Let's call a murder a murder
daringfireball.net
daringfireball.net
"The agent who shot a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday was pulled about 100 yards by a car last year while firing a stun gun at the driver."
So, this is a trend.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1q7u4kz/ice_agen...
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q7y43s/cbp_poin...
They are effectively a paramilitary enforcing the agenda. Parallels with the 1930s Germany are really explicitly uncanny.
These kind of people exist.
Not saying that every person in law enforcement is bad, obviously; there are plenty of cops and people in the military [1] that are responsible with their weapons and do genuinely want to help people, but if you create an institution where people don't have to pay the consequences for their actions, then of course you're going to attract people who want to commit those actions.
The Catholic Church with their abusive priests is one of the most obvious examples. They create a situation where an adult male can be surrounded by kids unsupervised, not be married, and when abuse does happen it is covered up and the priest is moved somewhere else. Combined with the fact that they're paid shit, there's going to be a very strong selection bias of pedophiles.
[1] and who knows, maybe even ICE!
Most sane government agencies would make sure he knew and started following the required protocol so that he would be safe/competent the next time before putting him back on the street. Yet he again failed to do his job and follow protocol, and stood in front of a vehicle. Seems like repeat government/leadership/agent failure.
The quote is 'We live in a world where trained cops can panic and act on impulse, but untrained civilians must remain calm with a gun in their face.'. Random americans in unusual situations can't be expected to not stress/freak out, that is realistic human nature. That is why officers are trained and required as part of their job to never place themselves in front of vehicles.
It is on the trained officers, initiating the situation and experienced with it, to keep things under control. That is literally their job. The obligation shouldn't be on a mom that just dropped her kids at school that isn't the 'trained professional' in the scenario.
Also, I thought there was very clear guidance about not discharging guns towards unarmed drivers as it doesn't tend to stop them and is likely to result in the vehicle being accelerated into someone/something.
One reason would be that after the first time he fucked around and found out with a vehicle, he resolved to shoot the driver the next time. This would explain why he tried to box in the metal car with his squishy body while keeping an exit strategy - being positioned at the right place to claim he was worried about being hit without actually getting hit. It would also mean this incident was premeditated murder.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Watch/comments/1pjye82/ice_agen...
Since that is the case, allow me to spell it out for you. Antics of middleaged, overindulged woman, who was so comfortable that they thought she was virtually untouchable have gone mainstream. Do I get to stop ATF or IRS from performing their operations? No? Why is ICE different then? Because you don't agree with them?
So, the choice is now to either normalize those antics, normalize excessive police force or some sort of reasonable middle ground.
But what do I get? Insults and thinly veiled threats that once dems get into power, I will rue the day.
Get off your high horse and realize that you are encouraging civil war for a retard, who thought they could do whatever they want and face no consequences. Welcome to the real world.
Oh? What kind of a person am I? Or maybe more interestingly, what kind of a person should I be? The second question is more interesting as it is intended to elicit your hopes and dreams.
These people are animals. They should be in chains in front of a tribunal, not running the country. And they dare call themselves Christians?
The next onion layer will be credulous Fox viewers. But I’m even less clear on how we do that.
I've found the reaction from most people in the US horrifying since the "grab em by the pussy" days...
“The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men.” He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: “How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?”
Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.
“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?[...]”"
1984.
And most animals typically act much less indiscriminately violent than we do.
edit: Chewing on this a little more, this viewpoint almost feels like the dual of a common justification that people drunk on religion use to justify the killing of other human beings - "animals kill each other so it's natural behavior, and God sorts us all out in the afterlife"
The principle of the matter is that the fascist apparatus of the US government has made it clear that should you have a grievance against them, you have no recourse, even if your grievance is legitimate. Their immediate response to deny wrongdoing and establish immunity is de facto fascism, which should be no surprise to those who have read Carl Schmitt and Decisionism, and paid attention when Miller slipped up about “plenary authority”.
Spade is a spade at this point.
(The main ingredient for a facist take-over is control over the military and media and he is not creating many loyalists in either)
Maduro in Minneapolis (Murderous Lies) by Timothy Snyder - https://snyder.substack.com/p/maduro-in-minneapolis
The abduction of Maduro was not about naming his crimes, but about ignoring them. The worst thing that Maduro did is just what Trump is beginning to do: killing civilians and blaming them for their own deaths. After Minneapolis, Maduro’s lies are being repeated: in American English, by American authorities.
The thousands of extrajudicial killings in Maduro’s Venezuela were carried out by organized death squads. These actions were described as defensive. The Maduro regime claimed that the people they murdered were resisting government authority, and that the men who pulled the trigger had been provoked by those whom they murdered.
