• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's promised ICE raids have begun

JayUtah said:
No. Your notion of "totality" has been just to cherry-pick the parts of the occurrence that support your desire to blame the victim.
Click to expand...
Your comment suggests that what happened is limited to the short video of the confrontation., and. you're implying that I am not allowed (or I am somehow irrational or bigoted - choose your term) to point out that she chose to protest ICE's activity by actively and directly becoming confrontational with them. She obviously agitated the situation enough for them to stop and and order her out of the vehicle. She not only refused to do so, she then pressed the gas to accelerate her vehicle in a manner that could have not only put the agents at risk, but also other protestors in the surroundings.

Whether she intended to run that agent over - or not. Her decision to gun that vehicle lead to someone else having to make split-second decision. You can try to guilt trip me day in and day out about how I'm blaming the victim, but clearly you believe actions don't have consequences. I do. That doesn't mean I think she deserved her fate, but I'm not going to pussy foot around because you want me to be politically correct. End of story.

Even if you still think ICE went WAY overboard, if you're unwilling to analyze the lead up to the event, how do you expect to have proper discourse regarding this? That's what I'm trying to understand.

JayUtah said:
You have been told why your argument is unconvincing. You can either engage with that or complain.
Click to expand...
And I have explained to you that repeatedly that you're argument is unconvincing because you think accountability for actions is a one-way street. Additionally not a peep from you or anyone else trying to understand the events preceding the shooting. The bottom line is her death was preventable. She could have chosen to protest like other people did from a safe position without directly putting herself at risk. If she had opted for that route, we would not be quipping about this. But it's your rationalization that every ICE agent is a neo-nazi that gets you here.

Either way, we seem to agree that there is no convincing the other. So do what you will with this answer.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Your comment suggests that what happened is limited to the short video of the confrontation.
Click to expand...
No, I'm making no such claim.

Grizzly Bear said:
...she then pressed the gas to accelerate her vehicle in a manner that could have not only put the agents at risk, but also other protestors in the surroundings.
Click to expand...
So fatally shooting the driver is the right answer in that situation. That's sure to keep everyone safe.

Grizzly Bear said:
Whether she intended to run that agent over - or not. Her decision to gun that vehicle lead to someone else having to make split-second decision. You can try to guilt trip me day in and day out about how I'm blaming the victim, but clearly you believe actions don't have consequences. I do.
Click to expand...
Hogwash. You're very obviously victim-blaming and you just completely ignore how the officer violated his own rules to put himself in harm's way, in a position where he had to make that decision—and made the wrong one again according to the rules for federal officers.

Grizzly Bear said:
That doesn't mean I think she deserved her fate...
Click to expand...
You might just as well. You're focusing entirely on what you think she did wrong.

Grizzly Bear said:
And I have explained to you that repeatedly that you're argument is unconvincing because you think accountability for actions is a one-way street.
Click to expand...
I made no such claim. I explained why the officer had a greater duty of care. In fact, most of what I've said on this subject in this forum has gone unaddressed—even unacknowledged—by you.

Grizzly Bear said:
Additionally not a peep from you or anyone else trying to understand the events preceding the shooting.
Click to expand...
I addressed it at length, as did several others. How far back are we supposed to go?

Grizzly Bear said:
The bottom line is her death was preventable.
Click to expand...
Correct. The DOJ rules of engagement are written to prevent just such irresponsible use of deadly force. The officer chose to ignore them.

Grizzly Bear said:
She could have chosen to protest like other people did from a safe position
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Nothing she did was properly met with deadly force. You want me to acknowledge all the foolish things you think the victim did. It's all irrelevant. None of it warrants deadly force.

Grizzly Bear said:
without directly putting herself at risk. If she had opted for that route, we would not be quipping about this. But it's your rationalization that every ICE agent is a neo-nazi that gets you here.
Click to expand...
Straw man. Try to stick to what I actually say instead of what you imagine I said.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Man and women shot in Portland

abcnews.go.com

Man, woman shot by federal agents in Portland: Police

Two people were shot by federal agents in Portland, Oregon, on Thursday, local and federal sources told ABC News.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
Twice in two I've seen the administration use the term "defensive shots." As a newspaper person I don't think I ever heard law enforcement use that term - and they were generally inclined to protect their own. It was always just "the officer fired shots." A defensive shot, I associate with covering fire - probably from movies and TV shows, I admit. Shots fired to throw a sniper off or make an enemy keep their head down.

Shots aimed at someone aren't "defensive" per my understanding, but I could be wrong.

