Wasn’t the person driving the suv attending meetings on how to disrupt ice agents?
Weren’t they purposely blocking the street?
Did they not fuck around and find out?
It’s a completely fucked up situation…
I've been wrong about something and I'd like to show you what I've been wrong about. If you do not wish to see violence don't click the link I'll be posting below.
Due to recent discussions about ICE agents in Minneapolis (wearing masks, because that's somehow the worst part of the events... 🙄), I've been poking about the most infamous incident lately: the shooting of the woman driving the Honda pilot.
I broadly believed reports that the woman had hit the agent with her vehicle. If that was the case, it's clear cut self-defense.
However, on further review, this does not seem to be the case. As such, I have changed my opinion based on more facts and deem the actions of the agent to be outside the bounds of self defense and would label this as murder.
The video floating around, and that I've posted here on nostr showing a clear hit has been fairly certainly found to be a fabrication.
Below, you'll find a link to reddit. I know, I know... but it contains a video that is compiled and synced from videos that do seem to be legitimate, and they clearly show malice of forethought by the agent in question as he drew his weapon before the woman had turned her wheels to move her vehicle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q71k0w/all_angles_of_minneapolis_ice_shooting_synched/
As such, the agent broke with all known SOPs regarding firing at a "fleeing vehicle" thus, IMO, is guilty of murder, at least until I am presented evidence otherwise.
That being said, it doesn't change my opinion on:
-Agents wearing face coverings
-ICE is doing a job that is necessary as long as there are national borders and unwelcome, criminal miscreants
-Ending the welfare state will solve nearly all of these issues without the descent into martial law
-Agents of the government operating with carte blanche immunity will only be emboldened to do more of this
So, I was wrong, evidently, about this particular shooting which I will call a murder now. That's fine. (Me being wrong, not the murder.) I'm still open to discussing it and being presented with other evidence on either side. I'd even appreciate it.
Discussion
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
But the agent was clearly NOT in danger and drew and fired against very clear and basic SOP.
Yes, it is terrible all around.
Agreed…
Being rude and aggressive to _anyone_ pointing a deadly weapon at you might get you killed. I think it's part of adulting, to take that seriously and to carefully wiegh whether it's the hill you want die on. The protestors in this video are clearly used to dealing with armed ICE agents, while acting like a total arse, and walking away, laughing about it on social media. But, they picked the wrong guy on the wrong day.
Does that necessarily make it okay, or legal, that she got shot? Nope. But it effects how much outrage I feel about it and how much attention I am willing to pay to it.
Not much.
Yes. Exactly.
Also, if you look at the protests that have broken out, after this, you see:
1. Some of the protestors are completely unhinged and prone to violence. You don't protest government violence by breaking stuff and terrorizing everyone.
2. They don't appear to be people from Minneapolis. Are they bussing in protestors, _again_, to destroy the local neighborhood, _again_?
3. The local politicians are relieved to have something to talk about, other than daycare fraud, which encourages them to hype this all up and be like George Floyd 2.0! ✊🏾
While this is true no one should be licking the states ass. This agent adds no value to the stated goal of enforcing immigration laws. His actions are a step backwards, if that is the goal. They are a step forward if the goal is to normalize a paramilitary death squad controlled by the executive branch.
The whole point of all of this situation is to usher in martial law and digital ID.
What's your solution?
That's also not the point of the discussion at hand.
We stop allowing false narratives to cloud this situation. If the admin was serious about immigration they would jail corporate executives that employee illegal immigrants. For the criminal immigrants who don’t have employment they would use the vast financial surveillance network to target these people directly.
The use of goon squads on the streets of cities is a means to enrage the majority of people and provide the more radical and racist MAGA loyalists something to get hyped about.
Throwing out due process and creating rage bait is what a government who doesn’t care about individual freedom would do.
Well, it is easy to prove citizenship or properly documented resident status. If they can't or won't, due process is, IMO, to boot them as fast as possible. It's just that simple.
You are correct about goon squads. And, they are also using the surveillance apparatus to target where to do the must effective work.
And yes, please let's jail the execs and politicians involved with this, too!
If you enter the country illegally, you should at least be required to pay a fine and deportation is a reasonable response. And you should be barred from applying for citizenship, since your disregard for the rule of law is apparent.
The police should be the ones finding and arresting them, but the local government has refused to do that job, so the federal government has taken over. The federal government is only in this position because previous admins refused to control the border.
If you open your external borders, you eventually finish the border fight in your residential areas.
There has been consistent deportations every year for decades. Obama was more aggressive than trumps first term and Biden used title 42 expulsions to remove 3 million which puts his single term numbers up to around 4 million people which is over 4x greater than trumps first term.
The entire current immigration drama is theater to normalize federal paramilitary in our cities it has very little to do with the business of deportations. Even with a massive budget the trump admin will likely not beat Bide’s number.
I have no problem with the forced removal of illegal immigrants, people should respect our laws. I have a problem with the narrative that what ice is doing currently is the only way or is the preferred way.
This is a choice being made to hype up the maga retards and piss off the city dwellers who have to feel the weight of a federal force. This force is laughably bad at their job and mostly just the dregs of the unemployable in the traditional law enforcement and military circles.
The play book is simple. Make the process of deportations visible and violent. Make the holding pens inhumane and despairing, and make the final destination arbitrary and without due process. This creates fear and resistance and correctly crafts a narrative that ICE is to be resisted(all government over reach should be). Trump gets his conflicts with the radical left and can distract everyone from his Epstein issues and the rapidly shrinking importance of the US on the world stage .
I'll agree with all of this.
You skipped over my argument, that nobody would need to deport them, if they had never been imported.
They did this in Germany, too. Insisted we let everyone in, and they would sort through them and then deport — pinky-swear. Then it came time to deport and they were like, Oh, it would be too mean to deport!
Turns out that it is much harder to deport 1 person than import 100k persons. And they knew that, from the beginning.
Yup.
The push across both political party’s has been to restrict immigration but then the foreign policy has been to create chaos that breeds the conditions we are seeing. the migrant crisis has been in the making for decades thanks to the drug war, us spurred political instability in central and South America. The bankers and financial players that control our political system want to push as many migrants north as possible. This will provide the excuse for increased militarization and surveillance.
Yes.
Exactly so.
That may be the case, but American citizens aren't required to tolerate the chaos in their cities, regardless of what the cause was.
I don't know if that is the case, tho. The idea that every shitty foreign government is the fault of Evil White Men is too simplistic for me.
The history of the CIA is the history of doing the work of the military industrialists and bankers to fuck up countries to enable resource extraction. The side effect of this neo colonialism is a migrant crisis. It’s also the history of the drug use crisis.
This is not about blaming white men. The sex and skin color of these vampires is immaterial.
Yes. 100% yes.
It's not immaterial. The entire argument is incredibly racist and sexist, as it assumes that migrants are all helpless victims, and that Americans and Europeans deserve to live in terror to atone for the sins of their ancestors, forever.
There are plenty of really horrible people in the countries of origin, and there always have been. And they've _always_ had shitty governments. That is normal. Having a non-shitty government was what made places like the USA and Germany so wealthy: it is a rare advantage (that we are losing). They are not superior humans, free of sin and justified in invading and conquering foreign lands, merely by grace of being born poorer and tanning faster. Just as we aren't justified, merely for being richer and paler.
And, yes, the CIA has been up to some seriously shady shit for as long as I can remember, but our countries are crawling with foreign agitators and spies, and everyone claims that they have no success here. Only the CIA works. Because we have Magic White People dust, that we sprinkle over ourselves, to make us immune to the bullshit they are saying and that keep us from taking their money to be sell-outs. Sure. Okay. Tell that to the people in New York and Minnesota, who currently have crazy commies rampaging across their front yard.
No, it isn't just White Man issues. It's beyond that. It is bigger than humanity, even.
Being able to make sound decisions and keep your cool under pressure are part of the job, and this was definitely a fail. I disagree that this agent should be assumed to be acting according to some prepared strategy, to go shoot all the Karens.
I also know that many of these protestors are experienced agitators and go out of their way to create these sort of situations, so that they have an excuse to protest and get good video material for the Social Media Outrage Machine. This situation escalated too quickly, so that they couldn't control it, and they all made a surprised face, but this is their (paid) hobby. They do this shit all day and it's usually fun for them.
ICE agents are an easy group to point fingers at, but they also attack firefighters, teachers, cops, nurses, ambulance personnel, bus drivers, trash collectors, etc. It's getting harder and harder to hire for essential services, and to retain staff, in urban areas, as you end up constantly under attack. Islamists, Marxists, environmentalists, illegal immigrants, radical feminists, Transactivists, Antifa...
It's all the same club and I am not in it.
No one makes sounds decisions when they are afraid of dying. We go through a lot of training to prepare for that moment, and even then, a lot of people fuck it up and die. That woman had a right to protest. Training for a minimum of one year before entering a combat zone should not be a prerequisite for a citizen protesting.
That said, she was partially murdered by her "wife," who goaded the officer. She should stand trial too, though I don't think she should be judged in the same way as the officer who responded to her by moving his phone to his other hand, pulling his weapon and executing the woman out of spite.
Look, I don't like leftists, either. Let's move past that. They can be stupid, we can call them stupid, but murder isn't acceptable.
Compared to MAGA, democrats look like geniuses.🤣
Accidental geniuses, and still utterly untrustworthy. But I'll give them a marginal increase in opinion compared to a couple years ago.
Yup.
Murder is bad for everyone.
Leftists and rightists are delusional. It would be nice to move on from the myth of the state, too.
I think the idea that he wasn't in danger is the main idea that I disagree with. How would one objectively be able to determine that?
I don't think this is "standard" so I think the notion of it falling under "standard operating procedure" is a bit of a stretch.
Why should we believe heavily left leaning assessment of the situation from redditors but not believe when the officer says himself that he feared for his life?
Sure. The standard is "in fear of grievous bodily harm."
The issue I have with that is that AS a public agent and AS someone presumably trained in the case law regarding situations like this, the agent/officer/JotP is (and should be) held to a higher standard since they are trained and supposedly know what the standards are.
Also, that defence has been used to dismiss some utterly disgusting cases of otherwise obvious incorrect and culpable behavior from police in general.
And no, this is a fairly ubiquitous standard across most LEO/Agent training I'm aware of. Could I be wrong? Yes. I don't think I am on this point.
I'm neither left or right. The video on reddit seems to be a correctly implemented and highlighted compilation of the events that took place. So why should I not accept it as correct? The videos used in it are readily verifiable, unlike the other I have seen.
If that turns out to be legit, I will, again, change my opinion based on facts.
This situation would be simpler if officers were not covered by *qualified immunity* (a legal precedent repugnant to good law, IMO) and a grand jury or even insurance investigation (to revoke or not cover the officer's conduct under insurance contracts) swiftly conducted to asses as many of the facts as possible after a proper thorough investigation as possible. But that's all idealism and not what we are dealing with.
"The issue I have with that is that AS a public agent and AS someone presumably trained in the case law regarding situations like this, the agent/officer/JotP is (and should be) held to a higher standard since they are trained and supposedly know what the standards are. "
Ok? What does an objective "higher standard" constitute? How can you say? You're trying to make momentary judgement a binary or at very least some calculable thing you can plug into an excel spreadsheet to HR or even convict a person that for all intents and purposes believed in that moment that they were defending themselves from a lethal threat.
"Also, that defence has been used to dismiss some utterly disgusting cases of otherwise obvious incorrect and culpable behavior from police in general. "
Ok how is that relevant? Or is it just used to demonize the defense? "All cookies are bad all the time cause they made my cousin fat!"
"And no, this is a fairly ubiquitous standard across most LEO/Agent training I'm aware of. Could I be wrong? Yes. I don't think I am on this point.
I'm neither left or right. The video on reddit seems to be a correctly implemented and highlighted compilation of the events that took place. So why should I not accept it as correct? The videos used in it are readily verifiable, unlike the other I have seen."
Do you believe in personal accountability? Please explain to me why or why you don't believe that this woman is or isn't responsible for her actions that got her shot? If she is- then these are just the consequences of her actions right? Like it's not great. It's not the desired outcome for someone. But it is what it is. If she's not then what? We call this a murder and what? Leave all the illegals here and end ICE and allow anyone from anywhere into our country because borders are oppressive cause one lady got shot for doing something stupid? I don't see the argument.
"If that turns out to be legit, I will, again, change my opinion based on facts."
Fair
"This situation would be simpler if officers were not covered by *qualified immunity* (a legal precedent repugnant to good law, IMO) and a grand jury or even insurance investigation (to revoke or not cover the officer's conduct under insurance contracts) swiftly conducted to asses as many of the facts as possible after a proper thorough investigation as possible. But that's all idealism and not what we are dealing with."
And we never will be. In any society. Even without qualified immunity. I don't agree with qualified immunity. And I don't like the blue code shit where cops basically won't narc on one another. BUT. That doesn't stop me from understanding where these things stem from.
I get that there are definite issues with policing. I'm not defending the idea of policing or law enforcement at all.
My issue comes in where we have to remove the choices of this woman and then because this guy is wearing a uniform and doing a job we have to say to ourselves "I have no idea how he could do that" while if we were put in a scenario we believed contemporaneously was life or death we would act in a way that we believed was going to keep us alive.
That's a fair rebuttal of some points. Thank you.
Whereas a citizen involved in a questionable shooting should be given a very generous interpretation of the "I was in fear of my life" defense, an agent of the state should be able to justify their actions by a reading of that precedent that requires a higher burden of proof.
I agree that moving car can constitute deadly force. However this also does not jive with "minimal necessary force." Also, a reasonable person, IMO, would have placed himself in a tactically untenable position in front of a vehicle that is moving. He could have sidestepped it (and, from what I've seen and others have pointed out, did), which goes against the defense of "I was in fear of my life."
For these reasons, I will start to assume malice or incompetence. Either of which makes him culpable for charges of murder or manslaughter.
I do believe in personal accountability. Which is why I rant about qualified immunity needing to be completely rescinded across all levels of "law enforcement."
As far as the woman goes, she made a string ofbad choices. Doesn't mean she deserved to be shot. (Again, based on what I've seen so far. I'm very open to new evidence.)
The result is that that agent is charged and tried and the rest of life goes on. I've been actively defending the precept that "if we still have national boarders, then ICE has a job to do." I'm also still not a fan of government thugs being given free reign. Both of those things are not incongruent.
I do think that every criminal of foreign origin should be returned to sender, by force, and in some cases sans parachute. But again, the easiest way to deal with this is to end all welfare programs at all levels immediately. Once the free money spigot is turned off, then people will either leave on their own, find jobs, or show how awful they might truly be. At which time, they should be booted or shot. (Not necessarily by gubment thugs.)
Exactly. This officer clearly did not abide by acceptable security measures. Shoving your sidearm through someone's window is an action that lacks any sense, at all. In his situation, it should've been common sense to step further away and do your best to catch the license plate.
At a certain point I just can't care. There are probably around a hundred million people in my country that shouldn't be here. I want them out. I either want them out of my country or out of this plane of existence. I don't care how that sounds. I don't care about coming off like a monster or insensitive. My country and culture has a right and many reasons to be preserved. If we continue to walk that idea back every time something makes us feel a little queasy then you may as well be signing a death warrant on our way of life.
If you have children or grandchildren you should be prepared to be apologizing for giving their country away while you're laying on your deathbed.
The boomers are currently in this position. GenX is on the same trajectory.
I'm sick of the compassion for people who are actively trying to destroy the country. This woman would've likely pissed on your grave if it would've been you dying at the hands of your enemies.
This woman was actively involved in replacing people like you in your country. I have no sympathy for her.
When the people in the peanut gallery get to insert their arbitrary standards and definitions into the arena, that’s bad for all people.
Rules have to be written for the man in the arena, or else men just abandon the society all together and we go back to the law of the jungle.
Just because one says their arbitrary standard is “common sense” doesn’t make it so.
Logic is hard, and rigorous consistency is even harder, but that’s what it takes to have a society, and exactly why we are fragmenting.
I say this with love and respect because i owe u the truth.
the principles you are espousing in this thread are arbitrary.
Oh I like you.
