the same as Gestapo.
100% I think it is ridiclous what happened and that ICE being law enforce is expected to have training on more than I see I shoot training. They dishonor any trained law enforcement and if they want to have no standard they are simply thugs on the street
Has anyone seen vid of the lead-up? Everything I've seen is clipped to several seconds before the shots are fired. It doesn't justify the outcome but one of the narratives I've seen is she had been blocking the agents for some time.
It's de facto legal if you'll get away with it. Lon Horiuchi executed (sniped from a distance) an innocent woman holding a child at Ruby Ridge over what was ultimately a missed court date for a crime her husband was acquitted of. He was then promoted and went on to take part in Waco.
When he was prosecuted, the feds played jurisdiction games fucking with the case until the case was so cold it was difficult to prosecute.
The U.S. Attorney filed a notice of removal of the case to federal court, which automatically took effect under the statute for removal jurisdiction[11] where the case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge on May 14, 1998, who cited the supremacy clause of the Constitution which grants immunity to federal officers acting in the scope of their employment.[6]
The decision to dismiss the charges was reversed by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, which held that enough uncertainty about the facts of the case existed for Horiuchi to stand trial on state manslaughter charges.[6] Ultimately, the then-sitting Boundary County prosecutor, Brett Benson, who had defeated Woodbury in the 2000 election, decided to drop the charges, because he felt it was unlikely the state could prove the case and too much time had passed.
Quite the contrary, in such an environment it is even more important to figure out what is de facto legal because you cannot count on reading the law to determine such.
She wasn't blocking at all. Please watch the video. In one of them a car passes in front of her without trouble. It's a 2 lane 1 way road, she's only in 1 lane.
It does not. Even if what you speculated was true that is not a capital crime, and that 'officer' (I use the word lightly) is not judge, jury and executioner.
Are you really suggesting that an armed federal law enforcement officer doesn’t have the ability to detain someone that they suspect is interfering with one of their operations?
You might want to cite some case law here supporting that assertion. They may not be able to charge someone with a traffic infraction but can they detain someone? Absolutely.
> Are you really suggesting that an armed federal law enforcement officer doesn’t have the ability to detain someone that they suspect is interfering with one of their operations?
Well, gosh. It's a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure I was taught in school that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Something like that, anyway.
To be blunt: your assertion is batshit. NO, the cops can't just "detain" people on random "suspicion" of "interference". They need probable cause to suspect a crime in progress. Period. There are no exceptions. There never have been. If you want to argue that they clearly have the ability, you need to explain why that car in its perfectly legal travel lane was somehow a criminal violation. You seem extraordinarily inclined to split hairs on the other side of this argument, so it seems... odd that you're being so cavalier on this one.
No, ICE can't detain anyone on a "traffic infraction". No one can. That's not criminal, and you know it.
More to the point, obviously, sure: there are gray areas where cops stop teenagers to see if they run or smell like weed or whatever, and they can get away with it. They don't then proceed to shoot their suspects in the fucking face. Seriously? How are we possibly even having this discussion. There's no universe in which this is acceptable law enforcement practice.
Yes, the fourth amendment exists. Yes, law enforcement officers can detain you if they’d have reasonable suspicion of a crime you have committed, or about to commit.
(That last bit I italicized you might want to read again, because it’s pretty important and you left that part out and it is the cornerstone to everything in this incident and specifically what I articulated in the comment of mine you replied to).
What crime was she "about to commit" then which she needed to be detained to prevent? Sketch for me the indictment you're imagining for which she got executed. You're doing hyper-specific hair splitting elsewhere in this thread, surely you'd like the opportunity here.
The ability of people on the right to throw all their principles about limited government and checks and balances and constitutional restraint out the window the second the person who got shot in their face is a political enemy is just amazing to me. You people are the ones who think we all need guns all the time to PREVENT this kind of thing, I thought!
> What crime was she "about to commit" then which she needed to be detained to prevent? Sketch for me the indictment you're imagining for which she got executed. You're doing hyper-specific hair splitting elsewhere in this thread, surely you'd like the opportunity here.
That’s up to the agents to articulate and the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries to evaluate.
The fact is that law enforcement are able to legally detain people under certain conditions and those conditions do not need to be adjudicated in the moment of detainment. It can come later, and the LEOs can be held responsible if they violated someone’s rights. People on here commenting otherwise either misunderstand the law, or are intentionally providing misinformation to manipulate people and create outrage.
> That’s up to the agents to articulate and the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries to evaluate.
Which will never happen, because the suspect is a faceless (literally) body in a morgue. You're just dodging. Because, and be honest with yourself: you want this to have happened. You want your enemies to be afraid of the (again, literal) secret police wandering the streets in pursuit of your personal political goals. And if the price for that is a few unconstitutional executions, you're willing to pay it and excuse it on the internet.
But you don't really believe this was legitimate law enforcement behavior. No one does. Real civil societies don't accept summary executions of probably-asshole probably-protesters who probably-obstruct visa check operations.
It doesn't matter to the current conversation and it feels more like you're trying to create a distraction from the core of the issue being discussed than inquiring in good faith. If you truly desire such information so adamantly, you can easily do a search for it elsewhere without derailing the discussion here.
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.
'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'.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
So you folks agree that anyone who disagrees with you must be a bot / shill / troll and should be summarily banned? I am quite glad Dan and Tom run this and not you.
Dan and Tom must be doing a good job anyways, because I have the same opinion you do, but just the opposite direction. I would like to see all the far left cranks who have taken over what was once an entrepreneur / hacker / libertarian's forum banned.
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.
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.
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)
Let's refrain from personal attacks and harassment. I am a VERY long term member of this forum, since the days it was for entrepreneurs and programmers instead of overrun with far left propagandists who only want to talk politics.
Trying to shut up people who disagree with you is literally the fascism you claim to abhor. Not to mention that fascists themselves were socialists (Nazis is a nickname for National Socialists, who had a 25 point platform half of which matches the Democratic Socialists nearly exactly - https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party...).
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? I am trying to share my view, which while unpopular, is valid and backed by the full video and witness accounts. I am getting called a "fascist-cheerleader who relishes in trolling" and that I somehow support "agents of the state executing an American citizen" (which is ridiculous as I am a libertarian).