The same officer was dragged was 100 yards after getting his arm stuck in a window. According to the AP he put his arm in a moving vehicle. Even if the cause is righteous, the tactics seem to suck. In yesterday's case ... it was a one-way street. Box her in, set up a detour sign, wait her out. If she was moving past the officer, which is how it looked to me, any danger he might have been in had passed. But I have not seen all angles. Maybe there was a different officer in front of her. But does anything about this woman suggest she would actually try to run him over? It doesn't add up. Shooting at a fleeing vehicle is perfectly fine with many Trump voters but there are very good reasons not to do it in the middle of a city even if the driver is a wanted criminal. There are other options.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Additionally not a peep from you or anyone else trying to understand the events preceding the shooting
Click to expand...
Ill FTFY. I think it is relevant and an important consideration what she was doing there in the first place. She had a right to be there. She had a right to peacefully protest. She had a right to film. She was not impeding their movement. In fact, as I pointed out to you earlier, she verbally told to feel free to go around her vehicle. They had no authority to order her out of her car, because she was not a suspect and was not endangering anyone. *They* initiated the confrontation by surrounding her vehicle and cursing at her to get out of the car. At that point, any reasonable person in her position would have been terrified. All the arm chair analysts saying 'she should have complied' are not factoring in the fact that she might have been in fear of her own life at that point. I'm sure she is aware of plenty of precedents where innocent people have been attacked and beaten by 'law enforcement' officers.

I just read @JayUtah's comment and he sums up my response pretty succinctly, so I'll keep the rest brief.
Grizzly Bear said:
She obviously agitated the situation enough for them to stop and and order her out of the vehicle.
Click to expand...
It aint obvious to me. Maybe they just were annoyed that she was partly blocking their path and decided to teach her a lesson. Maybe they enjoy abusing their power. As Jay points out, it is all rather irrelevant to the decision to shoot her in the face, but if you want to blame the victim, I'm willing to entertain you.
Grizzly Bear said:
Whether she intended to run that agent over - or not
Click to expand...
Do you seriously think she did? Posing the question implies you do. If so, seems odd that she was backing up when the agent was in front of her car, and only moved forward after he was clear of the front.
Grizzly Bear said:
She could have chosen to protest like other people did from a safe position
Click to expand...
It's kind of our point that when you can get shot in the face for no legal reason, there *is* no safe position. The intimidation is meant to silence any protest or dissent. That is how fascist goons operate.
 
Minoosh said:
...
The same officer was dragged was 100 yards after getting his arm stuck in a window. According to the AP he put his arm in a moving vehicle. Even if the cause is righteous, the tactics seem to suck.
...
Click to expand...
I read that somewhere too. If (and that's a tall order) this guy is charged, you can nearly guarantee that the pleaded mitigating circumstance will be PTSD from this previous incident.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Your comment suggests that what happened is limited to the short video of the confrontation., and. you're implying that I am not allowed (or I am somehow irrational or bigoted - choose your term) to point out that she chose to protest ICE's activity by actively and directly becoming confrontational with them. She obviously agitated the situation enough for them to stop and and order her out of the vehicle. She not only refused to do so, she then pressed the gas to accelerate her vehicle in a manner that could have not only put the agents at risk, but also other protestors in the surroundings.
Click to expand...
No, she didn't. No, they weren't.
Grizzly Bear said:
Whether she intended to run that agent over - or not. Her decision to gun that vehicle lead to someone else having to make split-second decision. You can try to guilt trip me day in and day out about how I'm blaming the victim, but clearly you believe actions don't have consequences. I do. That doesn't mean I think she deserved her fate, but I'm not going to pussy foot around because you want me to be politically correct. End of story.
Click to expand...
So did she deserve to get a three-tap to the head for whatever she did? Was she armed? Was she swinging a samurai katana? Did she throw a grenade at someone? In what rational world was a drawn gun even necessary in this case, let alone a shooting? The obvious best solution for the ICE droogs would have been to keep out of the way of the vehicle, take note of her license plate, and then charge her later. No shots, no death, no bad publicity, etc. The worst possible solution? You saw it happen.
Grizzly Bear said:
And I have explained to you that repeatedly that you're argument is unconvincing because you think accountability for actions is a one-way street. Additionally not a peep from you or anyone else trying to understand the events preceding the shooting. The bottom line is her death was preventable. She could have chosen to protest like other people did from a safe position without directly putting herself at risk. If she had opted for that route, we would not be quipping about this. But it's your rationalization that every ICE agent is a neo-nazi that gets you here.
Click to expand...
How far away should she have protested? Over the road? Next block? Out of gunshot range?
 