Minneapolis has just witnessed an extrajudicial killing, at the hands of ICE, which looks more and more like a presidential paramilitary organization.
The action was, horribly, excused by the president, the vice-president, and the director of homeland security, using the same lies as those told by Maduro’s Venezuelan regime.
The victim was resisting government authority, they said.
The man who pulled the trigger had been provoked, they said.
It was not the killer who was a terrorist. It was the mom who had just dropped off one of her six-year-old at school.(My conspiracy-inspired theory is that they are working on the underground bunker there with the understanding that it may soon be in use when war breaks out)
Chuck Schumer can’t even say ICE funding should go down
G.O.P. Bills Target Protesters (and Absolve Motorists Who Hit Them) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/us/politics/republican-an...
"Stand your ground" laws often work the same way: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/is-there-racial-b...
People voted for this.
Oh but hey, we at least made sure to pretend to save money by firing and then rapidly rehiring a lot of the workforce.
Groups that aid and support immigrants are doing a service that benefits America and all Americans; we should give them money so they can continue to help.
Immigration is of benefit to most nations; we are no different. But if and when you call immigrants illegal aliens, you're removing an important distinction and distorting reality.
Have you ever seen an immigration application? Ever examined the regulations that legal immigrants must navigate?
Legal immigration is a quagmire, but some would rather turn away from the swamp rather than drain it; some would like to pretend that immigration is the same thing as invasion, to justify the lazy approach that groups everyone together in an alien blur.
Changing labels doesn't change reality. The complaint revolves around groups that are supporting people who are not attempting to go through legal immigration channels.
Do you mean "human beings"
The issue from the article is that an "Immigration" agency used lethal violence against a _citizen of the US_.
This is not an illegal aliens issue.
Keep in mind, if you defined ICE as a military, it would be the thirteenth largest on the planet [1]. I have yet to see an argument or study that indicates that our immigration problem is costing us more than Poland's entire military, and I have seen a lot of evidence that immigration is a net positive in the US.
You could say something like "BUT, BUT, BUT HE'S ONLY GOING AFTER THE ILLEGALS YOU WANT ILLEGALS HERE HAHAHA WOKE LEFTY OPEN BORDERS <insert other idiotic conservative buzzword>", but determining whether or not the person in question is here "legally" clearly has not been the priority of this current administration and its weird militarization of ICE.
[1] https://www.nationalpriorities.org/pressroom/articles/2025/1...
Will somebody vouch for this? I know what you're thinking. This doesn't encourage curiosity! This is politics! Same old, same old.
HN! Come on, how myopic must you be to not see that a working democracy is a condition sine qua non of your dear curiosity. You see what's happening in Iran, right? Well, they don't!
Put your glasses on, HN, you're not seeing shit.
> Will somebody vouch for this?
It's a false dichotomy and this mode of black/white thinking is everywhere online. Unless you agree 100% with every single atom and detail of >THING X<, you are automatically the enemy and literally Adolf Hitler.
Had a similar discussion in the thread for the hacker doxxing conservative dating sites: while I disagree with white supremacists I still think doxxing people online is wrong (for both sides).
And for Gruber's article: I don't think HN is the place to discuss US local politics coverage, let alone through a poster that reviews Apple software and hardware most of his time.
I can still think this && what happened to that woman is horrible.
I can still think that doxxing political opponents is wrong && that white supremacists have no place in 2026.
The exceptions.
I think we're seeing some extraordinary events irl that the HN community and moderators are dealing with organically. Exceptions are being made; eventually the rules of thumbs will return to prominence.
Better discuss another article about using AI for coding.
He already has talked about cancelling the election. What happens when he declares a state of emergency to cancel the 2026 midterms - is that political? Are we allowed to discuss it? The effective end of the United States, but whatever, get back to the code mines, the VCs need those returns.
Just an absolutely crazy situation we are in right now.
“Sir, stop resisting. I gave you a lawful order”
“Sir, sir, BANG BANG”
“I feared for my life”
It’s like a pitbull, right? It’s right there most of the time. Then one day it eats a baby. But you kind of knew it had baby eating ready to go. It’s sitting there ready to eat babies. Just a question of when. Then the baby gets eaten and you’re upset. But most people just stay away from the baby eater.
One day you’re walking down the street and your baby gets eaten. Justifiable? No. Your fault? Also no. But there’s baby eaters out there. Such is life.
Embarrassing what level of discourse this site has fallen to.
Indeed.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> "she was asking for it"
Another way to, er interpret their comment could be, "This tragic outcome was predictable." It does not blame the victim, it is an observation.
Sadly, agreed, most should expect to get shot to death by police in any given situation. Most become a police officer with the sole purpose of being able to shoot someone and they are continuously looking for any opportunity to do so. They are literally a junkie waiting to get their fix.
