This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
For some of the people confused about why Minneapolis is such a big deal still, it's not a scissor event, it's a mask off moment and puzzling how some people aren't just reasonably disagreeing, but out of their fucking minds. I don't want to be accused of moving goalposts, so for the purposes of sane (hopefully) discussion, this thread is only intended to make the primary point that Trump, Noem, Vance, are portraying this with what can only be called outright propaganda, fabrications, alternate reality, whatever you want to call it, probably lies. I know that's a word that scares some people here, so I'm using it as a synonym for deceit in this post. Let me repeat that. I'm talking about the Trump administration's official response, and not just that it's inaccurate, but that people echoing it is callous and polarizing in the extreme (the second point). I do apologize by the way for yet another Minneapolis thread.
Sometimes someone else simply says it better. I'm vibing strongly with this video which feels worthy of appearing here. So here's (most of) his words (transcript and own parentheticals, no real edits):
(Showing a NYT overview video, voiceover, picking up around 2:30) The moment the agent fires, he is standing here to the left of the SUV and the wheels are pointing to the right, away from the agent. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it's true that at this moment in this grainy low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV. But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV. The SUV crashes into a white car parked down the road. A bystander runs toward the collision. The federal agents on scene do not appear to rush to provide emergency medical care. Eventually, the agent who shot the motorist approaches the vehicle. Seconds later, he turns back around and tells his colleagues to call 911. (original video audio:) "Shame. You shot someone. You shot someone." Agents block several bystanders who attempt to provide medical care, including one who identifies himself as a physician. "I'll go check a pulse! -No! -I'm a physician. -I don't care." At the same time, several agents, including the agent who opened fire, get in their vehicles and drive off, apparently altering the active crime scene. (End clip) Okay, I think that video makes it so clear that what happened was not the normal course of business for what this officer should have been doing.
This is so obviously a murder. This is so obviously the person with the guns acting outside of the realm of what they are supposed to be doing. And it's very frustrating to me to see people deny like the basic reality I'm seeing with my eyes from multiple angles, from multiple sources. I don't know how to say it clear. So, I want to go through I and and when I say people, I'm really not just talking about random fucking people on Twitter or bots.
There was two things that happened after this action. First, Kristi Noem comes out and says this was an act. This, this right here again. Watch it again and listen with the sound. This woman, mother of three, kids stuffed animal in the car, just dropped her kid off at school, six-year-old, has stickers on the back of her car. This woman is committing an act of domestic terrorism, (shows video) first waving the car by with her hand, then saying, "I'm pulling out." Then screamed at by masked men with guns... Then clearly fleeing. The idea that she 'broke bad' and is attempting to run over and kill the officers is insane. She is clearly trying to flee. Then he kills her. There, there is no I can't imagine not seeing this different way. I think this is a fucking pure Rorschach test. I don't I don't understand people taking this a different way.
So she calls it domestic terrorism. Then Trump said she "violently, willfully, and viciously" ran over the ICE officer. There is no way you could watch that video and say that what she was doing was violently, willfully, and literally trying to kill this ICE officer. An insane thing to say. He even said, "It's hard to believe he [the ICE officer] is alive, but [he's] now recovering in the hospital." I want you to juxtapose that quote from Trump over the actual footage of this officer casually strolling away from the murder. (Shows clip) There, I, there is no way you cannot see this is a lie! There's no way. This is like, this is demonic.
So then this woman comes out and says, (direct quote) "Our officer followed his training and did exactly what he was taught to do." And I looked into this. There is absolutely no way that is true. ICE officers are trained to never approach a vehicle from the front, which this guy did (video shows documents at 6:52). Now, there's a lot of brand new rookie ICE officers who are getting thrown in with almost no training. But this guy, it turns out, was from since 2016, so he's a veteran. He would know never to approach a vehicle from the front, 90° angle. They're also instructed not to shoot at a moving vehicle. Firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in your direction. So even all things aside, it's not even smart. It doesn't stop it. Okay. The best thing to do is get out of the way. By the way, once she's shot and killed, the vehicle rolls to the right far away, proving again that it was not even moving in the officer's direction.
(I think this point has been lost in the noise, but it bears repeating: shooting at someone in a car does in now way guarantee that the car will stop, in fact the opposite is obviously true! We even see it here as the vehicle continues accelerating only to crash uncontrolled! So, the ICE officer is not in any way following his proper training here. That's simply a lie.)
Then she said, (direct quote) "You know, people need to stop using their vehicles as weapons. This domestic act of terrorism to use your vehicle to try to kill law enforcement officers is going to stop. And I'm asking the Department of Justice to prosecute it as domestic terrorism because it's clear that it's being coordinated. People are being trained and told how to use their vehicles to impede law." This is fucking insane. The idea that she was a domestic terrorist trained to use her vehicle and not a scared mother of three is fucking crazy, bro. This is her fucking glove box. (Video shows stuffed animals spilling out) It's fucking crazy.
So, you look at the shots. The first shot, you can look at his feet, dude. You can see him right here. He's able to get out of the way of this car, which is the number one priority. Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape if you think the subject is just escaping. You can't use deadly force. Running from the cops is not reason enough to use deadly force. You can only use it if no other reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle, which he already did. He can and did move out of the path of the vehicle. The first shot, he's already out of the way, but by the third shot, it is fucking crazy. That is a kill shot into a fuckin mother's car. The shots one and two could only be justified if no safe avenue of retreat existed. Shot three, the deadly force is only justified while the threat is ongoing. So even if you somehow thought shot one and two were fuckin there, shot three, he's out of immediate danger. There's no fucking way to justify it. There's just no way.
And this all this reporting I'm doing right here, not only the New York Times, this comes from the Washington Post. This is from a fucking magazine, or a paper that is owned by Jeff Bezos who has donated millions of dollars to Trump. What I'm saying is I don't it's not even about your fucking politics. Anyone with eyes can see that this guy crossed the line. This officer needs to face punishment. This guy, (shows a tweet) Marine Corps veteran, "If you are the guys with guns, you are responsible for the situation. Doubly so if you outnumber the person"; there has to be a higher standard for the people in masks with guns that have been trained than the mom in the car.
(Yet again a point deserving emphasis, especially here. If "both-sides-ism" is a sin, I'm probably among the worst offenders on this forum. Almost nothing in this conversation requires you to think Good was doing was right, or if she did it the right way, or was a nice person, or had accurate political views, you can think the protestors are scum of the earth, but that shouldn't have a serious bearing on the standards we have for federal officers with the power to kill at the drop of a hat. Good probably made mistakes. Ross definitely made mistakes. But Ross' mistakes are inherently more serious. We can have a conversation, a separate one, about what kinds of protest are good or bad or criminal or super-criminal and all that, but we're talking about life and death here. Frankly I don't think it matters very much at least with respect to what you think the officer, Ross, should be facing in terms of punishment.)
And I talk about this a lot. I try to get points across to people that have different values than me. Okay? I understand people are often talking past each other. Some people value certain things differently. Okay? But if you are somebody who feels like you have a fuckin 'don't tread on me' bumper sticker. I don't see how you've suddenly gone from this to supporting a mass militia of the government killing people. I don't get it. People like this. (Shows tweet). This guy's saying if I is doing a raid in my neighborhood, leaving the safe of my own home is -- she was a mile from home – "Even if I had to leave for work or something, I would drive in the opposite direction". The idea that, your argument is that people should feel like they have to cower in the safety of their homes if there's ever a federal agent in their neighborhood is fucking crazy.
I don't understand how this is an argument. This guy-- I'm trying to find sources that will get people to understand, even if you're not ideologically aligned with me. This guy right here, Greg Nunziata (shows a tweet). Greg Nunziata was the general counsel and domestic policy adviser to fuckin Marco Rubio. He is a he's a Senate Republican policy committee. He's executive director for the side. He is Republican as it gets. Bro, this guy is saying, "I've watched the videos" and "the reflexive defense of it is grotesque". I don't understand where people are getting looking at his footage and coming up with his entirely insane conclusions that this guy should just walk off scot-free, that he should shoot three rounds into a mom's car. It's crazy. The fucking Libertarian Party of Louisiana is saying that the police state, fucking 4chan is calling this shit out. I don't get it. Like where is, just who are the people defending this?
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? The reason we have these rules is because they apply to the officers. When you have the monopoly on violence, which the state does, they are the ones that are allowed to have guns to physically arrest you and in some cases kill you. You have to have rules and accountability, or it is just it's a fuckin' thug owned by someone in power. It's there has to be rules and accountability. Of course, there does. And especially in the past like year and a half, ICE has gone from being already like I think a problematic organization, but the masking is new. So now we have a rise of masked officers, which by the way has led to a lot of fake ICE doing robberies.
The idea that there's just no accountability, you can't they can wear plain clothes or have a mask and they can kill people and then the vice president will say they have absolute immunity is not a reasonable path for for America. I don't care what politics are on. You have to agree that that is not that is not the right direction to go. And as I'm saying this, as I'm making these fuckin slides a few hours ago and feeling like shit during this time, two more people get shot in Portland. The FBI tweets this out and then deletes it (tweet saying CBP agents shot 2, "please follow this thread for updates"). How is this normal? It's like I don't know. I I I just find it so frustrating that people they can't even... Listen, even if we disagree on immigration, the idea that this there can't be any ICE officer who went too far. There's not one fuckin guy who didn't follow the training that this guy can't suffer some consequences for killing a woman. That's the bare minimum.
(Here I should pause and ask: are there prominent administration members who think that he should be punished, but just in some other way than criminal charges? I'm not aware of any, and that's crazy. I hope I'm wrong, but isn't that a fair characterization of their position, that zero consequences are appropriate? Take a step back and ask yourself if that seems appropriate. My answer is: hell no.)
Trump had a interview that came out today that kind of like pulls this back into perspective for me. They did a wide-ranging interview with the NYT today, three-hour long interview, and they asked him, "Are there any limits on your global powers?" He said, "Yeah, there's one thing, my own morality, my own mind." (direct quote) That is not the country of the United States. That is not what the Constitution says. That's not what anything says. There's no president for a president saying the only thing that I decide is my own morality in my own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me. This has to change.
So 2026 is an important year. And that's why I'm bringing this up. Trump has said if we don't win the midterms, referring to Republicans, he'll get impeached. That's what he said. Now I don't know whether impeachment will go anywhere, but it'll mean he has less power. He'll be a lame duck.
And he has floated this. He said it as a joke, but he often starts things as jokes. Canceling 2026 election (video direct quote) "We have to even run against these people. Now, I won't say cancel the election. They should cancel the election because the fake news will say he wants the elections canceled. 'He's a dictator.' They always call me a dictator." I just want to repeat that sentence. "...These people. Now, I won't say cancel the election. They should cancel the election because the fake news will say..." I won't say cancel the election because then the fake news will say he wants to cancel the election, he's a dictator. Why would that be fake? If you said it and then they reported on it, why would that be fake?!
...So I'm I'm just bringing this up. This is this is like the la this midterm I do feel at this direction is like one of the last peaceful ways to make change. I that's what I honestly feel. I know it sounds alarmist, but it's what I honestly feel. And so I, I'm encouraging that. And I also want to say I'm I'm a person listen if you disagree on disagree with me on fuckin tariffs or you disagree with me on there's a lot of things you can disagree with me on. And I am often willing to find common ground or intellectually listen to what you're saying and try to figure it out.
But this, this tweet from Paul Graham kind of stuck with me (shows tweet, which he paraphrases). This situation I feel like has been a a real Rorschach test of character. I can't imagine if you've watched the videos coming away with the idea that he should suffer no consequences, that what he did was okay. That that is how an officer of the law should behave. I don't understand. I don't understand that. I, I, that's not a bridge I can cross. And if you do think that way, I sincerely urge you to reconsider. It's not going to lead to a good direction in this country. That's all I got to say. That's, that's, that's all I got to say.
I think some of you here, effectively serving the role of ICE apologists, don't seem to get why this is a big deal for some of us. Hopefully this illustrates the why. You have the President saying, just outright saying, that he doesn't have any restrictions on his use of global power whatsoever. You have the Vice President saying that any federal cop who shoots someone is immune to consequences. You have both of them and Noem attempting to decieve people in broad daylight by accusing Good of domestic terrorism and intentionality, something that is plainly clear to almost literally everyone with eyes to be false. That has an impact! And I will echo those words. I'm a "the system works" kind of guy. This is not working. I've complained about dishonesty from official sources before - most recently this came up when talking about the BLS head being baselessly accused of fraud - but this is another level.
To use a conservative comparison, this is a major "fake news" mask-off moment for liberals and probably moderates too (like me). For whatever naive noises liberals often make about how virtuous and awesome the press is, most of us know that at the end of the day there's some spin expected and at the very least, some selection bias (a la "the media rarely lies" Scott post). It's yet another thing when the administration itself makes such a habit of lying and using deceit. That's what it is, folks. The administration thinks that the ICE agent deserves zero consequences and that just doesn't fit at all with the video we can plainly look at.
All this to say I am horrified at some of the upvote-downvote patterns in the threads this last week and I'm not lying, it hurt my faith in humanity a bit, and the Motte specifically. Are people really so wrapped up in the culture war that they have lost empathy for a dead mother has a child who's six years old and an orphan because she's on the 'other side'? That the officer did nothing wrong? Quibbling over "domestic terrorism" definitions as if that's in any way the way you'd describe it? She blocked half a road for likely five minutes in her local neighborhood because ICE was hanging out around schools to nab immigrant parents as their kids get out. She said stuff like "I'm not mad at you" and "I'm pulling out", and those are not the words attempting to murder a federal agent. For fuck's sake, someone (possibly Ross) called her a "fucking bitch" not two seconds after she was shot, which cuts the other way. Again: none of this requires you to think Good's wife, for example (!), or nearby protestors, or Good, are virtuous, only to think that the cop did at least something wrong. Something is wrong, and it's the attitude here.
I thought about calling a few people out but I'm not going to, but if this reads like an accusation, it basically is. Just needed to get that off my chest. Consider me officially flipped. Everything is no longer fine; the system is breaking; its replacement would only be worse; beware of helping it along.
I understand that this is kind of difficult for you to grasp, because laws in America are a foreign concept to many, but-
Laws have to be enforced. If they are not enforced, then they are not real. If they cannot be enforced, they are not real.
America either has legal immigration or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then open the floodgates, and downstream effects of that kick in. If this is not a strategy you are willing to support, then enforcement is necessary, and if the enforcement has to do its job, it has to be armed.
Some people will get shot in the course of enforcing the law, whether they are innocent or guilty, that's the cost of enforcing laws in a country with a population the size of the US.
If you are protesting laws by trying to lobby Congress or trying to get laws changed, that's one thing. The US does indeed have a process for this, as shitty and inefficient as it might be. Protesting laws by trying to prevent armed people whose job it is to enforce the law from doing their job is a monumentally stupid way to get a Darwin award.
At no point did I mention anything about Trump running his mouth; the way he conducts himself is embarrassing for a head of state let alone the leader of the free world quote unquote but hey, whether you consider it a "mask off" moment or not, significant parts of the world have been thinking of American leaders this way since at least Bush I.
More options
Context Copy link
In the wake of George Floyd my most consumed YouTube genre was police shooting videos. I couldn’t get enough of them. I watched nearly every Donut Operator video.
There were some instances when even I, almost always on the side of police, would raise an eyebrow in a car vs cop shooting. But I can’t recall a single instance where the cop was found to be unjustified in shooting the driver of a car on a collision course with them.
It’s so consistent it should be part of the anti-ICE training manuals. Never drive in a way where it could even unreasonably be interpreted that you’re going to collide with police.
I asked an LLM if there were cases of cop vs car shootings where the shooting was found to be unjustified. It gave me one where the car was driving away, Jordan Edwards in Balch Springs, Texas. And then Barnes v. Felix, but that revised the standard and remanded the case back down, it still hasn’t been found unjustified.
They're not written for the benefit of the cannon fodder.
Also, Barnes v. Felix was a case where the cop was not in the path of the car -- he jumped up onto the doorsill after the car started fleeing. The Fifth Circuit ruled only the 2 seconds immediately before the shoot could be considered, and the Supreme Court unanimously overruled that and said the "totality of the circumstances" must be considered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can characterize it as murder all you want. She shouldn't have been there fucking with ICE, even if we granted the police used excessive force, that's fine with me. Screw anti-ice protesters, more of this should happen. I have been drained of any possible humanity level sympathy by the left's histrionics and 8 years of targeted political censorship and one-sided government sanctioned violence against me and mine.
Every time that little shitty fact check box appears under video deemed "wrong think" by mega corp algos a little bit more hatred sparks inside my heart and I yearn for more violence.
More options
Context Copy link
From Sort By Controversial:
You're exactly describing a Scissor Statement. From your view, it's not just true, it's trivially true, and you're pointing at people who are (inconceivably) holding the opposite view.
At least you aren't at this part:
More options
Context Copy link
That was a big wall of text. But, the main thing I'm responding to is this:
No. It was so obviously not a murder. And that is why Noem and Vance are right to do what they're doing and not do the normal professional thing. The normal professional thing is for the administration to refuse to comment and insist on letting the process take place. Then, in a few months, when the officer is acquitted, you get ANOTHER round of protests and more bad press as to how murders are being excused. An environment where people refuse to see the reality in front of them and insist on substituting their own headcanon is not one where an impartial process can help. Nobody's going to believe there is such a process, and nobody will believe the outcome of such a process. If the process were to happen in state courts and is investigated by state investigators, the cop gets railroaded. If it happens in Federal courts, he gets exonerated (rightly or wrongly). The possibility of one side merely making a mistake is utterly absent. The possibility of correcting the mistake, then, is also absent; this is all conflict.
Certainly, however, this explains why so many wanting to condemn the officer insist he was not hit by the SUV. He was, in fact, hit by the SUV, and that ruins so many useful claims, such as that she could not have been attempting to run him over, or that he could not have been in reasonable fear that he would be run over.
Yeah, something's wrong here. Something's wrong with the idea that a mother of three thinks she can obstruct a police operation and then when they go to arrest her for it, flee in a way that at the very least demonstrates reckless disregard towards the life of the police officer she hit, and nothing at all will happen to her. She was wrong. And something's wrong with the fact that so many people think she should have been right.
More options
Context Copy link
TBF it's been mask-off for a while, most people just don't pay attention. DHS comms is openly fash-posting, Trump openly rejects any limit on his powers and tries to rule by decree, political opposition is labeled domestic terrorism, etc...
The only group that hasn't been mask off is CBP/ICE, but they have double down on thuggery
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Qualified immunity is a civil doctrine. The cop has neither absolute nor qualified immunity. He has what's called Supremacy Clause immunity from state prosecution.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not "in this carefully analyzed footage, was he at severe risk of being injured?" that should be asked, it's whether or not he reasonably would have feared the SUV coming at him within the short period of time he had to react.
And he was close enough to the front and in a short enough period of time that I personally believe many reasonable people in that same scenario would be filled with a similar fear, even if in actuality it wouldn't have hit.
And to be clear here, I'm not defending the Trump admin at all! I think ICE takes the majority of the blame in this situation. He should not be standing so close to the front of a car as a general matter of policy, he should not be distracted trying to multitask filming on his phone, and most importantly the other agents should not have acted so aggressively, but Ross himself I think deserves to be in the clear from what I have seen at the present.
This was a preventable tragedy, but not because of a guy who freaked out and feared for his life as a car headed at his general direction. It was a preventable tragedy because ICE and the admin have bad and unprofessional policy that escalates situations, tenses people up, and creates panic. Having a bunch of masked men carrying guns rushing at you and reaching into your car suddenly is fucking terrifying to even imagine happening, and is inevitably going to be responded to with panic and fear even if they're "legally in the right" or whatever to arrest you.
Go watch some of the British policing shows (that I've been recently binging after a visit to the UK) and you'll see the difference between professional cops who try to defuse a situation, and the animalistic behavior we see on video here. I've rarely seen a time one of the Police Interceptors had to use force on and the main one was on some man who was really really drunk and would not get out of the car so he had to be pulled out. I'm sure it happens other times especially with violent criminals but they're overall so much calmer.
It's impossible to say whether Good would still be alive if ICE, instead of acting like terrifying goons and bumrushing her window screaming at her had instead walked up and had a deescalating conversation that pivots into a calm and professional yet authoritative "Ma'am I'm gonna have to ask you to step out of the vehicle please" tone and arrest her in a calmer manner but I can certainly say it would be less likely. They are agents of the state and should be held to high standards, not acting like barking dogs trying to show whose dick is bigger. Law enforcement is granted great power, and with great power comes great responsibility. We should expect professionalism as the baseline.
And yeah, random citizens aren't always going to be professional in the same way. It's unfortunate, but it's the responsibility we should expect from our law enforcement. And most cops do it just fine anyway, so there's no reason we can't expect it from ICE too.
Ok, so:
You already know these things, I assume, having watched the videos? Or you didn't, and are constructing a convenient alternate scenario that didn't happen.
Either way: do you genuinely, actually believe she found this "fucking terrifying"?
As she smirks, smiles, sneers, and looks delighted, you think she was actually secretly fucking terrified?
This is an actual question. It has a yes/no answer. She was either fucking terrified, or she wasn't. The videos all indicate, to the best of our knowledge, that she obviously wasn't terrified; but you seem to be happy to assume, in spite of all evidence, that she was. Why?
Does it change anything that she wasnt?
Not that it matters at all because it certainly wouldn't move the needle in anyone's mind, but:
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.
That's fair -- I was focusing on the guy who opened the car door, but yeah, you're right. I still object to "a bunch".
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.
You're overselling the graininess and underselling how much time we can see her. I'm not "interpreting" anything. You can see her being cheery, smiling, smirky, and -- like her wife -- clearly enjoying being able to LARP as the plucky rebels against the fascist stormtroopers.
Like, come on. The idea that she panicked is based on the idea that she was just innocently turning around in the street, and ICE -- who she wasn't expecting -- spooked her. We know that's not true! She and her wife were deliberately antagonising ICE; they knew exactly who they were dealing with.
It is, in fact, completely unreasonable to watch that interaction and go "oh poor lamb, she was terrified and panicking!"
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This ignores the context that she had been barricading the road for four minutes. An LEO trying to get you out of the car was an obvious outcome and really ought not create panic.
The panic meme is consistent with “random place at the wrong time” meme. We known that meme is false. Based on video and the context, the panic meme appears false as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There was a similar streak running through the height of MeToo and the craze over women allegedly being sexually abused or mistreated.
After that night, she was:
1 - Skittish, withdrawn, flighty, uncommunicative, outwardly depressed.
Clear signs of trauma. Tell-tale indicators of abuse.
2 - She was outgoing, social, active, and saw the guy several times afterwards, expressing excitement to her friends.
...Also clear signs of trauma! Also indicators of abuse! Just repressed. Textbook diagnosis.
Which - y'know - both can be true depending on the person. It's also completely convenient and unworkable.
I had a coworker who got held up at gunpoint while opening a store in the AM. By the time I came in, he had a large grin plastered to his face and was almost hysterically laughing. Superficially not what what one may expect, but still registered as obvious trauma to me because of how erratic and unhinged he was. I get that peoples' nerves can fray differently.
But that's not what I see with Good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, I think we largely agree even if we don't conclude the same thing about reasonableness. My original point was that some people don't consider it a tragedy, they don't think the whole situation was anything other than the higher standard we expect, and in some cases don't even think that a higher standard even exists in the first place! That's what makes the Trump admin response so ghoulish, and parts of the discourse so concerning. I'm interpreting the statement "Ross and ICE did nothing wrong" broadly, and it's insane that people seem to be defending that statement when it's so plainly untrue. It's a statement that can exist and be evaluated independent of how you feel about Good specifically, although opinions on that might reasonabaly affect the degree of outrage about it.
People recognize that the left has embraced stochastic interference where they hope for ICE to slightly misstep in a viral moment to condemn the entire project.
The only rational response is to say “good riddance”
Holding your own well-being hostage to get your way is generally recognized as abuser behavior.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A problem is that you need a lot of people to do British style policing. Blue states won’t share resources.
How many ICE agents did Trump send to Minnesota again?