Grizzly whines we say he is blaming the victim, then posts entire paragraphs about everything she did "wrong", effectively dismissing anything about the agent who violated multiple regulations put in place to avoid situations exactly like this one!

Grizzly gives a ton of leeway to this 47-day wonder yet demands we scrutinize every single motion the victim made.
 
Minoosh said:
The same officer was dragged was 100 yards after getting his arm stuck in a window. According to the AP he put his arm in a moving vehicle. Even if the cause is righteous, the tactics seem to suck.
Click to expand...
If that's true, then the takeaway is that this officer has demonstrated a pattern of unsafe tactical law enforcement conduct around moving vehicles. My spouse is a criminal defense attorney and I'm credentialed in photographic analysis. I can't tell you how many body cam clips we've gone through frame by frame and how many times we've consulted academy training manuals and departmental policy directives to evaluate officer performance. You never reach through the window into a vehicle, moving or otherwise. One of the reasons you don't do it is exactly the risk of being dragged.

So here we have an officer who apparently violated a bedrock rule of engagement when dealing with suspects in cars, and then went on to ignore similar rules of engagement directing his positioning with respect to a moving vehicle. "Oh dear, he was dragged in a previous stop," isn't the flex it's made out to be. It's pretty good evidence that this officer was inadequately trained and incompetent to conduct traffic-involved operations. But according to some here, it's all just sadder-but-wiser hindsight. Maybe on his third time out he'll have enough composure not to shoot people in the face.

Minoosh said:
Shooting at a fleeing vehicle is perfectly fine with many Trump voters but there are very good reasons not to do it in the middle of a city even if the driver is a wanted criminal. There are other options.
Click to expand...
According to some in this thread, a driver intending to use a vehicle as a weapon must be stopped before they can cause injury to officers and bystanders, with deadly force if desired. But the reality is that stopping the driver does not stop the car. What we saw in this situation is exactly what happens when a driver becomes incapacitated for any reason including being shot—the SUV accelerated rapidly, out of control, and impacted two parked cars at relatively high speed. What if it had plowed into a group of bystanders with no possibility of being brought under control? This rather obvious danger is why the rules of engagement forbid using deadly force against a vehicle driver. It's almost as if they were written with the benefit of hindsight from similar situations.
 
Again with the sides .. she either tried to run the guy over or not. Doesn't matter who is on what side. Doesn't even matter is he was an ICE or not.
IMHO self defense in case she did tried to run him over is justified, even in case it would be ineffective. That's not up to the defending party. The possibility of misjudging the intent is up to the defending party though.
 
well i think it also matters that they were federal agents violating her civil rights as the cause of the incident. unless something changed and cops can just run up to people and pull them out of cars like psychos whenver they feel like it and everyone is supposed to not do whatever thing it is that well set off their hair triggers
 
dirtywick said:
well i think it also matters that they were federal agents violating her civil rights as the cause of the incident. unless something changed and cops can just run up to people and pull them out of cars like psychos whenver they feel like it and everyone is supposed to not do whatever thing it is that well set off their hair triggers
Click to expand...
Sure.
 
alright, and so i think it follows that it's not really fair that those agents should be allowed to shoot people for making an officer feel threatened trying to escape being terrorized by that officer.

and that seems like basically what happened.
 
I sincerely believe that incidents like these (and those soon to come) will cause a violent backlash to ICE, DHS, et al. Not the fake attacks they use to justify their unjustified use of force, but violent possibly deadly attacks. Not too bright.
 
Question: What in hell is all this uproar about illegals supposed to be about? As long as
I can remember, and I'm three days older than the Battle of Midway, racist futher
muckers have been harrumphing about the wetback problem. And it never makes
a diddly damn bit of difference. Latinos crossing the wire to work in the USA
are a pissant-scale problem, old, stale stuff that isn't worth anybody's time.

Answer: Hitler spoiled the Jews. Donnie Dumfuggg can't use them. But, aha!
God gave Donnie Mexicans! Greasers! Taco benders with Indian cheekbones!
You can spot 'em by their looks! Their names are a giveaway too, like Meier
or Weingarten or Orlonoff!

So hooray! Donnie's got an Other to criminalize! Now he can recruit the
homegrown Schweinschützen to go after them, thrilling his mudsill minions
with their brutality, and freeing the worst of the worst to do his will.

His will. And the will of the old-fashioned hate guard, who always hope for a
chance like this: a deranged fool armed with immense power, and controlled by
his whisperers.

I can picture Stinky Miller watching it all expand on his laptop,
one hand busy busy busy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom