6 ms·

Eh. No. The video suggests otherwise[1]. [1]https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1767848684973262.webm https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1767848684973262.webm

defrost 10mo ago
"The video" sounds authoritive. The video linked is to a 4chan hosted selective cut and edit with overlaid commentary of questionable authority. Full raw video starts earlier, the audio includes conflicting instructions, the car reverses and moves forwards all before the linked video begins. The LEO LARPer in front of the car is "in danger" as they moved there in order to shoot the driver. A trained response and recommended protocol would be to let the vehicle go .. as they earlier commanded as they apparently wanted the road cleared. In that context, it appear to be a clusterfuck by untrained clowns resulting in a citizens death.
- iugtmkbdfil834 10mo ago
  Full points for framing. No sale. I can give you it is a clusterfuck. As for untrained, well, I think based on the results, one could argue otherwise. I think I will stop responding and start heading to bed. This day sucks. Nevertheless, the conversation was interesting. Hope we can chat again at one point.
  - cthalupa 10mo ago
    The results quite explicitly show how lacking the training is for these ICE agents. It was unnecessary to shoot the woman even if doing so could potentially be a good way to stop someone that is driving towards you, but it also patently is not a good way as evidenced by the fact that doing it caused the car to accelerate significantly more than it ever did before she was shot, before it crashes into the parked cars. Many police departments have explicit policies here. The DOJ does: https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force#1-16.200 https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy... ICE is part of DHS, and DHS has policies as well, though not as explicit as the DOJ's: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/law-enforcement/mgmt-dir_044-05-department-policy-on-the-use-of-force.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/la... They're explicitly prohibited from using deadly force unless they reasonably believe their life is in danger or they are under threat of significant bodily harm, which is obviously not the case here. It's also explicitly prohibited to use it just because a subject is fleeing, unless they have reason to believe the subject fleeing will allow them to kill or significantly injure others - again, obviously not the case here. The ICE agent acted in a way that goes against DHS policy, against standard policy in general, and in a way that would have zero productive outcomes even ignoring the fact he murdered some poor lady.
    - iugtmkbdfil834 10mo ago
      << It was unnecessary to shoot the woman even if doing so could potentially be a good way to stop someone that is driving towards you Full disclosure. I have/had some cops in my extended family so I might come across as biased. If someone is driving towards you and there is an indication it may hurt you, all bets are off. It is a simple question of survival. Now, a lot will rest on that 'reasonably', but based on the video alone, it is not nearly as clear as some would have you believe that he could not reasonably believe that his life was in danger. You may disagree with it, but that is the current state. We can talk about adjusting the policy, but thats day after considerations.
      - cthalupa 10mo ago
