• 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

Jack by the hedge said:
This is what makes me want to know what his boss did after he screwed up and got injured the previous time. What resulted from that? What remedial training did he receive regarding the safety rules he broke? Who judged him fit to return to his duties as an angry reckless heavy, facing the public with a gun and a chip on his shoulder?
Click to expand...
They told him to be sure to video all his interactions.
 
Someone just pointed out something I hadn't noticed earlier. The video from Ross's phone shows him switching his phone from his right hand to his left, just before he circles around the front of the car for the second and final time. That's why the image gets jerky and we hear an audible clunk. It's because he reaches out to push her car with his left hand, which is now holding his phone. He is clearly right handed. He does this as Good's wife is taunting him as he passes her. It sure as hell looks like he was deliberately freeing his right hand to draw his weapon, which would show some premeditation on his part. It sure looks like the big, tough alpha male was so intimidated by being teased by a smaller, unarmed woman that he made ready to draw his sidearm in response. Typical authoritarian bully coward. And it may be that placing himself in front of the car wasn't so much the result of poor training and stupidity, but rather to dare her into giving him as excuse to shoot.
 
gabeygoat said:
I guess this means Obama was far more effective without terrorizing people and neighborhoods and using state violence for less money then Trump
Click to expand...
Going by the logic of people here. I agree that Obama was far more effective at separating families and putting immigrants in cages without agitators placing road blocks in front of his administration's practices. He had no need for ICE to do anything because the states that now have sanctuary policies in 2026 did not feel such policies were necessary as long as it was their POTUS in power from 2008 through 2016. And likewise... people did not feel compelled to protest or actively instigate, agitate, or block enforcement of his deportation policies
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Hey there, Lyons! Your boys have to sleep sometime, don't they. Chances are, some of them might be arrested in their beds.

Also, nobody should be feeding or boarding your boys either. They can sleep cold and starving in the snow for a few weeks. Shoot that, mofo!
Click to expand...
I am sorry to report that the Sheriff's department in Philadelphia isn't arresting anyone. Their department runs the jail, transfers prisoners, and does forclosures. The Sheriff's statement was bold and all but the most it means is that ICE won't be able to use Philly jails. They might be able to arrest ICE agents trying to nab people in court but even that is probably more of a "can legally detain them, but need the police to actually arrest them."

The PPD is part of the Police Union who are happily supporting Trump's goons.
 
EHocking said:
Hopefully someone will challenge this in a court of law (cant depend on Congress or the Senate).
Click to expand...
It has already been challenged and struck down: Neguse et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al. Sec. Noem is simply defying the court as well as Congress. She has tried this before, and doesn't care.
 
stanfr said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll also keep this brief since we can't really progress on this until you correct the error in your foundational argument that this qualified as a straight up execution. That contention of yours is not grounded in reality.

She had the right to protest immigration policy and ICE enforcement as everyone else that disagrees with this does. She made the choice to directly insert herself by intervening in their enforcement, and as long as she understood she could be detained for doing so it was within her right to do her protest.

She only crossed the line when she committed a felony trying to evade detainment and being negligent about accelerating her vehicle while the involved ICE agent was maneuvering around it. That negligence created an alignment of circumstances where the ice agent was struck and made him believe his life was in danger and she got shot in perceived self defence - irrespective of her intent.

All of this is in the released videos. You should review them.

There can be a discussion as to the actual degree of threat to his life involved. But that's a luxury we only have granted through hindsight. There is ample precedent where hesitation gets officers killed and that hesitation only takes one second. You don't get to do in-depth rationalization when you have a two thousand pound vehicle driving in your direction.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
I'll also keep this brief since we can't really progress on this until you correct the error in your foundational argument that this qualified as a straight up execution. That contention of yours is not grounded in reality.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if you are upset by the choice of words. Does Murder sound better to you?
Grizzly Bear said:
intervening in their enforcement,
Click to expand...
And as I asked before, how was she intervening? That is the pretext to being ordered out of the car, right? So what did she do? She evidently wasn't blocking their way since the killer went right around her in his car.
Grizzly Bear said:
She only crossed the line when she committed a felony trying to evade detainment and being negligent about accelerating her vehicle while the involved ICE agent was maneuvering around it. That negligence created an alignment of circumstances where the ice agent was struck and made him believe his life was in danger and she got shot in perceived self defence - irrespective of her intent.
Click to expand...
No. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, He put himself in that position--violating DHS and law enforcement policy and training, by moving in front of the car. He was the negligent party. She was clearly just trying to get away.

But since you seem to be mildly interested in his motivations--which you seem to assume were out of fear, see @Foster Zygote post 3665 above.
Watch the video from the officer *himself* Pay close attention to the point where he switches his phone to his left from his right hand. That is when he decided deadly force may be necessary. Note that it occurs just as Good's wife goads him with some mild taunts. If you don't know any basic psychology, ask a psychologist why this likely triggered him to a high level of anger. I personally think it was the incidental contact he made with the vehicle (through his own negligence) that was the immediate trigger to the murder, but you can bet that if this ever went to trial, the prosecution would show that video and zero in on the moment he switched hands to be ready to shoot--because that goes to his motivation. If you can understand that, you will realize that your belief in his 'perceived' danger is ludicrous. Again, and for the upteempth time, he was on the side of the vehicle and in ZERO danger when he fired the fatal shots. It is not an ambiguous case!
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
I'm sorry if you are upset by the choice of words. Does Murder sound better to you?
Click to expand...
No need to apologize. You and others making a fallacious foundation argument isnt particularly offensive. It just prevents progress in the discussion.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
She only crossed the line when she committed a felony trying to evade detainment and being negligent about accelerating her vehicle while the involved ICE agent was maneuvering around it.
Click to expand...
No, that's not how it works.

Grizzly Bear said:
All of this is in the released videos. You should review them.
Click to expand...
I have. Further, I'm professionally qualified to do so.

Grizzly Bear said:
You don't get to do in-depth rationalization when you have a two thousand pound vehicle driving in your direction.
Click to expand...
The officer negligently placed himself in the path of the vehicle, in contravention of regulation. As much as you want to rationalize a panicky officer, he placed himself in an inherently hazardous position. The purported split-secondness was completely avoidable had he followed regulations. And he had a history of reckless tactics.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
No need to apologize. You and others making a fallacious foundation argument isnt particularly offensive. It just prevents progress in the discussion.
Click to expand...
So I'll advance the discussion by asking you a direct question, which you will avoid answering just as you did with my previous questions.
Did the officer have a self defense argument when he was clearly standing a couple feet perpendicular to the vehicle that was driving way from him, as he fired through the open window? Please respond and explain your reasoning.
 
I will reserven judgement as to what the ICE is guilty of until we have more proof. but i do this aggresive ICE deployment is just asking for incidents of this, and for no good reason.
 
dudalb said:
I will reserven judgement as to what the ICE is guilty of until we have more proof. but i do this aggresive ICE deployment is just asking for incidents of this, and for no good reason.
Click to expand...
The "good reason" is that they want to foment violence. They want the protestors to fight back, because that will justify bringing in jackbooted thugs and martial law, and that will allow them to impose their rule over the whole country.

It's all deliberate. The cruelty is the point.

It is to the credit of the American citizenry that they are refraining from violent response as much as they are, that they are protesting peacefully and in frog costumes, rather than with masks and molotov cocktails. It undermines their entire narrative of "violent antifa domestic terrorists".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom