Why do people hate ICE...

[GoldenBoy89]

He didn't kill her out of anger. And his response is a psychological response that is perfectly understandable after just being hit by the car. You need to learn a little about human psychology.

When faced with a situation where you perceived you are in real danger rhe physiological responses take over. They can have a range of response. His is one of the perfectly natural physiological and psychological responses to the situation of someone putting him in that type of risk.

Nah. His reaction is absolutely soulless. A perfect fit for the kind of work they have them doing. Separating families, harassing normal hard working people, tear gassing non-violent protestors. I couldn’t live with myself if that was my work.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

We should count them as 0.

That makes sense. They’re not even human to you.

 

[BasedLutheran]

What would I have to get?

My goodness your online persona is just a fragile little fellow

You don't have to get anything. You've got nothing. Try reading for basic comprehension. Come back when you've got an actual argument

 

[camille70]

Both sides see what they want to see in the videos

I wasnt aware I was taking a "side". When it was first mentioned that he had been hit by the car and I saw the video from a distance in the front, I didn't like it, but could understood why he fired because it did look like she had bumped him. Since then, clearer video had emerged, with better angles.

If he was touched at all, he was brushed by the farthest corner of the car. The speed wasnt a ramming speed or he wouldn't be here. Video has emerged showing the placement of his feet and everything. And we get one the clearest from the shooters own phone showing everything but the actual shots as the phone was jostled while he shot.

When he is first recording, it's clear from the discussion with the wife, they thought he was going to take their info and follow up with them or send the police later.

Nothing can convince me she intended to harm him, she had already backed up once, you can see the tires move while she's speaking with him on his first approach. She could have hit him the first time he crossed in front of her car. She could have backed over him when he was at the rear. She could have gunned the engine when he was going for the second walk around or tried to intimidate him. They were mocking, not threatening.

I agree people are interpreting what is shown differently.

 

[BPPLEE]

I wasnt aware I was taking a "side". When it was first mentioned that he had been hit by the car and I saw the video from a distance in the front, I didn't like it, but could understood why he fired because it did look like she had bumped him. Since then, clearer video had emerged, with better angles.

If he was touched at all, he was brushed by the farthest corner of the car. The speed wasnt a ramming speed or he wouldn't be here. Video has emerged showing the placement of his feet and everything. And we get one the clearest from the shooters own phone showing everything but the actual shots as the phone was jostled while he shot.

When he is first recording, it's clear from the discussion with the wife, they thought he was going to take their info and follow up with them or send the police later.

Nothing can convince me she intended to harm him, she had already backed up once, you can see the tires move while she's speaking with him on his first approach. She could have hit him the first time he crossed in front of her car. She could have backed over him when he was at the rear. She could have gunned the engine when he was going for the second walk around or tried to intimidate him. They were mocking, not threatening.

I agree people are interpreting what is shown differently.

She could have……………. She could have gotten out of the car like she was told and nobody would be having this conversation

 

[BCP1928]

She could have……………. She could have gotten out of the car like she was told and nobody would be having this conversation

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is we're supposed to revel in her death as a victory in the culture war.

 

[BasedLutheran]

She could have……………. She could have gotten out of the car like she was told and nobody would be having this conversation

But but but but, that would make sense!

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is we're supposed to revel in her death as a victory in the culture war.

Or use her death to score points as a martyr in the culture war

 

[RocksInMyHead]

She could have……………. She could have gotten out of the car like she was told and nobody would be having this conversation

Likewise, the officer could have kept his weapon holstered, and nobody would be having this conversation.

 

[BCP1928]

Or use her death to score points as a martyr in the culture war

The real martyr in this case died on a cross--along with the moral credibility of American Christianity.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Some new ICE recruits have shown up to training without full vetting​

The recruits have had criminal backgrounds or failed drug tests or were unable to meet physical or academic standards, raising concerns about the agency’s rush to hire immigration officers, sources told NBC News.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

In a case of perceived threat adrenaline kicks in and the human responds.

You are making snap judgements on things you were not facing.

Sounds like a legitimate argument for this woman to not want to be dragged from her car by ICE and to instead drive away.

If Jonathan Ross can claim "adrenaline" and "snap judgements", then Renee Good can claim them too.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Some new ICE recruits have shown up to training without full vetting​

The recruits have had criminal backgrounds or failed drug tests or were unable to meet physical or academic standards, raising concerns about the agency’s rush to hire immigration officers, sources told NBC News.

Southpark is a documentary at this point.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We should count them as 0.

They should be counted as 0

Are they not persons?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Will they arrest the entire city now?

 

[BasedLutheran]

Are they not persons?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State

Correct, they are not legal persons, and should be removed with force from the country

 

[BasedLutheran]

Will they arrest the entire city now?

Is the entire city illegal?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Is the entire city illegal?

The entire city is protesting.

 

[NxNW]

And here the entire leftist set of talking points that she was just a poor scared woman who didn't know what was happening and was just trying to 'turn around' and get out of there on her way home from dropping her kid off, is destroyed. She stopped there, blocked the road, let her 'wife' out to scream abuse and curse words at ICE officers while filming outside the vehicle, and trying to bait a reaction from the officers to get clicks. And then we hear her 'wife' shout 'drive drive'

None of these things are crimes.

just before she floors it directly at the officer who is now in front of the vehicle after she turns it.

Never happened. Look at the wheels. She was turning away from him.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It might say that in the Constitution, and people will parrot it to sound like they uphold the Constitution, but there are lots of states who have given illegals aliens the right to vote.

1) The Constitution does not prohibit non-citizens from voting; rather the Constitution in several places upholds that the right to vote cannot be denied to citizens on the basis of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), or to those 18 or older (26th Amendment) nor can the right be denied to any citizen on the basis of the failure to pay a poll tax or any other such tax (24th Amendment). The Constitution doesn't provide an exhaustive claim on who may or who may not vote; only that the right to vote can not be denied to citizens on the basis of those cases which have come down through history. The 15th Amendment was passed after the Civil War guaranteeing emancipated former slaves citizenship (13th Amendment) and cannot have their right to vote denied; likewise the 19th Amendment was passed after the Woman's Suffrage Movement campaigned long and hard to give women the right to vote.

2) I am not aware of any state which gives non-citizens (legal or illegal) the right to vote. Can you name any state that does?