I believe him, but occasionally putting your life on the line is part of his job and we are to hold him to a higher standard than a normal citizen.
Every person on the face of the planet was given the right to defend their own life by God. You can take that up with Him.
Yes.
You don't have to exercise it in all circumstances. Just saying.
How and when you do that matters. This is not clear cut, which is why we have been discussing and arguing about this for hours. From my view, there was malice evident in his actions. Less so in hers. He also placed himself poorly, showing bad judgement. He drew his weapon when he could have sidestepped the car just as easily (even while drawing "just in case"). All of this is woulda-coulda-shoulda, though. What happened happened, and we are all going to have to deal with the consequences of it. None of it will be good.
If you're jay walking and someone almost hits you with you're car, you aren't justified in shooting them. Get the fuck out of the street if you don't want to get hit by a car.
False equivalency.
Just saying that doesn't make it true. Demonstrate how they are different. He was in the road where cars drive and their goal was to get her to move the car so they could pass.
Their goal was to remove her from the vehicle for committing the crime of obstructing and impeding.
She was attempting to flee the scene of a crime.
Here's something idk why no one has brought up. The man is standing in the middle of the street while he and his partners attempt to enforce laws that are not under their jurisdiction (state traffic laws). They were in the wrong as soon as they walked up to the car so anything after that point, they are operating outside of their duties and should have called the local cops.
She was obstructing and impeding. This wasn't enforcement of traffic laws this was her being told to get out of the car for obstructing.
You're finding a clever way to argue your point but it's still wrong.
Can you cite the federal statute then that covers impeding and obstructing bc the language matters.
• 18 U.S.C. § 111 – Assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer
• 18 U.S.C. § 1501 – Obstruction of a federal officer
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to obstruct (in some contexts)
Yeah I can use ChatGPT as well as the next guy.
From the video I've seen, the road is open, is there other video where it's not?
Weren't you just talking about how it wasn't their job to enforce traffic violations? And now you're saying the road was clear? I'm having trouble following now.
Either way. Here's a video where she's parked perpendicular across the road laying on her horn.
https://video.nostr.build/2dc9d3a927266556bda4740be0a5347bc3bb65f4236e474b7ed99a5c136bd1be.mp4
If the road is clear, she's not obstructing. Your video shows multiple cars passing by her, which to me means she's not obstructing, so her being parked in the middle of the road is a traffic violation and outside of their jurisdiction.
If the car:
• Blocks their vehicle
• Prevents execution of a warrant
• Impedes surveillance or pursuit
• Creates a safety hazard during an operation
Then the legal characterization changes.
At that point, federal agents do have authority to act, because they are no longer addressing “parking” — they are addressing interference.
Possible lawful actions:
• Ordering the driver to move the vehicle
• Temporarily detaining the driver
• Physically moving the vehicle if necessary
• Using force proportional to the need to clear the obstruction
The authority comes from:
• Federal obstruction statutes
• Implied authority to carry out lawful duties
• Officer safety doctrines
They still would not issue a parking citation, but they can neutralize the obstruction.
Doesn't look to me like she is blocking traffic. Look at the moment the truck pulls up to her, there is a whole other lane. Also, right before that truck pulls up, another car goes by. It also looks like she even waves them on.
I think this and why the fuck would you stand in front of a car are what the entirety of the argument lie upon.
I wasn't there. Were you? All we are going off of are videos that are all from undesirable angles.
Also everything you're saying essentially comes down to officer discretion.
Is this woman not responsible for her own actions? Or does she get a pass for some reason? She was ordered to get out of the vehicle. She didn't comply. She attempted to flee and or strike the agent with her vehicle.
"Why the fuck would you stand in front of a car"
Why wouldn't she just get out of the car when ordered?
Think she would still be alive if she just complied? Why do you believe she doesn't have to comply with orders given by a federal agent?
Definitely would agree on complying leads to her being alive, doesn't make shooting her the right move. Could have just got her plate and issued a warrant. But you can't answer my question with a question. Highway patrol doesn't start in the middle of the street while writing tickets. Why? Because that is retarded. Just because you're a federal agent doesn't mean you get to act retarded and are exempt from the consequences of your actions.
