Minneapolis driver shot and killed by ICE | Hacker News Reader

Minneapolis driver shot and killed by ICE

nbcnews.com

352 pointsfzeroracer351 comments

There are at least 3 different videos from different angles. Here are all of them.

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.

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.

ICE has no legal ability to detain or arrest citizens or enforce traffic laws. So, regardless, they should have called the police.

I'm not debating that. I'm just wondering if anyone has seen vid from the lead-up so I can see for myself.

It doesn’t matter.

What doesn't? My desire? How can you say my desire does not matter?

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.

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.

[flagged]

> 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.

You are ascribing a hell of a lot of motivation to me just for stating common and frankly well known facts about whether or not LEOs can detain people.

If you don’t like the way the law works, do something to change it, don’t just pontificate on the internet because you are upset.

I ask again: what crime do you think she was being detained to prevent? I'm inferring your motivation from your refusal to engage on the subject you claim to be debating.

ICE has had a press conference and explained why their agents approached the car and wanted to detain that driver. They are claiming obstruction of their operations (18 U.S.C. § 111). It doesn’t matter what I think or what you think, only what they thought and what the subsequent other evidence substantiates either validating their claim or not and what a potential jury might decide on the subject.

I’ve explained elsewhere on this HN thread what I observed from the videos we have all seen by now and why I think it will be difficult to waive the qualified immunity of the officer to pursue criminal charges against him. This particular spur of the thread is about whether or not law enforcement can detain people. They have the force and capability to detain, and they have case law that allows it.

Whatever ICE claims, the murderer broke protocol and whatever excuse they’ll try, surely “feared for his life” doesn’t count.

Operating manuals state that officers cannot use deadly force to stop a vehicle, even if the vehicle itself is used as a weapon, if they can get out of its way instead.

This is clearly a case of an untrained, unhinged, far-right militant, itching for an opportunity to fire and kill a “fucking bitch” (seems ICE is leaving the indefensible idiot out to dry, and prepared the ground by releasing the video from the murderer’s phone).

It’s a hate crime, pure and simple.

The preemptive "It doesn’t matter what I think or what you think" tells us that you know damn well this wasn't legal or appropriate. I stand by my analysis, you are defending this madness on the internet not because you know it's correct on principle but because you want it to be correct.

You want to live in a world where your enemies are afraid of gestapo-like goon squads who will shoot them in the face if they do the wrong thing. You think they deserve it, that the work of the goons is important and worth some violence to enable, and surely that such violence would never be used inappropriately.

Just be clear in your own mind what you're cheering for. It's not new. Historically this never ends at plausibly-justified-minutiae about law enforcement practice.

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.

I'm not debating that's the case in the vids we have but my question stands.

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.

I'm not speculating anything which is why I was asking rofl. You online agitators are a funny bunch.

Even if she had been illegally blockading traffic for hours, that infraction is not legally punishable by execution.

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.

Illegal but unenforced is still illegal.

de jure illegal but unenforced is de facto legal.

de jure legal but enforced is de facto illegal.

Which is why de facto legality is very low value discussion fodder in an environment of rampant unenforcement of laws.

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.

In such an environment "what" is irrelevant, it's merely about "who".

As someone who often makes a distinction between de jure and de facto, "de facto legal" is an oxymoron. Per Gödel, that lets you prove anything.

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.

> 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.

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.

As is being downvoted for no reason in another post here, ICE broke all training for this type of incident.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/minnesota-ice...

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.

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.

Here is the slowed down and zoomed video.

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2008976092326203562

Here is what I see in this video…

- 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.

yeah, looks like the victim knew how to drive and didn't want to dry-steer her tyres. What a farcical tragedy

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.

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.

Edit: bellingcat did a video sketching overhead reenactment of the event. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTPraD7DGZh/

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.*"

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

[1] https://apnews.com/article/ice-minneapolis-police-rules-shoo...

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.

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.

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/minneapolis-ice-shootin...

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.

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 her relatives could then SUE

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

Who can bring charges in this instance?

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"):

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gb_IkGVK7WvsTAXfMvQU...

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnderReportedNews/comments/1q6to5j/...

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

That makes those ICE officers complicent to her death, because they had no ground for stopping the physician, who might have saved her.

They were accomplices long before that.

The Washington Post quotes that,

> "“I’m a physician,” the man protested."

> "“I don’t care,” the officer replied,"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2026/01/07/ice-sh... ( https://archive.is/hP0qR )

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.)

https://npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5517998/ice-arrest-rules-ex...

The Kavanaugh Stop!

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.

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.

https://imgur.com/a/vmnLFWv

The mother's 6-year-old child's stuffed animals overflowing the glovebox.

