ICE shooting in Minneapolis, police swarm scene

Semper-Fi said:

Here is how not to be shot by ICE officers​

MSN

Click to expand...

Wow. Imagine that. It’s as simple as “DONT BREAK THE LAW”.

Minnesota police who refused to work with ICE
now mad when feds won’t work with them.

So much aggression within all of us.

As far as I can tell, Walz put the guard on alert in case they were needed to assist law enforcement, because of ongoing protests. I’ve intentionally picked a right wing news source. Walz authorizes National Guard to assist law enforcement amid ICE protests

The way it looks to me:

* The woman did not set out to kill the agent. She was not acting as a terrorist.
* She could reasonably be charged with reckless endangerment, and (if you assume that ICE is a legitimate law enforcement agency) resisting arrest
* The agent's life was not in danger. He just had to step out of the front of the car, a position he had put himself in
* Whether the agent was justified depends upon policy, which I'm not qualified to judge. It's conceivable that he was, though the public justifications have been based on untrue statements that the driver was trying to hit him.
* Noem made extreme accusations before she would have had a chance to look at the evidence
* Walz was unjustiably inflammatory,, though what he said was probably true if looked at in a purely objective way. Still, that's not how i would expect a governor to act.

It is unlikely that an investigation by a unit supervised by Noem will be in a position to be unbiased. Participation by Police would help, though they might have biases in the opposite direction. It would be nice if there were some group that we could trust, and that both sides would be willing to have participate. I doubt that will happen. The result will almost certainly be an increase in distrust of DHS. For example, the recent shooting in Portland may well have been justified, but I won't believe it unless there's an investigation involving someone from outside DHS.

Praying for the woman who was shot. I don't know if she ended up in Hell or Heaven, but I'll pray for
her soul, despite not agreeing with her actions against the ICE agents.

Semper-Fi said:

Here is how not to be shot by ICE officers​

MSN

Click to expand...

Yes, obey the law. BelannF on X: "IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS ANGLE OF THE ICE AGENT BEING ASSAULTED BY A 4K LB SUV - You should. The ICE agent was acting in self-defense. https://t.co/Tu492lnhpR" / X https://share.google/rrOBUWumPX3nEzhMk

Danthemailman said:

Yes, obey the law. BelannF on X: "IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS ANGLE OF THE ICE AGENT BEING ASSAULTED BY A 4K LB SUV - You should. The ICE agent was acting in self-defense. https://t.co/Tu492lnhpR" / X https://share.google/rrOBUWumPX3nEzhMk

Click to expand...

His shooting did not stop the vehicle and yet he survived basically unharmed. How is that self defense?

Akita Suggagaki said:

His shooting did not stop the vehicle and yet he survived basically unharmed. How is that self defense?

Click to expand...

I saw the video. It was self defense. Chicago Police superintendent Larry Snelling gave a press conference in which he reminds the public that federal agents ARE members of law enforcement, and as such - it is reasonable for them to use deadly force if you box them in with your vehicle. Don't do it.

His message was clear: If you play stupid games with law enforcement, you will win stupid prizes.

Akita Suggagaki said:

His shooting did not stop the vehicle and yet he survived basically unharmed. How is that self defense?

Click to expand...

Because he would have been dead and she would be heralded as a hero if she had actually struck him.

hedrick said:

The way it looks to me:

* The woman did not set out to kill the agent. She was not acting as a terrorist.
* She could reasonably be charged with reckless endangerment, and (if you assume that ICE is a legitimate law enforcement agency) resisting arrest
* The agent's life was not in danger. He just had to step out of the front of the car, a position he had put himself in
* Whether the agent was justified depends upon policy, which I'm not qualified to judge. It's conceivable that he was, though the public justifications have been based on untrue statements that the driver was trying to hit him.
* Noem made extreme accusations before she would have had a chance to look at the evidence
* Walz was unjustiably inflammatory,, though what he said was probably true if looked at in a purely objective way. Still, that's not how i would expect a governor to act.

It is unlikely that an investigation by a unit supervised by Noem will be in a position to be unbiased. Participation by Police would help, though they might have biases in the opposite direction. It would be nice if there were some group that we could trust, and that both sides would be willing to have participate. I doubt that will happen. The result will almost certainly be an increase in distrust of DHS. For example, the recent shooting in Portland may well have been justified, but I won't believe it unless there's an investigation involving someone from outside DHS.

Click to expand...

