Can you point to me the part where she was interfering with their enforcement and duties? Because she was literally letting them pass, they chose to get out of their car and make her their problem. If you believe 'enforcing valid laws' means deliberately antagonizing people so that you can shoot them then you're already far gone. You just believe the law is a post-hoc rationalization for murder by the state.
> Can you point to me the part where she was interfering with their enforcement and duties?
So is it perfectly normal for a civilian vehicle to just be blocking a street at a 90 degree angle during an active ICE operation where there are other protestors present?
“Deliberately antagonizing” might be an explanation, perhaps “unintentional but poorly timed three point turn” is another. Either way, it’s interfering with the operation.
> You just believe the law is a post-hoc rationalization for murder by the state
No, I believe that Pierson v. Ray allows law enforcement the ability to be shielded from certain laws if the legality of the action is unclear or if it’s a reasonable human response within the circumstances. I don’t agree with it (as I said and you of course ignored). However that’s the law and it was an 8-1 SCOTUS decision…so it’s unlikely to change.
> So is it perfectly normal for a civilian vehicle to just be blocking a street at a 90 degree angle during an active ICE operation where there are other protestors present?
You can't be serious with this line of bullshit. There were other cars stopped to her side and people behind her car. She was waving other people through, of which another ICE car passed right in front of her because she wasn't blocking the other side of the road (in the left full duration video). If someone trying to avoid hitting other people and cautiously waving people through is interfering with the operation then I say this with full sincerity: You're a monster, and I hope you are kept well and far away from the rest of society.
The MAGA world in a nutshell: they will find a way to justify anything at all, including murder at point blank range because the alternative would require them to admit fractional responsibility for the outcome and that's the one thing they really can not do.
You're posting in a thread where a woman just got murdered by a federal officer and no more than 10 or so minutes after it occurred before the body was cold and even identified immediately leapt to call her a terrorist.
ICE is a corrupt agency hiring the worst of society, whom just murdered a woman for no reason other than to power trip. The state apparatus immediately leapt into action, calling her a terrorist, a criminal, that this action was justified. This is only the most recent of their numerous crimes against the American people.
If you want to believe we need some form of immigration enforcement then fine, but ICE isn't it. ICE needs to go, yesterday. And every single person who joined said agency investigated, jailed and kept away from polite society. This is non-debatable.
> Well, i saw the video of her hitting the cop with her car
No, you didn't. And the fact that you're consistently lying about the sequence of events in said video does not help your case. Again, what do you get from lying about this?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
> 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).
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.
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 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).
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How about the nuance where she initially tried to wave them through while they were in their vehicle and instead of going, they got out and attempted to force her from her vehicle. This is murder of a citizen by the government with no cause.
Let me be clear here: I do not own a car and I live in a city that doesn't require car ownership.
There is a difference between choosing not to own something because it is personally more efficient or reasonable to do so, and being priced out of owning something. I don't own a car because I don't need it, I rent because I cannot afford a home.
I'm not sure if you're doing this intentionally or not, but it is incredibly funny to see people on HN doing what is effectively manufacturing consent for people to not actually own anything. We've gone from home computing is the future to no one should own a computer because it's wasteful.
I'm not sure where this sentiment even comes from but if the economy only consists of renters and landlords then we don't even have the thinnest veneer of capitalism anymore. We're just Feudalism 2.0.
not quite: its about accumulating capital yes, but also with private ownership (as opposed to collective ownership) and the use of said capital to gain more capital (investment returns put back into more investment)
> renting stuff is more profitable than selling stuff
maybe, maybe not, but it is usually more stable and predictable
Nope, you can have capitalism where the vast majority of the population is legally or economically barred from owning anything. The only private ownership required in capitalism is that of the means of production, which says absolutely nothing about the rest.
Why do you think deportation is the only thing that matters? We've seen ICE fuck up the lives of American citizens by destroying their property, illegally holding them, arresting entire buildings etc in Chicago. And there is zero recourse for these blatant violations. How about you open up your wallet and pay for their crimes if you're willing to go to bat for them so hard?
reply