UwU
18d ago
let me ask, is this actually your point of view?
It is my point of view.
The NYT poll suggested deportation approval was 50% vs 47% and ICE approval was 63% vs 37%. Furthermore there was a question about ICE tactics which got 61%/26%/11% for gone-too-far/just-right/not-far-enough.
Put together it means that deportations are still popular but ICE tactics are not. There's about 11-13% of the electorate who holds these two opinions simultaneously. It's not everyone, but it is certainly sizable enough to swing elections. This poll was conducted prior to the most recent shooting, so if anything I'd expect even less support for ICE tactics now.
UwU
20d ago
The only restraining principle is the expense.
Yes and that is the key here isn't it? There's no infinite amount of federal agents available, and there's clearly diminishing returns dependent on the amount of illegal immigrants actually in the city and the number of federal agents present. Add on the current volatile circumstances, I hardly think this is the most efficient strategy if your goal is to maximize deportations. I would expect any good defense to actually address the part that Minneapolis is singled out compared to the other cities, which was the main point of the comment you initially replied to.
Does it matter to this conversation that deportations in the abstract is popular? The whole point is how they are being done. If the administration maintains their current tactics and ICE continues to shoot a US citizen every couple of weeks, would you say it would improve their electoral chances or lessen them?
UwU
20d ago
This defense is a bit thin since you can use it to justify an uncapped amount of federal agents as long as there's non-zero illegal immigrants in Minneapolis, which applies to basically every American city.
A much more reasonable defense is that they are doing it as a punitive expedition to make Minneapolis an example so other sanctuary cities start to less resistant to federal authority on immigration. However, it is still a punitive expedition. And after these shootings, it has clearly failed, because I don't see how it will be effective at persuading other liberal strongholds to cooperate with ICE rather than digging in their heels and be even more resistant.
Indeed a strange statement. I'm seeing people on social media claim that ICE had already disarmed the victim, holster and all, prior to the shooting, and I'm also seeing people claim that he was pulling his gun and the first few gunshots were from him, which lead to his death. As far as I'm aware there's no good evidence for either of these interpretations. But judging by the fact the government is merely claiming that "he had a weapon", rather than "he fired at the officers", I'm inclined to believe it's a bad shoot and this is damage control.
EDIT: With more evidence coming out it looks like they DID disarm the guy before shooting.
UwU
27d ago
Yes, the "europoors" care more about their sovereign territory than tariffs or hypothetical pull backs of Ukraine aid.
UwU
1mo ago
They had enough time to say "get out of the (fucking) car" 3 times. When people are insisting that 1 second is an eternity for perfect deliberation when an SUV is accelerating towards you, then that 3+ second gap cannot be considered "suddenly". I wouldn't call it a lie, but it's not an accurate characterisation of events.
But you aren't arguing with people insisting that 1 second is an eternity for perfect deliberation. Neither @magicalkittycat nor I made that claim. Taking that into context, isn't it possible for us to characterize a few seconds as "suddenly" and still be logically consistent? And you did call it a lie, not just inaccurate.
I was also not overselling how much time we could see her. It was literally less than a second we get to see her mouth open after they try to forcefully open the door. She can enjoy LARPing as a plucky rebel when the single ICE officer was filming and circling her vehicle and then get spooked by the escalation when multiple other agents approach and try to grab her door. They are not mutually exclusive.
UwU
1mo ago
The latter 99% of his post was about how attacking Iran wouldn't overthrow the regime?
UwU
1mo ago
Not that it matters at all because it certainly wouldn't move the needle in anyone's mind, but:
- it was 2 guys approaching her from the left, not one. https://youtube.com/watch?v=K9CJY5p0xz4
- it's not clear how "suddenly" was a lie. That seems subjective and open to interpretation. It's 3 seconds between the guy getting out of his truck and trying to open her door
- we got like half a second of grainy vid to interpret that she smirked and smiled after the guy grabbed her door, afterwards she looked down and closed her mouth. So even if her initial expression was a smile (inconclusively), it's not unreasonable to assume her expression simply stayed frozen for a moment when that occurred and her inner emotions were more panicky than what can be gleaned from the few frames of visual evidence. See the 39th second of this video: https://x.com/alphanews/status/2009679932289626385.
Anyway, I just think she wasn't obviously not terrified. Could she have been terrified? Yes. The situation was scary to a reasonable person, and she tried to escape, quickly, which is certainly evidence, not conclusive evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Would it also be reasonable to conclude that she wasn't terrified based on the video evidence and your priors? Also yes.
UwU
1mo ago
You can still disagree and say it's not factually correct without calling them intellectually dishonest.
UwU
1mo ago
How do you feel about the Trump administration calling her a domestic terrorist who was participating in a violent riot?
UwU
1mo ago
I really dislike this sort of debating where whoever is in hostile territory needs to be 100% perfect and get everything 100% correct or they get eviscerated and get called intellectually dishonest. Zero charity extended. (I get this all the time on Reddit)
Like, when @LiberalRetvrn said the ICE agent was yelling "get out of the fucking car", but actually the agent was just saying it very firmly in a confrontational way - not actually yelling. So he's technically factually wrong so now everyone gets to sneer and dunk on him. Or when he claimed the woman was panicked, but people here are certain that she wasn't panicked based on half a second of low pixel facial expressions in that video. So he's factually wrong again and is being a dishonest troll and everyone gets to dunk on him.
UwU
1mo ago
I think what you say is very reasonable.
I just know if I'm on the jury and the victim has 3 bullet holes from a semi-automatic weapon and the defendant claims it was accidental discharge, I would not find that super credible.
UwU
1mo ago
Agreed he didn't go down. I thought it was a bodycam footage as shakes claimed.
I doubt it was accidental though. The first shot was the best defensible shot whereas the others were through the open driver side window as the car was going by. If he didn't mean to fire the first one, I don't see why he would follow through with the rest. Also "I accidentally fired the first shot and then my training took over so I fired the rest" makes him look real bad.
UwU
1mo ago
That explains things. Shakes said bodycam + goes down and I thought that was very contradictory to what was shown in prior videos.
Though watching the original videos again, I don't think his phone got knocked down. It was already lowered when he finished drawing his weapon.
UwU
1mo ago
?? I'm really confused right now because the agent did not go down in any of the original videos. So something must be AI or at least doctored.
UwU
1mo ago
UwU
1mo ago
Nice joke, hard disagree on the facts though. The icy road didn't make her accidentally turn the wheels to the right. The cop was already on the left side of her car. If she wanted to ram him, she wouldn't need to turn right at all, and neither bullet nor ice would have stopped her car from going over him, considering how far it went afterwards.
UwU
1mo ago
If there was a riot we'd see visual evidence of it on social media. It's not like they only started filming after the shooting.
UwU
1mo ago
Yeah, he cut off the video right when the wheel was straight, and then replayed it again and again, stopping at that instant to make his point. Why did he not show the full video in which the wheel completes the turn from left to right? My point still stands, if she wanted to run the officer over, then she could have.
UwU
1mo ago
There are multiple camera angles and photos of this incident and most of the protestors were seen walking around with their phones out. If no footage of a violent riot materializes in the coming hours/days, it's just a lie.
UwU
1mo ago
Not at all. She was turning to the right. Maybe it's still a justified shooting because the officer couldn't read her mind, but if she wanted to run him over, she could have.
It's just posts becoming popular and then getting on /r/all or /r/popular which makes even more redditors upvote it.
More options
Context Copy link