zeke5123a
6mo ago
Yes of course it is obvious to assume his previous history was affecting his state of mind.
But it isn’t obvious it affected it in the way you postulated (ie revenge) but instead may (likely?) created fear.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Sure. I’m not opposed to it. But…i am opposed to it if it’s limited to a single issue.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Well, yes and no. Again, very limited time. So that helps the LEO.
Second, if you think she was trying to hit you and only avoided causing serious harm because you were able to shimmy a bit out of the way, then the threat isn’t over after she misses you.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
No. Once you establish the first shot is reasonable, the other shots within a second are also reasonable. It is a very fluid situation and LEO cannot be expected to assess within less than a second whether the threat has passed once they fire. If it was say 30 seconds later, sure. But asking them to within half a second continue to make these decisions is asking LEO to be superhuman.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
There were a bunch of people around. This woman was literally barricading the street. It was a chaotic environment.
The real harm here is that Minnesota refuses to let local LEO help ICE so that ICE would have the manpower to de escalate these situations. If there were five cop cars there, they could box the woman in, have people to deal with the crowd, and arrest the woman in an orderly fashion.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
You are asking the LEO to be Paul Atreides. You are assuming he knew the intent you are giving her (ie that she was going to flee). He didn’t know which direction she was going to drive and thus how difficult it would be to dodge.
Here is what he did know:
A crazy woman decided to barricade a road to prevent ICE from operating. She was refusing multiple orders and when another agent was trying to apprehend her, she backed up and then put the car into gear to drive forward.
Is it reasonable in that context to fear she might do something crazy like drive at him? Yes. In fact she did.
Is it crazy for him to be ready to draw his gun to neutralize the target? No.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
No they aren’t clearly illegal. Hell Kelly himself acknowledges they are legally grey.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Look if you want to go back to pre antebellum understanding of the constitution and change the United States is to are then sure. Let’s do it. But that applies for a helluva lot more than immigration. We need to get rid of the income tax. And social security. And Medicare and Medicaid. Need to throw out a bunch if new deal regulations as well.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Does the notice to them need to be in triplicate?
They know they are here illegal. They know there is a concerted effort to get them to leave. They could easily google and understand they will be treated nicely if they self deport.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Okay. Let’s say they let her go and then go arrest her later at her house. Can they use force to arrest her there? What if she resists? What if she runs away? Is force / obstruction never permitted?
If it is permitted, then we need to explain why it was impermissible here
zeke5123a
6mo ago
If the cop believed she was trying to run him over, then there is a risk it becomes iterative (ie she might reverse and try again)
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Ok so internal checkpoints. Are we also supposed to fund the illegals? What about voting?
zeke5123a
6mo ago
It isn’t clear to me that she didn’t turn right after the officer pulled the gun (ie but for the gun pull, she would’ve ran over the officer)
zeke5123a
6mo ago
What I can’t tell is whether that is true. That is, did she veer because he pulled a gun or was she always going to veer.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Who says they aren’t wanted there? I want them there. They are enforcing the duly enacted federal law. And fact of the matter is that unless we have internal checkpoints what blue states do with illegals adversely affects red states. So no, you don’t get a veto on our immigration laws where your side gets to make the law federally when you are in power but locally when out.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
But aren’t these payments made to an in home daycare? That is, there is no rental cost. Sure there is some capex but that’s relatively minimal. And with 12 kids, the admin shouldn’t be too bad.
Let’s say you hire three people and you handle all of the admin. You pay each helper 6k a month (72k a year). Let’s say you spend 5k on capex / insurance a month. That’s still 10k left over.
And I think those expenses are being generous.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Thank you for this post. It is something that really annoys me about the affirmative action debate. Both sides adopt a fairness approach (ie it is fair to adjust for past sins; how is it fair to punish someone who didn’t engage in any past sin). Both sides seemingly ignore that the position / job isn’t the end goal but the output of the position / job is the end goal. That is, the sides seem to focus on distributional issues while ignoring productivity.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
What will be interesting (obviously) is what comes next. If Trump successfully makes Venezuela a functioning state with with spilling little American blood or treasure AND America gets something out of it (ie access to oil, repatriation of immigrants), then it will be a huge boom for Trump. He can basically make the case the problem with Iraq wasn’t the concept but the execution (or perhaps more to the point it is about choosing the right target). Americans love a winner.
Still think Venezuela should not be something to focus on. Fraud is compelling. The message is simple (if perhaps somewhat thought not entirely untrue): you are struggling because these immigrants are scamming your tax dollars. I’m fixing it by getting rid of the immigrants and fixing the fraud. The other side wants both of those things to continue.
Maybe. The question is whether the MAGA base is pacifists or anti-GWOT democracy building.
If the latter, then no hypocrisy. Venezuela seems very different than Iraq. But time will tell.
More options
Context Copy link