@goat Let them do an important job. Don't interfere. Hopefully she becomes a lesson to others beyond just being a moron. Maybe she'll save some lives.
I think I agree with almost everything you say except the bolded part. You don't need to 100% block the road to be obstructing. You know this. If she were doing this to support a cause you found unjust, you'd say she should be arrested for it and that other cars could get around her was irrelevant.But slow your roll on jumping to conclusions or you’re going to end up looking like Shooter.
What conclusions? I have repeatedly said "if" referencing potential policy violations. I have said it is policy concerns I have, not that he committed homicide (a frequent thing said on interwebs).
There way was not blocked, the shooter's vehicle drove past and stopped as did others.
I have asked what de-escalation techniques ICE used. I have seen people trained in de-escalation that it did not occur. I am not a specialist, so what de-escalation was done? I don't know.
Is it normal to walk around a vehicle with your gun arm holding a cell phone (he switched arms part way through)? Why have a cell phone when ICE are supposed to have body cams? Yes, he wants to is the vehicle, you can get a license from an angle. A license, color, make, model all do not require passing directly in front or behind.
She made mistakes, that is clear. ICE always had the ability to show up at her house and take her into custody. Yet someone chose to pull her out of the car. Is that the right choice? Why was getting her later not a good option?
And, why was the doctor that lived in the immediate vicinity and the paramedics refused access to her? Is that really ICE policy?
Are any of my questions flagrantly wrong?
I linked a court ruling about Border Patrol intentionally placing themselves in a location to allow themselves to claim self-defense and fire. That is why knowing what policy is and did he follow it is important. A trial judge isn't going to be good at determining that. No one in government now is going to counter Trump/Noem. So how do we get the answers
One of our posters used to hate politicians interjecting themselves ahead of the system. My complaint is that interjection. We aren't going to find what was supposed to happen vs what happened because 1) if any fault falls to ICE the person stating that risks their job which 2) means if someone comes out explaining how it was all good could not be entirely trusted.
This should have been kept at a lower level until a legitimate investigation completed. I started off complaining that the comments destroy the investigation. You keep saying we can invest, or the state can sue, or the family. None of that is as valuable by experts in DoJ looking at policy, speaking to trainers, and reviewing footage.
How is it at all, in any way, controversial to say Trump/Noem/Vance made comments that taint a DoJ review. I am dropping out, but feel free to explain how those comments impact a government investigation. I will be curious how it makes such better.
These officers attempted to arrest her. She tried to flee. The officer shot her who was in front of the car when she did so, trying to turn to get by him, from my vantage point. Not hard to see why he might have been scared for his life, though. Need an investigation into everything, I agree, and want policies to change--I've been in favor of that since law school. Trump et al. are wrong to shut it down.
Car after car drive by her without even slowing down much. Then Mr. Important came along
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
I think I agree with almost everything you say except the bolded part. You don't need to 100% block the road to be obstructing. You know this. If she were doing this to support a cause you found unjust, you'd say she should be arrested for it and that other cars could get around her was irrelevant.But slow your roll on jumping to conclusions or you’re going to end up looking like Shooter.
What conclusions? I have repeatedly said "if" referencing potential policy violations. I have said it is policy concerns I have, not that he committed homicide (a frequent thing said on interwebs).
There way was not blocked, the shooter's vehicle drove past and stopped as did others.
I have asked what de-escalation techniques ICE used. I have seen people trained in de-escalation that it did not occur. I am not a specialist, so what de-escalation was done? I don't know.
Is it normal to walk around a vehicle with your gun arm holding a cell phone (he switched arms part way through)? Why have a cell phone when ICE are supposed to have body cams? Yes, he wants to is the vehicle, you can get a license from an angle. A license, color, make, model all do not require passing directly in front or behind.
She made mistakes, that is clear. ICE always had the ability to show up at her house and take her into custody. Yet someone chose to pull her out of the car. Is that the right choice? Why was getting her later not a good option?
And, why was the doctor that lived in the immediate vicinity and the paramedics refused access to her? Is that really ICE policy?
Are any of my questions flagrantly wrong?