Your Officer Discrection point is valid until he uses unnecessary deadly force. Even the laws you cited say using proportional force, it's very obvious that he is escalating, not using proportional force OR he is intentionally using his body as a barrier of which the possible consequence is getting hit.
The woman was ordered to get out of the vehicle. She didn't comply. She attempted to flee and potentially attempted to strike the officer with her vehicle. It is up to the discretion of the officer how they choose to handle that.
"Unnecessary force" is not an objective statement. Again this is decided by the officer.
Your argument is that the woman should've just been allowed to flee a crime by federal agents. Pretty certain that's not what the title of Law Enforcement is generally paid to do on a conceptual level.
It really doesn't matter IF you agree with it.
What crime did she commit? If you're gunna say obstruction, watch the video, there are dozens of cars passing her.
Do you honestly believe when I'm saying "obstruction" I mean that she's obstructing traffic? Is that a serious take?
I already posted this once I guess you didn't read it the first time so maybe you should take the time to read it aloud to yourself so you can grasp the content better.
If the car:
• Blocks their vehicle
• Prevents execution of a warrant
• Impedes surveillance or pursuit
• Creates a safety hazard during an operation
Then the legal characterization changes.
At that point, federal agents do have authority to act, because they are no longer addressing “parking” — they are addressing interference.
Possible lawful actions:
• Ordering the driver to move the vehicle
• Temporarily detaining the driver
• Physically moving the vehicle if necessary
• Using force proportional to the need to clear the obstruction
The authority comes from:
• Federal obstruction statutes
• Implied authority to carry out lawful duties
• Officer safety doctrines
They still would not issue a parking citation, but they can neutralize the obstruction.
Here's more information that you could be looking up all on your own but I guess you need your hand held.
Criminal obstruction:
Intentional or knowing conduct that materially interferes with a law enforcement officer’s lawful duties, beyond mere speech or presence.
Impeding surveillance:
Purposeful acts that materially disrupt or expose lawful law enforcement monitoring activities.
Impeding pursuit:
Conduct that physically or practically prevents officers from lawfully chasing or apprehending a suspect.
This is all just out there and you can read I think so? I guess you should be taking the time to do that instead of throwing a hissy fit cause you don't like that some dumb lady got killed? I don't know? Maybe you just really like immigrants or something?
Do you honestly believe when I'm saying "obstruction" I mean that she's obstructing traffic? Is that a serious take? (No)
If the car:
• Blocks their vehicle (see video, does not apply)
• Prevents execution of a warrant (not applicable)
• Impedes surveillance or pursuit (not applicable)
• Creates a safety hazard during an operation (not applicable)
Possible lawful actions:
...
• Using force proportional to the need to clear the obstruction (shooting the driver is not proportional)
Criminal obstruction:
Intentional or knowing conduct that materially interferes with a law enforcement officer’s lawful duties, beyond mere speech or presence.
^^^
This point right here disproves your whole argument even-if she was blocking the road.
In your opinion.
Your opinion doesn't matter. You know the only person whose opinion really matters in this case?
The agents that were there.
Wanna know why?
It's up to their discretion.
You just don't like that. And that's fine. But it doesn't change anything.
Also I really like the cherry picking you did to make your point as if your entire argument wasn't also made moot by this-
"Impeding surveillance:
Purposeful acts that materially disrupt or expose lawful law enforcement monitoring activities.
Impeding pursuit:
Conduct that physically or practically prevents officers from lawfully chasing or apprehending a suspect."
This combined with officer discretion pretty much just ends this entire debate.
Those agents clearly believed that she and her wife were preventing one or both of those things and they needed to be removed from the equation. They were told to exit the vehicle. They didn't. At which point they attempted to flee after committing what was then criminal impeding/obstruction.
It's just completely pointless to talk about any of this because you're going to see what you want to.
Very good point
Just read that she and her partner moved to Canada, to escape Trump, and then came back.
Well, they kinda kept their word about leaving over Trump.
They only reason they got in was because they are gay, then, in my wild speculation, because they seem pretty useless otherwise and Canada has rather strict (otherwise) immigration laws for white people.
Oh geez…