I am guessing you have spent too much time in the far left echo chamber that is Reddit, where dissenting opinions are purged. Try X.com where everyone from the far left leaders of Minnesota who are glorying in the attention being moved off of their multi billion dollar fraud and forced resignation can share their opinion to anyone else with an idea can share it.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
HuffPost has obtained a video of a physician trying to give medical care to the woman shot and killed by ICE agents today, and not being allowed to go near her. The ICE agents claim there are medics on site, but witnesses scream that there are no medics presentExtensively reported
To me the most horrible thing about this is the reaction of government officials.
I'd imagine that in a civilized democratic country it would be something along the lines of "Let's make sure there's a fair investigation". That's not what I'm hearing from US.
They’re gloating, they love this. They love being able to spit in the face of the people and tell them that they’re absolutely fine with what’s going on and we should prepare for things to get worse.
The biggest issue with all this is that ICE agents are in fact NOT police officers.
As a US citizen you DO NOT have to obey them in the same manner as a police officer and their rights to detain you are limited. Unless they were placing her under arrest she was free to leave and drive on. Most ICE agents lack the same training that your average state police officer would be forced to go through and thus are far more likely to do something stupid.
According to this NPR article, it currently is legal for ICE to detain you if you are visibly ethnic:
A federal court agreed, ruling that agents can't rely on factors such as race, speaking Spanish, wearing workman-like clothes, and location [...] to meet the standard of "individualized suspicion."
But in September, the Supreme Court paused that previous ruling, saying immigration agents can use those factors as reasonable suspicion to stop someone. (Legal proceedings continue on this case, however.)
Okay, this should be neither here nor there, but from the pictures of the Victim that I've seen, no one would assume she was an immigrant (even though immigrants are frequently Canadian/European).
Like, even under this awful terrible and completely unimaginable ruling (Which should not be the legal standard in the US), there is no way that ICE could be considered to have the power to detain this person.
I've confirmed, with search engine caches, that this is the photo Reddit Trust & Safety intervened to remove from Reddit's front page, at the permalink here,
I'm not sure if she was a constitutional observer but saw some comments saying it. Seems like a honorable job to do in todays climate especially if you are looking to take a more active role after this. [1]
I’m not seeing this discussed very much but Minnesota governor Tim Walz has issued an order to prepare the state’s National Guard:
> “To Minnesotans, on the National Guard, they’re there to protect you and protect your constitutional rights,” Walz said. “These are our neighbors. They don’t wear masks. They don’t bust in from somewhere else. They’re not here to cause hassles to you or what we saw today, the tragedy.”
It sounds like he is calling on the National Guard to protect against ICE? Is this the first time a state has done this? I personally think it’s the right move but this is a serious matter to have one law enforcement agency called out to protect against another law enforcement agency. If true, this is a very big deal.
edit: More about Walz’s statement:
> In addition to readying the state’s National Guard, the governor said the State Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is investigating the incident, where masked agents were recorded approaching a vehicle in the middle of a Minneapolis street and an agent then fired shots into the car after it accelerated. Walz also said he activated the State Emergency Operation Center and members of the State Patrol’s Mobile Response Team.
> “From here on, I have a very simple message: We do not need any further help from the federal government,” Walz said. “To Donald Trump and [Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem, you’ve done enough.”
Note that an update today was provided that the State Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is unable to do anything meaningful to investigate the incident because the FBI has backtracked on previous indications of cooperation and decided to deny them access to any evidence gathered in the course of the federal investigation (and obviously, federal agents controlled the actual crime scene, are the only ones who even have the identity of the agents involved—though what they revealed about background in attempting to burnish the image of the shooter without identifying them has led to a probable identification of the shooter—and control essentially the bulk of the physical evidence.)
What makes you so sure that will be the outcome? I'd love to see ICE being shown up by heavily outfitted NG but I rather suspect that that will not be what happens.
He's deploying the national guard because anyone with half a brain understands riots are likely. His reasoning has to not betray that though; even if he legitimately intends to use the NG to block ICE that's not the primary reason why he's sending them out right after the exact conditions are met that caused utter chaos in Minneapolis before.
It's just better politically to say "to stop ICE" rather than say "shit's looking like it could pop off and I need to be prepared either way."
Yeah, I get the riot threat and I’m not suggesting that the National Guard is being called to stop ICE. But instead questioning what it means to have the guard come in to “protect” areas that are likely going to be where people are protesting against ICE. That pits the National Guard in opposition to ICE. Washington, DC just went through a version of this but different because it wasn’t the local National Guard and it wasn’t the local politicians calling them in. In either case, having one law enforcement agency occupying the same space as another without explicit coordination between them (and in this case where one is being called because of the actions of the other) is dicey and strikes me as meaningful and potentially dangerous escalation of the situation.
About fucking time. State governments need to be proactively protecting their citizens from these lawless terror squads running amok under the pretense of "immigration".
Also let's be clear here, most of these "ICE" jackboots are chickenshit gravy seals whose training amounts to weekend cosplay sessions while whining about Joebiden, which is why they're murdering women in cars. They won't be raising their weapons when soldiers who signed up to defend this country show up.
I’m not saying that he’s sending the guard after ICE (he doesn’t say that and I’m not suggesting he is saying that). But he is calling the National Guard to “protect” in a condition in which there is another law enforcement agency. The places where the National Guard would be “keeping the peace” are the places where people are protesting against ICE which are places where ICE is conducting raids.
That is an extraordinary claim. You must have extraordinary evidence. Good work uncovering that! I'm sure the FBI would love to hear about it and arrest him alongside the 80 other convicted fraudsters.
> It sounds like he is calling on the National Guard to protect against ICE? Is this the first time a state has done this? I personally think it’s the right move but this is a serious matter to have one law enforcement agency called out to protect against another law enforcement agency. If true, this is a very big deal.
It’s to motivate peace and riot control due to the situation.
If he had some “knucklehead” notion to pit The NG against ICE, the federal government would simply federalize the NG and remove it from state control. I think he’s a goof, but he’s smarter than that, plus as a former NG, he knows how the NG command structure works.
No: a fascist is in the white house, is illegally deploying national guard troops to occupy Democratic cities, and his brownshirts are outright shooting peaceful citizens in the head while branding them terrorists. As per the article you are commenting on.
A State Guard is the obvious counter to a rogue executive branch when checks and balances have failed. Alternatively, at some point, people are going to start organizing actual defensive militias out of sheer necessity.
I am exactly advising a second amendment solution as it was written. An armed force must exist that can bring people like the ICE murderer into custody, and prevent further such incidents from happening in the future. Conventionally, the National Guard would play that role, but they have been illegally coopted by the out-of-control executive.
Accountability is coming when the Democrats get back in power. Representative Robin Kelly plans to present articles of impeachment for Kristi Noem to the House. Maybe you should listen to what the Minneapolis mayor and Minnesota governor have to say about the killing in their official capacity if you think people online are overreacting.
You're posting in a thread where a woman just got murdered by a federal officer and no more than 10 or so minutes after it occurred before the body was cold and even identified immediately leapt to call her a terrorist.
Yep, don't acknowledge the point about current leadership and their rhetoric. Ignore the videos you see online and ignore the picture of blood + brain matter splattered inside the car. I can't tell if you're trolling, an awful person, or just that fucking stupid. Maybe all three.
You can see from bits and pieces of their post history that they're likely all three [1], considering how far they've been willing to bend to try and defend increasingly absurd claims. I normally don't like making accusations like these sort of things, but given how quickly people have fallen into lockstep with the exact same argument which is easily debunked by watching the video I start to question their actual intention.
If you want to play lawyer, that's great but everyone just watched an execution of a mother in broad daylight. I think most reasonable people would agree that this is over the top especially because they made it extremely hard to render aid after it happened. Not to mention the various training documents that say not to do what this ICE agent did: stand in front of a car then incapacitate the driver.
It's not just "politicians speech" either, these are leaders in the executive who will bring any charges and are the ones investigating themselves. If they're not professional, and completely lie about the circumstances, how can we expect justice? States can bring charges, I guess, but I'm not going along with "nothing they say matters" idea.
Everyone also saw a car move forward directly towards a person before his weapon was even drawn.
If he did not follow procedure that will be accounted for in the investigation. I am sure that question will hinge on whether or not from all the angles and prior to the vehicle moving if the officer was in a position that was against procedure.
They state can certainly try and bring charges if it wants to, but that doesn’t automatically mean that prosecution will be successful or that the officer is guilty, the officer right now and until tried, is innocent. Any prosecutor still will need to prove their case and from my perspective, overcoming the qualified immunity in this case will be difficult.
Why is it okay that your mush-mouth dear leader can make all the accusations that they want in less than 10 minutes every time any incident like this happens? No consequences for that ever.
But those of us with functioning eyes cannot call a spade a spade?
This link blocks the video with the messages "Sign in to confirm your age" and "This video may be inappropriate for some users.". Why is this current events video blocked when fictional broadcast television programs regularly dramatize people being shot and killed?
I watch movies and tv shows where fictional people die all the time, and I don't have a problem with it. But I make it a point not to watch videos of real people or animals dying. The difference (to me) is that I can sleep happily knowing that the actors in the films went home to their families after filming, but the people in real life didn't. It's much more profound to know that a real human lost their life, and I don't want to lessen the gravitas of these situations by watching it as casually as I watch fictional characters die.
(That article does say this kind of "dragnet" search warrant is, in theory, precluded by the US Constitution. One can ask a certain 6-year old child in Minnesota who just their mother to masked constitution-men what that constitution means).
There was a very similar private security guard case to this a few years ago where the security guard was yelling at someone to leave but then physically blocked their car. When the person moved, the security guard shot them.[]
He got roasted in court because he had given conflicting commands, and also because you can't put yourself in jeopardy just so you can shoot someone that's running away (police can but only fleeing felons). Life sentence.
This appears to me what happened here. She was committing a misdemeanor, and running away from the misdemeanor. Police explicitly asked her to move her vehicle. After she finally did so they stood in front of her to intentionally put themselves in jeopardy so they would have a reason to "defend themselves."
I have a feeling it will be a very long and dicey trial that ends up in a hung jury. Hopefully Minneapolis doesn't experience riots due to this; but it would prove the exception.
There's currently video circulating of the incident so be aware on social media. Here's the facts as I currently know:
* The woman shot and killed was a bystander, an American citizen
* The video shows the ICE agent just straight up killing her unprovoked, against the narrative they're currently trying to setup that she was a terrorist
> The video shows the ICE agent just straight up killing her unprovoked, against the narrative they're currently trying to setup that she was a terrorist
Don't try to bend the facts while there's literal video of the confrontation, as you yourself noted.
She was being commanded to step out of the vehicle (My speculation: to be arrested) and refused to do so while accelerating the vehicle quickly with an officer standing in front of her vehicle. If the drivers intent was to commit vehicular homicide or not is obviously unknown (and at this point unknowable), it was not unprovoked in any way.
Intentionally or not she was accelerating her vehicle toward someone. Regardless of if the reaction of the agent was justified, it was 100% provoked by the driver.
Just before the agents came out of their car another ICE car passed in front of her car. She was waving the agents to pass her. She could not back-up, because there were people standing/walking behind her car. She was not blocking the road, but nevertheless the ICE agents came out of their car to confront her. Context does matter.
After the women got shot, the agent who shot lost the scene taking the weapon with him, which is against all regulations. Other ICE agents prevented medical help from a doctor who identified himself as such and the blocked an ambulance, making them complicit with the murder as she might have been saved if she had gotten medical treatment immediately.
Seems like the car was turning relatively slowly away from the ICE officer. At 00:18 in the video when you can hear the gunshots, he's not in the path of the vehicle. Even if he somehow thought the vehicle was heading towards him, it looks like he could have easily stepped back.
If a masked federal law enforcement officer can shoot someone with impunity in a situation that could have easily been avoided, then we are in a very dangerous place.
while accelerating the vehicle quickly with an officer standing in front of her vehicle
This is false. He started drawing his gun while she was still in reverse (to turn and drive away) and was not 'in front of the vehicle' but approaching the front left of the vehicle. Nor was she 'accelerating the vehicle quickly.' You are simply being untruthful.