The child has lost both parents and is now an orphan.

Primary source is:

https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/01/07/ice-officer-fatally... ("Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer")

https://web.archive.org/web/20260108053100/https://minnesota...

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,

https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1q6tclo/removed_by_re... ("[ Removed by Reddit ]" (1147 comments))

Thankfully, Silicon Valley does not (yet) exert editorial control over newspapers who self-host.

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.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/minnesota-ice...

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]

[1] https://copalmn.org/the-handbook-for-constitutional-observer...

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.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5677541-walz-minnes...

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.

absolutely the right move to defend the people

sad that this is a controversial opinion

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.

> 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.

Seems pretty clear to me that state governors need to start cultivating their own State Guards, and by the thousands.

This is something that at least used to exist in recent history.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_State_Defense_Fo...

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.

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.)

Video of the incident: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1q6o4d0/another_angle_...

YouTube link to Minnesota Reporter channel:

https://youtu.be/K9CJY5p0xz4?si=IGIUoEjnepwER_4f

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.

Now imagine where we live in a world with digital IDs.

"Pull up everyones id that watched the video in the last 24 hours"

They (Google) routinely do that with or without ID laws; they have more than enough PII in the common-case.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39796550 ("Google ordered to identify who watched certain YouTube videos" (380 comments))

(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).

https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mbz3v...

And now video made by the person firing the weapon has been released.

Make up your own mind.

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.

> This isn't a game anymore, this isn't playtime.

What are you gonna do about it? The same thing is happening in Ukraine, and nobody is doing anything. There are no protests.

>"What are you gonna do about it?"

Spare me. I have my non-negotiables for when action is needed. Do you?

If you are asking me, it's pretty clear an "action" is already needed. I would never take "action" personally though.

>"If you are asking me, it's pretty clear an "action" is already needed."

>"I would never take "action" personally though."

That's that for you, then. Like I said, spare me.

My line is probably somewhere around “canceled elections”. And I’m okay with Palantir knowing that.

It’s far too late by that point

Well then it’s far too late now. At the end of the day I blame the spineless democrats for not throwing his ass in jail back in 2021.

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.

[] https://www.kptv.com/2023/05/24/private-security-guard-who-s...

Life sentences don't mean anything when the matches-throwing toddler will pardon anybody.

And then when they set up a gofundme Billionaires can crowdfund half the poor to kill the other half.

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.

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.

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.

Not to be grim, it seems like the car suddenly accelerating was actually due to the being shot.

> She was being commanded to step out of the vehicle

by ICE? they have no authority to detain or arrest US citizens.

If nobody is going to enforce limits, then they have the authority to do whatever they want.

Forget "not enforce limits" their boss has said that they're actively going to ignore court orders.

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 was being commanded to step out of the vehicle

She was given conflicting order by different officers. One order to drive on, one order to step out of her vehicle.

Which is standard cop practice to just yell conflicting orders out and then wind up killing someone for not complying with one of them.

> and refused to do so while accelerating the vehicle quickly with an officer standing in front of her vehicle.

Cop was off to the left of her hood, and she had her wheels hard to the right and drove around him. She wasn't aimed at him. He wasn't in danger.

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.

oooooooofffff. How’s that boot taste? Like plastic maralago face? DELISH.

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.

how about the two more bullets he pumped through the side window? more panic shots? stop justifying this guys murder

Far more likely he is a pissed off good-ol-boy redneck and was enforcing contempt of cop.

But you keep living in that delusion you’re so attached to.

At what point do U.S. citizens realise that ICE is in fact a terrorist organisation?

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.

[1] https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/05/when-stand-your-ground-...

As I understand it, ICE agents have no powers to stop or arrest U.S. citizens, so it does seem odd how much they are allowed to hurt and kill.

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.

Theoretically, this is something that a state could enforce. These ICE agents aren't just breaking federal laws.

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.

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.

When a close family member they actually care about is hurt. Until then, these cowards are more than happy to go along to get along.

They have Palantir and the citizens don't. Although when one of them supposedly get found out they are not too happy. https://www.instagram.com/reels/DR0EfA8Erwa/

I honestly don't know how things are going to play out but it seems to be back and forth escalating.

So much has transpired in one year: the initial shock of the mass raids, the blatant disregard of the law, blocking of apps like IceBlock, etc. Neither side seems to want to back down.

I'm learning about the legality of binary explosives in the USA right now.

Abolishing ICE was part of AOC's original 2018 campaign platform. Now she did not mean ban all deportations but this organization was out of control 7 years ago and has just gotten worse. https://x.com/AOC/status/1031926879752802304

So like many things in the US, the right move was already proposed but it takes trying every other incorrect dumb idea before they will finally get to trying her idea.

