ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
I do not see this as particularly bad. Trump is running the DoJ as a weapon against his enemies, so turnabout would be fair.
If turnabout is far, then what he's doing right now is fair, and any retaliation would just be a new aggression.
What good is retaining their illegal status, if enforcing it somehow "reveals the preference" for revoking it?
Sooner or later ICE will have to go after more central examples of illegals: Joses in restaurants and hotels, on farms and construction sites.
It's possible that by that time the anti-ICE movement will have discredited itself so much that no one will care.
What makes you think they are caused by a single core issue, rather than one side being right and the other wrong? Even children learns the simple tactic of pretending they were aggressed upon even though they know perfectly well they started shit. Why should we assume this is different?
But the "one of their own" in question was acting in an absolutely unhinged, uncharacteristic of women with children, manner, which got her killed in the first place.
Oof, ok, have to take the L on this week. Had better luck @Southkraut?
If you see a practical way of Europe challenging the US, by all means outline it. Putin pays his soldiers, is Europe supposed to do the same while maintaining it's welfare state, or do you think we're likely to ditch it? Where is their ammo coming from? We literally ran out of bombs when ousting Gaddafi. Do you think we'll be as good as the Americans at logistics, and we'll be able to project our power all the way to Greenland well enough to give the Americans a run for their money?
I'm not sure why some random podcaster saying this is particularly interesting
Not saying this is the case here, but randos can easily turn out to be more representative of a movement than official leadership. For example, for years people here were saying that "social justice" / woke is not representative of the mainstream left, even though it took over pretty much the entirety of the movement, the corporate sector and the government. Many were even denying it even exists as a coherent ideology right up until Trump won for a second time, and they switched to declaring it dead.
I'm asking whether we know that that's what she was accused of
And I'm saying that's an unreasonable question. Cops don't have to fill out paperwork prior to attempting to detain people, so barring mind-reading abilities I have no way of finding out what he was thinking when arresting her.
and whether she was in fact doing that.
You won't be able to tell until she's convicted in court, and since she's dead, she's not going to be. But that aside, seriously... you really can't tell whether or not she was obstructing a federal agent?
So is safety social net.
We were patting themselves on the back about our social safety nets and how they lower criminality for decades. Then we imported 7 zillion Middle-Easterners and Africans. We don't pat ourselves on thr back so much anymore.
It's only brought to court if a prosecutor doesn't think it's self-defense, and accuses you of something more serious.
(In)famously, the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case said that if the mob ended up killing him, he wouldn't have brought charges, for example.
If you are saying that he did it but not intentionally,
He was in the way of the car, but not with the goal to block it.
I'd reply that creating an excuse for lethal force unintentionally is jabout as bad as doing it intentionally,
Every arrest is an excuse for using lethal force, if the suspect insists on acting dangerously.
In this case it takes two to choose.
No, it doesn't He wasn't putting himself as a roadblock. You can argue he should have been more careful and thought about all the things that can go wrong, but the argument is pretty dubious. Arresting people is inherently dangerous, and they can fuck you up whether you're in front of the car or approaching it from the side. But setting it aside for the sake of argument, a tactical error does not negate your right to self defense.
She on the other hand had the actual choice of simply not putting anyone's life in danger.
Unless you're really aiming the car at the police intentionally
Whether you're doing it intentionally or not is irrelevant, thr police can't read your mind.
Even if they did, and in her mind she would pull off some badass maneuver to escape without hitting anyone, there's still the issue of thr car's actual trajectory which did hit the guy, and would hit him harder and sooner were it not for the ice on the road.
They can shoot you if you drive at them, but they can't shoot you if you are just fleeing.
Right, which is the scenario relevant to the discussed case.
If not, don't have policies whose effect is that it's hard to distinguish between fleeing and driving at them
There's nothing to distinguish. It doesn't matter if you were "just" fleeing, if you do so by means of driving your car at the police. If you choose to do that, you are putting their life in danger, and they have a right to defend themselves.
The police are not permitted to shoot you if you floor your car to get away.
Yes they are, if you floor it at them. We've been sharing this video that shows what happens when they're not fast enough. Another poster mentioned they were watching police cam videos in thr wake of BLM and seen plenty of cases of policemen shooting cars driving at them, all of which were ruled justified.
The difference is that in that case the officer would be shooting people who are intentionally violent, not nonviolent people who looked violent because the officer set up the situation in a way that made it hard to tell.
The police arrests people for non-violent offenses all the time, you still don't get to floor it to get away from them, and flooring your car at them is violent in itself.
The officer was not in front of the car when she began backing up. Her reverse maneuver is what put him (barely) there.
Eh... the way I see it, it's kinda both, he was walking from the right to the left side of the car. Though funnily enough this also means he was putting himself out of harm's way, by doing exactly what everyone here is screaming at him about.
negate or at least seriously make harder whether the agent can claim fear for his life, even if he did.
That's absurd. Even if you claim he should have seen it coming (which creates an interesting tension between the claims of how she was just a totally harmless mom, but should have been treated as a complete sociopath at all times), him not seeing the danger when he walked around the car does not negate the fear for his life once she decided to floor it.
The video has to have the "with a car you can go anywhere you want" guy as the main character.
It's my understanding that absent actually aiding a specific crime, it's perfectly legal albeit obnoxious to whistle and make people aware of police/ICE presence (lookout for a robbery no but generally warning people about ICE or a speed trap is fine) and is not sabotaging an arrest.
Blocking the road for ICE vehicles, on the other hand, absolutely is.
As a big fan of technical correctness, I can only tip my hat to you, sir. However, that sentence doesn't read like he's expressing surprise at not being alone in the world, especially in the light of the rest of his post.
I don't know what to tell you, border turnarounds aren't deportations, and pretending that they are is lying.
Or are you saying you've blocked Obama?
Besides Obama deported more illegals for a fraction of the cost.
He didn't. He just lied about it.
"On some level" means exactly what it says on the tin, dude. Again I'm begging you to re-read before replying and apply some critical thinking skills.
"On some level" means to some degree, to a certain extent, or from a particular perspective, acknowledging something is partially true or valid without being entirely so, often used to qualify agreement or understanding.
Being "partially" shocked at someone for disagreeing with a claim, while not believing it yourself is downright schizophrenic.
- Prev
- Next

Are we just gonna skip over how Trump ended up with a mugshot being taken, and "muh 34 felonies"? If you're including pardons, why ignore Biden's signoff pardoning Faucci, his son, and a bunch of other people for anything they could have possibly been charged with, before any accusation was even made?
That's a reasonable position, but I don't know if you can derive "turnabout is fair play" from it.
More options
Context Copy link