Sadly, agreed, pitbulls should not be kept as pets and certainly not when children are present. Most people can’t control their pets, let alone a pitbull. Also, pitbull owners know they are choosing a pitbull for the sole purpose of proving others wrong, or the opportunity to blame someone else if their pitbull attacks someone. Weirdly like police.
Hacker culture and fascism are antithetical, and we should all be acutely aware when the current regime moves towards violence to squash dissent.
Eh, I think most of the folks here are, whatever else, "temporarily embarrassed venture capitalists". That certainly seems consistent with fascists and with the tenor of much of the discourse I read here.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/07/23/india-hundreds-of-muslim...
> authorities forced another 40 Rohingya refugees into the sea near Myanmar, giving them life jackets and making them swim to shore
> the police raided his home, seized his mobile phone, and tore up his identity documents, which were proof of his (Indian) citizenship. They then flew him in a BSF plane (…) Sheikh said he was forced to cross into Bangladesh with eight others.
There is one department that's similar to ICE, the riot police called Rosgvardia (Russian Guard), which is anti-mass-protest force. When it was created, they hired all the normal police drop-outs, the worst. But they only carry batons.
The real issue with human rights in Russia is in courts and law application, and inside prisons, out of public eye.
Beating up and actual torturing may commence after you were apprehended.
But being shot during the ordinary police stoppage is not a wide-spread problem.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global-migration-and-demography/...
As a taxpayer in a cost of living crisis I resent seeing hotels full of these chancers.
And I don’t think women and girls are safe with them around, given the staggering sexual crime statistics
https://www.migrationcentral.co.uk/p/up-to-third-of-sexual-a...
Call me “anti-immigrant” if you like. I don’t care. I’m voting for fairness and safety in the next election.
They're now able to kill at will and call it "self defence".
https://reason.com/2026/01/08/you-have-the-right-to-record-i...
> The Trump Administration Says It's Illegal To Record Videos of ICE. Here's What the Law Says.
> Violence is anything that threatens them and their safety, so it is doxing them, it's videotaping them where they're at when they're out on operations," Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said.
So he is right to think she might have been shot for doing this.
edit: note that's a libertarian source. They've always had a strain of civil libertarians on that publication but the comments on the site reveal a lot of libertarians now think it's a good thing that white liberal women are being shot.
Identity politics is at the core of conservativism and what ever is good for, or part of your group or yourself is just by nature and good for society. This tribalistic bias skews your reasoning, because we apes have evolved to sustain our own group or ourself. As social animals, we have externalized our self-preservative drive onto the tribe we live in and this bias drives libertarians to these comments and why there is such a significant overlap between religion, racists (group oriented) but also libertarians (individual oriented), etc. The big political divide is between people who are more vulnerable to such identity based biases and people who are lesser so.
Because someone is filming, it is okay for a federal agent to execute their partner ?
I'm not sure I understand.
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mbz3v...
1. The masked gunman was in grave danger when in fact he had stepped aside.
2. The car accelerated rapidly before the shots instead of after the driver was in immeasurable agony.
3. All three shots by masked gunman were in self defense. Not that the next two shots were in the driver's face from side window while standing well clear of the vehicle.
In short, other video evidence clearly rules out any possibility that "he had stepped aside". And we can see the relative timing of when the SUV's wheels start to spin, too, even in the video from behind the SUV where Good is obscured from view by the other officer.
Before we first see the Pilot, a black Jeep starts to head up the road, then decided to reverse the other way instead. Presumably this is due to the Pilot, but it is unclear of whether they approached and asked to go past but were denied, or whether they simply didn't want to get involved.
The first time we see the Pilot it is blocking both travel lanes, but nobody is trying to go past. Next we see another vehicle further up the road (red minivan) stopped across both travel lanes as well (it could have also informed the Jeep's desire to go the other way).
Four cars then head down the street towards the Pilot, with one pulling over to the right decently before her. The next time the camera pans back to the Pilot, it is only blocking one lane and those 3 cars have seemingly gone past.
More cars head down the street, with some combination of going by her and stopping near her. But all the cars that are stopped around her appear to have stopped of their own volition rather than because they were blocked.
My conclusion from this video is that she was not blocking traffic, but she was being a nuisance with her horn. But in this situation, that horn usage would be Constitutionally-protected speech, and any speech-orthogonal daytime noise disturbance ordinance would not be under federal jurisdiction.
Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it?
And it stays in this position for a considerable period of time, while Good's partner is walking around outside the vehicle and behaving belligerently.
The fact that she waves some cars past certainly doesn't negate the apparent intent to obstruct the ICE vehicle.
> Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it?