Frankly, with multiple masked goons pulling weapons approaching, any evasive/defensive maneuvers would have been fully justified.
She did none of the above. You didn't watch the video. Her tires were turned away from the officer and said officers were to the side of her vehicle, well and clear from any sort of harm.
How about the nuance where she initially tried to wave them through while they were in their vehicle and instead of going, they got out and attempted to force her from her vehicle. This is murder of a citizen by the government with no cause.
NBC News reports that this was contrary to the officer's training and DHS' own policies.
> ICE officers are trained to never approach a vehicle from the front and instead to approach in a “tactical L” 90-degree angle to prevent injury or cross-fire, a senior Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News.
> Officers are also instructed not to shoot at a moving vehicle and only to use force if there is an immediate risk of serious injury or death, the official said.
> ICE officers are also instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction of the officer.
If you watch the slow-mo versions of the video people have posted you can see the ICE agent in question actually fired his weapon when his arm was fully extended away from his body still in front of vehicle as he had moved his body out of the impact zone of the front of her car. That's a terrible way to discharge a weapon even if you think you life is in danger. Seems far more likely it was a panic shot out of fear he was still in front of her not realizing he was no longer in danger.
Even if she had floored it at that point, and overal she was driving pretty slowly like a panicked mom might do, his arm would have just been struck by the windshield as she passed.
@dang I don’t know if this is a bug… but how is this not on the front pages? (I checked 2. 74 upvotes / 34 comments 2h old)
This is the type of thing that I sort of rely on HN to inform me about. Then other articles are seemingly killed as dupe which I guess would make sense if the original was visible.
Because news shouldn't be what is on the front page on HN, and I generally agree.
However, we're not living in normal times. US is speed running the book to become a dictatorship, or probably worse. And it's in no small part thanks to the tech community, which HN is all about.
Recent story about how Grok is used to produce naked pictures of any women or girl, including young kids, was killed very quickly on HN. I feel like a lot of people working in tech should take a good look in the mirror.
This is very relevant. A bunch of tech workers in the US are legal immigrants that, but for the safety that their visa provides, would be hunted by this inhuman organization.
1) Use https://news.ycombinator.com/active, where demotions aren’t applied (at least that’s my understanding). The submission is currently on the front page there.
2) For contacting dang, email hn@ycombinator.com. “@dang” doesn’t do anything.
My interpretation of /active is that it is a strict activity based feed where the number of comments in recent time determine the position. The front page uses upvotes, flags, comment to upvote ratio, flame war detection and likely more stuff to determine the algorithmic position.
Looking at /active I can also see articles listed high with very small number of upvotes but with high number of comments.
Biased by thin-skinned low-skilled first worlders who bristle at having to be an adult.
To dang and the SV/VC world, everything should work like it does in Mr Rogers ... they can stare at their computer and live in the land of the make believe it affords them.
GenX and Millennials are just as ignorant and self-absorbed as Boomers. America is a shit hole country of adults with the emotions of middle schoolers.
My advice would be to not worry too much about it. I found this thread through the search tool and was glad to find it at around about the 200/200 point/comment mark. Despite not being on the front page it is still starting to get polluted with flagged comments.
I’d liken it to going to a hacker conference and wanting to talk to like minded people about 3D printing something controversial, like a gun barrel or a knife. It’s interesting as a topic and worthy of technical and moral exploration but putting it on stage as a keynote talk would risk attracting all the wrong attention.
> This is the type of thing that I sort of rely on HN to inform me about.
Umm... flagging issue aside, this story is currently at the top of CNN, NBC, ABC, BBC, and Google News, as I just checked. What part of information do we rely on HN regarding this story?
I can't speak for the person you're replying to, but I don't follow any of CNN/NBC/ABC/BBC/Google News/etc. I have some RSS feeds and email newsletters, but they only cover science/tech/health stuff. I basically rely on HN as a filter so that I do catch a handful of non-tech things.
Plenty of people on HN, in ycombinator leadership, tech execs in general, that maybe like one thing they're doing and wants to turn a blind eye to the fascism.
From my understanding of how HN works, it's because the post has been flagged multiple times (to the point of being flag-killed and revived at least twice) so I believe controversial posts are automatically kept off the front page until a moderator steps in.
I don't know that pg is involved with HN on a daily basis any more, but he's been publicly condemning this and arguing with people who support the ICE agent.
Obviously, the current US government-billionaire mafia openly treats the citizens as immigrants (so they let an immigration authority to act on regular people deep inside the country). They will continue to terrorise and suppress in order to protect their rich privileges. I cannot recall any such situation in a modern developed country.
Not a lawyer, but I've been thinking a lot about under which conditions stand your ground laws might apply to people defending themselves against law enforcement officers. The power balance is still such that most people won't shoot at a police (or ICE) officer, so I don't think it's likely to happen, but there is already legal precedent[1] regarding it.
I’m actually somewhat surprised that one of the masked, badgeless officers hasn’t been shot yet. So many of the actions look like a cartel kidnapping and some of them are happening in states with stand your ground laws where the major factor would be whether the person felt threatened.
If nobody is enforcing the law, then they have the power to do whatever the administration is allowing them to do, and at this point, that seems to include everything up to and including murder.
Yeah, though who would enforce those laws? At this point you have the head of DHS stating at press conferences that she's directing ICE to disregard federal court rulings.
Another day, another incident to justify the "tree of liberty".
ICE has a blank check on power overreach and qualified immunity for a domestic, dominating police state that WE DON'T NEED - and this is how they use it. Their actions are grotesque, and their words are worthless. They don't even honor what the judicial documents say that they claim to "enforce" - they flat-out ignore active asylum statuses, wait outdoors of immigration court hearings and check-ins, deport people to countries that they have a court order not to be deported to, and sometimes just go for citizens anyway - why not?
Speaking of "blank check", remember that ICE has an approved budget that's 3x the US Marine Corp, folks. This isn't a game anymore, this isn't playtime.
We are all cowards. A dozen people watched their friend murdered and all they did was shout 'murderers' and then back off from helping the corpse when instructed by the people in masks and unmarked cars claiming to be police.
I surely wouldn't have been braver, we all saw the consequences of even the meakest assertiveness. Those people are the bravest we have to offer, we are fucked.
Your point is apathy and fatalism. Someone who points to that doesn't believe in building infrastructure. They don't believe in building political power. They don't believe in building local community power.
They don't really believe in anything, and it's due to an inability in their own self to bring about real change in themselves and others.
Look at the comment section. Are they all bots? Maybe they are, but if they aren't, trying anything would be a suicide. You would just be labelled a terrorist, and no one would support you.
If you do it for the approval and validation of others, you might as well side with the downslopes. You do it for yourself and your own beliefs, some people will put a lot on the line for that - believe it or not.
I guess it would be a major step towards civil war, but I wonder if states have the right to protect their residents from unlawful conduct by federal law enforcement. ICE has established a clear pattern of behavior in the last year that should remove any assumption they are acting lawfully (and federal judges have told them as much).
The comment section here is an incredibly disturbing read, as to how many people are trying to justify this on-site extra-judicial execution. Let me start by saying that all this debate itself is meaningless to start with. No police or law and order agency is supposed to execute a civilian under these circumstances in any country. That should instantly be taken as a murder by an official empowered to prevent exactly that. As far as I understand, ICE is not even a law and order agency and has even less authority to do so.
The woman was occupying just one lane, which means there is no merit to the claim that she was obstructing them. And then no matter what she did next, the masked agents just walk up to her vehicle and try to pry open her door and pull her out. That is not what the police do. That's what the mafia does. Anybody facing such a harrowing situation is likely to panic and try to get away. A real officer would know that and won't shoot a panicked and unarmed person who has her hands on the wheel. Nothing about the circumstances suggest a regular confrontation with a law and order agency. It's a terror campaign. The people arguing the self-defense claim based on some flaky technicalities are psychopaths who lack any respect for human lives.
Whenever I mention Nazism in here to make a serious point, I get downvoted based on some unexplained moral outrage. It's either because 'it's so disturbing' or because people don't like the comparison with the worst that humanity has produced, or because I'm 'cheapening' (trivializing) the Holocaust and insulting its victims! Lame in my opinion, because there is no worse insult to its victims than to just let the horrors repeat!
Well, these outraged people can just stay outraged all they want, because I'm going say this in no uncertain terms. The US and HN has a real Nazi problem - at least in ideology, if not outright in spirit. And another Holocaust is not entirely out of the question either, because back in the past too, it wasn't that well known in public even among the German citizens until the allied forces overran the concentration camps. Who knows what is going on in the shadows right now, when so many people are comfortable with justifying murder, racism, invasions and imperialism?
You're too pretentious if you think that the horrors of the past can't repeat, because history sets precedents and shifts the Overton window. I know that HN is primarily a technical forum. But I seriously don't care if I lose my entire HN score for this, because what is the point of having any technology if it is to live like slaves under tyranny? This is one matter that well worth saying out loud, no matter how unpopular it is or how disturbing a suggestion it is.
Now let's look at the atrocities that ICE has committed so far. Intimidation/terrorizing, destruction of property, attacks on local law enforcement, kidnappings, child abuse, racial discrimination, denial of justice/due process, illegal warrantless arrests and detention, inciting riots, armed attacks on unarmed civilian protestors, attack on media personnel, attack on elected representatives (the last three constituting attack on democracy), human trafficking, torture and murder. It pretty much ticks all the agenda that the Gestapo used to have. Does Nazism sound all that improbable now? Governments around the world should be classifying ICE as a state-funded terrorist organization right now and sanctioning its leaders and members. They should be arrested and tried at Hague or Nuremberg if they step outside the US.
I'm deeply disturbed by how fast we forget the fragility and preciousness of human lives. And the worst is that we have historical examples showing us what will happen. And yet, we relentlessly justify their replay unconcerned?
It happens every time the police murder someone. These people can't see this for what it is - state-sponsored public execution.
It doesn't matter what she did, the punishment for no crime in the US is public execution. We have courts, law and order. Everyone is missing the forest for the trees.
I cannot agree more. It is really depressing and terrific reading so many people justifying all these violent acts. Is is inconceivable how we have come to normalize repression and violence against others.
I blame news media, social media, and entertainment for this. You aren't some heroic resistance fighting fascism; you're a citizen not complying with police orders. The real world isn't a Netflix series.
As a Canadian - south of the border terrifies me for what's coming next. Republicans have devolved into a NK style 'dear leader' group that is terrified of crossing Trump. 1930's Germany is here
On the plus side: Hitler was younger when he came to power. Trump is not long for this world. That doesn't mean that things will get better afterwards, they might, they might now. But we're dangerously close to the edge now.
Keep in mind that many so-called "Americans" you see online are thousands of miles from the US, and are paid or otherwise encouraged to pretend otherwise.
It's known to be true. Witness what happened when Xitter turned on a country-of-origin indication briefly, realized what it was saying about their audience, and then turned it back off in a hurry.
A lot of them are just doing this for free, and got got too by the insane propaganda apparatus in service of the GOP, that converted so many Americans into defending straight up murder and pedophilia.
Just count yourself lucky you don’t live here. Though I wouldn’t put it past Trump to invade Canada at some point but that will likely only happen if he assumes a dictatorship.
DHS secretary is calling this "domestic terrorism"... unbelievable. Everyone in the administration needs to be put on trial just like the Nazis in Nuremburg.
Also remember the rights reaction to Babbit (an insurrectionist) being shot at the J6 riot. She was a patriot hero for delaying election certification but people resisting ICE goons are domestic terrorists.
Watching an innocent and beautiful American woman being shot in the face three times at point blank range in broad daylight by an agent of her own federal government while sitting in the cocoon of her car, in a confrontation that could easily have been avoided if the federal agents had simply waved her on through... this is more than "a domestic crime", as you put it.
You may forget that the US drone strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats are still an open question and an ongoing story. The video evidence is scant, the scandal is real, but we still don't know the details. Who were those fishermen, who will tell their stories? How we learn more about what was real?
The kidnapping of the Maduro couple is another act that is related and still developing. In both of these cases, the events are distant and nebulous, uncertain as to where they land on a spectrum of good and evil.
But this murder of an American citizen in a senseless act of violence by its government is felt deeply because it is immediate and well-documented, highly visible and tragic, with hardly any of the uncertainties that distance from those other events bring.
Why would you think that anyone outside of the US cares about what your regime does to you?
I'm pointing out - for the umpteenth time - the sheer hypocrisy of the West, and especially the US.
What your regime has been practising since 1945 outside of your borders has finally reached your own towns and cities, and frankly the only question I have is, what took so long?
So this link was posted by someone and flagged within seconds.
"American Samoa is the only U.S. state or territory where people are born without automatic citizenship, and without the right to vote in state, federal, and most local elections anywhere outside of American Samoa."
I believe this to be the issue causing most issues discussed here. "My people" is fluid, and anyone redefined as "other" no longer requires empathy, and that's how we get here.
No, the entirety of ICE does. This incident is just the latest in a long series.
This unaccountable Gestapo analogue have, for example, been shown - in Congress - to be raping a whole lot of people. 'Losing' kids. Performing life-altering medical procedures without consent.
It's also worth pointing out that 'both' parties have raised ICE's budget every single year since their creation, including after the above reports were delivered.
How about we prosecute all the criminals in this administration committing all the crimes? It shouldn't be surprising that people are more concerned about a US citizen being gunned down in the states than some Venezuelan fishermen.
From an outsider's perspective, the hypocrisy is what jumps out.
Every US regime behaves this way: gunboat diplomacy goes back to the days of the banana republics, it was the United Fruit Company then, and oil today.
Fact is the US is run by oligarchs.
Peace presidents from Nixon onwards are just fronts for corporate interests. JFK was probably the only sane president since Roosevelt.
Edit: replaced correct term with "peace presidents."
This is an unfair take. The significance of invoking the word “Nuremberg” in this context should be clear: it is about putting the entire regime on trial.
> There are much more serious crimes being committed by the US the world over
Yeah, I've criticized those too. What's your point? Do you think I really saw this event and just now decided that Nuremburg-style trials would be in order?
What's your point? That OP is exclusively referring to yesterday's execution when saying this admin deserves to get Nuremberg'd? Anyone calling for the Trump administration to face justice is obviously thinking of their many exactions, not any single isolated event. Including these blatant breaches of international law you mentioned.
When I first visited the US on business, HR conducted a training where the key point was that if stopped by police when you're in a car, don't get out of the car, they are trained to shoot first and ask questions later. Mid 90s.
Terrible training and horrible advice. Pennsylvania v Mimms requires you to step out of a vehicle upon LEO command. LEO does not need to provide any justification.
Also saying they are trained to shoot first and ask questions later is very hyperbolic. Police conduct over 30 million vehicle stops per year without incident.
I read the above comment as "don't get out of the car when you're pulled over unless you're ordered to," and it's important advice. There was a time when one would get out of the car after being pulled over, walk up and meet the cop and find out what was up. That time is very, very firmly over in the United States.
> Police conduct over 30 million vehicle stops per year without incident.
Pennsylvania v Mimms absolutely did determine LEO need justification. It can be done for officer safety or to perform an arrest, it's not just free license to ask anyone who is to be cited to get out of their car. This is even mentioned in the case; it was the "bulge" in the jacket that might be a gun that authorized the police to ask them to exit his vehicle.
If a policeman asks you to get out of your car without justification you can bet they're the sort that are more likely to not be disciplined with their use of force either. Police are always quick to cite this case but generally they're ignorant of what it says, they just mindlessly say "pennsylvania v Mimms" everytime they want to be a dick to someone by inconveniencing them or to incite an arrest of someone they think won't want to leave their car. Look up "Civil Rights Lawyer" online and he even uses PA v Mimms against one officer ordering someone out in a case because their order was unlawful.
Militia on our streets without discipline or uniforms. That's what caused this tragedy.
The administration early on made the decision to allow/require ICE agents to wear whatever tactical gear they had, along with masks, and authorized/required an intentional lack of insignia.
The lack of a uniform and insignia is a real problem for ordinary Americans.
We're used to subjecting ourselves to authority. We're willing to obey commands, to cooperate, to assist, even, the officers in uniform. We are law-abiding and respectful, even to the lowly rent-a-cops in the mall.
That respect and cooperation and obedience absolutely depends on the recognition of the uniform, the badge, the symbol of authority displayed without doubt.
Someone in the administration got the bright idea to remove the symbol, the uniform, and decided that everyone should now bow down in respect to ununiformed masked militia roaming our towns in plain pickups and SUVs.
Someone thought it would be 'cool' or 'bad-ass'; they still do, I'll bet.
But the lack of uniform changes the psychology of enforcement, imho. It places less demand on the discipline of the anonymous tactical-fatigue wearer. Add the mask and you're almost there. Just need jack-boots, and you complete the transformation of officer (blessing) into thug (curse). There is no accountability, no real standard to live up to, when the uniform is gone, the mask is on, and you, as an ostensible agent of federal authority, you are Anonymous. [Yes, I would like to see ICE issue all field agents the Guy Fawkes mask. There's a uniform for you./s]
The lack of a uniform creates moments of doubt and uncertainty in a US citizen as well. We are comfortable complying with commands from an officer in uniform. But we're just not used to unpredictible swarms of masked and often angry militia pouring out of dark windowed F150s and barking out conflicting orders, surrounding us, yanking on our door handles, pulling a sidearm and pressing it against the glass of our windshield.
This tragic confrontation has to become the last. We cannot continue to tolerate roaming anonymous militia wearing disguises, conducting unpredictable federal enforcement raids on our otherwise peaceful streets, under the cover of anonymity. We need these officers to be a part of our community, to come out from behind their masks, to put on a uniform we can identify and associate with the real positive authority of a well-intentioned federal government. [Yes, prerequisite, I know, we first need a federal government that is well-intentioned.]
That’s a really interesting observation. If ICE field policy allows or even requires employee anonymity then, as a thought experiment, imagining them all in hockey masks helps emphasize everything that’s wrong with such a policy. I can think of even more inflammatory examples of face coverings, of course.
Soon Americans being shot in the face by ICE and framed as terrorists will be as common and accepted as the President talking about invading Canada and Greenland, or launching billion dollar shitcoins, talking about his love letters to dictators, insulting soldiers who died in combat, violent riots overturning elections or openly mocking disabled people etc. etc. etc.
You'll see people in these comments who worked to normalise all those doing the same again.
I've already lived through this with Bush, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, and various at the time justifications and later revisions. Most vocal Trump supporters hate Bush and the Iraq war now, but it would interesting to see how consistent their story is on Santa's list/their cosmic audit records.
Lots of convicted criminals were pardoned already. People with connection to January 6 United States Capitol attack are all pardoned, some got promoted. There's something going on with Ghislaine Maxwell's situation too. US just abducted the president of a sovereign country and international law no longer means anything too. The president himself is also a convict. He is also implicated with many sexual assaults(allegations at this stage)
What exactly makes you think that this time is different? I just saw a clip from Fox, justifying the killing of this woman because she had pronouns on her profile.
I think it may be different because firstly it's clearly murder or an unlawful shooting if you watch the video, and secondly because being shot by a masked officer for trying to drive down the road could happen to pretty much any American so I imagine they'll complain. That doesn't apply to the Jan 6th people or Maxwell - it's not part of people's everyday life.
If you pay attention to what they are saying, people with pronouns are destroying America, immigrants are destroying America, women without kids are Destroying America, divorced women with kids are destroying America, All kind of people are destroying America.
At this very moment the MAGA types are explaining why it was the right move to execute this woman. Weren't they also relentlessly explaining why it was OK for a police to step on the neck of this black dude that end up dying some years ago? Weren't they relentlessly explaining why it was OK to shoot and kill looters?
Maybe in a year or two shooting people who destroying America will be the norm. Maybe soon someone will ask why just shoot looters and women with pronouns who run away from the law enforcement? why not kill everyone who destroys America? Are fat kids destroying America less than women with pronouns? Then wouldn't be patriotic to exterminate people with bad genes and improve nations genes?
BTW this is happening everywhere with persecuted people. Assailants feel trigger happy, they trust the system that will protect them from actual consequences. Most of the time there's some benefit of doubt that can be attached to the action and even when everything is clear and well documented they end up getting special treatment, they become heroes and they are looked after in prison or after the prison.
I really hope you are right, but I fear you aren't. The conservative media bubble has already congealed on "She was trying to run over everyone and deserved to be shot".
If someone wants to believe that ICE is the good guys and people protesting ICE are bad, they'll be pretty quick to adopt any narrative that will justify the actions of ICE. You can see that in this very thread.
This might sway a few people, but I really think the Trump "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue" is simply a truth.
> People with connection to January 6 United States Capitol attack are all pardoned
Hah, many of them have been hired by ICE since.
> The president himself is also a convict.
Funnily enough, Florida made an exemption for him that allowed him to vote, despite their laws against convicted felons voting. They decided that since he had only been found guilty, and not sentenced, that he was not, yet, a convicted felon.
I wonder how many other people in Florida in the same situation could vote, or whether they'd be laughed at.
Feels like the most important thing we can do is document it all. Save multiple encrypted copies. There is so many things worth documenting, but don't let others tell 'you' what happened. Write it down.
Got it. So it’s not “fascism” until its past the point of no return. Just like how the plane hasn’t crashed until it hits the ground, even if we’re 2000 feet off the ground and we were at 25000 feet 2 minutes ago. Thanks for the brilliant insight.
If you forewarn about a developing Fascist movement, you're simply taking away the meaning from the word until it's too late and the Fascists take power.
You cannot call anything Fascist, for there may be something more Fascist that may need the power of the word.
But ah! We couldn't call out their fledgling movement full of dog whistles and double speak so no one was aware enough to stop them as a fledgling movement!
Don't be so sure that it hasn't reached that level yet. The Nazis got into power the same way this administration did, and they did the same that this administration is doing right now - demolish the constitutional safeguards and institutions. And if the missing ingredient is the concentration camps or gulags, their civilian population were oblivious about it too, until much later. ICE has arrested so many people whose current whereabouts are not known. Any idea what's happening to them? Also, how many people are dying due to the anti-social policies like cutting down meal plans and medicaid plans?
I think it’s beyond undeniable at this point that America has slid definitively into fascism. The parallels with 1930’s Germany are just too obvious to deny.
The scariest thing to me is that you can see which folks are either all in on the regime or working overtime to push out propaganda. Because we have video of the incident from multiple angles and the context really is just that an ICE agent outright murdered someone.
I completely agree. It’s frightening that a government official (Noem) is already pushing a one-sided, matter-of-fact narrative so soon after such an obviously controversial incident. That is not the action of a competent, top-level leader. What’s frightening is they appear to be getting away with it.
> That is not the action of a competent, top-level leader.
I disagree. This is the action of a competent propagandist. Getting a narrative out as fast as possible before facts are known very often works.
This isn't the only shooting by ICE and if you look at the press releases for all those shootings it's exactly the same thing, "the protestor was violently trying to ram the ICE agents who bravely used self defense to shoot at the vehicle".
It has worked up until this shooting, and I imagine the reason it's not working as well here is there's too much video evidence to the contrary.
A trained police officer (following procedure) would have a damned good reason before drawing a weapon (let alone firing.)
Approaching someone in a car with a mask on and a gun out is not a good reason to shoot at them. That would terrify just about any citizen, and their reaction to flee would be expected.
Well that’s been the republican strategy for decades now. They only succeed by lying. The good news is that the country is still split pretty evenly 50/50. I don’t know German history very well but I don’t remember hearing that non-Nazis were loudly opposing the Nazis.
Time will tell how this all shakes out but I’m mentally preparing myself for the worst case scenario.
Nazis had street fights with socialists and communists for years. They were the first to be purged together with homosexuals, transvestites, handicapped, etc.