I linked a court ruling about Border Patrol intentionally placing themselves in a location to allow themselves to claim self-defense and fire. That is why knowing what policy is and did he follow it is important. A trial judge isn't going to be good at determining that. No one in government now is going to counter Trump/Noem. So how do we get the answers
One of our posters used to hate politicians interjecting themselves ahead of the system. My complaint is that interjection. We aren't going to find what was supposed to happen vs what happened because 1) if any fault falls to ICE the person stating that risks their job which 2) means if someone comes out explaining how it was all good could not be entirely trusted.
This should have been kept at a lower level until a legitimate investigation completed. I started off complaining that the comments destroy the investigation. You keep saying we can invest, or the state can sue, or the family. None of that is as valuable by experts in DoJ looking at policy, speaking to trainers, and reviewing footage.
How is it at all, in any way, controversial to say Trump/Noem/Vance made comments that taint a DoJ review. I am dropping out, but feel free to explain how those comments impact a government investigation. I will be curious how it makes such better.
These officers attempted to arrest her. She tried to flee. The officer shot her who was in front of the car when she did so, trying to turn to get by him, from my vantage point. Not hard to see why he might have been scared for his life, though. Need an investigation into everything, I agree, and want policies to change--I've been in favor of that since law school. Trump et al. are wrong to shut it down.
I said on the other forum that I thought you could make an argument the first shot was justified. Even though she was clearly turning away from him, his location combined with what was happening combined with a split second decision could easily lead him to reasonably believe he needed to take that shot.
But we should take a broader look at this. I don't want to live in a country where protesters are shot to death by authorities ever, for anything. He never should have walked in front of her vehicle, and when she stepped on the gas, his instinct should have been to dive out of the way, not to unholster his weapon. Wait until it's safe, and then go find her and arrest her. It wouldn't have been difficult. They had already recorded her license plate on video and her wife was clearly keen on making sure they knew exactly who they were. If she broke the law, they could have gotten her. She wasn't going to flee overseas.
I agree with the sentiment - from a practical standpoint - that you should obey the authorities, and if you don't, bad things might happen to you. From a practical standpoint, only. That's reality. But it shouldn't be reality. People get scared. People make bad decisions. The penalty for this shouldn't be three bullets in the face. It should be the cops showing up at your door a few hours later to take you in peacefully.
Now, not everything can be peaceful, I get that. But many things can. This could have. Other Western countries have far fewer officer-involved shootings than we do. Do we really think that's because American citizens are far more violent and dangerous by nature? Or is it perhaps because our law enforcement procedures are a bit more aggressive and reactionary than they ought to be?
Trump et al. are wrong to shut it down.
This is another instance imo where you see Trump's worst faults in leadership come through. You have polar sides. For the sake of turning down the temperature and if it is for nothing more than optics announce that an investigation will take place. Trump gets stuff like that wrong over and over again.
@goat It
Other Western countries have far fewer officer-involved shootings than we do. Do we really think that's because American citizens are far more violent and dangerous by nature? Or is it perhaps because our law enforcement procedures are a bit more aggressive and reactionary than they ought to be?
Or is it because police officers here have more encounters? Face a more heavily armed populace that is more dangerous? I disagree with almost everything you wrote in your post. We do need better training but these people are in life and death situations without the benefit of knowing a bad guy/gal's intent. All they know is they are not obeying and they have a family that they want to get home to so if it's their life or mine it's not even a question. Or is this person who I believe tried to hit me now going to hit the gas and run over someone else? Who knows? These aren't rational normal people. No mom is up there doing that that's normal leaving a kid at home to behave like she behaved.
The left. Protestors. Blacks. Illegals. Have got to start accepting some personal responsibility and accountability and participate in society and obey the rules. Listen to police. Follow the border. Don't bring in a 100,000 Somalis and act shocked they're ripping us. The left has got to find some common sense.
@aloha-hoosier When you cull through an entire thread to then like the one post critical of Trump that I wrote you portray yourself as a child. And not a very bright one.
I think it’s worth noting some of the fine people ICE has removed from Minnesota. So, in effect, Mrs Good was protesting the removal of these upstanding people from her community.
Well, when you put it that way, I guess it's good they shot her in the face.
It was awful that she died. I said earlier in this thread that both parties made mistakes.
That doesn’t change the insanity of what she was doing.
I said on the other forum that I thought you could make an argument the first shot was justified. Even though she was clearly turning away from him, his location combined with what was happening combined with a split second decision could easily lead him to reasonably believe he needed to take that shot.
But we should take a broader look at this. I don't want to live in a country where protesters are shot to death by authorities ever, for anything. He never should have walked in front of her vehicle, and when she stepped on the gas, his instinct should have been to dive out of the way, not to unholster his weapon. Wait until it's safe, and then go find her and arrest her. It wouldn't have been difficult. They had already recorded her license plate on video and her wife was clearly keen on making sure they knew exactly who they were. If she broke the law, they could have gotten her. She wasn't going to flee overseas.
I agree with the sentiment - from a practical standpoint - that you should obey the authorities, and if you don't, bad things might happen to you. From a practical standpoint, only. That's reality. But it shouldn't be reality. People get scared. People make bad decisions. The penalty for this shouldn't be three bullets in the face. It should be the cops showing up at your door a few hours later to take you in peacefully.
Now, not everything can be peaceful, I get that. But many things can. This could have. Other Western countries have far fewer officer-involved shootings than we do. Do we really think that's because American citizens are far more violent and dangerous by nature? Or is it perhaps because our law enforcement procedures are a bit more aggressive and reactionary than they ought to be?
Agree we don't want to live in a society like this. But it's too granular to look at if he stepped in front or in back of the car. Tough to train stuff out. Again, you've got to think about whether these guys should be carrying around guns all the time. British police don't carry guns around most of the time. Have you watched Slow Horses? One of the weirdest parts of that show is how difficult it is for the MI-6 people to even get a gun.
Now, should regular police here have guns? Probably, given our gun culture. I'm not so sure about all of these other agencies, though, at least not at all times.
As for "ah, just let 'em go, we'll get them later," I don't think you'd have the same reaction if it were a MAGA guy dressed in camo gear blocking a bunch of federal officers from enforcing the law to protect a vulnerable group. You'd want that guy arrested on the spot, and wouldn't want them to just let the guy drive away. This person shouldn't get off because she's a white woman who says I don't hate you. She deserved to be arrested. And once you get in that situation, you have risk. Ironically, I think she and her significant other thought they did not have risk--because of their white privilege. It's all very sad.
I said on the other forum that I thought you could make an argument the first shot was justified. Even though she was clearly turning away from him, his location combined with what was happening combined with a split second decision could easily lead him to reasonably believe he needed to take that shot.
But we should take a broader look at this. I don't want to live in a country where protesters are shot to death by authorities ever, for anything. He never should have walked in front of her vehicle, and when she stepped on the gas, his instinct should have been to dive out of the way, not to unholster his weapon. Wait until it's safe, and then go find her and arrest her. It wouldn't have been difficult. They had already recorded her license plate on video and her wife was clearly keen on making sure they knew exactly who they were. If she broke the law, they could have gotten her. She wasn't going to flee overseas.
I agree with the sentiment - from a practical standpoint - that you should obey the authorities, and if you don't, bad things might happen to you. From a practical standpoint, only. That's reality. But it shouldn't be reality. People get scared. People make bad decisions. The penalty for this shouldn't be three bullets in the face. It should be the cops showing up at your door a few hours later to take you in peacefully.
Now, not everything can be peaceful, I get that. But many things can. This could have. Other Western countries have far fewer officer-involved shootings than we do. Do we really think that's because American citizens are far more violent and dangerous by nature? Or is it perhaps because our law enforcement procedures are a bit more aggressive and reactionary than they ought to be?
Agree we don't want to live in a society like this. But it's too granular to look at if he stepped in front or in back of the car. Tough to train stuff out. Again, you've got to think about whether these guys should be carrying around guns all the time. British police don't carry guns around most of the time. Have you watched Slow Horses? One of the weirdest parts of that show is how difficult it is for the MI-6 people to even get a gun.
Now, should regular police here have guns? Probably, given our gun culture. I'm not so sure about all of these other agencies, though, at least not at all times.