Resisting arrest in a manner that causes a LEO reasonable fear of death or serious harm, as an objective matter of settled case law, justifies the LEO's use of lethal force. Relevant case law specific to the situation where someone is trying to flee, includes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor .
I don't see which vehicles here you are saying were obstructed
The first black Jeep is a probable ICE vehicle, but it looks like they decided to reverse without interacting with her, so that's not obstruction.
Black sedan (ICE) pulls out at 1:23, but then pulls over.
Grey SUV with plate on dash (ICE) pulls out then pulls over to side at 1:28
Green light SUV (not ICE?) drives by at 1:32 and is not seen again (goes past).
Light grey larger SUV (ICE) pulls out 1:48
Large white SUV (ICE) pulls out at 2:12
Light grey larger SUV goes around her to the right at 2:33, while another vehicle goes around her to the left (not due to obstruction, setting up to surround)
Grey SUV with plate on dash (probable ICE) pulls back out and is not seen again (presumably drives past)
From there onwards she is waving all ICE vehicles around and the escalation begins in earnest, so possibility of obstruction is moot.
It seems to me that every ICE vehicle that stopped near/around her did so of their own volition? If there was obstruction, one would expect to see some vehicles stopped around her for some time? I can't speak to before the video started, something the video didn't capture, what informed the original black Jeep driver to back up, etc.
You keep throwing "escalation" out there to describe ordinary law enforcement procedure. No, "get out of the car" is not an escalation; it is a response to someone who has already demonstrated non-compliance with a previous request to stop the obstruction.
> I don't see which vehicles here you are saying were obstructed
The ones that cannot continue forward in a straight line because the SUV is in the way, perpendicular to the road.
(I don't know how you're deciding which vehicles are or are not ICE in this video.)
> but it looks like they decided to reverse without interacting with her, so that's not obstruction.
This is beyond absurd. No, if I see that you're in my path, and I elect to choose a different route to avoid you, you have still obstructed me. You have hindered my passage in the direction I want to go, and you have blocked that path.
Yes, because it's an escalation, even if it is per procedure. This is another case of you wanting to define words narrowly to absolve the choices and actions of law enforcement officers as if they're some kind of mechanical robots. In reality we expect them to exercise judgement to minimize harm, regardless of whom they're dealing with. And we can use words like escalation when criticizing their behavior.
> The ones that cannot continue forward in a straight line because the SUV is in the way, perpendicular to the road.
That's the thing, I did not see any of these in this video, which is why I asked you to point out a specific one! Vehicles only end up stopping around her after the left lane is completely clear. One ICE vehicle even ends up in front of her because they got around her to the right! If they had to go to the right into the parking/snow, we could call that obstruction. Except that vehicle ends up stopped right in front of her, so its intent was to box her in rather than merely go past her.
> (I don't know how you're deciding which vehicles are or are not ICE in this video.)
Common sense. Seeing an agent get in, or parked around the agents milling about before it starts moving, with an eye for the larger SUVs that LEOs favor. If I've judged wrong and you think that affects my point, you could have pointed it out though.
> if I see that you're in my path, and I elect to choose a different route to avoid you, you have still obstructed me
Have you really never driven in a city? Other drivers doing weird shit and having to negotiate is the norm. If the Jeep didn't drive up to her and ask/signal her to move, then she did not obstruct them - rather they made a voluntary choice to go around. The fact you're misinterpreting everyday behavior so incorrectly demonstrates some highly motivated reasoning, so I don't know that there is any point in continuing here.
I agree that there is no point in continuing here.
> He's engaged in a petty argument with the driver
No; the argument occurs outside the vehicle, and is with the driver's partner. And it is not so much of an "argument" as him being repeatedly provoked with statements such as "You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead."
> tries to block her car with his body
No, he does not. He happened to move around the front of the car, which is consistent with circling the car to get video footage of it from all angles which would be part of expected evidence-gathering protocol. The car can be seen (including in other video) to move back and realign as he is walking in front.
> then says "fuckin' bitch!" after he's killed her.
Even left-wing sources like the CBC concede that "It is unclear who said those words."
The moderate position for future liberal candidates is now the full dissolution of ICE.
The more radical position - which is rapidly gaining support - is the arrest and prosecution of everyone involved in this administration. Starting with the president but including his cabinet and the oligarchs who spent the last year fomenting corruption and enriching themselves.
The stance this site has taken while things like this happen outside the very doors is shameful.
What are you even referring to?
One side of the political aisle in this country is screaming about how violent the other side is, while they are committing murder and telling us that our eyes are lying to us.
Gonna be a fun decade ahead
Gruber needs an identity that isn't conjoined at the hip with fascist enablers. His insecurity is palpable.
Looking [1], it does appear that Renee attempted to run the car right into the ICE officer, the wheels were still pointing slightly left, and the officer was still in front of the car. Also in [2] you can see that she was looking directly at the officer during this initial acceleration attempt. The only thing that saved the officer in that initial attempt was the loss of traction due to the icy road.
After that, indeed the wheels were pointing away from the officer and arguably there was no more danger to him, but after the clear attempt to hit him, you cannot realistically expect the officer, in a split second, to re-evaluate if her intentions to hurt anybody changed or not. At this point his life was already threatened. He doesn’t know what she is doing and waiting to find out could mean that he is dead.
1) Make the PO a regular human without a gun and you can imagine, that any normal person would have made just a quick sidestep to avoid collision, like most of us have experienced in person too. Use of force was totally unjustified, esp. when you combine it with:
2) Change the intetion of the driver to really want to harm the person ~2m in front of the car. Cop get trained, that you should not use your gun on close encounters with knives, bc the short distance <5m will give you not enogh time to stop a knive attacker reliably. If you stand that close infront of a car, a short but strong tab of the pedal would have been enough to get you, no matter how fast you draw your gun or how good your aim is. To me, it is clear that she never ment to hit anybody, the acceleration does not indicate it.
It is _very_ obvious. 2/3 shots hit the side of the car and the front wheel _never_ pointed at the PO.
My whole point is that this isn’t true. Look at the first video I linked, in the first couple of seconds, the cop is in front of the bumper, the cars wheels are still pointing slightly to the left, on their way to center, as she guns the engine. The loss of traction on the icy road is the only reason the PO had a chance to jump out of the way (but apparently by the NYT analysis, he might have been still hit). And at this point he is correct to think the driver is dangerous and might harm somebody.
If it's an offense worthy of a mother being murdered and a child orphaned, extrajudicially on the street, then surely the much lighter sentence of imprisonment for attempted murder by ICE officers would be called for, all things being the same, correct? At the least they should be tried and taken to court, wouldn't you agree?
Now, why do you think ICE agents are not being taken to trial? Why do you think the federal government is doing all that they can to protect them? And why are you, specifically, working overtime to give them the benefit of the doubt?
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Watch/comments/1pjye82/ice_agen...
The bigger picture isnt messy at all though. Deescalation is usually the way to go with protestors because they usually dont have harmful intent. This intention seems to be completely missing, from the exexutive layer down to officers in the streets.
Real police officers [0] are trained to deescalate situations. Because needlessly turning up the heat results in very bad outcomes for everyone involved.
Meanwhile, these ICE "officers" aggressively created and violently escalated a situation arising from a traffic infraction at best [1]. They didn't even follow their own procedures, crafted not out of any type of restraint with concern for the public, but merely pragmatism whereby shooting someone does not stop a moving vehicle.
Thus, responsibility for how the victim reacted in her moments of panicked terror rests completely on them - and it's perfectly understandable that when a bunch of masked armed thugs are trying to carjack you, the natural response is trying to get out of there as quick as possible regardless of if that means hitting any of the attackers.
[0] as much as they themselves are statistically quite trigger-happy and are often criticized by actual soldiers who are used to stricter rules of engagement,
[1] ignoring the equity of a citizen exercising her natural right to observe and document the activities of her government, and the fact that ICE has no mandate to police traffic infractions
People should protest but there are clearly very stupid ways of going about it.
[1] the streets are not the place to decide whether that authority is legitimate, ethical, moral, etc.
I've avoided watching the videos because frankly I've got more pressing things I need to get done rather than frying my nerves for several hours from watching someone get assaulted and murdered. I'm open to the idea that the media hides inconvenient details, but it's an awfully large distance to clear to go from something that sounds like civil Constitutionally-protected observation and criticism of government agents, to she was actively physically obstructing them. So I'm skeptical of such claims, especially given this administration's tendency to disingenuously characterize things like mere filming as a type of obstruction.
(also please elaborate on what you mean by "the first life threatening action". Did she do something violent before the masked, armed, and aggressive gang (with no lawful jurisdiction over US citizens) surrounded her and attacked her car?)
> Renee and her wife were positioning their car
What do you mean they both were? Was it a drivers' ed car with pedals and steering wheel on both sides? Is co-driving some kind of lesbian thing I don't know about?
Listen, I assumed good faith here. I use some pretty strong language to condemn this regime and its cheerleaders, but I personally had been steelmanning Trump up through June of 2020 (when it had fully set in for me that he was dividing rather than leading us through Covid). I really want to be mistaken here - it would be fantastic to find out that my country actually isn't being taken over by fascists, right? I welcome anybody that convinces me this isn't the case!
But trying to discuss these events in an intellectual manner, it seems I always end up seeing these telltale signs of motivated reasoning - in this case casually mentioning a detail ("her wife") that has seemingly zero bearing on the situation, yet what it does do is emphasize her identity as part of an outgroup. Now like everything, I could be misjudging here. Perhaps I've jumped the gun and you've got some very valid reason why that little detail, and only that little detail, is relevant. Please do enlighten me.
As for my biases: I don’t care for Trump, I like some things he does, I hate others, but I do think illegal immigrants are a problem.
Or is there something specific in the verbal interaction that establishes a mens rea to physically impede? If so, please quote it. (not that her wife's words establish a mens rea for Renee, but it might be a stepping stone)
FWIW I'm ambivalent on illegal immigration itself. But I will say that people who think they are finally getting somewhere on illegal immigration are being taken for a ride, just as they have been for the past few decades.
Moving the goalposts to unsupportable standards ("middle of an awkward u-turn" ?!?) makes it hard to assume good faith.
And furthermore, ICE has body cameras. Surely if there was footage of ICE agents actually being impeded, it would have been widely publicized by now. Instead, we've only heard wild assertions claiming they were. And with the reputation of this administration, it's only reasonable to assume those are bald-faced lies.
[0] when done in furtherance of other Constitutionally-protected activity and not being policed in line with normal traffic enforcement
In these cases, isn’t it usual for evidence to be kept out of the public eye until after all relevant court trials are done?
Also, just to be very clear, I am not saying ICE shot Renee because she was being a nuisance. I am saying she got shot because she made an intentional and almost lethal maneuver at the ICE agent with her car.
> In these cases, isn’t it usual for evidence to be kept out of the public eye until after all relevant court trials are done?
Do you actually think that is what is being done here in any sense, what with the release of the body cam footage and the immediate assertive statements by the government?
> Also, just to be very clear, I am not saying ICE shot Renee because she was being a nuisance. I am saying she got shot because she made an intentional and almost lethal maneuver at the ICE agent with her car.
This is just restating where we started our argument. There are many instances of because here, so the only way to sort through them is to make a clear distinction between what is and what ought:
If we're talking about what is, then yes I think we can all agree that Renee would have been better off if she had not tried to drive away. Renee would have also been better off if she had remained quiet, passively observed, not mouthed off to violent men with guns, and if she still somehow ended up drawing aggro, the moment that started happening she should have driven off before she was anywhere close to boxed in. Even if you are right, you can still be dead.
But if we're talking about what ought, as in, what should a citizen in a free society based around individual liberty and limited government ought to have the right to do, without suffering repercussions (especially high-stakes escalation summary judgement repercussions) from the government? I would say that's a pretty high bar centered on physical aggression. No amount of exercising your first amendment right to criticize the government by heckling its individual agents, nor just generally being a verbal nuisance, justifies a high-stakes escalation by "public servants" (being surrounded and assaulted) whereby one imprudent move results in death.
And as far as our argument here, you haven't really presented anything showing that her actions were in the aggressively violent camp, as opposed to the Constitutionally-protected nuisance camp. I'm open to evidence of violent aggression, but all I have generally seen about this situation consists of naked assertions and innuendo.
> I've avoided watching the videos
Watching any of the videos makes it immediately and abundantly clear that she is deliberately obstructing the officers, by positioning her car more or less perpendicular to the road (and selectively waving past non-ICE traffic). She's driving an SUV, which naturally is going to obstruct more than one lane in this position. Filming and observing activities did not require having a car on the road at all.
> Did she do something violent before the masked, armed, and aggressive gang (with no lawful jurisdiction over US citizens) surrounded her and attacked her car?
First, if you "have avoided watching the videos", then how can you suppose to know such things about what happened? (In point of fact, the videos make it abundantly clear that the officers took no "life threatening action" before she accelerated the vehicle forward.)
Second, you are simply incorrect in supposing that ICE agents "have no lawful jurisdiction over US citizens". It has repeatedly been established that, as federal LEO, they may generally enforce federal law against US citizens. For example, from the SF Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/ice-arrests-cit...) (which can't reasonably be dismissed as any sort of right-wing propaganda):
> Protesters can be arrested for violence against government officers, destruction of property or acts of obstruction, such as blocking the path of an officer’s vehicle.
> ... But [according to a law professor] “if a citizen interferes with ICE work, then the citizen needs to follow orders to get out of the way” to avoid being charged with obstructing law enforcement.
It's easy to find many other sources that confirm that LEO can tell you to get out of the car at a lawful traffic stop, even if you are not under arrest, and you are legally required to comply. And federal ICE agents are clearly LEO.
Such intent is not legally relevant and the legal standard for use of force here is simply not what you appear to think it is. Please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 .
> Cop get trained, that you should not use your gun on close encounters with knives, bc the short distance <5m will give you not enogh time to stop a knive attacker reliably.
No, the point of the training is not "don't use the gun in close quarters".
They are trained to not fuck around, and to shoot while they have the chance at range; and to not approach the person who brandishes a knife.
But "not approaching the person who brandishes an SUV" is unreasonable. By this standard, pedestrian crossings would be impossible. And in fact he was not "standing" in front of the SUV. He was in the process of circling back around it, while reasonably expecting the car to remain put, while regrouping with his allies as they demanded Good exit the vehicle.
> It is _very_ obvious. 2/3 shots hit the side of the car
This is also explained by the fact that the car is moving and turning such that the side of the car would face the gun. It does not in any way suggest malicious intent. The timing of the gunshots makes it clear that the officer fired three rounds continuously, most likely on instinct from training for that exact sort of firing pattern. There is enough time for the car to turn slightly (simply from the gun's mechanics), but not enough to allow for any kind of premeditation or even really conscious thought.
> the front wheel _never_ pointed at the PO.
I do not understand how it's possible to watch the video and come to this conclusion in good faith.
Of course, this does not mean that the wheel orientation was deliberate. But if the wheel "never pointed" that way and then continued to turn further right, the officer could not plausibly have been struck. Multiple videos make it abundantly clear that he was struck, and required considerable time (I would say more than a full second) to regain his balance.
Are you calling for ICE to be prosecuted for attempted murder for such actions if they are on film? Up until now ICE administrators were just fine with their officers doing equal/worse than what this now dead woman did. Or is it this administration's policy that some animals are more equal than others. Reminder the day before this occurred the officials that called the murdered woman a terrorist said that Jan6 was peaceful.
Another scenario, imagine your family member pulling out her parked car when a group of masked gunmen with "POLICE" in very honest-to-god letters printed on their jacket emerge and surround the car. Your family member feels scared as couple of them approach her side door shouting to come out. She finds an opening to escape but makes contact with one of the masked man with gun who just walked in front of car. Does that justify the driver being shot? What about the 2nd and 3rd shot in the face when the masked man is clearly on side? And then the government calls that masked gunman very brave because the person in car was very clearly a terrorist.
Welcome to fascism. End of another great empire has begun.
I think for there to be any chance for government officers to do their jobs, and for there to not be any pointless deaths, their authority should never be challenged in the streets, and if they do abuse that authority, the officer should be severely punished.
No mistaken identity of no-name masked gunmen picking and killing random people in neighborhood. Clearly they must be the 1984 government!
> their authority should never be challenged in the streets
Interesting that you chose to emphasize that instead of having limits on their authority of actions like killing citizens in this case.
A stern reprimand will have to do because government would go bankrupt before finish settling for the scale of human rights abuse happening on the daily basis.
What if it’s the only way to save your life or the life of another innocent?
What I said was that she was looking directly at the officer while having her wheels pointed in his direction and accelerating hard (to the point that she lost traction). The looking detail is important because then you can’t claim she didn’t see the officer was in her way because she was still looking back from her reversing maneuver. It makes it more clear that she was intentionally trying to hit the officer with her car.
I'm frightened of you.
Unless you mean "world view" is my knowledge about how cars and guns work.
The more condemnatory are the 2nd and 3rd shot from the side window. This is pure cruelty and disregard of human life which in a parallel universe could be one of your family member. Anyone justifying this deserves no sympathy from rest of the human populace.
The reason I am taking this stance, is because I think that, unless they are fine with becoming a martyr, people should not go and mess with government officers in the streets.
Yeah, I know: “victim blaming”, but there is a difference between officers descending upon a blameless victim vs. you going out looking to make trouble with authority. Even in the first case, the right thing to do (if you value your life) is to comply with the instructions (even if illegal) and challenge them in court later.
That is a thing that happens. Rarely, I suppose, and #notallpolice and all that, but the idea that we should live in a country where everyone just has to "comply" with the instructions or be murdered is ridiculous.
Cops do need to be severely punished for abuse of authority, nothing I said so far contradicts that.
What leverage do the citizens have when government can illegally constraint their rights including the right to justice in the courts which you speak of?
How would you challenge these masked gunmen when they have legal immunity conferred by the fascist in charge? How successful is your approach for the sitting president with criminal history and redacted links to Epstein? Are you willfully feigning ignorance of how fascism works?
Appeal to mental ineptitude is not a defense of murder. If a person can't distinguish between intention of person to kill others vs escaping when driving in a completely different direction then that person does not have right to posses a weapon which can take human life.
Also interesting that you do not address the 2nd and 3rd shot at all.
No, I am not claiming that. I explained previously why it looked to me that Renee intended to hit the officer with her car, very hard, and the only reason it was a slight hit was because she lost traction on the ice. [1] And also she did hit the officer, this was even acknowledged in the NYT analysis of the event. Again, he got lucky that he was able to jump out of the way, only because the icy road caused her wheels to lose grip.
At that point, I would think there is an argument to be made that the officer’s life was threatened, and he is allowed to use lethal force, he does not have the time to second guess if Renee is going to change her mind and not hit anyone with her car. I am NOT saying that the officer is definitively absolved, just that based on what I’m seeing, it is not as clear a case of murder as a lot of people claim.
Also interesting that you do not address the 2nd and 3rd shot at all.
This is confusing to me and I don’t really know what to say about that, the lethal intent is there with the 1st shot. Is it that we expect the officer to go from deciding that she is enough of a threat to be shot, to deciding that she is a non-threat in the split second after his first shot?
[1] but just for posterity: a) when she accelerated, she still had her wheels pointing just left of center while the officer was directly in front of her. b) she was looking directly at the officer when she accelerated.
She made contact with the officer. And that is only because he had to put down his recording phone and take out the gun instead of focussing on stepping out of the way. This framing feels even more egregious when you consider that he casually strolled to take a glance at dead mother and escape the scene.
> only reason it was a slight hit was because she lost traction on the ice.
> only because the icy road caused her wheels to lose grip
It is winter season and all roads are layered with ice. Ice was not a lucky coincidence at the spot she was shot. When you drive in ice for months every year you gain the intuition of vehicle motion. Before being killed, she had reversed in that spot and had a good idea how much gas creates how much traction like any other person driving in snow does. You can not claim her intent to hit based on how fast the wheels are spinning. Grip is immaterial, what matters is how fast the vehicle was actually moving.
> This is confusing to me and I don’t really know what to say about that
> deciding that she is a non-threat in the split second after his first shot
If you can make a decision to step aside and fire subsequent shots from side window instead, your intention is no longer own safety but to kill, in common parlance, murder. A woman driving in different direction, clearly escaping is somehow more of a threat than the masked gunmen surrounding her.
> when she accelerated, she still had her wheels pointing just left of center
Do you drive? If you did you would know that it is not a discrete process of turning and forward motion. It is easier to turn when you are moving. Whatever the direction of wheel at the moment, the rotation towards right while the masked gunman is on left corner makes her intent clear.
> she was looking directly at the officer when she accelerated
Because he is a masked gunman with ability to leave her child motherless which he actually did.
As an objective legal matter, it is. There is abundant case law for this. Cases relevant to the specific case where the shooting victim is attempting to flee the scene include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner .
> If a person can't distinguish between intention of person to kill others vs escaping when driving in a completely different direction then that person does not have right to posses a weapon which can take human life.
The law quite literally does not work that way.
> As an objective legal matter, it is.
You are both wrong. The requirement for self-defense (which may or may not even be available here if it is ever charged, because it doesn't apply to all kinds of murder, notably generally not to felony murder, which given ICE's very narrow jurisdiction there is a very good case, IMO, applies here) is neither mere subjective perception nor actual intent, but objectively reasonable fear. Actual perception of a threat which is not objectively reasonable in the circumstances does not justify self-defense.
But I don't understand the distinction in "kinds of murder" that you are describing; murder is always a felony and "misdemeanor murder" is a term of art not describing an actual statutory offense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor_murder). Nor can I see how the "narrow jurisdiction" of ICE is relevant here, given that it includes (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357):
> (a)(5) to make arrests — (A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer’s or employee’s presence
Obstructing federal officers in their duty is a federal offense, and it necessarily occurs in the presence of those officers.
Anyway, given the evidence I find it quite clear that the threat was "objectively reasonable in the circumstances" (i.e., with the available information in the moment, without benefit of hindsight and given the time pressure).
“Felony murder” is not “murder which is a felony” but “murder where malice is established not by, by the fact that the death was the consequence of the commission of a felony by the perpetrator, rather than by intent to kill or any of the other alternatives”.
> Obstructing federal officers in their duty is a federal offense
There is no reasonable case, based on any of the video I've seen, continuously from before to through the incident, to be made that she could reasonably be perceived to have been doing that when they exited their vehicle and accosted her.
A trained LEO in a self-defense situation is expected to fire multiple shots. Even civilians learn how this works in sufficiently advanced firearms training. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_drill . A failure to follow procedure here would be more consistent with "not actually self defense".
It's like they live in a different reality or something.
Then please explain your understanding of the law, with regards to the circumstances under which LEO are permitted to use their weapons.
Then please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 and cite at least one point of disagreement with the legal argument presented, on any objective grounds (factual or legal).