4 ms·

It gets quite clear, when you change the setup a little bit. 1) Make the PO a regular human without a gun and you can imagine, that any normal person would hav

It gets quite clear, when you change the setup a little bit. 1) Make the PO a regular human without a gun and you can imagine, that any normal person would have made just a quick sidestep to avoid collision, like most of us have experienced in person too. Use of force was totally unjustified, esp. when you combine it with: 2) Change the intetion of the driver to really want to harm the person ~2m in front of the car. Cop get trained, that you should not use your gun on close encounters with knives, bc the short distance <5m will give you not enogh time to stop a knive attacker reliably. If you stand that close infront of a car, a short but strong tab of the pedal would have been enough to get you, no matter how fast you draw your gun or how good your aim is. To me, it is clear that she never ment to hit anybody, the acceleration does not indicate it. It is _very_ obvious. 2/3 shots hit the side of the car and the front wheel _never_ pointed at the PO.

bananabiscuit 10mo ago
the front wheel never pointed at the PO. My whole point is that this isn’t true. Look at the first video I linked, in the first couple of seconds, the cop is in front of the bumper, the cars wheels are still pointing slightly to the left, on their way to center, as she guns the engine. The loss of traction on the icy road is the only reason the PO had a chance to jump out of the way (but apparently by the NYT analysis, he might have been still hit). And at this point he is correct to think the driver is dangerous and might harm somebody.
- _DeadFred_ 10mo ago
  ICE has routinely done this to protestors, on film. Are you saying those occurrences were attempted murder and ICE should be prosecuted? If it's an offense worthy of a mother being murdered and a child orphaned, extrajudicially on the street, then surely the much lighter sentence of imprisonment for attempted murder by ICE officers would be called for, all things being the same, correct? At the least they should be tried and taken to court, wouldn't you agree?
  - bananabiscuit 10mo ago
    I have only looked at this incident closely. If in other incidents ICE agents ran down civilians, yes, of course they should be taken to trial.
    - fzeroracer 10mo ago
      There was another incident last month in Minneapolis where ICE ran down a citizen with their car [1]. Do you agree that the appropriate response in that situation would be to respond with lethal force in accordance with your previous stances here? Now, why do you think ICE agents are not being taken to trial? Why do you think the federal government is doing all that they can to protect them? And why are you, specifically, working overtime to give them the benefit of the doubt? [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Watch/comments/1pjye82/ice_agents_in_minneapolis_mn_hit_a_community/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Watch/comments/1pjye82/ice_agen...
- throwawayqqq11 10mo ago
  And my point is, apply regular human behavior to the scene. Drivers know the ground they are on and the acceleration curves of their cars. Arguing over split seconds to derive a malicious intention of the driver is cherry picking. We all know those near collisions we dodged closely from own experiences, thats why its so easy for us to imagine such an outcome in that video, which was prob her expectation too.
  - bananabiscuit 10mo ago
    Alright, at the very least, can we admit that there is an argument to be made here? The innocence or guilt of the officer does seem to hinge on some fine details, I’m just surprised that anybody is already claiming with certainty that this is or isn’t murder.
    - throwawayqqq11 10mo ago
      Its messy for sure. POs are allowed to use force to stop violent/aggressive suspects in cars, so he might get cleared of the coming murder charge. We will see. The bigger picture isnt messy at all though. Deescalation is usually the way to go with protestors because they usually dont have harmful intent. This intention seems to be completely missing, from the exexutive layer down to officers in the streets.
      - metaphysicalyes 10mo ago
        It is incomprehensible to me how the 2nd and 3rd shot from side window would not count as murder. A neighborhood isn't war zone where a sign of disobedience is a fair kill. Blasphemy of 1st amendment.
mindslight 10mo ago
Focusing on the minutiae of how the victim reacted when she was already well into fight-or-flight mode is a red herring. Real police officers [0] are trained to deescalate situations. Because needlessly turning up the heat results in very bad outcomes for everyone involved. Meanwhile, these ICE "officers" aggressively created and violently escalated a situation arising from a traffic infraction at best [1]. They didn't even follow their own procedures, crafted not out of any type of restraint with concern for the public, but merely pragmatism whereby shooting someone does not stop a moving vehicle. Thus, responsibility for how the victim reacted in her moments of panicked terror rests completely on them - and it's perfectly understandable that when a bunch of masked armed thugs are trying to carjack you, the natural response is trying to get out of there as quick as possible regardless of if that means hitting any of the attackers. [0] as much as they themselves are statistically quite trigger-happy and are often criticized by actual soldiers who are used to stricter rules of engagement, [1] ignoring the equity of a citizen exercising her natural right to observe and document the activities of her government, and the fact that ICE has no mandate to police traffic infractions
- bananabiscuit 10mo ago
  I would agree with this more if Renee was just a random person that ICE decided to give a hard time. But in this case, it was her decision to become involved and attempt to obstruct the officers from doing the job they explicitly have the authority to do [1]. Also in this case Renee is the one who made the first life threatening action. The fight-or-flight situation is her own doing. People should protest but there are clearly very stupid ways of going about it. [1] the streets are not the place to decide whether that authority is legitimate, ethical, moral, etc.
  - mindslight 10mo ago
    Can you elaborate on specifically what she did to "attempt to obstruct the officers", ideally with a source that isn't just hearsay or seemingly outright fabrication (eg the administration) ? Everything I've seen starts off with a description of her "blocking" one lane of a two lane street, which is a perfectly normal activity in city traffic for a multitude of purposes. And those purposes would certainly include filming or observing the activities of government agents. I've avoided watching the videos because frankly I've got more pressing things I need to get done rather than frying my nerves for several hours from watching someone get assaulted and murdered. I'm open to the idea that the media hides inconvenient details, but it's an awfully large distance to clear to go from something that sounds like civil Constitutionally-protected observation and criticism of government agents, to she was actively physically obstructing them. So I'm skeptical of such claims, especially given this administration's tendency to disingenuously characterize things like mere filming as a type of obstruction. (also please elaborate on what you mean by "the first life threatening action". Did she do something violent before the masked, armed, and aggressive gang (with no lawful jurisdiction over US citizens) surrounded her and attacked her car?)
zahlman 9mo ago
> Use of force was totally unjustified, esp. when you combine it with: Change the intetion of the driver to really want to harm the person ~2m in front of the car. Such intent is not legally relevant and the legal standard for use of force here is simply not what you appear to think it is. Please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 . > Cop get trained, that you should not use your gun on close encounters with knives, bc the short distance <5m will give you not enogh time to stop a knive attacker reliably. No, the point of the training is not "don't use the gun in close quarters". They are trained to not fuck around, and to shoot while they have the chance at range; and to not approach the person who brandishes a knife. But "not approaching the person who brandishes an SUV" is unreasonable. By this standard, pedestrian crossings would be impossible. And in fact he was not "standing" in front of the SUV. He was in the process of circling back around it, while reasonably expecting the car to remain put, while regrouping with his allies as they demanded Good exit the vehicle. > It is _very_ obvious. 2/3 shots hit the side of the car This is also explained by the fact that the car is moving and turning such that the side of the car would face the gun. It does not in any way suggest malicious intent. The timing of the gunshots makes it clear that the officer fired three rounds continuously, most likely on instinct from training for that exact sort of firing pattern. There is enough time for the car to turn slightly (simply from the gun's mechanics), but not enough to allow for any kind of premeditation or even really conscious thought. > the front wheel _never_ pointed at the PO. I do not understand how it's possible to watch the video and come to this conclusion in good faith. Of course, this does not mean that the wheel orientation was deliberate. But if the wheel "never pointed" that way and then continued to turn further right, the officer could not plausibly have been struck. Multiple videos make it abundantly clear that he was struck, and required considerable time (I would say more than a full second) to regain his balance.

bananabiscuit 10mo ago

the front wheel never pointed at the PO. My whole point is that this isn’t true. Look at the first video I linked, in the first couple of seconds, the cop is in front of the bumper, the cars wheels are still pointing slightly to the left, on their way to center, as she guns the engine. The loss of traction on the icy road is the only reason the PO had a chance to jump out of the way (but apparently by the NYT analysis, he might have been still hit). And at this point he is correct to think the driver is dangerous and might harm somebody.

_DeadFred_ 10mo ago
ICE has routinely done this to protestors, on film. Are you saying those occurrences were attempted murder and ICE should be prosecuted? If it's an offense worthy of a mother being murdered and a child orphaned, extrajudicially on the street, then surely the much lighter sentence of imprisonment for attempted murder by ICE officers would be called for, all things being the same, correct? At the least they should be tried and taken to court, wouldn't you agree?
- bananabiscuit 10mo ago
  I have only looked at this incident closely. If in other incidents ICE agents ran down civilians, yes, of course they should be taken to trial.
  - fzeroracer 10mo ago
    There was another incident last month in Minneapolis where ICE ran down a citizen with their car [1]. Do you agree that the appropriate response in that situation would be to respond with lethal force in accordance with your previous stances here? Now, why do you think ICE agents are not being taken to trial? Why do you think the federal government is doing all that they can to protect them? And why are you, specifically, working overtime to give them the benefit of the doubt? [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Watch/comments/1pjye82/ice_agents_in_minneapolis_mn_hit_a_community/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Watch/comments/1pjye82/ice_agen...
throwawayqqq11 10mo ago
And my point is, apply regular human behavior to the scene. Drivers know the ground they are on and the acceleration curves of their cars. Arguing over split seconds to derive a malicious intention of the driver is cherry picking. We all know those near collisions we dodged closely from own experiences, thats why its so easy for us to imagine such an outcome in that video, which was prob her expectation too.
- bananabiscuit 10mo ago
  Alright, at the very least, can we admit that there is an argument to be made here? The innocence or guilt of the officer does seem to hinge on some fine details, I’m just surprised that anybody is already claiming with certainty that this is or isn’t murder.
  - throwawayqqq11 10mo ago
    Its messy for sure. POs are allowed to use force to stop violent/aggressive suspects in cars, so he might get cleared of the coming murder charge. We will see. The bigger picture isnt messy at all though. Deescalation is usually the way to go with protestors because they usually dont have harmful intent. This intention seems to be completely missing, from the exexutive layer down to officers in the streets.
    - metaphysicalyes 10mo ago
      It is incomprehensible to me how the 2nd and 3rd shot from side window would not count as murder. A neighborhood isn't war zone where a sign of disobedience is a fair kill. Blasphemy of 1st amendment.

mindslight 10mo ago

Focusing on the minutiae of how the victim reacted when she was already well into fight-or-flight mode is a red herring. Real police officers [0] are trained to deescalate situations. Because needlessly turning up the heat results in very bad outcomes for everyone involved. Meanwhile, these ICE "officers" aggressively created and violently escalated a situation arising from a traffic infraction at best [1]. They didn't even follow their own procedures, crafted not out of any type of restraint with concern for the public, but merely pragmatism whereby shooting someone does not stop a moving vehicle. Thus, responsibility for how the victim reacted in her moments of panicked terror rests completely on them - and it's perfectly understandable that when a bunch of masked armed thugs are trying to carjack you, the natural response is trying to get out of there as quick as possible regardless of if that means hitting any of the attackers. [0] as much as they themselves are statistically quite trigger-happy and are often criticized by actual soldiers who are used to stricter rules of engagement, [1] ignoring the equity of a citizen exercising her natural right to observe and document the activities of her government, and the fact that ICE has no mandate to police traffic infractions

bananabiscuit 10mo ago
I would agree with this more if Renee was just a random person that ICE decided to give a hard time. But in this case, it was her decision to become involved and attempt to obstruct the officers from doing the job they explicitly have the authority to do [1]. Also in this case Renee is the one who made the first life threatening action. The fight-or-flight situation is her own doing. People should protest but there are clearly very stupid ways of going about it. [1] the streets are not the place to decide whether that authority is legitimate, ethical, moral, etc.
- mindslight 10mo ago
  Can you elaborate on specifically what she did to "attempt to obstruct the officers", ideally with a source that isn't just hearsay or seemingly outright fabrication (eg the administration) ? Everything I've seen starts off with a description of her "blocking" one lane of a two lane street, which is a perfectly normal activity in city traffic for a multitude of purposes. And those purposes would certainly include filming or observing the activities of government agents. I've avoided watching the videos because frankly I've got more pressing things I need to get done rather than frying my nerves for several hours from watching someone get assaulted and murdered. I'm open to the idea that the media hides inconvenient details, but it's an awfully large distance to clear to go from something that sounds like civil Constitutionally-protected observation and criticism of government agents, to she was actively physically obstructing them. So I'm skeptical of such claims, especially given this administration's tendency to disingenuously characterize things like mere filming as a type of obstruction. (also please elaborate on what you mean by "the first life threatening action". Did she do something violent before the masked, armed, and aggressive gang (with no lawful jurisdiction over US citizens) surrounded her and attacked her car?)

zahlman 9mo ago

> Use of force was totally unjustified, esp. when you combine it with: Change the intetion of the driver to really want to harm the person ~2m in front of the car. Such intent is not legally relevant and the legal standard for use of force here is simply not what you appear to think it is. Please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 . > Cop get trained, that you should not use your gun on close encounters with knives, bc the short distance <5m will give you not enogh time to stop a knive attacker reliably. No, the point of the training is not "don't use the gun in close quarters". They are trained to not fuck around, and to shoot while they have the chance at range; and to not approach the person who brandishes a knife. But "not approaching the person who brandishes an SUV" is unreasonable. By this standard, pedestrian crossings would be impossible. And in fact he was not "standing" in front of the SUV. He was in the process of circling back around it, while reasonably expecting the car to remain put, while regrouping with his allies as they demanded Good exit the vehicle. > It is _very_ obvious. 2/3 shots hit the side of the car This is also explained by the fact that the car is moving and turning such that the side of the car would face the gun. It does not in any way suggest malicious intent. The timing of the gunshots makes it clear that the officer fired three rounds continuously, most likely on instinct from training for that exact sort of firing pattern. There is enough time for the car to turn slightly (simply from the gun's mechanics), but not enough to allow for any kind of premeditation or even really conscious thought. > the front wheel _never_ pointed at the PO. I do not understand how it's possible to watch the video and come to this conclusion in good faith. Of course, this does not mean that the wheel orientation was deliberate. But if the wheel "never pointed" that way and then continued to turn further right, the officer could not plausibly have been struck. Multiple videos make it abundantly clear that he was struck, and required considerable time (I would say more than a full second) to regain his balance.