As for "ah, just let 'em go, we'll get them later," I don't think you'd have the same reaction if it were a MAGA guy dressed in camo gear blocking a bunch of federal officers from enforcing the law to protect a vulnerable group. You'd want that guy arrested on the spot, and wouldn't want them to just let the guy drive away. This person shouldn't get off because she's a white woman who says I don't hate you. She deserved to be arrested. And once you get in that situation, you have risk. Ironically, I think she and her significant other thought they did not have risk--because of their white privilege. It's all very sad.
As for your hypothetical MAGA crazy, I'd rather they get him later than shoot him, but otherwise, yes, I'm basically with you on those thoughts. It's tragic all around. I fear we are far closer to living in a police state than we realize, and that bothers me.
You're not a very smart woman - or trans woman. Or whatever you are. Were you fake as McMurtry or fake as this person? Were you fake at a whole series of handles?@aloha-hoosier When you cull through an entire thread to then like the one post critical of Trump that I wrote you portray yourself as a child. And not a very bright one.
I fear we are far closer to living in a police state than we realize, and that bothers me.
I don’t follow this one at all. Our guardrails against police overreach are as strong and as intact as ever.
ICE enforcement issues are the product of very specific and limited issues which have no general application. Issues such as years of no immigration enforcement, highly placed democrat officials using words like gestapo, storm trooper, and kidnappers, to describe federal officers. Protesters who believe taunting and active interference with federal officers is legitimate protest. Lack of local cooperation, even to the extent that state judges are convicted of crimes for interfering. ICE officers are subject to vehicle ramming and in some cases gun fire.
All of this produces a high level of toxicity within which ICE must operate. Tragic interactions are baked into this atmosphere. But it is limited by scope and by aggressive opposing politics in a few jurisdictions. This is by no means indicative of a broad police state.
But slow your roll on jumping to conclusions or you’re going to end up looking like Shooter.
What conclusions? I have repeatedly said "if" referencing potential policy violations. I have said it is policy concerns I have, not that he committed homicide (a frequent thing said on interwebs).
There way was not blocked, the shooter's vehicle drove past and stopped as did others.
I have asked what de-escalation techniques ICE used. I have seen people trained in de-escalation that it did not occur. I am not a specialist, so what de-escalation was done? I don't know.
Is it normal to walk around a vehicle with your gun arm holding a cell phone (he switched arms part way through)? Why have a cell phone when ICE are supposed to have body cams? Yes, he wants to is the vehicle, you can get a license from an angle. A license, color, make, model all do not require passing directly in front or behind.
She made mistakes, that is clear. ICE always had the ability to show up at her house and take her into custody. Yet someone chose to pull her out of the car. Is that the right choice? Why was getting her later not a good option?
And, why was the doctor that lived in the immediate vicinity and the paramedics refused access to her? Is that really ICE policy?
Are any of my questions flagrantly wrong?
I linked a court ruling about Border Patrol intentionally placing themselves in a location to allow themselves to claim self-defense and fire. That is why knowing what policy is and did he follow it is important. A trial judge isn't going to be good at determining that. No one in government now is going to counter Trump/Noem. So how do we get the answers
One of our posters used to hate politicians interjecting themselves ahead of the system. My complaint is that interjection. We aren't going to find what was supposed to happen vs what happened because 1) if any fault falls to ICE the person stating that risks their job which 2) means if someone comes out explaining how it was all good could not be entirely trusted.
This should have been kept at a lower level until a legitimate investigation completed. I started off complaining that the comments destroy the investigation. You keep saying we can invest, or the state can sue, or the family. None of that is as valuable by experts in DoJ looking at policy, speaking to trainers, and reviewing footage.
How is it at all, in any way, controversial to say Trump/Noem/Vance made comments that taint a DoJ review. I am dropping out, but feel free to explain how those comments impact a government investigation. I will be curious how it makes such better.
1. It looks like he wanted to document what they were doing (Cellphone)
2. Get the sweetheart and her car out of the middle of the street
3. Continue on with whatever operation was in progress
https://www.texasobserver.org/ice-prosecutor-racist-account-back-at-immigration-court/
Only the best!
@aloha-hoosier Yeah stick to The Where is Waldo because you’re too dumb to argue with adults. Like a child. Or let me guess stuck in the army without much exposure.