More fucking shootings in Portland: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/01/portland-police-res...

Can Minnesota make a law that bans ICE from operating in the State?

i.e Can states override federal authority?

Seems like states should have the right to allow ICE. Police departments are already by state.

Unfortunately not. Federal law in this circumstance supersedes state authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

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).

@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.

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.

Don't worry, I'm sure the flagged tag will appear any second and kill the thread.

The "real" homepage of HN is now /active. The rest is effectively censored to support the techbro worldview. This will not be fixed.

agreed. its a shame this atrocity isnt on the front page for awareness

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.

I had to do a search to find this thread. It’s crazy that this isn’t higher up.

Same, I just had to learn it from somewhere else to find it here.

There's stories right now on the front page that have fewer upvotes and were posted before this one.

At this point, it is getting increasingly harder to argue that HN isn't completely biased.

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.

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.

thank you for this -- was not aware, just updated my bookmarks to /active

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.

> 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.

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.

Edited for clarity

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Thank you for taking the time to set this all down and in the way you did.

Yes, this is how it happened: good people standing by, doing nothing.

Truth. I’m horrified at this backslide into, or at the very least newly unrestrained application of might makes right.

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.

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.

> DHS secretary is calling this "domestic terrorism"

I agree, probably not in the way she intended though.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cpac-banner-domestic-terro...

Every accusation is a confession with MAGAts.

Also remember the rights reaction to Babbit (an insurrectionist) being shot at the J6 riot.

That's official government policy now. It's worth taking a few minutes to look at that whole page, it's straight 1984 type revisionism.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/j6/

Wow this makes me sick

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

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.

And there are still Americans defending this. Like they want to live in a dictatorship.

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.

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.

That is probably true but there are also plenty of real, confirmed Americans that are doing the exact same thing.

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.

My mother LOOOOOVES what is happening. The right people are being hurt. And anyone else she can rationalize and victim blame away.

America is full of sadistic, insecure, troglodytes.

It really is sadism, the punitive urge. I'm noticing relatives of mine hesitate to condemn what's happening, and I know that same hesitation from their righteous anger in exacting authoritarian attitudes about other more mundane things. The difference here now is that we're talking about an authoritarian takeover of the government.

It's worse this time. Hitler would have drooled over the level of deep surveillance the state has access to in 2026

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.

Brownshirts coming out party.

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.

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.

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.

Read the room.

It makes sense in the Indian context. We get out of the car here almost immediately, so it was important to emphasise the difference.

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.

That's already happened:

https://lataco.com/federal-immigration-agents-halloween-mask...

Enjoy the outrage while it lasts.

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 wanted you to be wrong so much, but that's likely the most probable scenario.

Maybe 50 years from now "everyone will always have been against this", but even that's a stretch.

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.

The things you talk of are either legal such as insulting people, or failed such as riots trying to overturn an election. This is different.

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.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

> The conservative media bubble has already congealed on "She was trying to run over everyone and deserved to be shot".

Trying to? Trump already posted that she DID run him over and he was hospitalized for it.

You can see it happening right here in this thread.

Clearly murder has almost never stopped the police. If ICE is anything like that, odds are this dude is gonna get a nice vacation.

> I think it may be different because firstly it's clearly murder or an unlawful shooting if you watch the video…

We've had plenty of those without meaningful consequences in most cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver is a good example if you can stomach the video. It's way worse than the text summary implies.

> 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.

This is chilling

Full news story coverage/flow here: https://yandori.io/news-flow/story/2026-01-07-6507910-federa...

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.

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.

> 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbanner_Schwarz-Rot-Gold

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.

> They were the first to be purged together with homosexuals, transvestites, handicapped, etc.

Speaking of which: https://www.lemkininstitute.com/single-post/experts-warn-u-s...

The victim of the shooting today was a woman married to a woman, as well.

> 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).

https://youtu.be/1Wf-Y2_I91A?t=6064

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.

They’re trying to claim that she attempted to “run them down” because she clips one of the ICE agents as she drives away.

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.

They did not follow any training in this incident

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/minnesota-ice...

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:

https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#flaggi...

> 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).

Thanks! That old thing must be outdated.

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.

Thanks for bringing my comment back online.

Individual comments are not always manually deleted; some users are shadowbanned and anything they post is automatically deleted.

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.

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 idea is bad.

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.

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.

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.

Like, can you even hear yourself?

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.

You're ridiculous lol

Oh, that last one speaks volumes about you.

if some one is right in front of me pointing a gun, i'd like to drive actually, not the opposite

You are trying to find a technical solution to a political problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com