        I disagree, and have direct personal experience in having cars moving towards me at that sort of range and that sort of speed. I was afraid I might get my foot run over or bashed about a bit, but it was plainly obvious to me, even in the moment, that unless I intentionally did something very stupid there was no risk of anything more than maybe a broken bone, and that even avoiding that would be trivial. But we can ignore that and work from the idea that he could reasonably fear for his life there. It doesn't matter. Because again: Shooting someone driving a car towards you at that distance makes you MORE LIKELY TO GET HIT. As evidenced by the fact the car wildly accelerates and is out of control after she is shot. It is one of the reasons that officers are often explicitly trained not to shoot at someone driving a car towards you at that sort of distance - because it isn't effective!
      - defrost 10mo ago
        My stance (and I have interacted with Commonwealth LEO's, lawyers, and prosecutors about this very question) is this was a failure of training and procedure. Forget this "last mile" analysis where you're looking at a crowd of agents about a car in slow motion and an officer standing in front with an already drawn weapon. Less than a minute earlier that vehicle was motionless and parked up. Everything that followed happened as a direct result of ICE agents acting as they acted. One of them yelled and screamed at the driver from the get go, attempted to reach in through the window to open the door and waved a weapon. Another put themselves in front of the vehicle and drew a weapon .. which likely wasn't seen by the driver as they were busy trying to reverse, turn, and get out of there .. it's entirely possible the first time they saw the shooter was an instant before the shot. As a reasonable good and honest citizen "on the Clapham omnibus" how would you react to people that beeline in on you in that manner? Do that repeatedly and events like this will occur with frequency. ICE is a clown show and politicised from the outset to maximise this kind of stupidity.
cthalupa 10mo ago
Nothing in that video, even if taken at face value, disagrees with a single point I made. The ICE agent is maybe pushed by a car moving at low speed. Maybe. He is still never in danger of losing his life or being seriously harmed. The car still accelerates more after he has shot the woman than it did before he shot her. Meanwhile taking that all at face value relies entirely on low res and heavily compressed video taken at a distance, vs. what we appear to see in the much closer, much higher res, much less compressed footage. We even see the officer after the shooting holster his weapon, calmly move around without any sign of injury, no limp, etc.
- iugtmkbdfil834 10mo ago
  << The ICE agent is maybe pushed by a car moving at low speed. Maybe. He is still never in danger of losing his life or being seriously harmed. The standard is whether the agent reasonably believes he is in danger. It is not based on whether the car is going too slow to cause damage based on an arm chair's expert claim online. Now, if you are saying there is nothing in that video that makes you question some of your assumptions, we can stop this conversation now. You are too motivated to make 'your side' win.
  - cthalupa 10mo ago
    He continues shooting after he is to the side of the car to the point he is shooting through the open driver window. He is to the side of the car. He is not in it's path even remotely while still shooting. Even if we assume the first shot was justified (which I disagree with but whatever, we're not going to change each other's minds) the remainder are not. Lethal force is not on the table for punitive actions. It is meant to be used as a preventative measure.
    - iugtmkbdfil834 10mo ago
      It is a more reasoned argument, which I can't automatically reject. I suspect I know what the defense here would be, but I guess we will learn that later on. It is still a little crazy to expect perfection with a moving target, but I am willing to accept it as a premise.
Hikikomori 10mo ago
Even the highly editorialzed says "cop dodges, fires". Then proceed to shoot two additional times through side window. Laughable.

defrost 10mo ago

"The video" sounds authoritive. The video linked is to a 4chan hosted selective cut and edit with overlaid commentary of questionable authority. Full raw video starts earlier, the audio includes conflicting instructions, the car reverses and moves forwards all before the linked video begins. The LEO LARPer in front of the car is "in danger" as they moved there in order to shoot the driver. A trained response and recommended protocol would be to let the vehicle go .. as they earlier commanded as they apparently wanted the road cleared. In that context, it appear to be a clusterfuck by untrained clowns resulting in a citizens death.

iugtmkbdfil834 10mo ago
Full points for framing. No sale. I can give you it is a clusterfuck. As for untrained, well, I think based on the results, one could argue otherwise. I think I will stop responding and start heading to bed. This day sucks. Nevertheless, the conversation was interesting. Hope we can chat again at one point.
- cthalupa 10mo ago
  The results quite explicitly show how lacking the training is for these ICE agents. It was unnecessary to shoot the woman even if doing so could potentially be a good way to stop someone that is driving towards you, but it also patently is not a good way as evidenced by the fact that doing it caused the car to accelerate significantly more than it ever did before she was shot, before it crashes into the parked cars. Many police departments have explicit policies here. The DOJ does: https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force#1-16.200 https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy... ICE is part of DHS, and DHS has policies as well, though not as explicit as the DOJ's: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/law-enforcement/mgmt-dir_044-05-department-policy-on-the-use-of-force.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/la... They're explicitly prohibited from using deadly force unless they reasonably believe their life is in danger or they are under threat of significant bodily harm, which is obviously not the case here. It's also explicitly prohibited to use it just because a subject is fleeing, unless they have reason to believe the subject fleeing will allow them to kill or significantly injure others - again, obviously not the case here. The ICE agent acted in a way that goes against DHS policy, against standard policy in general, and in a way that would have zero productive outcomes even ignoring the fact he murdered some poor lady.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 10mo ago
    << It was unnecessary to shoot the woman even if doing so could potentially be a good way to stop someone that is driving towards you Full disclosure. I have/had some cops in my extended family so I might come across as biased. If someone is driving towards you and there is an indication it may hurt you, all bets are off. It is a simple question of survival. Now, a lot will rest on that 'reasonably', but based on the video alone, it is not nearly as clear as some would have you believe that he could not reasonably believe that his life was in danger. You may disagree with it, but that is the current state. We can talk about adjusting the policy, but thats day after considerations.
    - cthalupa 10mo ago
      I disagree, and have direct personal experience in having cars moving towards me at that sort of range and that sort of speed. I was afraid I might get my foot run over or bashed about a bit, but it was plainly obvious to me, even in the moment, that unless I intentionally did something very stupid there was no risk of anything more than maybe a broken bone, and that even avoiding that would be trivial. But we can ignore that and work from the idea that he could reasonably fear for his life there. It doesn't matter. Because again: Shooting someone driving a car towards you at that distance makes you MORE LIKELY TO GET HIT. As evidenced by the fact the car wildly accelerates and is out of control after she is shot. It is one of the reasons that officers are often explicitly trained not to shoot at someone driving a car towards you at that sort of distance - because it isn't effective!
    - defrost 10mo ago
      My stance (and I have interacted with Commonwealth LEO's, lawyers, and prosecutors about this very question) is this was a failure of training and procedure. Forget this "last mile" analysis where you're looking at a crowd of agents about a car in slow motion and an officer standing in front with an already drawn weapon. Less than a minute earlier that vehicle was motionless and parked up. Everything that followed happened as a direct result of ICE agents acting as they acted. One of them yelled and screamed at the driver from the get go, attempted to reach in through the window to open the door and waved a weapon. Another put themselves in front of the vehicle and drew a weapon .. which likely wasn't seen by the driver as they were busy trying to reverse, turn, and get out of there .. it's entirely possible the first time they saw the shooter was an instant before the shot. As a reasonable good and honest citizen "on the Clapham omnibus" how would you react to people that beeline in on you in that manner? Do that repeatedly and events like this will occur with frequency. ICE is a clown show and politicised from the outset to maximise this kind of stupidity.

cthalupa 10mo ago

Nothing in that video, even if taken at face value, disagrees with a single point I made. The ICE agent is maybe pushed by a car moving at low speed. Maybe. He is still never in danger of losing his life or being seriously harmed. The car still accelerates more after he has shot the woman than it did before he shot her. Meanwhile taking that all at face value relies entirely on low res and heavily compressed video taken at a distance, vs. what we appear to see in the much closer, much higher res, much less compressed footage. We even see the officer after the shooting holster his weapon, calmly move around without any sign of injury, no limp, etc.

iugtmkbdfil834 10mo ago
<< The ICE agent is maybe pushed by a car moving at low speed. Maybe. He is still never in danger of losing his life or being seriously harmed. The standard is whether the agent reasonably believes he is in danger. It is not based on whether the car is going too slow to cause damage based on an arm chair's expert claim online. Now, if you are saying there is nothing in that video that makes you question some of your assumptions, we can stop this conversation now. You are too motivated to make 'your side' win.
- cthalupa 10mo ago
  He continues shooting after he is to the side of the car to the point he is shooting through the open driver window. He is to the side of the car. He is not in it's path even remotely while still shooting. Even if we assume the first shot was justified (which I disagree with but whatever, we're not going to change each other's minds) the remainder are not. Lethal force is not on the table for punitive actions. It is meant to be used as a preventative measure.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 10mo ago
    It is a more reasoned argument, which I can't automatically reject. I suspect I know what the defense here would be, but I guess we will learn that later on. It is still a little crazy to expect perfection with a moving target, but I am willing to accept it as a premise.

Hikikomori 10mo ago

Even the highly editorialzed says "cop dodges, fires". Then proceed to shoot two additional times through side window. Laughable.