phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
5d ago
And then I got fuckin' the vice president of the country I live in going on fuckin' news and saying (direct video quote) "the precedent here is very simple. You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action. That's a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He's saying that this officer has absolute immunity. What the fuck are you talking about?
From the context Vance is referring to qualified immunity. He is not claiming that ICE is is immune to absolutely every law.
Other than that, when you are writing for an audience that you acknowledge disagrees with you I think you should try to keep your sides narrative out of your telling of events. Your telling of the events doesn't come across as an honest one and I think that undermines you and makes it way too easy to just nitpick and dismiss. E.g. describing her role in the shooting as "She blocked half a road for likely five minutes in her local neighborhood..." is obtuseness. "Running from the cops is not reason enough to use deadly force." is just you having an argument with yourself. Wow he called the woman who almost hit him with her car a "fucking bitch"? We have all seen the videos, you leaving out critical parts doesn't make us suddenly forget those parts happened! We know they happened, we know you left them out in your telling of events, and now you leave us the impression that you came to your conclusions based on not knowing basic things about the case.
phosphorus2
8d ago
You are reading
"Police Officers are not allowed to shoot people driving vehicles at them"
as
The police cannot shoot someone to stop them from fleeing.
Which I don't think is a fair reading - the former is likely legal (likely life in danger based on just based on a common reading of the text) and the latter is likely not by the same standard.
phosphorus2
9d ago
Even granting we are reading different narratives, I just don't see a difference between "I intentionally tried to run this guy over" and "I was trying to escape law enforcement and in my escape I was so negligent in my driving that I hit a man directly in front of my windshield"
phosphorus2
9d ago
The driver seems to be trying to leave, not run down an officer. He’s crossing in front of the car and nearly out of the way, and yet as soon as the car shifts to forward he has his gun out and is shooting.
The ICE agent was very clearly standing in a spot where the vehicle could not move forward without hitting him. You yourself agree with this assessment ("I think your analysis of the mechanics is fair, but doesn’t solve the issue."). How can you possibly determine the intention of her actions by what her actions were ? In both cases the results of either action would be exactly the same, she can't leave without hitting him. Trying to run down the officer looks exactly like trying to escape when the officer is a foot in front of your car!
She follows them around, gets ahead of them, parks in the street, waits for them to get out, waits until a guy is right in front of her, then hits the gas. That doesn't seem at all like she was trying to leave.
If a car begins accelerating towards you and your split second reaction is to go for your gun, I’m questioning your motives.
"Ah yes, you can see the woman has pure motives, she was just trying to leave, I can tell my a frame by frame analysis of her tire movements. But ICE agent, he reached for his gun while he was a foot in front of accelerated into him, that's suspicious!"
The fact that a car is dangerous isn’t relevant, because it’s not clear he was fearing for his life!
The dangerousness of a car hitting a person is irrelevant to that persons fear for their life? Really?
phosphorus2
10d ago
it manufactures a justification to escalate to deadly force to prevent an escape where one would not otherwise be present.
I don't think this is true at all. The justification in question is "my life was in danger so I had to use deadly force". Who actually manufactured this situation?
Woman:
- parks in the middle of the road and waits for ICE to arrive for the sole purpose of causing a confrontation
- waits til an ICE agent is directly in front of her car
- puts her car in gear
- hits the gas
- hits the ICE agent with her car
ICE agent:
- gets out of his car to make an arrest
- stands in front of a parked car
Standing in front of a parked car, which is what the ICE agent did, does not put a life in danger. He could have stood there all day, all year, until the end of time, and he still would not have been in danger from that car. The entire situation, and the entirety of the danger, was manufactured by the woman. She sought out confrontation, and when she got it she escalated with violence right up to the point where she got her brains blown all over her dashboard.
phosphorus2
11d ago
Also also note that based on Brenner's notes (loved that asspull) they could close the portal at any time.
"The Upside down is held together by an exotic matter sphere that we conveniently just found out about" is ridiculous, and I think a genuine plot hole. Not just bad writing.
Upside down Hawkins is destroyed almost instantly without an exotic matter sphere, but how could such a sphere get to upside down Hawkins in the first place?
phosphorus2
15d ago
But over the last couple days the people pointing out little nitpicky things has really ruined it for me, because the nitpicks show that the writers don't even care about their own show and keep ignoring/forgetting little important details.
Imagine that there is a crackhead armed with a knife trying to kill you. You are armed with a garden hose. You try to fend him off by spraying him with your little 10 psi water stream, which of course does nothing and he stabs you to death. You probably would have been better off trying to take the hose and beat him with it or strangle him or fend him off somehow.
This is about the relationship between government troops and demogorgons in ST. The troops are all armed with garden hoses, they do zero damage, and they all die. They would be orders of magnitude better off taking their M16s and swinging them like clubs. Drunk Karen Wheeler armed with a broken wine bottle is more effective vs demogorgons than entire squads of elite troops.
Now imagine that you had to fight that same crackhead, except now you have a flamethrower. You win this fight every time.
You are the US government. You are going to fight demogorgons. Do you give your soldiers the garden hose or the flamethrower? It has been 6 years, since the first scene in the first episode of the show, that the US government has been fighting demogorgons and they still have not figured out they need to give everyone flamethrowers and not garden hoses.
phosphorus2
18d ago
only in places they have permission to be.
That is a more accurate characterization, yes.
I'm surprised because I thought ICE's deportation orders are not the big swinging dicks of arrest warrants, which is why they say stuff like don't answer the door for them if they knock and they can't deport you. If an illegal alien's roommate can refuse to let ICE in and it is not obstruction, then why is what this judge did obstruction?
If the roommate refused to let ICE in, and ICE only has an administrative warrant, then it's not obstruction because ICE didn't have the authority to go inside in the first place. An ICE warrant (and the warrant in question here) is generally an administrative warrant. It is filled out and signed by an ICE agent. It lets ICE arrest people, but only in public places they have permission to be. Courtroom hallways are public, courtrooms and houses are not.
An ICE admin warrant does not let ICE do things that the police would generally need a warrant signed by a judge do. It does not let ICE ignore the 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, so if ICE wants to go into someone's house they need permission or a warrant approved by a judge.
Yeah I'm not a lawyer so my understanding is vague of exactly what the legalese reason is. But regardless, Vance was speaking more narrowly here and not trying to claim ICE is immune from all laws.
More options
Context Copy link