What it looks like to me is that the woman purposely accelerated into the policeman who was right in front of her car. You can see her looking directly at him as she was in the process of accelerating. And her wife was taunting them as she recorded the whole thing. This was not an accident, the woman was trained at the little activist workshops the sponsors offer, which include things such as taunting tactics, recording everything to try to intimidate, and phone numbers to call in case you get arrested so you can be bailed out.

A New Dawn said:

What it looks like to me is that the woman purposely accelerated into the policeman who was right in front of her car. You can see her looking directly at him as she was in the process of accelerating. And her wife was taunting them as she recorded the whole thing. This was not an accident, the woman was trained at the little activist workshops the sponsors offer, which include things such as taunting tactics, recording everything to try to intimidate, and phone numbers to call in case you get arrested so you can be bailed out.

Click to expand...

This is why I said policy is important. She did not, as accused, set out to kill the agent. She was trying to get away. Other videos show she had turned to go around him, but if he hadn't moved she probably would have hit him. That's why I said you could reasonably accuse her of reckless endangerment and resisting arrest.

The question is whether policy says when an agent is standing in front of a car and it starts moving, he should step a couple of feet to the right, or shoot the driver. There's some evidence that DHS policy says he should step away. It's also pretty clear that he shot her after he had stepped out of the way. Again, a policy question. If you're out of immediate danger, and it does't look like the driver is going to come back and attack again, should you shoot? I suspect the answer is you shouldn't shoot.

hedrick said:

The agent's life was not in danger. He just had to step out of the front of the car, a position he had put himself in

Click to expand...

If a police officer points a gun at me and says, stay right where you are . . . I clearly understand I could get shot if I do not do what the officer says. And there seem to be cases when a person gets shot because the person did not stay still for an officer with a gun.

But I think use of deadly force is justified only if the fleeing person could be a danger of rape or murder to people. Disrespecting the police is not legal cause, alone, for killing someone . . . I think > ah, not in "America".

And the shooter in the video seemed agile enough to get out of the way of the car. And he shot after he was safely not in the path of the car. Also, if the car was moving straight at him, even killing her might not stop the car from hitting him. So, shooting was not a solution to some danger to his life, but getting out of the way was. It looked to me like he popped her while he was already somewhat to the side of the vehicle . . . not in the way of its progress.

I saw news video of I recall two white Dallas officers apprehending a black guy. He drove his car right at them, on purpose, apparently. They did not shoot him . . . of all things > in Texas where there can be pretty inferior stuff of racism. But they hopped out of his way and then caught him.

There are officers who deeply value doing all they can to keep their suspects safe.

hedrick said:

Whether the agent was justified depends upon policy, which I'm not qualified to judge. It's conceivable that he was, though the public justifications have been based on untrue statements that the driver was trying to hit him.

Click to expand...

I saw the video. It looked to me like the shooter was already enough to the side of the car's path so it could not hit the guy. May be, if the car was still aiming at him, he would have first made sure he was out of the way, versus staying in the way of a moving car while shooting so the car would be sure to hit him. The car did not hit the guy who was shooting, that I saw.

Lying is a tactic of war. There is a political civil war in the United States. So, look at the video, yourself, and see if there could be tactical lying going on, here.

I personally understand there are law enforcement people who risk their lives and family life to serve and protect. However, some number of them are not emotionally sound people . . . especially if Jesus has not saved them and started to make them deeply sound people. So, I make sure I honor law enforcement people, in order to encourage them to do what is good. But certainly I do not mess with them, knowing that any of them, for all I know, could be triggered to hurt or kill me. There is no knowing how many unsaved, not-Christian officers are deeply unsound, who can be triggered . . . by me. They are human weapons; I don't advise that you pull their trigger while they are aiming even just their attention toward you.

If you don't like this - - you become a real and qualified officer; because wrong people are not going to do what is right. There is reason why we have the ones we do, and not every single one perfectly emotionally qualified. If you don't want officers to do what is dirty, get ones who aren't. If you do not put in qualified people, you will not have qualified people > wrong people won't do this for you. We have Satan's kingdom operating on this earth, indeed with plenty of conspiracies and lying.

Of course, ones will say to make the politicians do what is right; however, the ones at the top were brought up in the entitled American culture, where lying and complaining and arguing are used in many American households as tools for people to get their own way. And so, the ones at the top will use the same methods, which they learned at home. They are the tip of the iceberg, supported by the great and *icy* mass below it . . . of ones complaining and arguing and blaming anyone but our own selves and our own bad example that helps to produce kids who become the wrong sort of officers and politicians.

So, if we don't like the product, stop what helps to produce it, instead of trying to stop what we have helped to produce!

hedrick said:

This is why I said policy is important. She did not, as accused, set out to kill the agent. She was trying to get away. Other videos show she had turned to go around him, but if he hadn't moved she probably would have hit him. That's why I said you could reasonably accuse her of reckless endangerment and resisting arrest.

The question is whether policy says when an agent is standing in front of a car and it starts moving, he should step a couple of feet to the right, or shoot the driver. There's some evidence that DHS policy says he should step away. It's also pretty clear that he shot her after he had stepped out of the way. Again, a policy question. If you're out of immediate danger, and it does't look like the driver is going to come back and attack again, should you shoot? I suspect the answer is you shouldn't shoot.

Click to expand...

She set out to kill the moment she put her foot on the accelerator while he was standing in front of her car. She might not have gone in in the morning with the intent to kill a police officer, she was paid to restrict the flow of traffic, but what she did was intentional. She, and she alone, was responsible for taking her foot off the break and putting it on the accelerator and then proceed to press the pedal while a person was in front of her.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked another person who refused to answer (because there is no reasonable answer). Why was it OK for a cop to murder a woman in the White House on Jan. 6th when she was unarmed and posed no threat to him, but here, where the woman was in charge of a 2000 pound projectile weapon that she aimed at the cop, he, somehow shouldn’t shoot in self defense?

The fact is, the only answer is because of partisan bias. There is no other explanation.

I think she was flustered, panicked and the officer probably had ptsd from the time he was dragged. Thus also impaired. They both made mistakes.

Now it becomes bi-partisan litmus test. I do not fault the officer. We should not be looking for someone to blame. She either did not have control or worse. But shooting her in the head seems over reaction. How many of us would draw a weapon rather then do our best to just get the heck out io the way. We should all try to de-escalate.

Akita Suggagaki said:

I think she was flustered, panicked and the officer probably had ptsd from the time he was dragged. Thus also impaired. They both made mistakes.

Now it becomes pa artisan litmus test. I do not fault the officer. We should not be looking for someone to blame. She either did not have control or worse. But shooting her in the head seems over reaction. How many of us would draw a weapon rather then do our best to just get the heck out io the way. We should all try to de-escalate.

Click to expand...

Should the officer who killed Ashlie Babbitt done the same thing?

Still waiting for the posts arguing that ICE should have shot the car in the leg...

Tuur said:

Should the officer who killed Ashlie Babbitt done the same thing?

Still waiting for the posts arguing that ICE should have shot the car in the leg...

Click to expand...

I’ve asked this question three times now and nobody’s had a response for it.

Tuur said:

Should the officer who killed Ashlie Babbitt done the same thing?

Still waiting for the posts arguing that ICE should have shot the car in the leg...

Click to expand...

Same thing as what? Get out of the way? It was his job to be in the way defending the capital. Two incomparable situations, don’t you think!

hedrick said:

The way it looks to me:

* The woman did not set out to kill the agent. She was not acting as a terrorist.
* She could reasonably be charged with reckless endangerment, and (if you assume that ICE is a legitimate law enforcement agency) resisting arrest
* The agent's life was not in danger. He just had to step out of the front of the car, a position he had put himself in
* Whether the agent was justified depends upon policy, which I'm not qualified to judge. It's conceivable that he was, though the public justifications have been based on untrue statements that the driver was trying to hit him.
* Noem made extreme accusations before she would have had a chance to look at the evidence
* Walz was unjustiably inflammatory,, though what he said was probably true if looked at in a purely objective way. Still, that's not how i would expect a governor to act.

It is unlikely that an investigation by a unit supervised by Noem will be in a position to be unbiased. Participation by Police would help, though they might have biases in the opposite direction. It would be nice if there were some group that we could trust, and that both sides would be willing to have participate. I doubt that will happen. The result will almost certainly be an increase in distrust of DHS. For example, the recent shooting in Portland may well have been justified, but I won't believe it unless there's an investigation involving someone from outside DHS.

Click to expand...

It does not matter what was in the woman's mind. It matters what was on the officers mind. It doesn't matter what you think of noem, They have jurisdiction here. This undermining of our system is a problem.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Same thing as what? Get out of the way? It was his job to be in the way defending the capital. Two incomparable situations, don’t you think!

Click to expand...

And there it is again. Ashlie Babbitt, who was unarmed, was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer, and some here have argued that that this was justified. But when an ICE agent shoots someone who attacked him with a car, some of the same ones argue that Good's shooting was not. And yet Babbitt was unarmed and Good used the vehicle as a weapon. That, to put it politely, is inconsistent.