Media were largely acting like our current media, woefully ineffective and passive reporting on right wing violence. Hitler called then lugenpresse, now its fake news.
Resistance continued after that but not in the open, can be seen in the large number of assassination attempts.
> I don’t remember hearing that non-Nazis were loudly opposing the Nazis.
They definitely did.
> I don’t know German history very well
It's worth revisiting. _The Nazi Seizure of Power_ by William Sherman Allen is available in a variety of formats and may be an accessible starting point for this. It does directly contain examples of resistance and opposition to Nazis, before, during, and after their seizure of power (albeit in just one town that the book focuses on).
> I don’t know German history very well but I don’t remember hearing that non-Nazis were loudly opposing the Nazis.
There sure was opposition to them (while it was still possible), that sure changed after they had enough power to get you locked up and killed for trying.
Surprise then for you: there were fewer Nazi's in Germany in both an absolute and a relative sense than there are Republican voters / MAGA voters in the United States right now.
I mean, the comment above is now flagged and dead. Doesn't that mean the mods killed someone's comment solely for giving their opinion on the state of their own country?
EDIT: And [dead] removed now. Fascinating. I checked the unofficial guide on GitHub again to confirm my understanding:
> A [dead] submission (that does not also show [flagged]) is killed by a moderator or by the software. They will only be shown to users who have showdead enabled in their profile. A submission can simultaneously be [flagged] and [dead].
> the comment above is now flagged and dead. Doesn't that mean the mods killed someone's comment
No, it doesn't mean that. [flagged] is by users, not mods. [flagged][dead] means enough users have flagged it to kill it. [dead] alone is the result of moderator action (manual or automatic).
I saw your comment, vouched for the comment you're referring to, and it reappeared. I don't have a full understanding of how vouching works; it could be that I was one of several, or that it was only coincidental that it reappeared just after I vouched for it.
It's the Fourth Reich. Venezuela has been invaded. Meanwhile Trump is threatening several other nations with similar. He has demonstrated that he will act on seemingly unhinged threats. He seems intent on taking over the Western hemisphere by invasion and coercion.
This was after the alleged attempted ICE ramming in Oakland last year where shots were fired but thankfully nobody died. I think there was a similar incident in LA. It would be great if there were technology to solve this problem. People perceive cars as deadly weapons and open fire and whether it’s good or not people who think they’re going to get smooshed and have a firearm will tend to use it. I didn’t see the one today but there have been enough of these cases that it really begs for a technological solution, like some sort of kill switch (no pun) that halts a vehicle if a person is in front of it. They’d have to make a law to retrofit older vehicles but it seems like something we could engineer fairly cheaply, and it would prevent at least some of these events. Even cases where the person in front of the car aren’t cops, like the guy who drove through the Christmas parade and killed the little kids, or the nazi kid in Charlottesville. Car rammings are becoming a horrible sort of meme. It’s contagious.
> like some sort of kill switch (no pun) that halts a vehicle if a person is in front of it.
That is a horrible and dangerous reaction that does not solve the problem whatsoever. You are typing this comment with your heart, not with your brain.
We have mandatory seat belts and air bags. A sensor on the hood to insure a car is not being used as a murder weapon seems minimal in comparison. Such a sensor would save many lives including the young lady involved in the incident today. We have strict gun laws, why does it make sense to let any psycho buy a cheap used car and go kill people with it? It’s a glaring inconsistency.
Outside of the pragmatic argument of current-tech limitations for such an implementation, cars should sometimes be a weapon.
If all cars were mandated by law to not accelerate when a person is in front of them, doesn't that give carjackers pretty much guaranteed success to confront and forcibly stop their victim before stealing their car, their belongings, or taking their life?
Why would I even bother buying a nice car if I know someone can just walk up in front of its front grill and hold me at gunpoint, and my car can't help but force me to stay there?
So we should have shootings like the one yesterday just because you want to drive a Lamborghini and murder carjackers? Current tech is totally sufficient to implement this. It’s already found in Waymo taxis based on news reports I’ve seen. It probably exists in teslas too, give or take software updates. It seems almost trivial: if someone is a foot in front of the car, disconnect the accelerator or drop to neutral on high acceleration. If cars can run people over from a dead stop, and if this is a common issue in law enforcement where people try to run over cops, and it clearly is, then we will have many more shootings like yesterday’s. That’s a world you want to live in? She wrote poetry.
I just watched a video where, at night in an isolated road flanked by woods, a man stops his truck in front of a woman in her car alone. He then sprints from his car toward her driver side door.
That woman would be raped and murdered in the middle of nowhere if her car disallowed her from making an executive decision for her safety.
Your reasoning is flawed. The man could have parked his truck in front of her car and her ability to ram it wouldn’t make a difference. Most car jackers and would be rapists do not approach their victim on foot at a 0 degree approach angle, from the front, they come from 270 degrees (the driver side), where the door they will open is located. They cannot jack the car or rape without that side approach.
I'm sorry, does the gated community even let you out? Or women in? It's painfully obvious you've never in your life had to be concerned about your safety in any meaningful way.
> Criminals would never get in front of a car. Especially after you legally mandate that by doing it their victim cannot escape by any means anymore.
What is the value of being in front of a car? The value is in opening the door, which is on the side. Sure you could have two jackers, one in front and another on the side but then running over 1 of the 2 (or more) again becomes useless as the side jacker would shoot you.
> Or women in?
You must be rolling in women. Lucky them. Maybe you can take them out to dinner and run over some car jackers on the way home.
We're done here. If you're only going to make emotional appeals and ignore every authoritative and logical argument presented to you, there's nothing else to discuss. You're arguing in bad faith and certainly know you're wrong.
Remote start/stop of motor vehicles is dangerous. You should not be wondering at any point in your life why automotive manufacturers are ignoring your armchair design specifications.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gb_IkGVK7WvsTAXfMvQU...
I've watched them all repeatedly. It's clear she was blocked in at the front, trying to pull out, and yielded, waving the ICE vehicles to go around front.
They instead got out, needlessly attempted to drag her from her vehicle, and she freaked out and tried to GTFO by turning right to avoid hitting any of them. She was shot and killed for it.
reply