I can't remember the exact paper but there were some stats somewhere that showed America is actually drastically underpoliced relative to the size of their population.
So the response is to come down hard on anything and do symbolic shit everywhere to use optics as a deterrent.
More options
Context Copy link
2000 (with more on the way), or about one per 50-60 illegal immigrants. Compare that to the UK police's one officer per 400 residents, most of whom aren't of interest to the police.
More options
Context Copy link
Not nearly enough for the kind of force projection needed
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also, citizens should not have to cower in their homes if there's an immigration enforcement officer in their neighborhood.
Said citizens should also not have to fear using their right to free speech to express their opinions to federal officers, whom we are supporting with our tax dollars.
It's interesting that the Obama administration was able to deport many more people without this theater and now-routine violence.
Obama counted turning people away at the border as deportations to falsely inflate his numbers.
More options
Context Copy link
Most Obama deportations were turn arounds at the border.
More options
Context Copy link
They don't have to do that.
They're allowed to do that too.
What they aren't allowed to do is obstruct ICE officers, then flee arrest in such a way that the ICE officer has reason to fear for their life (by, say, accelerating an SUV into them).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So we're really doing "will nobody think of the children?" now? Okay, "dead mom of six year old orphan" would not be a dead mom if she stayed home like a normal person and didn't decide to play La Résistance.
So you really think that cowering in your home, as the cited person on twitter was saying, is a valid thing we should accept as a society? Anyways, you've made my point nicely for me. Victim blaming can be bad for a few reasons (it can also be abused, for sure) but possibly the biggest one is when excessive attention on the victim leads to ignoring the consequences for the perpetrator.
Most narrowly, the point of the post was this: Looking at the situation and believing the officer should face zero consequences is insane. There are people making noise about immunity or asserting that it's so clear-cut that we don't even need to charge the officer. That's a massive problem. I've looked at a lot of comments by now and if you want to think the shooting would hold up in court, that's fine I suppose. But virtually no one seems to be actually continuing that thought and saying that he should be charged anyways. We have rules. ICE has rules. That's the point of having rules, to use them! If Good had survived and Ross died then I would be saying that Good should be charged too.
More broadly, we're starting a slow society-wide slide into cheering for death. That's scary. That's bad. It's happening to some extent on both sides (e.g. Charlie Kirk). But only one of those sides is making a habit of claiming immunity, pardoning people left and right, and undermining the rules of law on some misguided quest for vengeance "because game theory". I mean for fuck's sake, I read an article recently that the pipe bomb guy who they caught might get off scot-free because Trump's J6 pardon, being so broad, probably applies to him too!
TIL that not going out to do stupid shit that gets you killed is "cowering in your home". Drunk drivers everywhere raise a glass in salute!
I'm probably burned out because of one too many goddamn stupid online posts from keyboard warriors doing their best to encourage people like Good to go out and get themselves into real trouble. Allegedly, a list of ICE and border agents identities was made public, and one such "let's you and him fight" was posting very thinly veiled hints about "go out and find these nazis and make their lives hell". (This is why ICE agents are now all masked up, and probably why they are regarding members of the public with paranoia - that idiot blowing the whistle in your ear may only mean to deafen you, or they could be planning to show up at your home and do who knows what?)
And people like Good, who seem to believe that a fake title ('I'm a Legal Observer! Can't touch me!') is going to protect them from any consequences, so they can stroll right up to the line of "I can hit you but you can't do a thing to me", including "try and use your car as a getaway vehicle, get treated like a criminal fleeing the scene" , and that the usual result of that won't somehow, miraculously, happen to them - they read and listen to all this encouragement, and go and do stupid shit, and get hurt or killed.
Yeah. "Cowering in her home" would have kept this woman alive and her child not an orphan, but gee, let's all pretend that Trump is the exact same as Kim Jong Un and that we are bold brave French Maquis resistance fighters. Then we'll go home after the protest that defeated the jackbooted stormtroopers and post about it online and everything will be beer and skittles.
What do you expect when nominally respectable media sources are implying exactly that (emphasis mine):
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Excuse me, did you miss the "shout your abortion" campaign like a decade ago? The way people reacted to Margaret Thatcher's death?
LOL. Also you don't need to claim immunity when your side has the AGs and just won't prosecute to begin with.
And Antonin Scalia's.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What was that refrain they were shouting on the same street, "save a life, kill an ICE"? We're already there, this was bound to happen with the monstrous levels of violent ideation and anti-government agitation from the left. These same people cheered with glee the assassination of a milktoast debate me bro, you will excuse me if I don't care to lie down and let them do whatever they please as they stomp on my face and continue to cheer on the destruction of the concept of having laws and borders and shit.
Come to think of it, did that work as an act of terrorism? Did it deter other debate-me-bros from public apperances? Were there any others to begin with?
Well Crowder is in the mix. But it did radicalize a bunch of normie-cons. It had the opposite effect of whatever that trans-boy/girlfriend having shooter had in mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are other options besides automatically prosecuting any officer who shoots someone on the assumption that a trial will sort it out. Granted, I doubt ICE's ability to conduct professional internal investigations, but in theory, that is how a professional police force would handle it.
Good's side is definitely claiming protesters should be immune from consequences (to include being arrested or forcibly removed from the area, I don't mean they deserve to be shot), and had Good in fact injured or killed the officer and not been shot herself, I am confident you'd see a lot of anti-ICE people saying she should face zero consequences.
No one is really (openly) claiming that the person who killed Charlie Kirk should face zero consequences, because "You should literally be able to murder someone in public and not be charged" is actually insane. (In Good's case, whether it was "murder" is in dispute, in Kirk's case, no one disputes it was murder.) But people were certainly celebrating it, piling on anyone who expressed such tepid sentiments as "Hey, celebrating a husband and father's murder is bad mmkay?", and would almost certainly fist-pump an acquittal for his killer.
More options
Context Copy link
Biden pardoned a bunch of people at the end of his admin.
J6 enforcement was extreme compared to say BLM rioting. The whole point of the pardon power is to correct injustices. The extreme disparate treatment was injustice.
More options
Context Copy link
No, you can walk around anywhere without impeding ICE operations. You can even get a poster printed by a union or a Soros NGO and go scream whole day under Trump tower, and absolutely nothing would happen to you. You can even harass ICE and still absolutely nothing will happen to you as longs as you do not actively resist arrest and try to run people over with a car. Worst you are facing is a brief arrest followed by quick release and Gofundme fundraiser. There are plenty of opportunities to hashtag-resist the literally fascist dictatorship of literally Hitler in thousands of ways, some of which, as rumor has it, can provide one with a decent living. But some ways - like violently attacking the police - are not a free ride. It was once a widely understood banality, but the reality of Trump's literally fascist regime, together with complete detachment of luxury liberal class from reality and some thorough education helping to erase any trace of the said reality from one's consciousness somehow made some people think that violently fighting the police on the streets is a safe and fun activity. At least antifa, with all my disgust with them, understands who they are - when they are LARPing the revolutionaries, they go all the way and they expect to be treated accordingly. Chardonnay liberals don't even have this much of connection to the reality.
More options
Context Copy link
Except one small detail - the Left does not believe in having rules. At least not in any rules they don't like, and that includes any rules that allow for any enforcement of the immigration laws, especially - any enforcement against the people already on US territory. They believe no enforcement should be happening at all, thus listening to any noises from their side about how exactly this enforcement should be happening is pointless - it is nothing but a tactics to lead to the ultimate goal, no enforcement happening at all, ever.
You don't need to pardon if you don't convict. Michael Byrd had not been convicted. And, of course, for "pardoning left and right" one first needs to "prosecute left and right" (otherwise there's nobody to pardon) and I don't remember any examples of mass political prosecutions by the right (giving the left the chance for mass pardons) anytime in 21st century. With all the hate directed at the last two Presidents from the Left, I do not remember any effort to frame them for treason, prosecute them criminally and all the security apparatus working against them while they are being nominally in power. Democrats are the party of lawyers, and the are much more successful in lawfare than Republicans had ever been. The only two weapons on Republican side are pardons and SCOTUS (the latter is more a matter of luck, and so far Republicans have been lucky).
And, of course, Biden's blanket pardons should put the topic of "pardoning people left and right" to rest for good.
As for immunity, all the law enforcement has immunity, so the claim only one side claims it is transparently false. If you want to get rid of qualified immunity, I am all for it, but somehow the left only remembers such a thing exists when it's convenient to use it to claim Republicans are fascists, but completely forget about it the moment it becomes inconvenient for them. Again, one can't help but conclude there's nothing but angling for power here.
And I read an article that aliens built Egyptian pyramids and stole Atlantis. There are a lot of articles on the internet, so what?
Maybe, but this slide does not look like you're implying it looks. The left has slid to the bottom and gleefully and openly celebrates any political murder for years now. Charlie Kirk is just one of many examples, and we see many people on the left openly agitating for the same treatment for other political enemies. So if the right is "starting" to slide into it - which is doubtful, I haven't seen any celebration and cheering - as opposed to somber justification, which is not the same thing - on the right - the "starting" here would be only on one side, the other side is deep down the slide already. There is no implied symmetry here - the right says "if you attack a cop with a deadly weapon, the cop has the right to kill you", the left says "if you say words we do not like or think thoughts we do not like, anybody of use has the right and the duty to kill you". Very different thing.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah but he's clearly enough on the right side of the rules that nobody with any real power on the Democrat side of the aisle wants to force this to a court case since they'd lose embarrassingly.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, no. It's happening extremely heavily on one side -- the side that your obvious example is on.
Attempting to parley that into "akshually the other side is doing it worse!" needs receipts you don't have.
More options
Context Copy link
You don't have to cower in your home. You can just go about your life, neither interfering in ICE operations nor hiding from them.
More options
Context Copy link
What was your opinion of lockdowns?
Probably does us a disservice to get into it, but I begrudgingly accepted them for the first half a year or so as an emergency measure, and then opposed them after (emergencies can't be indefinite, nor did the facts suggest it should have been). I was the only one in my liberal family (I'm more of a moderate) to oppose the (massed, non-distanced) BLM protests on grounds of hypocrisy, so no issues there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
After the government and media messaging circa 2019-2021, I think that would be an unequivocal yes from the vast majority.
More options
Context Copy link
Point me to the law that says people who act in self defense must be tried in a court of law to prove their innocence.
IANAL, but...isn't that exactly how it works? You go to court, where the case is examined and it is established that it was indeed self-defence, if that happens to be how the judge sees it?
If not, how else is it determined that the act was self-defence?
Typically speaking, there is a Grand Jury to assess if there is enough evidence to prosecute. Prosecutors do not want to take on cases where there is insufficient evidence to convict, because they cherish their conviction rate.
In cases of a government agency being involved with the self-defense, there is an internal review. If the internal review finds nothing wrong, it is unlikely to make it to a Grand Jury in the first place.
A murder trial is expensive for the government. It isn't a thing to undertake lightly. You have to rip away 12 random people (the jury) from their lives for weeks. The level of evidence gathering, expert testimony to be paid out, etc. is very high. I would recommend watching the Rittenhouse trial to see what it looks like for an innocent man to go through all that. Then watch Daryll Brooks trial to see how hard it is on everyone else in the courthouse to go through all that even when the man is guilty as sin.
Edit: something else is that we are innocent until proven guilty. The assumption that someone acting in self defense needs to prove their innocence is wrong. They are not in a nebulous "not sure if guilty" state. It is on the courts to prove guilt, and if they do not think they can they should not make the attempt.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The fact that the case generated extreme controversy ipso facto suggests that a trial is likely needed.
I disagree that that is how the law should work. For example, the Rittenhouse case should never have been brought to trial. Prosecutors generally do not bring cases to trial that they know they will lose. This case is likely one they would lose. Therefore, the incentive is against drawing this out in a court of law.
Honestly I feel like the calculus for Democrats is pretty good for drawing this out in the court of law. Keeps it in the media cycle longer and from the Rittenhouse thing the guy actually being cleared probably wouldn't actually change most people on the 'murder' side of the affair's opinions
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That kind of makes a mockery of your commitment to due process, if we're just making decisions based on public opinion.
What? No. It's strictly a one-directional formulation. If super controversial -> then charge someone seems like a perfectly reasonable take to me. Nothing there violates due process. The whole issue about prosecutorial discretion (which to be fair isn't quite "due process") is a tricky one, and honestly probably the weakest part of our system (though possibly the "least bad" attempt at a solution), but that kind of "patch" seems super reasonable, yeah?
To add a personal flavor to this:
One of my police uncles was out on patrol one day with his partner. They responded to a robbery at a convenience store. When they tried to arrest the guy, the partner was shot and killed. My uncle was shot and seriously wounded - multiple surgeries in a hospital wounded. My uncle managed to shoot back and killed the guy.
Believe it or not, this was controversial in the local community! The black community decried it as racial discrimination. Surely he could have shot to wound, surely petty larceny wasn't worth the lives of two people, why did the police have to intervene? The gun was planted, it didn't even belong to the robber (no one argued the guy didn't shoot, just that the gun didn't belong to him, except it turns out it did!) There was even an article in the NYT I'm not going to link to for the tiniest bit of opsec remaining to me. But trust me, it was controversial.
Despite it very clearly being an act of self defense, should my uncle have had to stand trial for this? If the only metric is 'Was the action controversial?" then yes, he would have had to go through a trial and relive that day with his freedom and life on the line. That would have been an injustice.
More options
Context Copy link
If it's legally controversial, then sure. But the vast majority of people don't know much about the law at all, so their intuition about what is legally controversial is irrelevant. I don't consider show trials acceptable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't remember Biden evoking immunity, though?
Except when he gave Hunter an unconditional pardon for things he hadn't even been charged with
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjwl3venz39o
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The officer should face zero consequences. This is just politics. I am not insane. Thank you for your opinion.
More options
Context Copy link
How are you comparing this to Charlie Kirk? Charlie Kirk was talking at a college campus and was murdered in cold blood, a "bad shoot" by any definition. You've seen plenty of other comments giving a heck of a lot of reasons that this wasn't cold blooded murder. I'm not in many right wing spaces, but I have only seen one person actually celebrate her death online. Saying that the shoot was fine morally or legally or that they'd shoot in the same scenario is not celebrating. This is not a black-and-white scenario being presented.
Clear cut cases of self defense getting charged in court anyway is always intended as a chilling effect, because there's always a chance that the jury pulls an OJ Simpson and gives a terrible verdict, against all odds. Take a look at @stoatherd's post: what behavior are you trying to change, specifically?
Sorry, I guess that was unclear. I was referring to the whole conversations about some liberals being happy Kirk was dead, or even celebrating. So that example was more about "cheering for death" rather than "claiming immunity". A second, perhaps better example, was how many people seemed to be sad that Trump's assassination didn't work.
However there have been several comments here highly upvoted along the lines of 'that nasty protestor got what's coming to her and agitators are evil for putting her in that situation too' and 'the case is so clear-cut self-defense that we don't need the judicial process'. The behavior I'd like to see changed is less cheering on for one side and less 'revenge makes rules irrelevant'.
More broadly I'm seeing a worrying slide towards a pro-revenge society. You see it on reddit, instagram, tiktok, facebook, everywhere, and on non-political topics too. And I see intellectual apologists here saying with a straight face stuff like this comment.
Your moral compass seems broken.
Charlie Kirk by all accounts was a good man and father. He was murdered sitting on a college campus engaging in debate. His murder was fundamentally an attack on free speech and democracy itself. Better to silence your opponents with murder as opposed to best their arguments.
In contrast, Good wasn’t just some protestor who was shot. She was patently illegally barricading the road to prevent lawful exercise of the police power. She then attempted to flee arrest with reckless disregard for the life of LEO. Indeed, if the car didn’t spin out she almost certainly seriously injured the officer who killed her. She did in fact strike an officer with her car.
She was, in one sense, a low level insurrectionist. She could be compared to Babbit.
Comparing her to Charlie is an insult to Kirk and principles of free speech.
More options
Context Copy link
I'll note that @oats_son asked you:
Your answer:
... you know that's not what my posts contain, right?
Or were you ignoring his question so you could answer a more convenient one? (with the bonus of being able to implicitly micharacterise my posts, so you could later go "sigh, I never explicitly said I was talking about your posts")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, it depends. I think people who don't belong in this country, who are here illegally, if they aren't going to do the honorable thing and leave of their own accord, should absolutely cower in their homes. Why do we want a world where criminals are free to parade themselves around our cities without fear of justice?
Some people deserve to be afraid of the consequences of their actions.
The whole point of the Constitution and our rule of law is that we must take great pains to limit collateral damage to innocents when pursuing the guilty. "Just trust me bro" is not a long-term viable route for justice, no matter how correct you might think Trump personally might be about stuff. The twitter guy said that innocents should cower in their homes. Those two things are not the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agents of the federal government have killed moms, kids, dogs, dads, tampered with evidence, lied, entrapped, falsely accused and stolen for decades. Is this genuinely the last straw for you? Why this? Serious question.
I don't think it's hard to explain this, and since I did half of it above I may as well keep going. I can summarize by quoting David Hines: "This is what you ordered, eat it." [I don't mean you, the poster, to be clear!]
To elaborate a bit: uncharitably, righties and libertarians aren't quite so happy to stop the wheels of the state grinding now that it's finally gotten around to grinding their political foes. More charitably, righties and libertarians understand that "the wheels of the state grinding Group A is fine, but they must stop immediately if they touch Group B" is just a recipe for perpetually being abused if you are Group A.
Note that I am not saying this is the correct response. But I don't think it's hard to understand the game theory of it.
Straw that broke the camel's back maybe?
I had a paragraph that didn't make it in for fear of diluting the point (probably needed a little more editing beyond that but oh well) about parallels with the Vietnam and Nixon era. You had for example Lt. William Calley, who had multiple eyewitnesses to a prominent role in shooting men, women, children, and babies in the My Lai massacre, and large portions of the public wanting him freed (a weird left-right coalition, actually). Which to me is insane, but reflects I think the chaos of the times. But near the end of all that, okay, we have Nixon flagrantly violating the law and lying about his actions and essentially impeached for it.
How did we respond? Did the Democrats say "okay, I guess it's open season on FBI weaponization"? No! We came together and we wrote up some reforms and rules to try and keep the machinations of the government a little more balanced, a little more just, a little better incentive-aligned to stay neutral when it should be neutral. Yet we see the opposite reaction now, to a similar brewing state of unrest. Trump has dismantled the exact same Nixon-era protections all across the board. And so yeah, the administration claiming outright and with a straight face that Good was a domestic terrorist and that Ross has "absolute immunity" is the exact opposite reaction as we want to happen, and conjures up the objectively terrible state of lies and deception and dirty business the military and the spy community was up to in that era. Even with post-Nixon reforms, we still had stuff like Iran-Contra, which should worry anybody; and guess what? Trump's approach to spending and use of the CIA right now mirrors the crux of the matter very closely.
So that's why I say, this is a sign that things are not hyperbolically but literally headed the wrong direction.
Also Ruby Ridge, the MOVE bombing, Waco siege...
More options
Context Copy link
Which ones did you specifically have in mind? Why didn't they stop FBI abuses since Nixon?
I think FBI abuses are very difficult to entirely prevent. But the scale is far less. If you've read nearly anything on J Edgar Hoover for example, it will give you a sense of scale. Even at the "worst" of the Biden-era or Trump I-era stuff, they really don't compare at all.
Now some of the problems we've encountered under Trump involve revealed weaknesses in the reforms, but there are a few direct examples of undermining existing reform. A few examples. Here says:
Even the right-wing AEI says:
Now the AEI takes the interesting position that destroying Watergate is good, actually, because it devolves responsibility back to Congress "as the Constitution demands", but this seems pretty naive to me. But it's notable that even Trump supporters appear to acknowledge outright that it's happening.
Possibly would have been worth a top-level with some more effort, because I think this is important context to the trend of "zero accountability".
Thank you for the substantive comment. A few thoughts:
Firstly, the excerpts that you listed (and the NYT article as a whole, if you're not reading it closely) gives the impression that the IGs are just disappearing into the void. But I don't think that's true – for instance, Trump fired Phyllis Fong and replaced her with John Walk; Michael Missal was replaced by Cheryl Mason, Thomas Bell was confirmed as the IG for HHS, and it looks like (although I didn't do an exhaustive search) the other IG slots are filled by acting IGs. So while the implication seems to be that Trump is slashing the nation's oversight, it seems that he is replacing personnel. Obviously whether that is good or bad is probably something people will fight over, but it's not the same as just deleting the IG apparatus.
Secondly, it's not clear to me how the whistleblower protection positions are supposed to safeguard from "bad shoots" by ICE, particularly since federal LEOs had quite a few controversial shoots under presidents following Nixon. (It's actually not clear to me they work very well if at all, but I might be overgeneralizing based on an incident I heard about in a personal context once where someone's attempts to reach out were brushed off.) Certainly the problem with the most recent ICE shooting wasn't that someone needed to blow the whistle on it.
Finally, I'm not sure I would characterize it as "naive" to follow the Constitution. It also seems like at least one appeals court (as per the Times) agrees with Trump that he has the legal ability to remove these IGs, at least in some cases, so it's likely not some weird of oddball theory. Instead it is (unless I am mistaken, but this is admittedly a somewhat-informed guess) being done under the theory that the chief executive can, as a matter of Constitutional law, appoint his own officers and Congress has limited ability to stop him from doing so.
I once made a comment about how Trump is taking in one hand the powers that have been slowly ceded to or accumulated by the President and with the other hand seizing the powers that had always been the President's but that had lain dormant for some time under the new arrangements. This seems like an example of that in action.
Hmm, that's an interesting take. For the IGs, I'm not sure if I want to go digging, but I was definitely getting the impression that there was still some substantial weakness going on including vacancies. "Acting" IGs are much less empowered and vacancies matter (reached 75% in October). Also, a few of the IGs were removed while investigating something politically sensitive. And courts literally did find that Trump broke the law in removing many, since giving a reason is required (the fact that the judge didn't reinstate them notwithstanding). In addition, all the offices have received significant budget cuts - doubly worrisome because allegedly the government was trying to eliminate waste and fraud, which sort of exposes the priorities.
More broadly Trump has also elevated people with notable pasts of lawbreaking and unethical behavior to higher posts. One that comes immediately to mind was now-Judge Bove, who multiple very, very reliable witnesses with impeccable credentials alleged had planned to deliberately lie to a judge and illegally evade their orders. You have Homan with the allegations of bribery, you have Noem even caught with 80k unreported donations as governor in a personal cut to herself, etc.
Something I didn't spend enough time on was Hatch act violations. They have become practically the norm. Originally the rules were pretty strict about splitting campaigning activity from official duties, but many Trump cabinet members have practically ignored them quite often, even during Trump I. And they continue, for example blaming Democrats for a government shutdown via multiple official channels.
A lot of liberals get up in arms about the special counsel position stuff. I'm a little torn. On the one hand, I thought the system was reasonable and so were the actions taken. Up to and including packing things up when Trump won re-election, to be clear, and also including the Clinton email stuff. On the other hand, they already changed the law on that once in 1999 because the prior system also had issues.
The overall effect however is a substantial chilling effect on doing stuff about unethical behavior, and removing safeguards to replace them with... nothing, really. That's why I called it naive. Congress is not stepping up to the plate, especially under Republican leadership. But we need fairness and clarity desperately. We only need it more, not less, when people distrust the system!
Sorry I didn't get to reply to this in a more timely fashion.
I'm happy to accept for the sake of argument all of your criticism of Trump, but it's unclear to me how Trump not doing any of that is going to influence an ICE officer who was hired by the Obama administration when he's considering whether or not to shoot someone, any more than the whistleblower safeguards would.
You're laying out a lot of reasonable concerns about the Trump administration's actions, but the one that it seems to me could have prevented the shooting - the straw that broke the camel's back, here - was deciding to not send ICE into Minneapolis. Trump could fire Homan and Noem and go after Hatch Act offenders tomorrow and still send ICE agents into Minneapolis. And of course it's not clear to me that a different President wouldn't have sent ICE agents into Minneapolis.
This was written in 2016 about the Obama administration.
Furthermore, Congress recently voted to increase ICE's budget to accommodate a larger enforcement capability. So it seems to me that the system breakdown that led to this moment was not merely an arbitrary Presidential decision - it was due to our democratic system of government working as advertised. Trump was elected on a strong anti-illegal-immigration platform, Congress, in the course of its Constitutional duty, approved the funds to carry that out, ICE agents were deployed to enforce the laws, and that's what led to the shooting.
I think it's probably fair to criticize the techniques that ICE is using to enforce US immigration law. But ICE using smarter or softer-touch techniques doesn't, it seems to me, guarantee that a shooting won't happen, although it could reduce the odds.
Furthermore, your post claims that ICE agents are trained to avoid walking in front of cars. If that is true, it seems fair to me to criticize the officer for walking in front of the car. But it seems unfair to blame the series of events on "the system" given that the system in place would have prohibited his conduct (if your claims are true.)
I guess I am still trying to drill down on where you think the system failed exactly in this case. Is "the system" democracy? That would certainly make sense of your complaints about the allegedly corrupt conduct of the Trump administration.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For what it’s worth, I do agree with this very specific point.
Unrelatedly, in the interests of not making another Minneapolis thread for a potentially uninteresting side issue: What do we make of the fact that this guy has a Filipina wife? The demographic replacement is coming from inside the house.
All countries are different. Within the Philippines there are even significant regional differences in culture and religeon. I've spent time for work in Manilla and Cebu and most of the people I met there seemed like genuinely good folks and were I not already hapily married could easily see enjoying a relationship with a Tagalog or Visaya for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I doubt I'd say this about many of the other places I've been for work like Singapore, Malaysia, or especially India. There's just something different. Maybe it b/c I was raised Catholic.
edit - banana ketchup is gross
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know how long they've been together so this might predate the current moment in dating, but showing conservative politics/any sort of a job like policing on a dating app is incredibly poisonous to your rate of matching.
Also having personally gotten out of the Dating App Mines a few years ago with a WMAF pairing, simply holding the following standards
Meant that my dating menu was like 85% Asian in a country that's like 10% Asian on the top level. That's gonna encourage guys of his profile to end up with Asian women.
More options
Context Copy link
Good for him. Reports are that she’s a US citizen.
Naturally, the side of Empathy, antiracism, antimisogyny, and free love has taken to sneering at her and calling her a mail-order bride.
Nor does the side who keeps wailing about Empathy for Renee being a mother give the slightest fuck about Jonathan being a father.
Hillary Clinton in the 2028 Democratic Primary debates: “White women have always been the primary victims of ICE.”
From the perspective of leftist middle-aged white women it’s like immigration policy anarchotyranny.
Anarchy: These stupid, toxic white men bring over their stupid age-gapped mail-order brides and make the world worse with their stupid, toxic children.
Tyranny: If you play games as a LARPing revolutionary on behalf of black and brown bodies you may win stupid prizes, when this were not supposed to happen.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you have some links for this one in particular? Any source will do.
With a cursory search one can find such links. For example, one of the first Reddit results:
More options
Context Copy link
A Xitter user with 43k followers explicitly describing Ross's wife as a mail-order bride. Heart-reacted 92k times, retweeted 15k times.
Richard Hanania mocking him for having an immigrant wife while thinking immigrants are a threat to America (refusing to parse the legal/illegal immigrant distinction, of course).
Richard Hanania asserting that Ross married a brown woman and then decided to devote his life to terrorising brown people (my God, do I loathe the term "people of colour", as if a Filipina has anything in common with a Somalian other than not being white).
Someone on Instagram comparing Ross's wife to the sexually exploited women she met while working as a missionary.
A Xitter user claiming that Ross married his Filipina wife specifically because the Philippines is the only country in the world which doesn't recognise divorce, thereby enslaving her.
If ICE was only deporting illegals, that would be true. But it doesn't seem to be the case. They are seen terrorizing not only legal immigrants but also US citizens. They even shot an innocent lady in Minnesota and decided to cover it up.
Besides Obama deported more illegals for a fraction of the cost. Where is the money going? Probably in terrorizing “brown people”, so that terrorizing part must be more by volume that ICE legal activities.
No US citizens had been deported by ICE. As for "terrorizing", this is not a factual statement. It could of course happen that ICE briefly detained a citizen - since it is impossible to recognize the citizen by just looking at them, it could take time to establish the citizenship, but I don't think you can name an example of ICE purposely targeting US citizen for deportation.
The rest of your statements are even less factual - what exactly is "terrorizing" that supposedly costs a lot of money? Of course, the reality is much simpler - to deport even a small part of 20 million of illegals, all over the US, while facing violent opposition and total obstruction to any law enforcement from the side of local authorities - takes significant time and human resources. Humans insist on being paid for spending time working, especially when their work is hard and involves significant risk of being violently attacked. That costs money. Processing the illegals targeted for deportation in accordance with the procedure costs money. Leftist activists ensure it costs as much as possible and takes as long as possible. Mystery solved.
Exactly those things that are currently happening are terrorising. Shooting an innocent woman, stopping vehicles for no reason, arresting a US citizen in underwear in cold weather, registering observers as domestic terrorists... Should I go on?
And not taking any responsibility whatsoever is the worst part. Yes, everybody can make mistakes. Own them. Instead of gaslighting, like in that example “we were looking for a dangerous criminal” who was actually already in the prison.
Catching dangerous criminals including illegal immigrants sometimes is hard but I don't see armed men regularly patrolling the streets in cities to do that. Probably because such demonstration of force is not useful. It is just a waste of good money.
And let's not start with double legal standards where the US authorities are unable to process green card applications in time thus leaving people in limbo. Technically they are illegal and yet one agency will accept their status and the other will send armed men after them. It has no consistency and indicates a dysfunctional country. Obviously, the US is very rich and will never be called dysfunctional but in certain aspects it really is. It is not all or nothing proposal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Strange this one false stat keeps coming up recently.
Obama counted turning people away at the border as deportations to falsely inflate his numbers. He didn't actually deport them.
Changing the definition of something to make it much broader results in a sudden huge spike, despite no change in reality. But that's a politician playing dishonest games with definitions, not good policy.
And do you think Trump administration would not include those people turned away in their numbers?
But assume you are right. So, instead of spending money trying to deport illegals, you could just not let them in, for a fraction of cost?
Or maybe actually illegal immigrants in the US are net positive financially and not letting them in is not good for the economy?
What is the best policy?
You have to do both, obviously. Preventing people from committing crimes is good. Finding people who have committed crimes is also good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm surprised you find that strange. Deceptive stats that make democrats look better than republicans are incredibly popular with the democrat-aligned media.
Yes, but I've seen that fake stat here at least twice in the past day. It's a bit odd for credulous recitations of Democratic aligned media talking points to be common here.
Of course I wouldn't think it strange if I kept seeing it on Reddit. Maybe we got new users trained on Reddit-style talking points and they're contributing much to this thread.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are we talking about the same woman? Because her "innocence" is exactly what's under discussion, and I can't say it's been effectively "covered up" if literally everyone is talking about it.
ICE is not talking about it, in fact, they are actively denying it, blocking investigation and spreading lies.
And Trump, vice-president and other politicians are gaslighting about that.
How is releasing footage of the incident that the assailant filmed on his phone "covering it up"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He didn't. He just lied about it.
I block gaslighters. Nothing personal
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?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Demand for white supremacists far outstrips the supply.
More options
Context Copy link
It's a clue that this whole thing about deporting immigrants who don't obey immigration laws is not about racism, as alleged, but rather about ensuring that immigrants obey immigration laws.
More options
Context Copy link
Asian Aryanism, clearly. He must be a fan of Safe Sleazy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The definition of a scissor statement (or event) is that both sides are very confident in opposite interpretations. What you are quoting is falling on one side, and you are very confident in your interpretation. Thank you for representing that perspective. Let's start with your last paragraph.
From my perspective, my political philosophy is very much not defined by empathy. I try to look at the system: motivations for behavior, what people on each side are thinking, what our society has decided is right to do (via tradition and via the law). I was raised to believe that Justice should be blind; the tragedy in Minnesota should be no more or no less tragic and no more or less justified if a middle-aged, childless man was driving and a mother of three was shooting. (In practice I admit that I do value mothers' lives above childless mens' lives.)
I also recognize that people are irrational in the moment and have their own interpretations of events. From the driver's perspective, she was fleeing an attempted kidnapping and probably didn't see the officer. Fleeing was irrational. From the officer's perspective the agents had initiated an arrest, the suspect was fleeing, and the car was coming at him (and he had been dragged by a car before). Shooting was irrational.
Lets start with where we agree:
However, there are some things that you/your video deemphasize which I think are very important.
Also, I believe it is relevant to quash some of the hysteria about ICE intentionally killing protestors:
The mirror to your focus on children and stuffed animals is the legalistic perspective, which shows we have an individual fleeing arrest in commission of a federal felony, who strikes one of the arresting officers with their car. At low speed and probably out of negligence, but legally that's an assault.
So I find that I probably have to agree to disagree with you about whether the officer was justified in the moment or should be charged with a crime.
There is a strong incentives-based counterargument here. If activists find that they can use their vehicles to block ICE, and ICE officers cannot cross paths with those vehicles when they are in "drive" (or go behind them when in "reverse"), then activists will use their knowledge of these rules to more effectively impede ICE. If activists learn they can drive away instead of being arrested, they will flee arrest in their vehicles. If activists are legally permitted to accelerate vehicles toward ICE officers and ICE officers have a duty to get out of the way (and are not allowed to retaliate), then we are incentivizing activists who intentionally use their vehicles to scatter ICE agents. This seems like very dangerous behavior.
Finally, there are several things you emphasize which just don't matter:
Phenomenal post
Great and balanced takes, and excellent synthesis of the discussion so far.
This is, in my opinion, the penultimate output of this conversation, and pretty much everything said after it is shit-flinging
More options
Context Copy link
I am sure it is a reason, but also sure that it is not the only reason.
I assume that perhaps 1% of the population believe in their heart of hearts that it is good if cops are killed on general principle, and perhaps 5% believe the same about Trump's ICE. Luckily, most of these people are also cowards not willing to die or go to prison for their moral beliefs. I am sure that there is some story somewhere of an ICE agent being identified by violent anti-ICE activists and then tracked down and murdered while off duty, just like some criminals will id and kill the cop who arrested them, but if there was a general trend of catfishing and murdering ICE agents, I think we would have heard about it.
I think the bigger reason is that a third of the population despises Trump's ICE without actively plotting to murder them. To be fair, they are easy to despise: sent into states not selected for their high fraction of illegals, but for voting for Harris in 2024 (because Trump is vindictive af), arresting kids in schools, sometimes arresting foreign-looking citizens by mistake, etc pp. (A further third believes that ICE is doing the most important job in the country, and a further third is mostly meh, I guess.)
Some of the despisers might actually commit minor illegal acts towards identified ICE agents, like spitting in their coffee, but most will probably just treat you like if they had seen your blood group tattoo -- refuse to do business with you, shun you socially (and invite their friends to do likewise), perhaps offer your liberal parents their condolences on Facebook for having a child with such a career. Entirely legal.
With the number of protesters (legally) filming ICE on the job, virtually every ICE agent working in public would be identified in short order. And the SJ left can be just as petty and vindictive as Trump. With ML, programming a website 'iceassholescanner.example' which takes random snapshots of civilians and tells you if they have worked for ICE during Trump II is easily within the capabilities of the wokes.
The relatively high salary (considering the length of the training) is definitely meant as a compensation for 'a third of the country will shun you'. But if you operate masked, you can have your 100k$/year cake and eat it too, all for the low cost of matching some Daesh aesthetics.
I am sure that most ICE agents delude themselves into thinking that they are hiding their face to foil murderous Antifa terrorists who would otherwise try to murder them in their sleep, but realistically, most of the utility is in the woman you will be dating in five years not getting urged by her girlfriends to dump you for having been ICE.
**
This leaves the moral question which life choices should be made public and which life choices should be kept private (if the individual desires that). I will admit that I have a bit of trouble fitting my liberal sentiments into general principles here, so the following is more ad hoc than a long held deep belief system. E.g. frequenting a gay night club should be probably kept confidential (excepting sex partners, and possibly excepting extreme cases of hypocrisy), medical records (including abortions, births, gender surgery) should be kept private, as should be membership in less political religious organizations (e.g. the RCC). For more political organizations, e.g. the KKK (also religious in a way, I think), the John Brown Gun Club, the GOP, the Dems, the DSA, I think outing members is not immoral.
For professional careers, I tend to think that putting people on lists is generally morally permissible. So the person who shot one porn home video which got leaked to the internet is not on the list, but if someone wants to make a list of all porn models which have produced lesbian/fetish/interracial content, I don't think it violates their privacy. Or if someone wants to make a list of lawyers who have ever defended a cop or an accused rapist or worked for big oil for some reason. I guess this means that the anti-abortion radicals can have their lists of gynecologists.
Additionally, I strongly believe that people who employ violence, either particularly (accused criminals, people acting in self-defense) or professionally for the state (cops, soldiers) or third parties (security services) should be a matter of public record. Social disapproval is a useful tool to deter immoral violence, after all.
What do you think of Hollywood blacklists of Communists during the 1950s?
I am not deeply familiar with McCarthyism.
Basically, given my stance, I would say that if a studio decided that it did not want to hire commies, that would be fine. However, if all studios decided on that, then I would suspect that this is not because their execs are fierce anti-communists, but because the government had told them that they could do this either the easy way or the hard way, and they chose to comply rather than being singled out for tax or fire safety audits or whatever other regulatory repercussions a state might visit upon a company it wants destroyed.
It is not dissimilar to the government telling social media companies to censor COVID misinformation 'or else'.
There are positions which are genuinely so unpopular that most people will prefer not to do business with you, and it is ok if they collectively decide that. It is different if someone is coercing them to do so, especially if it is government.
If someone wanted to refuse to serve blacks at their lunch counter, would it be okay with you as long as this was not legally required?
Civil right legislation aside, I think that in many cases the market would solve this problem to everyone's satisfaction.
If you have five food trucks, and one of them is run by a KKK member who only wants to serve White people (and not the wrong White people, either), I think the market can solve this. Likely he will mostly be serving burgers to Neonazis, and the four wiser food truck owners will pick up his mainstream customers.
There are of course situations where a market failure is more likely. If our KKK member has leased the only cafeteria at a workplace, or is the only decent ISP in an area, they might deserve more regulation. (Things get messier if there is a prevailing sentiment of customers distorting the market, like "places willing to serve Blacks are low-class". Or if the government leans on businesses, but I already mentioned that.)
I think most businesses are aware that preemptively banning outgroups means opening a can of worms which they do not want opened. "We do not preemptively ban anyone" is an easy Schelling point to defend. Once you saying you will not serve people who are convicted of sex crimes against children, that is as good as saying that you are positively willing to serve people who have committed sex crimes against adults, or non-sexualized violence against children, or murder, or large scale fraud. And once they also ban all of these, people will demand they ban people with BLM or MAGA outfits, and no matter what they decide they will lose a fraction of their customer base.
Okay, now backport this to your original idea, which is that it's fine to blacklist ICE employees, and to reveal their identities so they are easier to blacklist. What if this makes it hard for the ICE employee to participate in large swaths of society, just like it does in the "KKK members lease everything" scenario or the "customer sentiment" scenario? How exactly is "places willing to serve blacks are low-class" different from "places willing to serve ICE employees are fascist collaborators"?
(Except that you can probably tell who is black without having to reveal their identity first.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Let me go in reverse order because I think that orders it best in terms of most to least serious objections. But I should say first that I greatly appreciate your comment and how you laid it out.
Frankly, I don't. I don't trust them to present anything appropriate to a Grand Jury at all! Four other people IIRC have been killed by ICE just this year; none of them have been charged as of writing for anything. I don't think that's actually a huge gotcha, these things take time, but we've also seen some shocking incompetence out of Kash Patel's FBI when it comes to legal charging decisions so I think there's some grounds for it.
The other and worrisome point is that I'm getting the sense some people genuinely seem to believe that there shouldn't be any consequences at all - i.e. don't even bother to review it or charge him or anything. It's strongly implied when comments show up - like above this post a short ways - that essentially say "she deserved it" and then say nothing else.
This is important, because it's a hint to state of mind. It also wasn't just swearing. He (and I think after reflection it's almost certainly him) called her a "fucking bitch" immediately after. The vibe is "you deserved it", not "oh shit I almost died". Those two things to me don't actually have that much overlap.
Honestly I think the jury might still be out on this. There are some pretty callous videos circling around, including ICE agents pulling their guns out in situations where they really shouldn't. But even so, we have to think about incentives, you're right. What message does it send to ICE agents and cops that the administration thinks zero consequences are ever justified? That's the message being sent. That's terrible. We should be emphasizing higher standards, and under no stretch of the imagination were Ross' actions the highest standard.
Specific to this case, I should mention that Ross pulls his gun out almost immediately at the moment she comes to a stop and switches the gear to Drive and out of reverse. Immediately. I think that point is underemphasized. It strongly suggests that he's pulling the gun to avoid her leaving, not because he's in danger, because at the point of drawing the gun (not firing yet!) the car is just barely beginning to move forward.
I don't think it is, because he was hit by an SUV. It isn't possible with the information we have to differentiate between demonizing her in his head because she was an activist and demonizing her in his head because she hit him with her SUV.
I agree. Law enforcement should not be made "absolutely immune", and activists should obey the law. Frankly, it seems to me that left-wing orgs are not being properly educatng their members on the law. In the past year I have been told (via chain emails) that "an ICE "warrant" is not a warrant," to "not open your door to an officer", and that "you have the right to remain silent". These are all technically true, but if an immigrant is legally in the US, their residency is usually conditional on cooperation with immigration authorities, and those here on conditional permanent residency are required to open their home for inspection by immigration authorities to maintain their status. Let me say that again. Left-wing orgs are giving out advice which if followed will result in immigrants losing their green cards, because it will inconvenience ICE.
More options
Context Copy link
Ok, let's play this game:
So, when exactly is he allowed to react to the woman driving a 1.5-ton machine towards him? Half a second later? A second later?
There's obviously no point in time that won't make you go "ah! Of course! This PROVES he's a murderer!"
This is damning for your character, not his.
If he already had his gun out, that would be an unnecessary escalation unjustified by law enforcement policy. If he pulled out his gun on approach, ditto. Is there any reason to conclude otherwise? There's a reason cops during traffic stops do not pull their gun out on everyone, every time. I do not claim that he wanted to kill her anywhere. It's possible though. It's also not the point I was making in the OP. At any rate, there is, yes, clearly a point with sufficient evidence where pulling out a gun on someone driving at you is justified. Why would I think any different? Don't play slippery slope games unless you're actually alleging something.
hopefully-quick edit: I'm also not, and nowhere did, claim that we have indisputable proof that she was murdered. We had some evidence that cuts both ways. We have enough evidence in favor of "murder" that we should at least be discussing punishment. And more relevant to the original point, we have enough evidence that Ross did at least something wrong to be, again, at least discussing punishment.
I should add that my mental model of police is basically very, very rarely would they ever deliberately kill people. Somewhat common is killing people due to bad priors, however, partially due to the nature of the job but also partially due to flaws in ICE/law enforcement. I should reiterate that the standard is not "murder or not murder". It's "did he/they do something wrong" or "they were 100% innocent". The former is grounds for reasonable disagreement. The latter is what the OP discusses as being ridiculous and worrisome.
This is a lie. You said:
I don't care that your defence is going to be "sigh, apply some critical thinking skills -- that's from the transcript; I didn't literally say it!"
No. You dropped a massive transcript in your OP as if it were your own words. You said it expressed things better than you could yourself. You said you "vibe" with it. You presented it as a something you fully endorsed.
You did not go "actually I disavow the part where he says it was obviously a murder". The rules say to speak plainly. If you're going to drop a transcript with maximally inflammatory claims that you don't actually agree with, and then later go "b-but I never literally said those words!", then people are going to assume you're fucking with them.
This is some god-of-the-gaps bullshit. Any part of the transcript that becomes indefensible or inconvenient -- "oh, I never actually said it". All the other parts -- well, they get to stand as part of your argument, until the exact part where you need to discard them and pretend you never held them at all.
This is deceitful.
More options
Context Copy link
"This is so obviously a murder" means that it is, in fact, indisputable that she was murdered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The vibe is "oh shit I almost died because someone hit the accelerator while I was standing directly in front of their car". I have to say, I think you're demanding an impossibly high standard of behaviour from police officers. It's one thing to say that police officers should endeavour to remain courteous and professional to the best of their ability. It's quite another to say that an officer cursing in the middle of a stressful situation, literally seconds after he was very nearly seriously struck by a car, is dispositive proof that he's a vicious murderer. And as I pointed out elsewhere, it's entirely possible that Ross didn't even know that Good was dead at the time he spoke.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Seems to be she'd lived in Minneapolis for a while (multiple months iirc) and hadn't changed plates. I can't complain about that, I delayed changing plates quite a while to not pay new state taxes.
OT, but are state taxes significant? Were you trying to synchronize to insurance renewal dates or something?
Not that significant, I just dislike them. I prefer usage taxes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I remember when Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with crossing state lines by the Reddit Department of Justice in 2020. I'm half tempted to go kick the hornets nest with a similar comment about Ms. Good.
I originally read Rittenhouses' "crossing state lines" to be about "crossing state lines with a firearm", which would have potentially put him in legal jeopardy. But many uses were also implying malicious intent. You're right that the same rhetoric could be used here: "she crossed state lines with a weapon to attack ICE!" would be a maximally uncharitable interpretation of her actions.
I agree, it's not a good argument. I would only do it to piss redditors off, which I can't stop myself from doing from time to time. Shameful.
There was a legal basis to them arguing Rittenhouse's crossing. It was just absurd how many times I read "he crossed state lines" in 2020.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is special pleading.
Every time one of my clients wants to argue that the judge should let them out of pre-trial detention because they have kids (this is always most amusing from guys with many prior felonies), the immediate rebuttal is, "why weren't you thinking about your kids before you (allegedly) committed this crime?" I have had judges point-blank ask clients this, and I've yet to hear one with a good answer. This person didn't accidentally end up in the midst of an ICE enforcement action. So if her being a mother of three is supposed to be dispositive that her intentions were good, why didn't she think about that motherhood before entering the fray?
What happens to the kids when someone who's a single parent gets arrested and put in jail? I agree, they shouldn't be let off scot-free just because they have kids. But in the meantime, they haven't actually been convicted of anything yet, and it would take a while to arrange foster care or even find a friend to watch the kids. Can you arrange a faster/easier bail hearing for someone with young kids?
Depends on the state and how old the kids are. Depends on the community too I imagine. When it happened to me (in Ohio in the 80s/90s), they asked if we had any relatives, we told them about our grandparents, police and a social worker drove us there and spoke with my grandfather for a few minutes, dropped of some papers, and left. My mom bailed out a couple days later and we went back a week or so after that. We spent most weekends there anyway so it really wasn't a huge change for us, though going to school from there was weird at first. If there was no one to take the kids, as happened to some of my friends, they went to the youth detention center while awaiting a temp foster situation. If the "kids" are over 16, and its a repeat issue like it was for me, then they may discuss minor emancipation with you. This was the route I ultimately took.
Sounds like a tough experience! Thanks for sharing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I remain confused as to what the Anti-ICE side thinks is a reasonable outcome in response to this event. MASSIVE emphasis on REASONABLE.
Lets say the Officer is 100% at fault. He goes down for manslaughter. What changes would ICE need to make to their policies and training to satisfy you that it wouldn't happen again?
"Can't shoot if they're in car" is a nonstarter for reasons I've stated.
"Make every effort to de-escalate right up until they physically touch you?"
"Deploy non-lethal weapons even if they have a deadly weapon?"
MAYBE something like "never ever stand in front of a vehicle with a civilian behind the wheel, even during an arrest."
Only one that would probably prevent these situations on the ICE side is "Do not attempt arrests when protestors are present."
On the flip side "do not physically obstruct LEOs engaged in their lawful duties" is a rule that would avoid this outcome like 99% of the time, from the protestor's side.
Protesting and screaming and chanting and otherwise being an annoyance isn't outlawed, and if you truly believe they're doing something unlawful then sure, take matters into your own hands.
So the two options for avoiding future incidents seem to be "ICE stops enforcing immigration law in blue areas" or "Protestors stay physically out of the way while ICE is conducting enforcement actions."
Only one of these strikes me as "reasonable."
What am I missing?
I'm also pretty convinced that there were a variety of outcomes that could have resulted, and did result in alternate timelines.
One where the officer is gravely injured or killed b/c he was standing a little further towards the center of the car, and/or she turned the wheel to the left and he was struck, run over, dragged, and/or crushed, but the lady survived.
Also one where they're both injured or dead b/c he DID get off a shot before being run over.
One where the officer is safe because he moved out of the way in time and didn't deploy his weapon so she survived too.
And our current one where he's alive and she's dead not BECAUSE he shot her but because he happened to be able to get out of the way.
Probably SEVERAL where the officer is mostly uninjured and the lady survives b/c he missed all his shots.
I don't see there being any way to predict which of these outcomes would result if you were viewing this situation approximately 3 seconds before she presses the accelerator. So I don't really think throwing blame around solves for a more moral way things could have unfolded.
But under almost every circumstance described, the law would still support the officer firing at least one shot, because that uncertainty of outcome is WHY fearing for his life would be 'reasonable'
ICE already has a set of policies (shown on camera in the video), which honestly seem to me to have no obvious flaw, and they weren't followed. That's what's reasonable overall. That's a major point that the video made, where rules that aren't followed effectively aren't rules. Ironically, this is the same argument put forward by anti-immigration folks! And to be clear, although I'm pro-immigration on the whole, I don't actually have a super big problem with enforcing existing immigration law (in fact, I've long said we should hire a shitton of judges so that we can do it, but do it the right way with due process, though smart compromises are also on the table).
And in alternate timelines of course I'm going to back Good being charged for various crimes. That's fine. Let the system work. What threatens the system itself is this idea of immunity. That's caustic in a very serious way. And it's increasingly being thrown around. Yes, the left deserves some blame, but it's the wrong direction for the country. Actions have consequences, and degrading the link is bad for everyone.
To be crystal clear, the point being made in the video, and that I endorse, is that "looking at the situation and believing the officer should face zero consequences is insane". I'm getting vibes from the administration, and implicitly supported by convenient silence in the comments here on the Motte, that "don't even bother charging him because he's so clearly innocent". That, to me, is the insanity. Yes, on some level I'm shocked people don't all see it as murder. But on the deeper more important level I'm shocked that people are shrugging and going "fuck around and find out". That's a bad, bad direction to go, as a worldview. Believing that you're untouchable is practically a human universal recipe for hubris and disaster.
A plethora of these people have gone through the Immigration court system and have simply disappeared into the wilderness after being told to vacate the country. Short of stationing ICE at every hearing and directly taking anybody who fails to secure further time in the country immediately to the border (and that still produces 'heartbreaking FASCISM photo of mean ICE wrestling deportee against their wishes') it's not going to be solved by simply upping the amount of judges if the people involved are inherently noncompliant.
More options
Context Copy link
You:
Also you:
Stop wasting everyone's time. Someone died. Do them the courtesy of saying what you fucking mean, instead of this transparent manipulative bullshit.
"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.
I do my best to substantively reply to every major aspect of a comment when I choose to comment, even when it weakens the argument, because I feel that it's more transparent and honest; and yes it does annoy me when people don't do the same. Which is more than I can say for a lot of people who edit their comments to be maximally persuasive instead. I'm attempting to optimize for light, or failing that, honesty. You're out here slinging accusations of "transparent manipulative bullshit". I transparently said that the original transcript called it a murder, but nowhere did I myself say that, and I acknowledged that it was a little confusing. Then, I attempted to clarify. What more do you want from me? Isn't that exactly what we are supposed to do? Jesus Christ.
Knock it off.
You're being consistently dishonest across all of your comments, and then start acting huffy when people point out that you're contradicting yourself to manipulate people who were trying to treat you charitably. Jesus Christ, indeed. You're not optimising for light or honesty. You're not doing anything because it's more "transparent or honest".
But ok! Let's apply your cherished critical thinking skills. Using your definition of "on some level", we get these quotes from you:
Um... are you ok? Because you say that you don't call it a murder; and you're also kinda shocked that anyone wouldn't see it as a murder. I can't imagine why you think that smugly defining the phrase "on some level" lets you wriggle out of how insane that is.
Apply some critical thinking skills.
More options
Context Copy link
Being "partially" shocked at someone for disagreeing with a claim, while not believing it yourself is downright schizophrenic.
why would that be schizophrenic? you have to only believe that you are atypical.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are lots of things that could have been done differently. Many are not about what Jonathan Ross did but about not allowing situations like this to happen in the first place. Things like (and some of these will be unpalatable):
-Try not to run towards people and grab at their car door handles
-Try not to walk in front of vehicles
-Don't be scary – wear uniforms and ID
-Work to build trust in the community and communicate with residents like other police forces do
-Work in collaboration with local law enforcement and if they don't want to, take steps to understand why and what can be done differently
-Don't draw your gun unless you know what you are attempting to do with it
-Take anger management and body language training so you get less riled up by protesters
-Don't do generalised sweeps where you are at large in a neighbourhood, be more targeted
Maybe local law enforcement could support ICE efforts and manage the protestors? Oh, wait sanctuary city mayors refuse to do this!
More options
Context Copy link
How does one counter the literal government of the state suggesting that you are unwelcome?
Is arresting state officials who are making your job more dangerous on the table? Can you target those spreading the sort of claims that make civilians treat you like an enemy?
We do remember that people have literally set up armed ambushes for ICE, right? They're objectively at risk of being shot by random civilians.
My exact compromise suggestion was "let the Minnesota authorities carry out the arrests safely" so we don't get Feds in the neighborhoods.
Is there any particular reason this wasn't feasible? (Rhetorical, we know they would refuse).
And if their reason for refusal is "we don't want Federal Immigration law enforced" then what exactly can you then do in response? Federal Law overrides state law under our current Constitutional setup!
"Try not to walk in front of vehicles" doesn't work well if the protestors are willing to physically obstruct things with their vehicles.
If you really want to get further and further back to the core causes, I'd point out "Don't allow unchecked illegal immigration when you have the power to prevent it" solves this entirely but that was a decision made WELL above the pay grades of those involved in this altercation.
its my same issue with regard to the demands for "Due Process" for immigration detainees. "Process" wasn't followed when these folks were entering the country, which necessarily makes it harder to provide process when removing them. There's now millions of them running around the country, so a massively increased LEO presence is the only way to make any headway for removal.
And more to the point, all the "We're playing nice and friendly" approach was pretty much how things were during most of Obama and Biden's terms, and THEY WERE STILL DEMONIZED. The 'Border Patrol Agent wielding a whip" framing happened during Biden's term.
So I'm all for accountability for Gov't agencies... but that has to go both ways. If elites and state official don't want immigration law enforced, and they aren't using the standard governmental process to change the law, it is not very reasonable for them to act in ways that gets regular people involved in conflicts with Gov't agents. They should put some of their own skin in the game.
If Trump was giving ICE the same mission in every state, asking local PDs to assist them might be reasonable. Instead, he is sending ICE into cities which voted against him, and agricultural workers in rural areas are not deported at all.
What Trump is doing here is clearly selective enforcement, alike to pardoning Hernández while kidnapping Maduro. I do not feel that local PDs are obliged to help with enforcement action whose purpose it is clearly to annoy the local taxpayer.
Yes- that's absolutely a valid and significant criticism of the program. There shouldn't be exceptions to these policies; both Red and Blue must give up their slaves because "giving up the slaves for the future good of the nation" was the stated goal of this campaign. And if they're so vital in that area- that both Red and Blue agree on the assertion they should be there (and clearly, they do, hence their current immunity)- maybe pass some legislation that legitimizes their presence. They have the House, but that doesn't stop Blue from introducing bills. Why don't they? Well...
And then we could even talk about the more boring logistical stuff, like "well, they aren't really driving up the housing prices as much out in the middle of nowhere", "it wouldn't have as much of an impact per capita in the immediate vicinity", "perhaps food prices were more important than the stated goal", or perhaps most importantly (and likely more fitting for the Trump admin), "isn't going to remind the sizeable minority of city-dwellers that did vote for this that showing up to vote is not pointless".
But that don't bleed, so it don't lead. And I'm unconvinced anything that sophisticated is on the forefront of the average protestor's mind, either; I believe being angry they can't have it their way and the resulting hysteria that they're feeding the neighborhood indentured servant to the functional equivalent of a wood chipper is the dominating impulse there.
And when the better options- say, options 1 through 81- rely on an educated and measured populace, I find it kind of hard to blame the Feds for choosing the 82nd.
More options
Context Copy link
They're not obliged but neither should that be a veto of federal enforcement. From what I gather, more deportations have actually occurred in states that are cooperating, but with no real drama. If the locals do not want to cooperate even to the extent of refusing to enforce blatant lawbreaking when directed at targets they deem acceptable (and how's that for your selective enforcement, by the way), they can't complain that the enforcement measures are harsher there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Irrelevant. In the purely political arena, maybe it's fine to see "rules for me but not for thee" but not in the legal arena. The Constitution is pretty darn clear about due process. You do not get a free pass to ignore the Constitution just because other people in prior years ignored (or twisted) federal law. Full stop.
If the other side can ignore the rules to let in countless millions of illegals, I'm sure as shit not going to support my side fucking around giving each individual one a full hearing/appeal/whatever before deporting them. That just amounts to giving up. I'll wipe my ass on the constitution and your personal moral opinion first, god knows neither one stopped the Dems from letting anyone in.
This is an extremely dangerous opinion and I thank God few people think this way because otherwise we really wouldn't have a country.
You seem to literally exactly think this way, and that's why we're at serious risk of not having a country.
More options
Context Copy link
"Sorry guys, the other side broke the rules to let in eleventy million zillion people, so now you're stuck with them forever and ever. I mean it's either that or break the rules yourselves, and that would clearly be unthinkable."
Keep it up champ, you're helping create those people you're so afraid of.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll concede that some of my suggestions are at a much higher pay grade than officers on the ground or within ICE. One point I disagree with in terms of reactions to this episode though is to put much of the blame on Jonathan Ross. I guess he might well be a bad guy but I think such episodes are pretty much inevitable and the result of poor leadership decisions as well as poor training.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The equal blame incident.
I'm libertarian. I'm pro immigration. I'm generally not a fan of the institution of policing and think it is run badly in many ways. I also think the average protestor belongs in a mental institution.
All of that to say I think this is generally a no one is at fault incident. Or at least one where everyone's culpability balances out in ways that they are all equally to blame.
Good went to a protest with the intent to use a deadly weapon (a car) to obstruct police officers in their duty. This is a risky thing to do. It endangers yourself and endangers others. Cars are not toys. They are about equal with guns in terms of killing people in the US each year Source. And the same holds true for police officers, where gun and car deaths in the line of duty are about equal Source.
I hate litigating specific incidents, because 99% of the time the main "this could have been prevented" turning points happen before the incident. I can think of at least two major ways Good could have prevented this (not going to the protest, or getting out of her vehicle to protest). I cannot think of any specific policy that police or ICE could have that would have prevented this. Officers are allowed to defend themselves from bodily harm or attacks on their person. Just like people in general are allowed to defend themselves from bodily harm or attacks on their person. The officer was not trying to create a situation, they were moving around the vehicle not trying to stay in front of it. If you are around police officers you should be aware that they have a heightened sense of "someone is going to attack me". Don't pretend like you are going to pull a gun on them, or pretend to charge them like you are going to beat them up. Don't nearly run into them with your vehicle. Unless you want to get shot. All of these things are also advice for how to treat a member of the public that might be carrying a firearm. People dying is a tragedy. But doing something dangerous towards someone carrying a gun and then getting shot is what I consider "accidental suicide". Its a tragedy if someone runs out into a street at a not-crosswalk and gets killed by a vehicle, no one is really at fault. Its an accidental suicide.
I've mostly been describing why Good is to blame. So why do I call it an equal blame incident? Well police and law enforcement still have some level of duty to exercise restraint in the use of deadly force. I do think the officer could have exercised that restraint here. I do not like that we have to treat police officers like wild animals or rabid dogs that might attack at the slightest provocation. Its not true for most officers, but its true for enough of them that I feel comfortable invoking the "accidental suicide".
To summarize, Good placed herself in a dangerous situation, and then did something that could be perceived as attacking an officer. The officer could have exercised restraint, but I would not expect that restraint of a private citizen.
Longevity and scissor statements
I have been surprised by the longevity of this incident in the news cycle. I mostly consider it a boring incident. As I said above I hate litigating specific incidents and asking could have been done in a split second of thinking for things to turn out differently. My rule of thumb is that something always went wrong long before someone had to make a split second life or death decision. In this case it doesn't seem like either side is strongly to blame. Good made more bad decisions leading up to the incident, but she died as a consequence which feels a little too heavy for her level of bad decision making. If the officer had died instead I'd say it was clearly Good's fault.
But I'm realizing now why I should not be as surprised by the longevity. You don't go to battle over a culture war incident if you feel like it is a losing ground. In an alternate world where Good had struck and killed a police officer with her vehicle I'd bet the story would be buried. Or at least no more talked about than the incident where 15 armed people tried to shoot and attack ICE agents (its still insane to me that this happened).
In all battles you only want to commit when you feel you can win. In the culture war winning means being morally right. Battles take two to tango though. So major controversies spring up when both sides feel like they are in the right. In this theoretical model the most battled over topics will always be scissor statements. The likelihood of "battles" is also helped along by however distorted the view of reality is by the partisans. If partisans had perfect perceptions of reality then only truly 50-50 incidents would spark up any controversy. But if they have something like a 5% bias for their side then incidents that are 45-55 would also spark up battles. The wider the gap in perception the more things become battles.
But I think reality can still partially penetrate partisan perceptions, so even when they have noticeable bias towards their own side they can notice a slightly losing argument. So they'll drop the topics where they feel that they are losing. Meaning that even if with partisan perceptions distorting reality a 50-50 incident is going to stick around much longer.
Come on, this is a false equivalence. Try parking a truck into the parking lot of your local police department, then walk in while carrying a shotgun. Carefully observe which of these actions will cause more concern. Try to convince them that the real danger is your truck.
Cars kill a lot of people because they are ubiquitous. The majority of adult Americans are drivers, and drivers spend around an hour per day driving. The average American definitely does not spend half a hour every day shooting or even handling guns. There is a reason while there are few mafia movies where the cleaners rely on cars to kill their victims.
If she had pointed a gun at Ross, I would completely concede self-defense immediately. The main purpose of a gun is to kill or incapacitate soft targets, and given the low frequency of mountain lions in urban Minnesota, it is 100% reasonable to assume that she was in fact going to shoot Ross. Even if her gun was later found to be unloaded.
But cars (even bloody SUVs -- that is another CW angle) are rarely used in intentional or even depraved heart homicides, most car deaths are accidents, negligent manslaughter.
So Good driving in the general direction of Ross is a lot more ambiguous than her pointing a gun at him, because cars have plenty of uses besides killing federal agents. There was of course a chance that she was absolutely going to murder him. There was also a chance that she was going to drive over him because she had decided that ICE lives don't matter (depraved heart), or that she had not realized that he was standing in her path. There was also a chance that she was merely going to graze him either from a motivation of depraved heart or because she had misjudged the turn radius of her car. Possibly there was also a chance that she was going to miss him entirely.
Now, if she either intended to run him over or did not give a fuck about killing him, I will concede that he was entitled to self-defense in an unlikely attempt to stop her. (Though the risk of hitting bystanders would still need to be weighted against the probability of stopping her car.) Even then, it was not a good tactical move compared to getting out of the way, but that would not have been a legal issue.
For the injuries she actually inflicted on him, a headshot was clearly an overreaction, I think most people will agree that letting people grazed by cars shoot the driver is generally a bad idea.
These probabilities do matter if we evaluate a claim of self-defense. Basically, if you see a 6yo (-15) in Germany (-20) on Fasching (-20) point a gun-shaped object which looks like plastic (-15) at you, it is not reasonable to conclude that you are about to be shot by a live firearm and kill the kid. If you see a drug addict in Central Park point what looks like a firearm in your direction, that conclusion would be different.
In this case, a good prosecutor might make the case that you had someone who was distracted by filming with a mobile phone getting startled by a car which was suddenly moving towards him and then decided to compensate his lack of situational awareness through deadly force.
As I've said before I don't like litigating split second decision making. Most of your post is that.
The only real person with the ability to make decisions beforehand that could have prevented this is Good. She could have chosen to exit her vehicle at the protest or to turn off the engine. The other possibility that I just thought of is that ICE starts using armored vehicles and just starts ramming through obstructing vehicles. I don't want ICE to adopt that policy, do you?
She choose to use a vehicle to obstruct other vehicles and to drive in an area with pedestrians and people on foot. Her obstructing vehicles is part of the reason there were officers on foot in the first place. Unless she thought it would just be a perfect statement where she gets to obstruct a law she doesn't like and the result is that ICE just politely sits in their vehicles going no where and letting her obstruct them?
Your truck example is the false equivalence. Try using your truck to block the entrance to the police parking lot or your body to block the entrance of the front door. Those are equivalent.
Or line your truck up with the pedestrian exit to the police station and rev the engine like you are about to run them over. You will be treated like you are holding a shotgun. They will aim their guns at you and tell at you to get out. If you instead start moving the truck towards them they will unload as if you had lifted the shotgun into an aiming position.
In your example they get out of the truck. I suggested that was one of the things Good could have done to deescalate the situation. The equivalent would be leaving your shotgun in the trunk of your car. A weapon that you do not currently possess is of course far less threatening in the immediate situation.
If a policy relies on people making split second complex judgements then the policy sucks. I already put some fault on ice for being too willing to use deadly force. But that is because I hold agents of the government to a higher standard than I do individuals. And I think any individual would have been justified in using deadly force against a vehicle in this exact situation. In the US they'd also be legally in the clear, in Europe, which doesn't believe in self defense, probably not.
What policy changes would you suggest that could have prevented this? Being reasonable in the sense that any policy that amounts to "be ineffective anytime someone uses this tactic against you" is a non-starter.
I say this as someone that disagrees with the goals of ICE. But I do not see a policy that would have lead to a guaranteed better outcome here.
The officer could have prevented it by not getting in front of the car.
So the policy suggestion you have is "never be vaguely in front of a vehicle with its engine on"
That is too restrictive and I can't imagine trying to follow that rule in practice without basically giving up anytime anyone brings a car to disrupt your operations.
More options
Context Copy link
The officer was not in front of the car when she began backing up. Her reverse maneuver is what put him (barely) there. Certainly it is true there are places he could have been (Cleveland, for instance) where no action on her part could have put him in front of the car, but in fact he didn't put himself 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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Now, try driving the truck through the front of the building and see what the reaction is.
The SUV here is dangerous when it is being pointed at a human being; hell, if she'd had a rifle in her passenger seat when she did this, I'd still argue that the SUV is the greater threat.
If he had a reasonable belief that she either intended to run him over or did not give a fuck about killing him, I will concede that he was entitled to self-defense in an unlikely attempt to stop her. Self-defense standards do not require someone to be a mind reader, nor do they require that the other person has an intent to kill. It is permissible to shoot someone who is high out of their mind, but pointing a gun at a crowd, even if he is unable to comprehend how dangerous the gun is at the moment. It is also reasonable to shoot someone who yells out in anger "I'm going to fucking kill you!" and reaches towards what appears to be a concealed weapon (even if they aren't actually armed, and were simply going to whip out their dick or some such nonsense).
Just for fun, go stand in front of a parked SUV - and take a look at what you could see of the "driver". You'll notice that it is basically only the head, especially on a smaller driver (like, say, a woman).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you're underestimating the impact of racism, sexism, tribalism, and profiling in the perception of this incident as compared to others.
Renee Good was a 37 year old white mother of three. I haven't looked into her background, but just judging from the car not being a complete heap I don't think she was impoverished, we can probably label her middle class. There's virtually no chance, with just that data, that she was out there engaged in a suicide terrorist mission. She might literally have to be the first middle aged white woman in all of American history to do something like that. I asked both ChatGPT and Grok, neither could bring me a single documented case of a white woman between the ages of 30-50 killing an on-duty police officer in the history of the United States. If we included "middle class," "mother of three," and "not visibly disordered" it would cut those odds even more. When I asked for 30-50 year old white female terrorists period (not just anti-cop), the closest I got was Shawna Forde who murdered two illegal immigrants as part of some cockamamie border militia thing, and maybe some left wing bank robbers from the 70s but those were getaway drivers. If anyone else can find me examples of 30-50 year old white women killing on-duty cops, let me know!
Liberals might decry racial profiling, but they believe in it, because it is obviously true. A male suspect is vastly more likely to be dangerous than a female, an old suspect less dangerous than a young one, a black suspect more dangerous than a white one. A middle aged white woman is just vastly unlikely to be a domestic terrorist engaged in an anti-cop suicide mission.
The white middle class might dislike what ICE is doing or we might not particularly care, but we pretty much assume that whatever happens it won't touch us. This is one of us getting shot. Not some immigrant getting sent to a foreign torture prison in Cuba or El Salvador, not some black kid in baggie pants getting killed, this is a middle aged woman who looks like my sister, my coworkers, my grad school classmates. I might roll my eyes when they lib out, that doesn't mean I'm comfortable with a world where they might get shot. A middle class liberal might decry his privilege, but he still believed in it, that as a middle class white person he was protected, that bad things wouldn't happen to him. This pierced that privilege. And that's hard to deal with.
The reason this is hanging around is because Renee Good doesn't fit the profile of the kind of person who gets killed by the cops. Turbolibs love to quote Wilholt's law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." And they believed that, they believed they were in the group that the law protected but did not bind. Every accusation is an admission. White liberals believed that their privilege would protect them. It turns out it will not.
And that means you have to make a decision. Because when the gun turns against your tribe, the nature of war is that you don't get a choice of which tribe you are part of. If we decide that killing middle aged women for being turbolibs is ok, I can't decide that I'm not part of the tribe, my family and my friends decide that for me. I can only decide whether I'm ok with their deaths or not.
You are likely right that I'm underestimating the demographic impacts of the situation. I'm always looking at the actions of individuals. I did write a post a while back that I mostly ignore race as an information category.
I will say that there is some uniqueness in this ICE situation where people have been using vehicles to obstruct ICE. It's definitely not the first time people have tried to obstruct vehicles. But usually it's human bodies vs vehicles. Some exceptions I know of: during the Canadian COVID lockdown protests it was parked vehicles. During French farmer protests they took tractors into the city to block traffic.
There is some question remaining of how the white mom demographic responds to this incident. If they never use this tactic again then maybe it shows it was a poorly thought out tactic and once the danger is apparent they abandon it en masse.
I think they perceived it as "using your body to block others" and they didn't realize they were doing the equivalent of waving a gun around. Their privilege and lack of experience with dangerous situations could probably excuse them for not thinking through the consequences of their actions. I've said elsewhere that I doubt Good fully thought through the consequences of using a vehicle to obstruct law enforcement. Typically the result of someone carelessly endangering other is that they injure others. In this case Good was shot dead. In an alternate reality she ran over an ICE officer and the news story is being buried like the one where ~15 people tried to shoot at ICE officers in an organized attack.
More options
Context Copy link
I find it so difficult to see this perspective. Literally all anyone has to do to achieve complete safety is not deliberately antagonise and obstruct members of the police force or equivalent as they go about their duty. You see a bunch of agents, you give them five minutes and you don't get in the way.
Do they really think that ICE are on some spree killing of middle-aged white women now?
Non-violent resistance and civil disobedience are things, actually.
A few people might believe that their government is always morally right, axiomatically. Most believe otherwise.
A lot of people will concede that a government can become so evil that it is imperative to violently oppose it. I think that is a popular idea in America, in the abstract.
But what if government does evil, but not on a scale were you feel justified waging total war against it?
Then people often employ methods to hamper the goals of the government, especially the goals they find morally objectionable, without resorting to violence. Perhaps you just 'forget' to add the fuse in half of the bombs you build for the Nazi war machine. Perhaps you use your privileged status as a white person to help slaves escape to the northern US. Perhaps you give aid to civilians persecuted by a regime. Perhaps you just decide that you did not see a petty theft.
The specifics vary widely over axes such as personal risk, effectiveness, cause. Morality being subjective, some causes you will agree with and some you won't. I don't share the world view of anti-abortion activists, so I would view the attempt to sabotage an abortion clinic by welding their front door shut as property damage. However, I will vastly prefer an activist who employs such tactics to one who has decided to just blow up doctors instead. The former is an annoyance, but at the end of the day we are merely disagreeing about some details how civilization should work. With the latter, there can be no peace or common ground.
Nor is non-violent resistance necessarily ineffective. The underground railroad freed a lot more slaves than John Brown did (debatable indirect effects like the ACW aside).
Good was obviously believing that using her plot armor as a white US woman to hinder ICE was moral. (Like whenever a human does something, there were also signaling considerations involved, but to pretend every action is just caused by them is too cynical by half.) She was likely willing to deal with fines and the like for her cause, but probably did not expect to be shot.
I have criticized her rather harshly for her fatal decision, but on reflection I think I was wrong to characterize her as 'cosplaying #LaResistance'. Her beliefs are not my beliefs, I would have preferred for her to work and donate to some EA cause area (not that I am one to talk, there). But for all these differences, she was faced with something she considered morally wrong in her society and did not react by mashing the defect button as much and as fast as possible, e.g. planting IEDs against ICE.
TL;DR: 'She should just have stayed at home, and nobody would have shot her' only works if either you believe your government to be infallible or your own moral beliefs to be fundamentally true while every other belief is just a silly error.
I understand where you are coming from but to be frank I see this doctrine as an aberration. The fact of the matter - to me - is that you simply cannot run a prosperous and well-ordered society when any random person feels entitled to sabotage it every time that they personally feel it is important enough (and there is always someone who feels it's important). It is a recipe for lies, betrayal of duty, and the kind of despairing slowdown we now see where any attempt by the government to solve any problem is bogged down by activists until it grinds to a halt. Notably this behaviour featured heavily in sabotage manuals that both the USSR and the CIA gave to their fifth-column spies, because it is the most effective method of destroying a well-defended country over time.
Like the doctrine that soldiers should disobey orders when they decide they ought to (yes there are rules but ultimately it comes down to a personal decision), the idea that you personally are enjoined to enforce your morality on your country even if it means betraying your duty is a malign holdover from the memory of Nazi Germany* that has been rotting Western civilisations for the last eighty years, supported by the accession to global superpower of a country that for historical reasons fetishises rebellion.
If someone doesn't wish to build bombs, and their children aren't being held at gunpoint, then they shouldn't get a job as a bomb-maker. If you want to stop the government doing something that you think is wrong, then go into politics, fight as hard as you can, and accept that you may lose. If you are not going to see the hungry homeless man stealing bread, do not let someone pay you to guard their shop. Again, it's not that I'm not sympathetic to some of these scenarios, I've been there to some degree. But the whole point of having laws against obstruction is to make it clear, harshly clear when necessary, that just because you don't like where society is going doesn't give you the right to unilaterally sabotage it. In a sense, going on a killing spree would almost be more admirable than a smile and a knife in the back, because it clearly signals that you are an enemy of the current society and intend to war against it and suffer the consequences.
TL;DR: 'She should just have stayed at home, and nobody would have shot her' works if your beliefs have nothing to do with whether you are allowed to sabotage law enforcement
*that is, the problem with NG is that it did things that are bad, not the fact that its populace were effective at doing them. If a man kills three children with a kitchen knife, it does not mean that kitchen knifes should be made cheap and rusty in the future. Or to put it another way, telling people to do whatever they're told risks disaster, but in the long term telling them to #resist whenever it seems appropriate guarantees disaster.
To be honest, yeah I don't see how you can run a democratic, free society where people aren't entitled to sabotage it when they feel it's important enough. That's a core mechanism of how societies remain free; the state being afraid of the populace!
A free state has to keep nearly everyone baseline content nearly all the time. I think that's genuinely the whole reason why it's better to live in one than an autocracy.
With the logical corollary that if it's not possible to keep everyone baseline content nearly all the time (due to values inhomogeneity / economic headwinds), it's impossible to run a state that is free according to your definition?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The right to peacefully protest is a direct Constitutional right. A direct right. I think there's reasonable room to disagree about, and interesting discussion to be had, regarding the line between obstruction and protest. From that framing, obviously protesting/obstructing is risky, sure, but that's an official state-approved exercise of rights as much as free speech is or as much as the right to a jury trial. There's considerable meat to the argument that a right left unexercised is effectively a dead right.
But can we agree that sabotaging ICE arrests and barricading streets falls well on the wrong side of that line? Peaceful protest is when you see how many people you can get to go to the town square and wave a sign to make it clear they're unhappy.
Of course, for all I know you may be right about the legalities of it. I personally think that the American Constitution is a document considerably flawed by being written by people who had persuaded themselves that it was appropriate to wage violent revolution over being asked to pay a couple of pennies on the pound of tax to repay the money that had been spent defending their homes from invasion. American philosophy of rights and liberty has been flawed from inception by its inability to agree on when you should sit down and shut up vs. when you should erupt and slaughter all the people down the road who you don't like and take their stuff, which is why e.g. Americans also have a direct constitutional right to free speech surrounded by a penumbra of all the things you aren't allowed to say and when you aren't allowed to say them.
That is not to say that American ideas have nothing to give to the world, far from it, but American constitutionality seems like Christianity to me in that it is an essentially apocalyptic doctrine which has survived and thrived for hundreds of years only because it gets interpreted so loosely.
In all honesty, I'd say the line between appropriate and inappropriate depends entirely against the injustice being fought. Revolution against the government/terrorism is murder, but justifiable against if the government in question is Hitler's Germany. During the civil rights era, sit ins were technically trespassing by refusing to leave. The Underground Railroad was abetting the escape of slaves. I guess I'd like to know what your thoughts are on those illegal activities.
The American Constitution was written by people who believed their aims could only be reached in their lifetimes by breaking the rules. The thing about standing in the town square waving a sign is that most of the time it doesn't work. I think that you know that, based on your comments about getting into politics or accepting that you've lost. So to what extent do you believe citizens are enabled to seek effective political change outside of an election cycle?
According to the latest political poll, 52% of the public disapprove of ICE, 39% approve, and 10% have no opinion. To what extent is the government obligated to respect the wishes of the people? Is there some level of unpopularity to which Trump should change course? Does a citizen have any recourse if he doesn't?
That's a lot lower than I thought it would be. Sure, regarding public opinion, 40% of that is "strongly disagree"... but then, how much of that is distinct from the anger that the government would take their slaves away to begin with?
So like what ICE is doing now, basically (though yes, a lack of intent to escape is irrelevant in this case; you will be "freed" regardless). In fact, they're going into the places where the slaves are and removing them from their owners (ostensibly, the <52% of the American public that feels they gain material benefit from their presence) with violence from/against slave-owners being a very narrow exception, not the rule. I mean, what, about 20 dead for 2 million deported? A 1:100,000 KDR [so to speak] for an armed operation of this type and size is absurdly successful.
I'm sure John Brown would be proud, if somewhat conflicted- and I find it ironic that the people who go out of their way to name their organizations after him are actually the ones most aligned with the historic Confederate cause, while the losers of the resulting Civil War over it are now proud Unionists (who fly the flags of its vanquished enemies in its defense [lol wtf?]). Of course, the CSA was formed by people who believed their aims could only be reached in their lifetimes by breaking the rules, too- it's just that they lost, so they're the bad guys. I think that's how that works.
It's a State's Rights [to keep slaves] issue.
They can use the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, or the ammo box (or other boxes of that type; like the pedal box). They're all legal to keep and bear for this purpose, and all 4 have been used in this conflict, on both sides. (And yes, the fact that the citizens that want this are existentially in conflict with the ammo box, and that's inextricably linked to their decision to retain slaves, is relevant. The people who would normally be depended on to use the ammo box are all strongly in favor of anti-slavery measures.)
This is a fascinating example of using creative language to frame war as peace and weakness as strength. Of all of the things that could be argued to be negatives of lax immigration policy, arguing that it's bad for the migrant is certainly a choice. With an offhand parenthesis that intent to escape is irrelevant, you casually steer away from the tiny detail that one of the defining concepts of slavery is the slave's lack of choice in the matter.
And uh, A KDR is a useful tool to measure the effectiveness of a military operation, but an odd standard to use for measuring enforcement of what is normally a misdemeanor. I'd argue that any number of deaths starts to make me ask questions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sometimes you reach a point where no more accommodation is possible, when you wage war on your own society (revolution). When that time comes, all bets are off.
Before that, well, that's hard. Emotionally, morally, there are things I approve of and I don't approve of. Arguably, I am doing sabotage already by quietly working to direct my employer towards business directions that I approve of and away from directions that I don't approve of. I'm a child of my culture and my age, and I can't be otherwise.
Intellectually, I believe in the case above - that you simply cannot run a country on the principle that 'the line between appropriate and inappropriate depends entirely against the injustice being fought'. A country simply doesn't work when everyone feels entitled to have an opinion on matters over their pay grade. I worked in Japan for many years and in many ways I miss it bitterly, because it worked and the reason it worked was that people acted together towards a common goal without individually deciding whether to permit it, subvert it or oppose it.
British schools used to be pretty unpleasant, and they taught children very sternly about Honour and Duty and Honesty. After WW1 and WW2 and it was suggested that this teaching had turned Englishmen into sheep, ready to be slaughtered, and the teaching system was repurposed towards self-confidence and self-expression. Japan has a pretty similar system today, though explicitly pacifistic. They teach children to fit in and to work together and not to put themselves above the group, and by all accounts that teaching can be pretty unpleasant too. But it helped make Britain great and it seemed to work pretty well for Japan, and I think any answers to our current omnicrisis have to address the fact that we have been made ungovernable by the philosophy you describe.
Which makes me a rebel and a hypocrite, so I can't really answer your question, but at least I'm not blockading the police.
I would say that the entirety of America's history has operated on this principle, and it has endured. It came close to failing during the civil war, but Motte pessimism aside, I don't think we're near that level yet. I would argue that the Civil Rights protests is an example of people manipulating the levers of public opinion through civil disruption and some intentional lawbreaking, and not it only did it not tear society apart, it was a pretty significant success.
I would say that your view inherently holds that the state is just, and by just I mean that your highest ideal is order. This represents an inherent trust in authority, which let's say a Russian wouldn't share. America is inherently founded on a certain distrust in authority.
I also have a question about "matters over their pay grade." Right now the scientific consensus is that gender affirmation is good and life saving. Now the general view of the Motte, and one I to some degree with, is that the doctors are ideologically captured. But some places have gone to the level that not affirming your child is legally considered child abuse. So whose pay grade is it to make these decisions? The doctors? The legislators? The parents? And to what degree does the parent have the right to not comply if they believe this is unjust?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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. Although you may get arrested anyways despite it being plainly unlawful for ICE to do so (personally I think the incentive structure regarding illegal arrests is pretty damn flawed but that's an issue for another day). Blocking a street on the other hand, against a specific patrol, is obstruction, yes. Blocking a street more generically is nominally a traffic crime and therefore not ICE jurisdiction, though obviously the line between those two is pretty weak. Blocking a street as part of a larger group is a different kind of discussion that has to do with "authorized" vs "unauthorized" protests and generally you can't march on a street that normally has traffic unless you have a permit.
It is historically true that the American rationale for when revolution is justified vs unjustified is a little muddled, although the Declaration of Independence attempts a standard. I mean, we did have a civil war over more or less that same issue. However speaking on the Constitution more broadly, despite some flaws I find it hard to argue too hard against it seeing as it's still the oldest democracy in the world. Norway is the second oldest and only dates to 1814 and even then it and many others typically went through far more extreme changes over the years to the core structure than ours did. The American Constitution notably stands virtually unchanged in its core formulation (the most significant change, in the long view, being merely senators being popularly elected). The rest were details, or adding in new rights, and not a fundamental reshaping of the balance of power or the structure of the checks and balances! This is quite rare. IIRC Belgium has a better claim and even that is almost 50 years later (amusingly they did somewhat the opposite than we did about 15 years ago, changing their senate from direct election to an assortment of regional parliaments).
I suppose it's fair to think that the loose interpretation helped its longevity, but to me rather it's that the checks and balances were generally done well, that the amendment process usually worked all right, and thus it's still a success I attribute to strength of structure, not looseness of structure. And although history is not a great experimental proving ground, that longevity is pretty decent evidence that at least something has worked. A lot of Americans at least are often surprised at how many democracies have had to toss out or totally rejigger their constitutions much more recently than you'd naively expect.
Blocking the road for ICE vehicles, on the other hand, absolutely is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Time, place, and manner restrictions, applied in a viewpoint-neutral manner, have been repeatedly held to be fully compliant with the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to scream directly in someone's face, if that would be disorderly conduct in any other circumstance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
At the least, if you have a middle-aged white woman in your life that you care about, please talk to them, make sure they know real people in grass world love them, and research de-radicalization strategies.
De-radicalization strategies? Do they exist? I'd like to try some on myself. This forum is great at radicalizing people and turning them doomer, but not so great at reversing the process...
For de-radicalization I suggest you try a diet high in vine fruits, including beverages made from them.
That'll keep those free radicals away, and as a bonus, you have the excuse to spend all day drunk while ostensibly detoxing.
In all seriousness the best way to use the forum is as an analysis tool. There's nothing to be done; the systems are not in your control (unless and perhaps especially if you're secretly JD Vance).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you know of some, unironically I would like them. I do have a brother that is thankfully living abroad right now, but who otherwise I'd be genuinely worried about them doing something very rash at an anti-Israel protest. He does know we love him at least.
More options
Context Copy link
Thankfully the middle-aged white women in my life are much more liberal than me but still reasonably sensible. It's the middle-aged men who spam me with 'did you see what Trump did today' and 'this would never have happened before Brexit'. (I'm in the UK).
EDIT: I realised that you meant 'middle-aged' as in 37 and now I feel old. I was talking 50-60.
You have an optimistic middle age! That at least seems like a good thing
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can't get on board with setting the scene as "intent to use a deadly weapon (a car)". I use a car all the time, without any intent to use it is as a deadly weapon or for it to have any function as such. Sure, it is probably reasonable that if I murder someone with a car, it can be classified as murder with a deadly weapon, just as a baseball bat also seems like a deadly weapon if I swing it at someone's head. But I can bring a car or a baseball bat to my kid's school, and I have a lot of doubt that Good brought her car to the scene in order to take advantage of the car's potential function as a deadly weapon (i.e., to harm or to threaten). Mostly, it seems like they wanted to use the car's large mass to impede the path of the ICE vehicle, and also that the car was their transportation.
Let's say someone hits somebody with a car at a school. Should the lede really be that "The driver brought a deadly weapon (their car) to an elementary school?"
Using a car as transportation is not something I'd say qualifies as intending to use a deadly weapon.
Using a car's physical mass, and the threat of that physical mass to intentionally obstruct others? That is definitely crossing into weaponization territory.
Also what happens when Good's obstruction is determined to be illegal? If she is on foot the authorities can use their bodies to arrest and restrain her. If she is in a vehicle they need her to cooperate and leave the vehicle. If she decides instead to flee in that vehicle she has now created a hazardous car chase scenario. Even if she had not nearly run someone over and no one had shot her, she still did the wrong thing by driving away.
I doubt she was thinking through any of these things, but thats exactly the problem she escalated the danger of the situation for others by adding her vehicle to it. The fact that she was ultimately the one to get killed feels a little harsh to me, but if anyone was going to die that day for what happened I'd have most preferred it to be Good.
If you can pass a law which says that the authorities can shoot someone for driving away, get it passed.
If you can't pass such a law, then you should let them drive away.
Pick one.
You are allowed to defend yourself and others in this country from threats of deadly harm with lethal force. A vehicle driving at someone is a deadly threat. This is already the law of the land.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What about just using a car's physical mass, and NOT the threat of it, to intentionally obstruct others? Moving your car back and forth to block someone else's car is just using the physical mass, not threatening.
Then turn off the engine.
More options
Context Copy link
And if someone gets in the way of that physical mass while you are moving it?
At that point you are probably weaponizing the car, yes. My complaint is describing her as initially having been at the scene with the intent of weaponizing her car.
When you are repeatedly blocking/unblocking a street by moving your car back and forth across it, you are continually running the risk of somebody getting in your way -- for most values of 'somebody', the consequences of this risk will rest more on them than on you due to the physics of the matter; this can change quickly if they have brought their own weapons though. That's kind of the whole thing about weapons and self-defense -- it's all fun and games when you are the only one with a weapon.
I think of moving your car back and forth across the street as putting your car in other people's way, with the obstruction being not just physical but also that the other driver (ICE, in this case) can't reasonably choose to just ram your car. (Though this would have been a better outcome than what actually occurred.) Although I suppose you could also enforce your blockade by attempting to ram cars that try to go around your blockade, in which case your car would indeed by weaponized, that does not seem to be what was happening in this case.
When the ICE officers were on foot around the car yelling at the driver, I'm willing to say that the driver was weaponizing the car, treating it as an equalizer that would allow them to drive away even if the on-foot ICE officers didn't want them to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She was actually kind of using it as a weapon though -- more of a defensive weapon, but still.
If after you dropped your kids off at the school parking lot, you parked in front of the entrance and didn't let anyone but your friends through, I think it would be fair to say that you were using the car as something like a weapon? Certainly it's a tool of physical force.
Even the ultimate defensive weapon could easily be used to commit the very commonly recognized crime of false imprisonment.
Imagine impenetrable shield. It cannot hurt anyone. But it also cannot be bypassed. A person with this this shield could surround another person and prevent them from going where they want. This would be textbook false imprisonment.
And it seems exactly what she intended to do to ICE agents. Physically confine them to a bounded area without consent or legal authority.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah it's a mask off moment where the enemy admits that they are against all deportations no matter who, and would rather risk their lives than allow a single murderer or rapist to be deported.
This is too low effort / antagonistic.
I'll only do a 5-day ban. I know you are capable of quality contributions. Try to do more like that rather than your 14 other warnings or bans for bad stuff. (jesus how fucking lenient have we become with shitty posters). I'm gonna suggest a more lengthy ban next time, maybe a few months or permanently.
https://www.themotte.org/post/3442/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/398451?context=8#context
https://www.themotte.org/post/3359/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/382800?context=8#context
https://www.themotte.org/post/2254/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/348024?context=8#context
https://www.themotte.org/post/2015/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/331751?context=8#context
https://www.themotte.org/post/1913/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/326801?context=8#context
https://www.themotte.org/post/1860/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/323664?context=8#context
https://www.themotte.org/post/1860/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/323664?context=8#context
etc.
More options
Context Copy link
This is purely waging the culture war. If you have some information that Good was specifically trying to hamper the deportation of a specific murderer or rapist (who for some reason was not in prison), please share it with the class.
Also, can you back up the claim that she was consciously and willingly risking her life, that would be helpful.
Finally, your claim makes her actually sound impressive. Rare is the human willing to risk her life for the sake of a stranger, still rarer the one trying to help the lowest of the low. Keep talking like that, and the pope might canonize her.
Even people who agree with you that her cause is insane might be impressed at her level of dedication.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You fundamentally don't understand this issue. The shooter had a reasonable belief in his life being in danger from her action. I agree that she was probably trying to just escape after mild civil disobedience and likely wasn't committing to actual attempted murder, but the legal legitimacy is purely down to whether the shooter felt he was at risk. You've additionally conflated the 'officers are taught never to approach a vehicle from the front' idiom with 'it's okay to drive hazardously if one happens to be in front of the vehicle'.
It's a sad incident, but a tactic of constantly throwing mild inconveniences at the bear is going to occasionally lead to somebody being sideswiped. In fact it's somewhat amazing that ICE has yet to throw a properly, truly against-the-rules murder up considering they're fairly underskilled and being treated with incredible levels of hostility for trying to action the mandate of the people.
More options
Context Copy link
Looks like it's time for the left to dump maximally unkind, inflammatory breadtuber video transcripts at the culture war root level. I really wish that stupid Mein Kampf quote would not be reverberating through my head right now.
Well, surprise! It's a new day (week) so all the original stale points are back, and no, the OP didn't bother to adress any of them, just lots of moralizing, hand wringing, language optimized for heat. I'm losing all sympathy for the blue tribe in this battle. It's clearly important to them that they win the argument, since this event will be foundational to blues continuing to foment violent disobedience into perhaps civil war -- just go read the rhetoric on /r/minnesota and /r/minneapolis for some fun.
Still, sorry, your post is just shit dumped as facts, without any critical thought, maximally charitable to your side, maximally uncharitable to the outgroup.
I'm not going to address your whole gish gallop completely, as I find rehashing old points tiring, and you/the breadtuber seem to veer off into Trump, Venezuela, Noem, just throwing piles and piles of spaghetti at the wall.
ETA. Of all the things to highlight from the video, you don't highlight this? The consensus of the Motte is that the case it's murder is
extremely weaknonexistant.This person's truth/reality in this whole video is built on a foundation of lies. If it's murder, then we have to beg all the premises that follow. And you're in luck, as I'm pretty sure we have a very low percentage of bots here.
He was moving around the car in a circle, taking video of the scene. Are you even interested at all in truth, did you read any of last week's discussion?? Did you watch the video?
ETA: Is it? Maybe we agree after all
This is the lowest of the low, pure pathetic emotional manipulation. But wait, did you know the ICE officer also has a teddy bear called Mr. Shnookums on his keychain? From his immigrant wife, you know (zoom in on Mr. Shnookums). That's Mr. fucking Shnookums, look, he's squished and dirty from the impact with her four ton SUV.
I'm not mad at you, I'm grinning from ear to ear that I get to fuck with you for five minutes, right after my buddies fucked you for five minutes before that. And don't worry, we'll be back to fuck with you later too. Maybe you should just get some lunch big boy.
Maybe Ross called her a fucking bitch two seconds after she hit him with her truck instead? Which way would that cut?
AHA! Herein lies the crux. My side has lost this moral battle, but we need the win or otherwise the whole facade of us being the resistance against the evil empire will crumble. Something is wrong, something has to be wrong is echoing on repeat in their brains, leaving no room for any dialectical discussion, just arguments as soldiers on repeat. Not to worry though, fellow combatants, even if we lose this one small battle of words and wits, we can just shit up the culture war thread tomorrow with the next youtube video transcript from progressive soldier #342788
I don't think this comment deserves a response. If you'd like to make a real point, feel free to do so without unfounded personal attacks and mischaracterizations.
Report a post and move on if you think it breaks the rules. Do not respond in kind.
I'll give leniency in this situation because @theSinisterMushroom did the same shit.
Your punishment (or reward if you choose to view it that way) is that you are not to engage with @theSinisterMushroom in this subthread.
This will be mirrorred for @theSinisterMushroom.
More options
Context Copy link
Weaksauce.
Report a post and move on if you think it breaks the rules. Do not respond in kind.
I'll give leniency in this situation because @EverythingIsFine did the same shit.
Your punishment (or reward if you choose to view it that way) is that you are not to engage with @EverythingIsFinein this subthread.
This will be mirrorred for @EverythingIsFine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I genuinely hate this argument since the whole point of the 'don't stand in front of the car' is to minimize risk to the operative not to somehow absolve people for trying to drive into them. I don't care if the entire ICE platoon was doing jumping jacks in front of her dashboard against policy, the second she starts driving into them she is clearly generating a threat.
More options
Context Copy link
This is pretty annoying, I found some points the video made interesting, but I should never have to read something like:
"And then I got fuckin' the vice president of the country I live in going on fuckin' news and saying"
The benefit of text is it can be edited for brevity, and transcripts are almost always the opposite.
I don't think I have the attention span for this, but I am very tempted to make a FAQ/"frequent arguments and their responses" for this topic. Maybe I can slop one together with chatGPT. It would be cool to have it all laid out.
I attempted to bold a few key parts to ameliorate the length, but yeah it could have used another editing pass. I have a preference for transcripts because I feel they are more honest and fully contextualized. It's entirely possible that that's striking the wrong balance, however.
Honestly, transcripts are annoying. They are not your words, and we can't speak directly to the person who said the words. I chose specifically not to address the transcript in my comments, and mostly just addressed your commentary.
More options
Context Copy link
It's good content transcript just too long
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Truth Social comment from Trump is terrible. Kristy Noem's statement, even if not totally accurate under opposition's scrutiny, seems pretty standard and defensible for a 2020s politician. JD Vance's statement on what actually happened is not true. Many things Vance said before and after that statement are true, but his claim that she tried to "ram this guy with her car" is not how I saw it.
What's happening right now is that ICE is losing to the dilemma action strategy that the left are experts at. It only takes one Renee Good incident to plummet public support and there are literally thousands of agitators behaving as bad, or worse than Renee Good everyday and many have been trained to behave this way by leftwing agitator groups.
It's a pretty brilliant tactic. Especially when you have a liberal society waiting to watch and react to one of the handful of incidents where an ICE agent eventually loses their patience and roughs up an agitator, or when an agent shoots one of the agitators because they felt danger in the moment. Youtubers can look at these videos after the fact and can say there was no danger or justification and they can call the agents murderers and fascists until the end of time, all while they cry about it.
I can go to my city's local ICE protest right now and say the most vile and antagonistic things imaginable (so long as its not a "threat") to these agents, and I can obstruct their movements and their ability to communicate with each other in all sorts of legally ambiguous ways, and I win no matter what. You either let me disrupt your duty, or you arrest me and I'll have millions of crowd funded dollars and attorneys ready and waiting. If you arrest me with force, Democrat politicians and left wing outlets will amplify it to a national incident and you're even more fucked. Pick your poison, Mr. ICE agent.
Not only is there is zero legal punishment for being an insufferable, society destroying cunt of a human, there is an incentive structure and tribal reward if you behave this way towards certain groups.
Honestly I agree. At least mostly - there's a reason legal standards are slightly different than moral standards. Part of what bothers me about the Good case particularly is that there's nothing stopping a delayed legal punishment. They have cell phone video, several officers' testimony, license plates, the wife even acknowledges they might talk again later, why not mail in a misdemeanor charge? Most protestors, traditionally, are willing to eat that, so it's some form of fair all around. I think felonies need to be treated with a little more care due to how they work and affect people, but protestors are regularly charged with felonies for assault during protests, are they not? Maybe I'm ignorant, but it seems to me that this idea that protestors are all getting away with horrible things feels like a false narrative.
What is seems quite true however is that the law enforcement apparatus appears incapable of self-regulation. Just like you said, zero-punishment paradigms are inherently dangerous, and I feel like ICE internally has no real brakes. They aren't regularly telling people to tone it down, demoting people who make mistakes, nope, it's all rah-rah us v. them.
The part where she hit the officer with her SUV.
Edit: To clarify, it is reasonable for ICE to arrest her for being an obstacle to them carrying out their primary mission in the area. (And I'm not being cute with "being an obstacle" - she was literally using her vehicle as an obstacle). As part of that arrest, it is reasonable for them to demand that she get out of her vehicle. Her choice was to attempt to flee the situation, which still wasn't the reason she got shot. She got shot because part of her fleeing meant that she drove into an ICE agent, who now has reasonable cause to fear that she attempted to end his life.
The fact that fleeing meant driving into an ICE agent was under control of the ICE agent. This fact should, under a reasonable set of rules of engagement, negate or at least seriously make harder whether the agent can claim fear for his life, even if he did.
On the general principle: Is your claim that anytime a LEO crosses in front of or behind a vehicle with a suspect in the driver's seat they are throwing away any legitimate interest in not being ran-over? That if the suspect decides to flee, it may be unfortunate that they had to drive over an officer to do so, but that that's fundamentally the officer's fault and not a charge the suspect should face? No one seems to want to describe themselves as believing in a right-to-flee or arrest-only-after-fair-combat but it's really hard for me to make sense of this impulse otherwise.
Let's disregard the vehicle for a moment and say cops are arresting someone in their home. They position themselves in the front, where they announce themselves, but also have an officer in the back. My understanding is that if the suspect barrels through the cop in the back door that this is both an assault the suspect will be charged with and grounds for the officer to use any reasonable force to defend himself and subdue the suspect. This remains true even though we know suspects sometimes flee and that this tactic creates a heightened risk for a violent encounter between a fleeing suspect and the police.
If the suspect is running at the cop with a shotgun, the cop has a reasonable fear for his life and has every right to shoot the suspect to end that threat. Perhaps the suspect just liked holding the shotgun casually in his home (exercising his strongly-protected second amendment rights!) or was worried that some rival gang were pretending to be police or whatever and had no desire to shoot true cops. These circumstances have no bearing on whether the officer had a reasonable belief of the threat nor the legality or morality of his subsequent actions.
I get that Garner has no force if a cop can hold a gun to his own head and say, "If you don't surrender, the shame from failure to apprehend you shall drive me to suicide, consequently I have a legitimate fear for my life and can now use deadly force." But happening to be in front of a parked car is... absolutely not like that. There are lots of legitimate investigatory and safety reasons an officer might want to be in front of the vehicle, and even more reasons to briefly cross the front or back of the vehicle to navigate from one side to another. And being around a parked vehicle is not (barring freak circumstances) dangerous until the driver takes a positive action to, at best, recklessly endanger the officer. Actions that the driver, very notably, has no right to take.
Police agencies advise officers to avoid loitering in front of vehicles because suspects sometimes take illegal, positive actions that gravely endanger the officer. These policies in no way, legally or morally, transfer responsibility of the suspect's actions to the officer or undermine his right to defend himself from violence. To say otherwise is textbook victim blaming.
In this specific case: While the general principle is very clear and backed by extensive caselaw, the facts of this particular incident are even more damning. (A few videos for anyone who wants to check my description.)
The agent is fully clear — several feet off to the right — of the front of the SUV when Good began to flee. She puts the car into reverse with the wheel pointed left. One second into her felony fleeing, she has repositioned the car so that it is dead-on the officer. She continues to turn in reverse, until the officer is at the center-left of the front of the car. In two seconds, he went from being in a completely normal position to the side and front of the vehicle, in no particular danger from her pulling straight forward, to being directly in her strike path, as a result of her illegal actions.
Two seconds into the commissioning of this crime, she kicks the car into drive with wheels turned still slightly left and then straight forward, directly at the officer, appears to gun the accelerator but thankfully loses traction.
The tires, for about half a second, slip in place. The vehicle is pointed directly at Ross. Without the ice on the road, it seems far more likely than not to me that Good would have completely ran him over at this moment. She continues to turn the wheels to the right, though Ross, as a result of Good's crimes, cannot see her tires at this point, only the movement of her hands on the steering wheel.
She gains traction. The vehicle begins to take off with the tires turned somewhat-but-not-at-all-fully to the right. She clips into the officer, who only after being struck with the left front of her SUV, four seconds after it began to move, fires through the windshield, and continues to fire as she begins to turn more fully away from Ross. It's unclear to me to what extent he was able to jump out of the way vs. being literally thrown by the force of the car smashing into him—look at his foot movement around the first shot.
The time from the car beginning to move to the last shot being fired is literally 5 seconds. There was no way for him to jump out of the path of the vehicle—the direction he would have needed to dive toward changed from the start of the encounter to when he was struck a couple of seconds later.
I simply do not believe a reasonable observer could look at these facts and conclude that he had baited her into a justification for deadly force or that his right to self defense should be in any way diminished by his actions.
Well, compare that to the situation where the police handcuffed a knife to the suspect. I think that in that case they did throw away a lot of legitimate interest in not being knifed by the suspect, and they shouldn't claim "he was a threat because he had a knife". If they are actually knifed by the suspect, you can charge the suspect, but the standard for self-defense against being attacked by the suspect should be stricter than it usually is--strict enough that police only handcuff knives to suspects when it's actually necessary, not when the main effect is giving a reason to shoot the suspect.
Of course, walking in front of a car is necessary a lot more often than handcuffing a knife to a suspect. So the standard shouldn't be as bad as it is then. Still, it should be stricter than what it would be if the officer had not walked in front of the car.
If in this specific case the car did come at him in a stronger sense than just "it looked dangerous and he's allowed to shoot if it looks dangerous", then yes, in this case I will concede. But not in the general case.
Suppose instead, they are questioning someone in their own kitchen, and the officers clearly observe a knife block within arms reach. They tell the person that they are under arrest, at which point the person grabs a knife out of the block and lunges at an officer, causing the suspect to be shot dead. Does the fact that the police could have asked the person to move to a different location before attempting to arrest them negate the self-defense, in your view? If yes, and the suspect knows that, then doesn't that give the suspect the ability to put the police in a no-win situation of either getting stabbed or getting charged with murder?
If they actually grab a knife out of the block and lunge at the officer, then even under strict standards the officer would have good reason to shoot. So the police could shoot.
If the police said "I thought I saw him go for the knife" and shot him while he might have been reaching for the knife or might have been doing nothing at all, I'd be much less inclined to trust the police. But even then, the comparison doesn't work well because there's little reason for the suspect to reach for the knife except to attack the officer, so going for the knife is probably an attack, while in the car the suspect has a pretty plausible reason to drive other than to attack ther officer.
(If he has a knife handcuffed to him, such that any movement looks like he's reaching for the knife, he does of course have a plausible reason to move other than to attack.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why? Under that logic, any arrest can negate fear for their life. An arrest is placing themselves into a situation with people who have not been following the law, who may decide to react violently to losing their freedom. If we followed your statement, then any arrestee has carte blanche to behave as violently as they want, as the arresting officer placed themselves into danger, so is not permitted to defend themselves.
I also think that your rules would make Good forfeit her right to behave in panic, if we followed them through. She chose to put herself in a situation that was deliberately antagonizing ICE, which (by your logic) means that it should negate or at least seriously make harder whether [Good] can claim fear for [her] life.
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. It would be as if the officer arrested someone, handcuffed a knife to his hand, and then shot the suspect when he tried to flee because of fear that the suspect would use the knife on him.
(Obviously there is a sliding scale of such things. An arrest causes some increase in nonviolent reactions that appear violent and standing in front of a car causes some increase in actual violence. But I'd say that standing in front of the car is much farther along the scale.)
So I understand, you are saying that Good's decision to speed off when an officer is in front of her was set up by the officer in the same way as if he'd handcuffed a knife to his hand?
The decision to speed off was not set up by the officer, but the inability to distinguish between two types of speeding off (fleeing and attacking the officer) was set up by the officer.
Likewise if the officer handcuffs a knife to your hand, and you flee, your decision to flee was not set up, but if the officer says "for all I know he might be trying to use the knife on me", that lack of knowledge was set up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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 police are not permitted to shoot you if you floor your car to get away. Even though you "don't get to" do it, the procedure the police must follow in that situation is different. They should not be permitted to blur the difference between that and a situation where they do get to shoot you, and then shoot you because they can't tell the difference.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not persuaded that chain of logic holds together. To whatever extent it was under control of the ICE Agent, it was more under the control of the driver of the vehicle. ICE could have avoided it by potentially being sure to stay out of any possible trajectory of her vehicle. They also could have even more reliably avoided it by simply sitting in their cars doing nothing. While it is true that self-defense may not be used in cases where the person claiming it deliberately (and with intent) created the situation in which its use would be necessary, it does not follow that a person is required to take every possible means to avoid the outcome.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People are regularly charged and very infrequently prosecuted. I have completely lost confidence in the ability of the judicial system to appropriately punish violence by left-wing agitators.
The correct response is to want better processes, not to cheer when "left-wing agitators" get killed.
It's possible to do both, though almost nobody, including myself, is "cheering." Declining to be emotionally devastated is not the same thing as cheering it, at all, and I feel this may be where the failure to model your interlocutors is occurring.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The first sentence of your analysis is a mischaracterization.
The agent is hit in such a way that “to the left of the SUV” is a mischaracterization, as his torso makes contact with the left of the car. He is hit by the car. Thus he is not “to the left of the SUV”, but in its path. More to the point, the only consideration is what the officer reasonably believed would happen and the actual direction of the car’s tire at the moment of shot is immaterial, because self-defense is in the reasonable eyes of the reasonable beholder. Our officer had only one second to respond to the speedy change of tire direction. It’s one second between “absolutely going to hit me dead on” and the shot. And it is half a second between “still definitely going to hit me and run me over” and the shot. Because she changes the direction of the steering wheel that quickly. The average person’s raw reaction time is .25 seconds, and the time it takes to calculate whether a car is going to run you over while you hold a gun, a phone, and are surveying the driver’s car is more than .75 seconds or .25 seconds (depending on how badly you want to be hit by a vehicle).
I created an imgur album of three still images from the video above. The first image is before the officer realizes the car is coming, the second is right before impact, and the third is how far he was displaced by the car. The middle red dot shows the distance of the officer’s torso from the car from a static parked park to his left, and the right-most red dot shows his feet placement. https://imgur.com/a/cM5z4Xc
More options
Context Copy link
Ok, so normally whataboutism isn't really a legit argument, but your position (if I understand it) is basically "one side is outright lying". I agree, but disagree about the side, so I think it's relevant for me to list the various conflicting lies/deceit pushed by "your" side:
Your post is pretty long (mine too), so to narrow in: what's the most clear-cut, obvious, damnable lie from the pro-ICE side? Like, one (or a small handful) that I can just look at the video and go, "yeah, that's clearly false, and anyone watching this should know". I'm struggling because your examples seem to be more subjective stuff like "was this domestic terrorism". (I'm not trying to pick a deliberately weak one, sorry if that's not meant to be a load-bearing example)
A couple of other points:
First: You focus on how, at the moment of firing, he's no longer directly in the way. But this is less than 1 second from her accelerating at him, and him pulling out his gun -- at which point he absolutely was in the way of the 1.5-ton SUV that could've crushed him. He didn't have the benefit of dispassionately freeze-framing the videos from multiple angles in that 1 second. Nor could he see the wheels, or the future path of the car, or know how much traction it would have (it seems if there hadn't been ice under the tires, it would've surged forward sooner, directly over him). Expecting him to omnisciently evaluate evidence he doesn't have in that one second, just as he's suddenly been thrust into a potentially-fatal situation -- and then to superhumanly instantly switch between violence and nonviolence on her whim -- is absolutely ridiculous.
Second: The dominant pro-ICE position on the Motte (and elsewhere) doesn't seem to be "she was trying to murder him". No matter how many times I see it repeated, anti-ICE people still seem to ignore it. The more common position I see, and endorse, is something like:
... but her state of mind doesn't matter. She suddenly accelerated an SUV while he was standing in front of it. He doesn't have to read her mind to justify defending himself. Her death is a tragedy, and was entirely avoidable by not trying to move her SUV into the space another human being was standing in. The absolute refusal from anti-ICE people to recognise this does not seem reasonable.
Her death is a tragedy, but calling it "murder" is engaging in exactly the kind of deceit you claim your opponents are doing. I don't understand it.
Her panicking is not "deceit", nor is the point that she very well might not have seen or been aware of him (both of these directly contradict nearly everything we know about human attention and psychology), nor is the point that she wasn't fully "blocking" traffic (that we know of, this could well turn out to be wrong). We only see her wave cars by, we don't see her actually stop an ICE vehicle. And there's the point about the "third shot" which seems a valid point. Cars insofar as they are weapons, are inherently directional weapons. Unlike a sword or a gun or a person, cars only go forward and backward. So any threat is inherently focused on a small moment in time. Why? Contextually her intent does matter. If she's actually trying to kill officers, as the administration deceitfully suggested, then sure maybe a third shot is merited because otherwise she's going to turn around and come at them a second or third time. Such is not the case by any stretch of the imagination. And it's correct and just to be horrified that that's the messaging they decided to go with.
This seems like pure, unadulterated projection of a caricature of the modal anti-ICE protestor, and is a second thing that has upset me, specifically around here. Do you truly believe that this is what a large chunk of lefties think?
I myself probably would shy away from calling it outright "murder", but I wouldn't blink if someone used that word; I essentially posted that statement as my own so I'll own that I guess. However, the more salient point here from the OP: "the reflexive defense of it is grotesque". I realize this is a cerebral forum. But I think nearly everyone claiming to not be affected by the emotionally charged aspects of the case are lying to themselves on some level. It shapes what things we pay attention to, what things we say or do not say. And I think it's genuinely distressing and worrisome that tribalism even here has progressed to the point where the first instinct of some is to bad-mouth protestors and throw the blame entirely at their feet for brainwashing some poor lady as if the Trump administration's plan were not essentially, as one Mottizen put it, "cruelty is the point". I realize that's reading between the lines a little bit to say that they believe the unspoken "and thus we shouldn't even bother to ask if Ross should be punished", but some of the responses here above and below seem to demonstrate the point quite nicely.
You can see her on camera, extremely plainly, not panicking.
Given how ready you are to say this was "obviously murder", I think I'm allowed to infer that a person who is smirking, excited, and exhilarated is not, in fact, panicked; and that saying otherwise is lying.
She locks eyes with him. But ok, I'm willing to concede she may have, in that short window of time, have glossed over his existence and not acted rationally. I look forward to you extending the same courtesy to the person whose body was about to be intersected by her SUV.
Or, as I suspect, are the rules: infinite psychological understanding for her, and none for your ideological enemies, who are obviously out to commit murder?
No one said "fully", and I can see you smuggling that word in. You are, of course, fully aware that she was not parked perpendicular to the road just cuz.
Do you know the easiest way to wave cars by? It's by not parking perpendicular to the road. Given that she did, in fact, do this, we both know that her intent was not to not block the road.
Why are we bothering with this nonsense? Do you think this is convincing?
I don't understand this or the subsequent point. A weapon like an SUV can kill.
So, do you agree that the other 10-12 lies told by "your" side were, in fact, lies? It may seem unfair for me to list so many, but it's no less a gish-gallop than your OP. I'd genuinely like to know if you consider the other 10ish points to be true, or irrelevant, or genuinely lies on your side. Leaving them implicitly unaddressed seems dishonest.
Based on the reaction to Charlie Kirk, and her behaviour in the video: I believe with high probability it's what she would have thought. I may be wrong.
Where did you get "a large chunk of lefties"? I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, seeing as you know full well I was talking about her specifically.
If you're upset by that, then calibrate yourself.
Oh. Ohh, I'm a fucking idiot, sorry. Because when you said this:
... I took that as you calling it outright murder.
Now that I understand your words don't actually correlate to what you believe, and you're just fucking with me, I realise I've wasted too much time dealing with someone who doesn't actually care about what's true. Life and death and truth actually matter -- if you're not going to take this seriously, get out of the kitchen.
Facial expressions are not super strong indicators of panic, and the video is way too blurred to draw conclusions, I just rewatched it. She also could have simply misjudged the distance to the hood. At least personally I can attest I'm quite bad at knowing when my bumper will hit something, despite being a zero-accident driver for 15 years. But at any rate, the statement "You can see her on camera, extremely plainly, not panicking" is untrue, I don't know how else to say it.
Blocking strongly implies - to me - a complete block. She's in the way, but cars are passing. Therefore calling it blocking alone lacks significant context. I would never say "I-5 is blocked by a truck" unless I meant the whole road was closed. I would say "the truck is blocking a few lanes" because blocking is typically an all-or-nothing thing. So I think this one might be chalked up to differing personal connotations.
The point about cars being only directionally threatening to people was clear and I guess I can't help you if you claim not to understand it.
Okay, minutiae aside, let's talk about the meta-conversation and point.
People are free to sympathize with the cop. People are free to think the shoot was justified. My whole point is that thinking that "ICE did nothing wrong and does not even need investigation" is a higher bar than that. Please reread my intro/conclusion. On a meta level, the point is that the way the Trump administration portrayed the event is deceitful, and reactions along those same lines as their portrayal are callous and polarizing.
I was going to say that you avoided answering my question, but I can now see how you thought I might have misworded it. To be clear, this is a follow-up question, and no, it's not about Good, it's about what biases you may or may not have about leftie protestors, and I think it's highly relevant, because we're talking about the meta-reaction of people. So I'll ask again: do you truly believe that the portrayal I described ("if he were to die, that'd be great, and totally justified") is what a large chunk of lefties think? But sure, if you want, I'll ask it about Good too. How confident are you that that portrayal is accurate of Good? Where are you epistemically there?
I think you'd do yourself some favors re-reading my comments and waiting a few minutes before replying because you're mischaracterizing me. I'm attempting to engage in a way you don't seem to be, so I can't understand why you'd think I wasn't serious?
Knock it off, again.
You're filling this thread with contradictory claims (e.g. it was obviously a murder + you're shocked anyone could think it wasn't a murder + you don't think it was a murder), and then complaining about being "mischaracterised"?
I think you do yourself some favours by concisely, honestly saying exactly what you believe, rather than switching back and forth depending on what's convenient.
Well, I didn't. As you'd say, please re-read my comment.
... Sorry, is it a "follow-up question", or are you asking it "again"?
I reject your grounds for asking that question. It smuggles in a frame and implications that completely unjustified. Suppose I asked you this question:
If I asked that, you'd be within your rights to go "uh, dude, what the fuck? I never brought up puppies or puppy-murder; stop implying that I hold positions that you have no evidence for me holding".
I specifically described my best (obviously imperfect) guess of what Good might've been thinking. You tried to conflate that with what I think "a large chunk of lefties" think. Who cares what my opinion on "a large chunk of lefties" is? Was the car being driven by "a large chunk of lefties"? You are trying to turn my specific guesses about Good into evidence for a general bias/hatred/whatever of a political bloc.
I invite you to re-read my comments, take a few minutes to think, apply critical thinking, and whatever other passive-aggressive instructions you think are appropriate.
More options
Context Copy link
Some people are getting a bit heated by your words here, so good job keeping cool.
Your definition would mean that the roads to the parade weren't blocked off since this guy was able to get past them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Someone willing to use physical force to evade arrest - which she 100% did - is going to be a problem to arrest at any point when you try to arrest her.
Legally you need imminent threat to life to shoot someone. From a broader level though an ICE agent will die if people are constantly evading arrest in vehicles. On net shooting her saves future ICE lives. And legally she opened herself up to get shot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Meanwhile, we have others saying, legally speaking, there is no way the ICE agent is on the hook for murder based on previous case law.
https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/minneapolis-is-not-even-a-close-call
The ICE officer walked away when he was filled to the brim with adrenaline. That doesn't mean he was un-injured and didn't need to convalesce at the hospital. We have him getting hit by the car un-ambiguously on two videos. And even if he wasn't hit by a car, he was in the clear, if he is being judged by the same standard other police have been judged by (see above link.)
Edit: I'm not happy Good was killed, but the agent has the benefit of the doubt until they are proven guilty in a court, and given the facts established it seems unlikely that the agent deserves to be found proven guilty. Ultimately, none of this would have happened if Good hadn't been using her vehicle to obstruct government officials enforcing the law, so I understand why the sentiment is to blame Good. But it is entirely possible for there to be no bad guys here and someone still wind up dead.
More options
Context Copy link
Let me stop you right there.
I would, based on what I have seen so far, be inclined to convict Ross of manslaughter if I was on his jury (which I won't be, as a foreigner). I don't know the law well enough to say if the prosecution could sell me on murder 2, and there is always the possibility that the defense could convince me of their story, of course.
However, if you are saying that this is "obviously a murder", you are distorting the truth, almost as much as the bloody Trump administration.
I do not think that anyone will be able to prove that what went through Ross head was "finally that bitch made my day and gave me an excuse to cap her". It seems entirely possible that Ross was unaware that she was not aiming the car for him before he fired his shots and was under the impression that she was going to run him over with her SUV unless he stopped her.
In that case, even a manslaughter conviction would hinge on messy little details of the case. Would a reasonable officer in his situation (who was not previously physically harmed by cars, and not distracted by making his little movie on what was presumably his private mobile phone instead of relying on his body cam) have concluded the same thing? Did he forfeit his right to self-defense by recklessly placing himself in a situation where he would be forced to resort to lethal violence, possibly in violation of tactical rules how to behave around a suspect's vehicle?
If the car had been in neutral while Ross shot, I would agree that it looked like straightforward murder. But it was moving forward, and reasonable people could disagree over the interpretation of all of these messy little details -- many here did disagree with me, in fact.
I have seen nobody here claim Trump's version, e.g. that she was a domestic terrorist, presumably because she was trying to kill Ross (but weirdly incompetent at driving over a person just in front of her car). Sadly, this makes your version "obviously murder" the most outlandish claim I have seen argued here. (Though my the trophy for maximum disagreement still goes to "I would acquit ICE no matter what the facts were", but you could still get a tie if you were willing to unconditionally convict ICE regardless of the facts.)
Just curious; what do you think thé German police would have done in that precise situation? Resisting arrest and attempting to flee through a police cordon is suicide by cop.
More options
Context Copy link
Sort of. As much as I hate the concept, it's just the "non-central fallacy". A terrorist is someone who uses violence for political ends, driving a car at someone is violent, and she did it at an anti-ICE protest, ergo: terrorist. Inaccurate and lame, especially since that a businessman like Trump probably has access to talented marketers that could come with a better term conveying the same message.
I disagree: never mind rioters, this would make every soldier or insurrectionist a "terrorist". The clue's in the name: the salient quality of terrorism is that it involves acts of extreme violence specifically intended to create fear in a wider populace. Breaking your way into the White House, killing everyone, then declaring yourself Emperor of America by right of conquest: definitely political, definitely violent, but not terrorism. Killing a thousand innocent randos across the country, then broadcasting a message in which you demand to be handed control of the country in exchange for the randomized killing to stop: terrorism.
Terrorism is a special kind of evil because it is an attempt by a weaker party to make up for its handicap by fighting maximally dirty, and we want to disincentivize that kind of thing even harder than regular political violence. I'd even go so far as to argue that terrorism needn't necessarily be political (the demands could be anything, really), though apolitical terrorism is certainly non-central.
The claim that Good was a "domestic terrorist" is actually plausible in principle. Had she 100% deliberately intended to run over an ICE officer with her car, and had her intent behind doing so been "this will scare other ICE agents out of doing their jobs for fear of the same thing happening to them", that would qualify as terrorism. I don't believe she was thinking anything like this, mind you. But it would be a perfectly conventional example of the class, car or no car.
More options
Context Copy link
That seems to expand the word terrorist beyond all usefulness.
X is on their way to a demonstration or political convention. X misses a red light and hits a pedestrian. Violence? Check. Political motive? Check. Ergo: terrorist.
Outside of Trump's mind, in what we might call the real world, not even every political motivated violence (which Good's behavior is almost certainly not -- she was politically motivated and reckless, but her obviously politically motivated actions were not reckless and her reckless actions were not politically motivated beyond reasonable doubt) is considered terrorism. Someone who throws a rock at cops in riot gear during a political demonstration (despicable as that is) is generally considered a rioter, not a terrorist.
Terrorism commonly involves serious, generally premeditated violence (most often murder, but arson or maimings would likewise qualify) for the purpose of causing general fear to further some policy. That sick fuck who throws rocks will generally hot hope to cause enough damage to cause widespread fear. If he decides to throw a hand grenade at the cops instead of a rock, then that could well be called terrorism.
In short, there is applying a strong spin to statements (see "the media very rarely lies") and whatever Trump is doing. The press might call the Moon "the brightest celestial body" (implied: visible at that time and place), but Trump will just go out and call what is obviously the Moon 'the Sun'. And then some will come along and try to argue that technically, he is not 100% wrong, after all, most of the light we get from the Moon is ultimately sunlight, and would it not make sense to expand the definition of 'the Sun' to also cover the reflected sunlight from other celestial bodies such as the Moon or Mars -- which would be almost invisible if the Sun went off, after all -- in a blatantly motivated argument.
Yeah, hence the "non-central fallacy". I never said I liked it or that I agree with it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People will give so much grief to FCFromSSC for pointing out we have completely different values that will tear our country/ies apart, and then post stuff like this...
I'd also say that if you want to have a productive conversation, you should seperate the topics of this incident. Are we litigating the facts? Cool, let's not focus on a propaganda rag's coverge of a single video, let's pull up all the videos, including the one's from the officer's perspective. Let's pull up analogous examples that ended badly for the police officer involved, and compare how far the ICE guy was from meeting the exact same end.
Are we litigating morality? Okay, maybe you can do a compare and contrast with Ashley Babbit, like we did in the last thread? Maybe you can take another look at that video from the previous paragraph and explain whether you that officer was wrong for shooting? If yes, you could then go on to explain why LEO's should be expected to let themselves be killed, regardless of how recklessly a suspect was acting. If not, you could explain how the two situations are different, and what makes the difference SO OBVIOUS to warrant a massive wall of text of moral castigation.
Are we litigating whether politicians lie at worst, or stretch the definitions to the bounds of tolerance in order to score political points? Well, that one is easy, the answer is "yes". Have you been living under a rock?
In any case throwing all these topics in a blender and acting indignant that anyone might disagree is not going to be very productive.
I have lots of empathy for her. She's a victim of an evil political movement that lied to her about her country's law enforcement, and taught her to act in an extremely dangerous and reckless way.
Yes, and the attitude here that is wrong is yours. The cop did not do anything wrong, or at the very least the argument that he didn't is perfectly defensible. Stop shouting people down for disagreeing.
I dunno, I never seen your "everything is fine" shtick as genuine, it always looked like a cudgel to beat populists with. Flipping now that it is your tribe that's upset with the authorities only serves to reinforce that impression.
Apologies for the length of the transcript muddying the points (chalk it up to my fear of destroying too much context), but I did put pretty specific disclaimers at the top and bottom about the topics I was most concerned about. I made exactly two main points and called them explicitly (I even said the words "primary point" and "second point"), so I'm confused why you seem to be so confused.
You seriously think the cop did nothing wrong? Nothing at all? None of the cops? For all liberals have made a big deal about power dynamics, they are real. To quote the relevant piece from the transcript, helpfully bolded for your reading pleasure: "there has to be a higher standard for the people in masks with guns that have been trained than the mom in the car".
Do you believe this, yes or no?
Do you believe this, yes or no?
Do you believe this is a reasonable thing for the VP to say?
And then, as I'm making my way down the thread, it's incredibly revealing that so far no one has engaged with this quote by Trump at all, which is a fucking insane thing to say:
That is a direct quote. That's not at all what the constitution or common sense say. He is literally saying that as far as he's concerned, there are ZERO checks on his global power. Of course this is somewhat distinct from domestic power, but do you see where I'm going with this? Trump and his administration are nakedly breaking rules over their knees and making it a game of pure unadulterated power dynamics, and that's a major threat to our democratic, and relatively stable, prosperous, peaceful, just way of life. Checks and balances and limiting power conflict to constrained arenas is a cornerstone of the game theory that underpins the country. Trump is messing with that. And this incident is perfect proof.
Correct. I think avoiding this situation on his part would require either superhuman abilities, risking his own life in order to save the life of a suspect which already showed herself to be acting with malice, or luck, which was out of his control.
I do believe it, and I think those higher standards were met in this case.
You honestly can't tell what I'm going to say? The answer should be obvious, I don't believe "there can't be any particular officer that went too far", I believe, upon reviewing available evidence, that this particular officer didn't.
Please explain to me why you thought this is a good question to ask, or that defending my position would imply a non-zero chance of answering "yes".
Mostly, yeah.
Let's clear up some factual stuff first: there objectively is accountability - Rene's wife or the Dems can just take ICE to court. They weren't wearing plain clothes, and masks are irrelevant since she knew they were ICE when she got involved. To be clear, I consider these things negotiable, and I think it's fine if you want to advocate for them, but you don't get to act like anyone who disagrees is unresonable or immoral.
As for Vance, I think it's fine for him to say that, and in fact it's throwing the agent who obviously did nothing wrong under the bus, to appease a mob acting in bad faith, that would be unsustainable.
Because everyone knows that the specific content of what politicians say is useless. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's true, and just because they don't say it doesn't mean it isn't. After at least a century of the Constitution being pissed and shat on through actual government actions (most of which you fall under your "the system works, everything is fine" shtick), I'm not about the get my fainting couch over words.
I answered your questions now it's your turn. Contrast the ICE incident to the video I linked above. Contrast Good to Babit, and explain to me why only Good warrants the amount of outrage you're showing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm surprised we don't see any comparisons to the Malhuer standoff. That seems like a much clearer precedent.
It crossed my mind, but it's been so long ago I hardly remembered anything about it. Completely forgot anyone got shot there, for example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She actually is reported to have lost custody of the older two kids because she or the lesbian partner was putting cigarettes out on them. So, please amend this to specify "abusive, proven unfit mother".Might be a fake claim slipped in there.
Link? Epistemic status of these claims seems like 'social media rumors', to me.
The fact that the living ex-husband has custody of the older two seems to be consistent, though it's hard to find a specific, news-like cite. I'm seeing numerous debunkings of the cigarette story, but from articles that are also saying she was just a mom dropping off her kid to daycare, so I'm tentatively rescinding that particular claim.
It would be fun if it were true in the same way everyone who was shot by Rittenhouse just happened to be a criminal in some way.
Just for the sake of argument: living with dad is not necessarily the same as court ordered legal custody or evidence of abuse and neglect.
Sometimes kids prefer living with the parent that's more checked out and permissive instead of the responsible one. It's annoyingly common.
Seems like Mom in this case was the more checked out and permissive parent, it could well be Dad is the responsible one who makes sure they get to school, have their lunches packed, clean clothes, etc. while Mom is "but there's something more important in my socialist queer activist anti-fa group this week, you're old enough to look after yourself now".
Not saying this is so, but generally if the courts give primary custody to the father, it's indicative that there's something going on with the mother so she's incapable/not interested/flying high with the cuckoos in the clouds.
Yeah. Don't mind me, I'm projecting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The White elite is slowly losing its power, since the demographics are not in its favor. The way I see this is that by using authoritarian tactics, the elite tries to keep its power even when becoming an even bigger minority. Since the democratic system guarantees the loss of power.
The GOP has always been a bit of a white club. Of course there are minorities in the GOP as well, but usually they are followers of the "white" culture (or British/founding father ideas, however you would describe it).
(Ofcourse with integration you can convert new comers to the dominant 'white' culture, but there is a limited quantity and speed to this process.)
These are just some of my two cents.
You've got your parties flipped.
The "white elite" are the ones trying to make a martyr out of Renee Good. They burned a huge amount of capital both political and physical to neutralize the populist movement in 2020, but somehow the populists returned even stronger than before and that is what this is all ultimately about.
ICE is enforcing the popular will in defiance of the preferences of white progressives and that is why Good and her partner were there trying to obstruct them.
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't this demographic pivot broadly due to the elite inviting large amounts of foreigners into the country in service of capital? It's not like some random pillaging horde of steppe people has come in without invitation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I know it seems confusing, but you're actually not allowed to hit a police officer with your car. There's like, a ton of court cases about people hitting police officers with their cars and the people who did that didn't win any of them. Hope this helps.
Ah, so close, you could have said, "I know it seems confusing, but driving into someone is using deadly force..." and then your post would have been perfect. I do wonder if you would have gotten modd'ed for that comment; I won't speculate on that.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you think he's actually confused about the legality of hitting police officers with your car?
Are you genuinely trying to be helpful? Because you think he genuinely needed that to be explained to him?
No, you are not. You're being sarcastic in a condescending manner, which feels good and snarky and takes much less effort than actually rebutting an argument.
I would in fact wager you didn't even read the entire post. At most you skimmed it while composing your cutting response in your head.
There's a non-zero chance they believe protestors are a protected class with extreme leniency, that well could include a grey area around "you can hit cops if you don't intend to kill them," but I'm not familiar enough with op to be confident in that.
Wait, there are multiple people confused about what OP is confused about?
I'd have presumed the grey area here is a belief like "it's illegal to hit cops with your car, but the response to a crime that poses no threat of death or grievous injury is supposed to be an arrest, not a shooting" (correct!) combining with a belief like "it should have been immediately clear to the ICE officer that that suddenly-accelerating SUV posed no threat of death or grievous injury to anyone" (not "obviously" correct, unless there's some really good video that contradicts what I've seen from seemingly-good-enough videos).
This actually is a scissor statement out of mythology, isn't it? It's not just obviously true to some people and obviously false to others, but so obviously so that people can't even imagine what chain of reasoning might lead someone to take the contrary position.
Hopefully @EverythingIsFine will pop in to explain that I'm right ... or that someone else is, or a different chain of reasoning still. If my guess is right then there's so many failures of theory-of-mind going on right now that I have to wonder how badly I'm doing myself.
This was my point, maybe I should have put it at the end and not the beginning. The official position is that Good, after "stalking, harassing, and impeding" then committed a coordinated pre-trained "domestic act of terrorism" and "violently, willfully, and viciously" ran over an officer with who "followed his training and did exactly what he was taught to do." Nearly every load-bearing part of that entire position is false. And it's batshit insane that people read that, do not seem to care that it's so clearly incorrect (falling back to an unintentionally bailey of their own interpretation).
Instead their conclusion is, to tweak your phrase, "it should have been immediately clear to the ICE officer and to viewers that that suddenly-accelerating SUV did pose a threat of death or grievous injury" and that there is zero doubt about that conclusion whatsoever. It's an affirmative claim that is plainly wrong. Perhaps coupled with a claim: "None of the ICE officers did a single thing wrong in the leadup to the shooting". And it's coupled with an emotional "she deserved it" reaction. That final point about emotional response makes it worse, but is not indispensable to the argument.
Another more central statement of the thesis (of the original video, perhaps more accurately, since my own was the first quote up top):
Do you think the administration's reaction to the shooting is a "reasonable path for America"?
edit: edits to second half
When was the last time any administration had any "reasonable path" response to stochastic tragedies? I'm not there's been one since... at least the birth of social media.
More options
Context Copy link
Your main point could have been that "this is an amazing pasta maker!", and could be entirely correct, but no choice of sentence placement is going to get people to ignore any other inflammatory points you happen to make along the way. If you hate inaccuracy, callousness, and polarization, you have to be very careful not to drop a blood libel in the middle of your post; otherwise it doesn't come off as hate, just jealousy.
No, it wasn't. So many failures of theory-of-mind going on right now.
For me, too, to be fair. It now seems that my theory (that you think it should have been clear to the officer that the car hitting him posed no serious threat) was wrong, and instead your mistaken belief is that it's a requirement for self-defense that the threat be immediately clear? That would just get us back to my first SNL gag reference, days ago,
"I think a good gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him and hand it to him."
Obviously suddenly brandishing a chocolate revolver will never be an clear threat, because it's not actually a threat, but a reasonable officer would construe it as a threat and would be justified in using deadly force to defend against it. Likewise, even if the driver of a vehicle wasn't gunning it hard enough to spin out her tires on ice, an arresting officer in the path of the vehicle is allowed to interpret the criminal's car suddenly accelerating into them as a grievous threat, and is not required to think "but what if I double check the tire angle" before it may become too late.
Nope. Goods crimes were obstructing justice, harassment, and vehicular assault, not terrorism. But I can't really directly respond to the administration, not with anything more serious than upvoting someone else's twitter response to a higher-but-still-rounds-to-the-same-number total. Trump never became a Motte poster. (Even if he did, I couldn't imagine him obeying the rules here well enough not to eat a permaban within a year.) If an administration called Good's actions "terrorism" here, I'd give them the same pushback and chance to correct that that you got for "murder", and the same downvotes to posts where they either failed to correct or repeated the libel.
I get that it feels unfair that you're being held to higher standards than the White House just because you're here and they aren't, but what's the alternative? If I said you couldn't meet standards higher than theirs I'd deserve a mod warning for such an egregious insult.
Holy shit that was good. I did not really know who Heather Lochlear was (beyond a vaguly famous name from before my time) but she killed it there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The ultimate truth is that it was a tragic accident, of the exact sort that often happens when two groups which despise each other are in open confrontation and neither trusts the other not to escalate to deadly force. People in the thick of it misread cues, do things that are themselves misread, and somebody dies. Good drew the short straw.
Trump put out blatantly-false claims that Good was a domestic terrorist. That's bad. Reliable Sources put out blatantly-false claims that Ross summarily executed her when he knew she wasn't a threat. That's also bad. I suspect part of the reason for this is that nobody wants to admit to "people can die in violence without somebody being malicious", and another part is that the blame for a foreseeable accident depends on who could most easily have avoided it, and that turns on "did ICE have to be in Minneapolis" which is of course subject to intense disagreement.
It was not an "accident" the word accident would imply that there is no one is at fault.
"Accident" implies that the outcome was not intended by anyone - this is true when zoomed-out here, though admittedly not so much when zoomed-in.
Certain people have been trying to erase the use of the term "accident" to refer to incidents where someone has a degree of non-intentional fault (e.g. negligent fault) as part of a Whorfian language game, but Whorfian language games are literally Orwellian and I generally refuse to play them. I did note later on in that post that fault for a foreseeable accident does exist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Actually, every part of that is meaningfully true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, obviously. He's calling the police shooting at Good "murder", obviously that implies she should be able to allow to hit the cop.
So, just to be clear, your mental model of the OP is that he literally believes it's legal to run over police officers?
Even in the unlikely event one believes this, we still wish people to engage without unnecessary sarcasm and condescension.
There's plenty of online commentary elsewhere that ICE are not cops and have no legal right to arrest you. So maybe OP thinks they're not cops and so have no legal standing, so while you're obliged to obey police orders, ICE can't tell you to stop, go, get out, or go away. In which case, ICE agents trying to open her car door or stop her are no more authorities than any guy trying to break into your car, and you're justified in whatever you do to get away to protect yourself, including driving at him.
More options
Context Copy link
Not the OP, but at a minimum @EverythingIsFine seems to be under the impression that obstructing police and striking a police officer with one's car are not crimes that should warrant arrest, much less the deployment of lethal force.
Nothing else in their wall of text really makes much sense otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
My mental model is that he's just backing his tribe no matter what, and to that end he will say whatever. But if we take what he's saying seriously (as anything else would be uncharitable), that is a clear implication. One caveat I will add is that his claim seems to be conditioned on intentions, so if as long as they're not knowingly and purposefully trying to kill a police officer, driving at the would not be a crime.
Yes, so, people may indeed be backing their tribe and justifying actions on that basis. But no one literally believes it's legal to run over a cop. Snarky "hth" "explainers" are a very bad way to engage with someone you think is making a bad argument. Is this what you really want threads to look like here?
Well again, should I take what he said seriously, or devolve into questioning his motives? (Which, in hindsight I guess I kinda did anyway, so feel free to spank me for that one).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn't imply that at all does it? Unless you think someone having committed a crime means their killing cannot have been a murder?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We probably could still use that Minneapolis mega thread, after all.
Addressing only some of your points:
The top down approach to this issue from the administration has been deranged IMO and pure conflict theorist.
I think there should be a credible investigation of the officer to get all of the facts out, even though I think it was justifiable self defense, so far. That probably isn't happening. That's bad.
Separately, I haven't seen many people here argue that the driver was specifically trying to kill him. The dominant belief is that she was recklessly driving away but didn't have good control, she clipped him, and some combination of the two ton vehicle coming right at him and the contact reasonably scared him into shooting her.
If you look at the third video from the officer's POV, it is indeed scary. It very much looks like the same setup of body cam video from 2019: guy in a vehicle, stopped, same distance, floors it and runs over the officer. Takes a second at most. The officer dies from the fatal crushing injuries. You can find both videos in last week's thread if you are inclined.
I freaked out a bit myself just watching the first person video of Good floor her car at him. I would have shot her too.
The bundle of biases I've collected in my life up to now cause me to react that way. To me it seems reasonable.
That "fucking bitch" only sounds bad if you're not capable of empathizing with the state of mind of someone who opened fire because he thought she was trying to run him over.
what is "deranged" about it specifically? Is conflict theorist deranged by default? It seems to me be a straightforward application of consequences:
Ironically, I will say, like argument for Ross's self-defense, the mere fact that a reasonable administration thinks this could work might as well be enough for us to NOT call this "deranged."
Well, it's ordered if the plan is to win the war.
It's deranged if the goal is to seek truth, which is what the public is owed.
Maybe the Minnesota AG can indict the wife on murder charges so that they can subpoena all of the evidence, because I don't see any other way a real investigation will happen.
Also, did the wrong thing happen to Chauvin? I don't believe he really intended to kill GF but he really should have known how dangerous that move was. He previously put someone in the hospital for doing it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Could you link the videos? I tried finding them, but couldn't. In general, is there an easy way to search for all post that include links?
I've seen the officer POV video before and also found it quite scary, and tbh have a hard time emphasizing with people pretending he had no right to be scared, that it was trivial to just sidestep (how should he even know beforehand into which direction?), etc.
But I haven't seen the 2019 video, and can't find it on google either.
Although one thing to keep in mind is that the video (unless you're talking the 2019 one?) is not a body cam video, which might lead to some unhelpful priors. It was filmed from a cell phone in his left hand. So for example, the perspective is inherently off - you might think that the video is shot from the center of his body, but it's actually forward and to the left of his torso a distance that normally wouldn't be super meaningful but with this perspective actually skews things quite a bit. (Also, it appears to be icy, so the normal physics are slightly affected)
More options
Context Copy link
Yup, the search engine goes over the "source code" of the posts, not the rendered text, so you can just search for "https://"
Thanks, wasn't aware of this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think one of the big problems is people have information about what happened afterwards but are attributing that to the actions before hand.
More options
Context Copy link
A more full treatment of the 2019 officer body cam is here. It's inside of a news segment but no less disturbing. There's the part where a car drives up to her and stops and then a second part later where it drives into her.
CW: This is a first person video of female law enforcement officer being hit by a car. You hear her scream and groan. She dies from this. Hearing it makes it 10x worse to me, for whatever reason.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7lG1NDhBTsQ?si=Ajz-RRWaTtueHekf
Similar incidents have happened in France also.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I read the first few sentences and got to “mask off moment” and thought: oh boy I can’t wait to see which side has taken their mask off.
Anyway, it is a scissor statement. It’s basically definitionally. I dislike a lot of rationaistisms, but this is about as scissory as they come.
Yes, I’m inclined to think that your side is just as much in full on dishonest propaganda mode as you think mine. That’s the scissor.
Take the NYT example. It on the one hand says “the officer appears to be hit.” It then says “but if we look at it from the different angle the officer isn’t run over” (note the quote may be off but substance is accurate).
The impression they are trying to give is that the officer wasn’t hit at all. But they choose their words carefully to be both true but misleading. The officer wasn’t run over but he was hit which helps create reasonable fear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Repeating some of my positions from the other thread: I agree that the claims that Good was somehow actively malicious, or that her death is anything else than a tragedy that shouldn't have occurred, are disgraceful. However, circumstances being what they were, I do have some sympathy for Ross's position. She wasn't actually trying to run him over, and shooting her wouldn't have helped even if she had, but I am prepared to believe that in the context of a split-second life-or-death decision, he sincerely got both of these things wrong. I don't buy that this was some sort of premeditated, cold-blooded murder-by-loophole. I don't think he's guilty of murder, I'm not even sure his tragic mistake was foreseeable enough to warrant internal sanctions. If there are actions worth taking here, I would think they have more to do with revising training and procedures so this sort of thing is less likely to happen again.
Of course, I would expect a decent person in his situation - a man who shot a mother of three for what, in hindsight, he ought realize were probably spurious reasons - to be, like, torn up about it. Remorseful. To release some kind of statement, say his heart is with the kids and the widow. Which AFAIK he hasn't. And he loses still further sympathy points if it was him who said "fucking bitch", to say the last. But then again… being an asshole about having committed manslaughter doesn't make you a murderer. It would make me less likely to shake his hand and offer my sympathy for the tough hand Fate has dealt him if I should chance to meet him (as I would with, say, a driver who'd accidentally killed a pedestrian through circumstances that mostly weren't his fault); but I don't think that lack of remorse should affect his case at the judicial level. Nor do we know for a fact that he isn't privately grieving and just staying silent for legal/institutional reasons.
You only release a statement if you want to be eaten alive by leopards.
While ICE training seems to be questionable, I am reasonable sure there's a lawyer, administrator, or chief that strongly informed him "GOOD GOD DON'T SAY ANYTHING TO ANYONE ABOUT ANYTHING!"
slightly fascinated about how much attention this comment has gotten. Surely there's a good descriptor for the way certain insults are perceived as worse than rape or murder.
More options
Context Copy link
I would be surprised if more than one in a thousand lawyers wouldn't strongly try to dissuade you from doing this, even if you really wanted to.
General side-note, but it would be nice if we could figure out a way to let people express human decency in a way that doesn't potentially create legal liability
More options
Context Copy link
I do wonder if the cop is worried that putting out any statement could be seen as admitting guilt.
The usual advice when you are (or suspect you might be) facing legal proceedings as a defendant, whether on the civil or criminal side—regardless how innocent you think/know you are—is to only talk about it with your lawyer and remain silent otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
If he's worried about that, he would be correct. The smart move is remaining silent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Driving a car at a cop will result in being shot in any country where the cops have guns. Especially if you’ve already hit one. This woman won a Darwin Award.
That being said, I’m sympathetic to the idea that better policing practices could have saved her life, and the agent in question is almost certainly being advised not to speak to the media. We don’t really know what the result is going to be, but both the ‘ice committing cold blooded murder’ crowd and the admin are behaving irresponsibly in their rhetoric.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't. She was obviously being malicious. She may (may) not have been deliberately, conciously attempting to murder a LEO, but at the very least she was acting with depraved indifference to the well-being of everyone around her, and having a great time and feeling extremely proud of herself for it.
If she had hit and killed that officer, she and her partner and all of her fellow protestors would likely have thrown a party.
There comes a point where stupidity (or "depraved indifference" for that matter) is functionally indistinguishable from malice.
More options
Context Copy link
I tend to agree. She was trying to be as obstructive as she could get away with; dancing as close as she could to the line; and she slipped over it.
There's a legal principle that the mental state for the commission of one wrong can substitute for the mental state of another. So if you are robbing a store and you accidentally shoot someone, that's treated as murder. I think the same kind of reasoning applies here to the morality of Good's actions, if not the legality.
While the specifics vary by jurisdiction, US law typically breaks Murder/Homicide into four levels or "degrees"
What you're describing is basically the second degree. Does it apply in the specific case of Renee Good? I don't know, it seems like a bit of an edge case given the circumstances. However, I do feel like someone would have to be coming form a position of significant privilege and entitlement to not recognize "I might get shot by the cops" as a possible (perhaps even likely) outcome of trying to forcibly evade or resist arrest.
Actually what I am describing is known as "felony-murder."
It doesn't really matter because Renee Good is not being charged with any crime. My only point is that by analogy, and from a moral perspective, the malice inherent in one wrong act can suffice to show that a related wrong act was malicious.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This cannot be a serious talking point. This is downright mild profanity compared to what I'd spew if I were hit by a car. Again.
It's kind of inline with some of the zeitgeist of the day.
https://archive.is/JQyEC#selection-561.0-565.189
"The most relevant evidence" is that after a man was stabbed, he called the stabber a bad word.
More options
Context Copy link
It's always hilarious to me when the political faction that justifies so many of their positions and behavior with the word "empathy" cannot imagine why, for example, someone might have unkind words to say about the person who just put them in a life-threatening situation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's been a few days since I watched any of the numerous angles of the altercation, but my recollection is that whichever person said "fucking bitch" said it mere seconds after shots were fired. If indeed it was Ross who said it, I think it's entirely possible he didn't know Good was dead at the time of speaking.
Fair point. Still not a great thing to say about someone you may have just shot in the head on instinct, but admittedly more excusable on sheer adrenaline grounds.
Why do we care about the words? What was he supposed to say in the split second while his adrenaline was pumping after almost being run over “My heart goes out to her friends and family”?
If the shooting was warranted then any nasty words were warranted. If the shooting was unwarranted that is enough grounds to criticize him on, the words are irrelevant. This strikes me exactly as accusing him of murder, arson and jaywalking.
I mean again, I'm not saying the words, in any context, would warrant any kind of punishment. I'm only speaking of personal sympathy and judgment here. But to that very subjective extent, I don't think "if the shooting was warranted then any nasty words were warranted" follows. Taking a human life is a grave thing, even when it becomes necessary, and respect for the dead is an important part of civilized humanity. If you've just killed somebody, and the threat is passed, then you should ideally be somber, even contemplative; you should take time to make the gravity of what you have done sink in deep, even - indeed, especially - if you are confident that your actions were just. Insulting your victim beyond the grave like an action-movie thug is just not decent. I don't think insulting someone you've just killed is ever warranted, however justified the killing.
(Whether it is forgivable is a very different question, and again, to the extent that Ross(?) may have blurted it out because he was still in shock from her seemingly trying to kill him, it's an understandable emotional reaction much more than it is a moral lapse.)
An hour or day later? Sure, though it's a grace she would have been very unlikely to offer back if she'd killed him instead.
Two seconds after she just put him in a life-or-death situation and hit him with her car, after a prolonged period of her acting like a fucking bitch Karen? When he very likely doesn't even know if she's dead or hurt?
You're being absurd.
Maybe. But if law enforcement are going to be lawfully empowered to kill people when necessary, in a way that ordinary people are not - and they know that this is part of their job when they sign up - then I am going to hold them to higher standards in how they conduct themselves on such occasions than a random felon.
But IMO that makes it worse. He doesn't know if she's dead, but he certainly knows he tried to kill her. His first priority "should" have been to in fact check if he'd actually killed her, or if perhaps she was injured in such a way that calling for urgent medical attention would be of some use, etc. Likewise, the idea that he said it partly because she'd been acting obnoxious before is not exculpatory in the least.
The entire argument for the killing being justified is that it was an attempt at self-preservation in the face of her presenting a sudden, unexpected, immediate threat to life in a way he could not have foreseen, and had only his instincts to fall back on. For interpersonal irritation at her earlier behavior to still have been a factor on his mind post-gunshot is mildly concerning for that narrative; it raises once again the possibility that he did in fact shoot her at least partly because he was mad at her. Which I don't believe is actually true, but it certainly doesn't help his case - that is, if you believe the sympathetic self-defense version of why he shot her then "obviously, if you expect him to shoot her, you expect him to curse her out as well" doesn't add up, because we're then talking about aaaaah-car-coming-at-me as the rationale for the shooting, not Mrs-Good-is-annoying-and-I'm-mad-at-her.
Basically I would like to think that if I was in the situation "someone is irritating me > suddenly out of nowhere they seem to attack me > I reflexively fight back > now I blink and they're dead", the kind of profanity that'd come to my lips would be more along the lines of "oh shit" than "what an obnoxious fuck". That Ross's mind-state trended more towards the latter tilts me ever-so-faintly in the direction of suspecting that he does not regard the act of killing with all the gravity it warrants. That's all.
Again, all it alters is my respect for Ross as a person, which isn't really here or there to anything, in the grand scheme of things. I'm not claiming anything more than "it makes him feel like a noticeably less likable person to me", and I don't see how that's absurd.
That's a you thing. For myself, my initial reaction would probably be something like "You stupid asshole! (Why did you make me do that!?)"
But that's a reaction to your scenario, which skips the "attacker hits me with their car" step, in which case my language would likely be quite a bit worse.
A few minutes later, after I've left the scene and calmed down? Sure. Introspection, maybe grace. Two seconds after being hit by a car and shooting at someone in self defense? I'm more:
"Piece of shit pigfucking retard motherfucker asshole scumbag Karen bitch motherfucking shitstain waste of cum - holy shit, am I ok? Whew, I guess I'm not crippled. Where's the- Oh, fuck, did she die?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you hit somebody with a car, they get to reflexively curse at you. Sorry not sorry, those are the rules.
More options
Context Copy link
I contend the bullets were a lot more offensive than the words.
My concern is not offensiveness; my concern is excusability on the basis of survival instincts kicking in. Shooting at the threat as a split-second reaction to a belief that you are in sudden, life-threatening jeopardy is not necessarily a poor reflection on someone's character. Insulting someone you have just killed, who is no longer a threat to you and about whom, if you have any kind of conscience, you should be starting to wonder whether or not your knee-jerk survival instincts were justified - that is a more intellectual process, and as such, one that can be more readily judged. (Though less so the closer to the event, and thus, the more spontaneous/unreasoned, it was.)
Cursing somebody you believe yourself to have killed in self defense seconds after the act seems incredibly normal.
I didn't say it was abnormal, just rather less than saintly.
Is anyone asking for sanctity? Is that even a thing being discussed?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was joking. Sorry. Yes I agree with you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are certain tells that you know someone is lying about this. This is one of them.
By way of example, because I guess this is what schools do now, or maybe just my daughter's old school, "Please walk away" was the prescribed phrase kids were told to use when another kid was bothering them. Sounds polite right? Your inner monologue reading that probably made it sound as nice as can be, yeah?
Yeah, that's now how the kids say it. They've found a way to pour as much passive aggression, or even overt aggression, into that polite phrase as possible. It became a universal means of taunting. Get up in another kid's business who was quietly doing their work, and start chanting it at them in that shitty sing song way that comes so naturally to kids.
If you actually watched the video, you'd know how Good was saying "I'm not mad at you" was not at all matching the blank page reading of the words. Nor were her actual actions consistent with it, nor were the goads and taunts of her wife. And the fact the left is falling back on the same defense of their shitty behavior as a pack of feral 6 year olds is concerning to say the least. "But she said 'I'm not mad at you'! This is unfair!"
It reminds me of other protests actions I've seen, with crowds of antifa beating people senseless while shouting "nonviolence". Or punching people in the face doing nothing while screaming "I'm being attacked!" I don't know if the cognitive dissonance created by them saying the exact opposite of what they are doing is the point. Or if it's purely to enable liars like you (or maybe you are just repeating the lies you've been told, you are a liar by proxy. I'm not mad at you), to say with a straight face "The crowd was chanting 'nonviolence' as police fired tear gas canisters and waded into the crowd with riot gear".
Anyways, this whole screed is pack of half truths, lies of omission, and naked emotional pleading. I'd rather have a country, thanks.
The complicated but true thing is that Good appears to be de-escalating, but her wife is obviously escalating. It's tempting to treat them as a single unit, but that's not really true. Shocker: they are different people. And anyways, good policing is telling Good, "if you continue to block the road you will be arrested" and then taking it from there. Bad policing is for example the other agent reaching his hand into her window to try and unlock the door from the inside as she's got the car in gear. Bad policing is boxing in a car from all sides including the front with bodies. Good policing is using the minimum necessary force for a situation, something the policies and law alike instruct to do. Bad policing is jumping directly to force on a whim, and lethal force on a split second.
But all of this is beside the point to some extent. You are implicitly (!) alleging that Good is correctly and objectively categorized in with dishonest protestors who would punch a man while screaming they are being attacked. There's insufficient evidence to claim this. And that's the point about how strong the biases have become that you see this shooting and go "well, she/they deserved it".
Do you believe that the officer should be charged, or punished in some alternate way? I'm not asking what you think the result should be. I'm asking whether you think he should even be investigated and considered for punishment.
I'd also like you to address the Trump and Noem comments. It's plainly obvious that they are deceitful, that's not even really up for debate. How serious a problem do you think the comments are and why?
How on earth is insisting we go through the process for Ross risking not having a country? Talk about hyperbole. And you really don't think the overall response was callous in the slightest?
You are washing over the raw fact that this person was purposely obstructing justice. That is still a crime. This wasn't (or shouldn't) be legally protected free speech. She purposely put herself in a position to obstruct legal law enforcement activities. Then we had the front line of lies about her just being confused, or trying to do a 3 point turn, or having gotten lost. Lies which still seem to cling to your heart as a reason none of this deserves to have happened.
But rest assured, if you have Democrat politicians telling their voters "These aren't real police, you don't have to cooperate with them" and you have NGOs training randos "Here are all the ways a lawyer told us you can fuck with ICE that might hold up in court" and you have these twin forces sending people out to fuck with ICE at scale, shootings like this were unaviodable.
Given how quickly the fallacious narrative was spread, and how quickly protest materialized, I'd say that was always the plan.
Do I have iron clad evidence this woman was part of a conspiracy to make this happen? No. But I think you'd be a fool to see she didn't take a very deadly bait from people she thought had her best interest at heart. Which is more or less what the Democrats plan for all of us.
To summarize, you don't get to obstruct justice, you don't get to flee police, you don't get to drive through police. Dude wasn't standing blocking her car, he was circling it filming, likely for evidence. She chose to floor it at him in the 5-10 seconds he was passing in front of her, which was lethally poor judgement on her part. She won a well deserved darwin award. She probably could have gotten away with everything else she'd done but for that. These are not things normal people need fear.
Once again, I'm reminded of another forum I used to frequent, and their emotive meltdown over the Rittenhouse verdict meaning "Conservatives can just murder progressives". Ignoring the fact that before the congenital felons who chased down Rittenhouse got shot, first they were rioting, then they chased him through the streets, then they beat him over the head, then they ignored him yelling to get away, then they lined up one after another for a chance to murder him while he heroically defended his own life. They could have gotten away with the rioting, even chasing him off, without getting shot. All they had to do was not try to murder him, and Progressives whinge about "That could have been any of us!"
Likewise here. All the lady had to do was not drive forward while an ICE officer was walking in front of her, and people like you go "That could have been any of us!" Do you even hear yourself?
Edit: You know, what, furthermore...
This wasn't some "one neat trick cops can use to murder you" type bullshit. I would expect any reasonable person as of a month ago, when asked "Hey, if someone tries to run over a cop, do you think the cop might shoot them?" would have gone "Yeah, probably." I donno, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we've gone so far that above the bugman constant literally believes cops allowing themselves to be seriously injured or killed is just "part of the job", and they must allow their life to be snuffed out forever by congenital felons, brainrotted retards and traitors.
"Hey, if someone tries to run over a cop, do you think the cop might shoot them?"
When you ask such a question, most people in their heads would envision a car already at reasonable speed intentionally crashing into a cop, not a scenario which was visible from the various footages here.
I think it's very simple to understand that maybe people don't want to live in a society where a consequence of obstructing justice to any degree is getting shot, especially if it is predicated on how the officer just happens to feel in the situation.
Doesn't help that in this scenario President himself added fuel to the fire with the original tweet by garnishing Good's actions with hyperbolic or even outright false adjectives.
Hard disagree! And I think the only reason you think that is because suddenly, the entire discourse is revolving around everyone being a fictitious expert in exactly was sort of pedestrian-vehicle collisions you are allowed to fear for your life in. Prior to this being such a scissor statement, I believe most people would have said "All of them. Are you retarded?" Now, suddenly, because one side can't be correct unless there are hairs to split, people are parsing the exact position of the pedestrian and the SUV, the exact speed they were going, the exact point of impact, the exact angle of the tires. It's all bullshit, it's all hindsight, and it's a standard that no one has ever applied to hitting a pedestrian before in the entire history of cars hitting humans. Ask the poor schmuck who got railroaded into several life sentences at Charlottesville!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Either that or because ICE has been tasked with generating tonnes of footage for White House social feeds: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/ice-social-media-blitz
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My personal opinion is that this agent is too trigger-happy, possibly due to his having been attacked with a vehicle in the past, and that it would be appropriate to reassign him to different duty while he conducted psychological examinations and additional use-of-force training. But that's me holding him to a much higher standard due to him being a police officer. I don't think he should be criminally prosecuted or personally liable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not at all. My first impression is to read it as either a condescending sneer or a threat of violence, depending on the tone. It’s crazy that someone would offer that to children as a social script.
"Just walk away." is the first thing I think of ... I can't believe it didn't make the Trope page!
"He's pretty good!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am predicting that "I don't hate you" is gonna become a common right wing troll against leftists in the same way.
'I'm not mad at you!', even better. Should go to the same list as 'Bless your heart' (LOL), 'i'm sorry that you feel this way' (the way Japanese prime ministers 'apologized' for war crimes, I guess?), 'I hope one day you'll be able to feel less hated and persecuted' (h/t darwin2500).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Surely in saying this you're actually agreeing that Good was acting like a teasing teenager in a school hall or a sarcastic sitcom character, rather than like a domestic terrorist?
You seem to be implying that using these phrases is a kind of acting of the type: "teenager-y" which you juxtapose against "terroristy." It's you, you are the one being dishonest in exactly the way previously mentioned.
These phrases allow for a disconnect between the words and actions. What Good is saying is irrelevant to how she was acting. How she was acting is she struck someone with a car. The steelman for calling that a domestic terrorist is people use cars all the time for domestic terrorism.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think domestic terrorist in the right word. But she was part of an organized group trying to illegally, routinely thwart the legal exercise of federal police power. She was targeting civilians so I don’t terrorism fits the bill. But it isn’t civil disobedience either. It’s some third category.
More options
Context Copy link
If Regina George hits you with a car, did her Mean Girls taunting somehow positively affect the transfer of kinetic energy?
More options
Context Copy link
Two things can be true at the same time. She was being a profoundly obnoxious and immature criminal. Hardly unique, nor exculpatory.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, like that thing that happened in 2020, perpetrated by the exact same people trying to disrupt law enforcement now (who functionally had absolute immunity for those actions especially given how the people who defended themselves from that were treated)?
If you don't see that, then you don't see this.
Bad shoot? Maybe. So was Babbit. Maybe try not to charge at law enforcement and obey simple verbal commands, then you won't die, seems simple enough to me. "Duty to account for local hysteria about federal law enforcement going to disappear random citizens to some black site" is simply not a thing a working system can tolerate- since you appear to feel the opposite, perhaps you can expand on the reasons why it's only OK for only one side to be protected when it claims this is a thing?
An excess of empathy for human traffickers (and the trafficked) is the reason the US is even in this situation in the first place. MN could have enforced the immigration law but decided it didn't want to, so now the Feds are doing it for them, just like what happened in the '50s in the South- if you want to deny the legitimacy of this action, you must in turn also deny the legitimacy of that. And yes, enforcing laws on people who don't want them is always going to lead to this to some degree.
Sure it is. This is a whatever-wing attempt to disrupt the logical consequences of an election they lost, and the fact they're failing is good from a conservative-as-in-stability-of-system point of view. The system failing would be federal law enforcement not being able to operate in the area at all, which was actually more true in the BLM days than it is now.
Oh no! Too much empathy! Too much due process! What horrific threats to the stability of the country! How pesky.
I suppose an excess of empathy can be a thing. At risk of getting too philosophical though, I'm pretty sure most schools of thought consider an excess of apathy (or worse, contempt) to be more dangerous in virtually every sense, yes? If we must err, let us do so on the side of empathy. And due process, for crying out loud.
Yes! That's mostly what I'm asking for. My thesis was, if you recall:
Let's not whitewash the administration's position to be something more reasonable. The official position is that Good was a domestic terrorist, that leftists are "being trained and told how to use their vehicles to impede law." The official position is that ICE officers are immune from everything. That's baseless and insane.
Even now, a few days later, the narrative is further doubled down on and even supplemented:
I'm going to be on the lookout for more information, but based on a video released today or yesterday of the minutes leading up to the shooting (conveniently clipped with a fade to black right before the actual shooting), this is also false. There are no agents around the vehicle until very shortly before the confrontation.
Knock off the sarcasm, its not conducive to discussion.
More options
Context Copy link
If we must err on the side of empathy, then let us do so universally rather than selectively. Those decrying ICE are rarely acting out of universal empathy. For instance, did you know that MN has the largest number of indefinitely detained citizens in the country? Ie, it locks people up indefinitely with civil commitment to work around the due process that would be necessary for criminal detention in a process routinely defended by Democrats including progressives like Keith Ellison. They curiously don't get protesters out like ICE, despite being subject to consequences far worse than deportation.
Yeah, and in fact I hate that. I would never in a million years consider moving to Minnesota. It's definitely a violation of due process. My feelings are quite strong on the lack of sufficient public defenders and judges too, don't even get me started about speedy trials, though that's more universal (albeit no less serious!)
However if you had to choose between selective empathy and zero empathy the choice seems pretty... obvious?
Does it? Zero empathy seems better to me--inequality tends to build the kind of resentment that burns bridges rather than building them, while shared hardship tends to do the opposite.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps. But an excess of empathy and an excess of apathy are two sides of the same coin, especially when the empathetic stand to gain financially, and the costs will not fall on the empathetic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not really, as I understand it, thanks to Arizona v. US (2012).
Conservatives were locked out of a state-by-state approach to immigration (which even then would have been derivative of federal law) and had to seize control of the federal government in order to enforce it.
More options
Context Copy link
smugglers
The traffickers have often claimed migrations are involuntary, yes.
like a citizen holding that trafficked status over that person; "piss me off, and I'll report you to ICE".
Even the traffickers would agree that this would constitute unfair exploitation, though of course they have a sociofinancial incentive to say that anyway.
The reason human trafficking occurs in the first place is because men want a supply of cheap women to use and throw away.
This is the same thing, except it's women wanting cheap men to use and throw away. And those women call it trafficking when men benefit from it; so it doesn't make rhetorical sense to isolate a demand for rigor and only exempt one from the harsher language.
I am with @ToaKraka here. You just threw in "sympathy for traffickers" as a Boo-light.
Nobody (so far) seriously claims that the reason MN is soft on migrants is that they are feeling sorry for pimps who are importing sex slaves. You know fully well that the left is primarily sympathetic to the illegals, probably indifferent towards smugglers and probably hostile towards people trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
Even if I grant you for the moment that everyone who supports turning a blind eye towards illegal migration is motivated by using the male illegal immigrants as fuckbois (which seems a very far-fetched claim in itself), that is not trafficking. Consider: if I supported letting in a million hot single Latinas, in the hope that they will enter the dating market and make that market more favorable for men, that is not trafficking. I would have to add "... and then these Latinas will have no choice but to find a sugar daddy or starve" to even come close. Even then, this is not the central case of a trafficker, which is someone who gets paid for providing victims of exploitation.
Of course not- mere encouragement of lawless action is not a crime. If instead you formed organizations to buy them all plane tickets and encouraged them to overstay their visas, and ran a campaign to suppress immigration enforcement, then I think you'd agree that would be trafficking.
But they are getting paid through that massive economic benefit they claim exists. Sure, we can dispute what that comes out to in practice, but the important thing is that they justify it because they believe it exists, so I judge them as if it does.
Trafficked humans are not citizens, thus not entitled to any social services/welfare, so this condition holds. Indeed, you can find the male equivalent on the street corner- the only difference is that they're there in the morning, crowded around Home Depot.
You misunderstand: a foreigner X is "trafficked" when the reason for them being imported is that the fundamental reason to value a domestic X should go down, and a law was broken [or intended to be broken] to do that.
Men and women (and Red and Blue/"right" and "left" pursue the respective gender politics) are different, thus the way they bring value to society is different. Which is why the assertion that women would want to import men for sex is nonsense- that's not the value men provide to women. By contrast, sex is the value women provide to men, and when men see fit to devalue it we call that a sex crime. But the qualifier of "sex" is only there, and only important, as a statement that the crime attacked the fundamental value of a citizen with those characteristics.
So yes, I treat women seeking cheap labor outside the country as the same crime, with the same motivation, as men seeking cheaper sex is. If men and women are to be equal, then the former is just as serious a crime, with just as wicked an intent, as the latter is commonly held to be.
Hence, "human trafficking".
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn't grant that. The common attitude among the left towards sexual exploitation perpetrated by "oppressed peoples" is awkward doublethink. Regarding illegal immigration in particular, they actively encouraged illegal immigrants to show up with children, were quite indifferent about whose child it actually was, and then deliberately hampered oversight while losing track of tens of thousands of children.
I'm not sure that I've ever seen people on the left take human trafficking / sex trafficking seriously as a concern. They generally seem to treat any discussion of the topic as a bad faith attempt to restrict immigration or be racist at brown people.
I've seen them cite the risk of an increase in sex trafficking as a reason to oppose the legalization of prostitution (example, found here).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link