8 ms·
Video filmed by ICE agent who shot Minneapolis woman emerges
- kccoder 10mo agoPeople with this level of lack of constraint and trigger-happiness shouldn't possess firearms or the authority to interact with society in a law-enforcement (or immigration) capacity.
- jennyholzer4 10mo ago[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 10mo agoThese are strong feelings. I can appreciate strong feelings. I would also keep in mind that there are only 20k to 30k total ICE agents in the entire country (as of this comment). The federal government may not rein them in, but there are enough other humans on US soil to do so. They can also be pursued for the rest of their lives using documentation and evidence after this administration ends, so collecting and preserving that historical record will be important and relevant work. In the interim, protect yourself and your community.
- mothballed 10mo agoTrump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court. Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi). The only chance any of them see justice is if the US is invaded. Even in a Nazi/SS scenario, only about 0.03% of the SS were convicted and very few of those the rank and file are analogous to the ICE on the street. If you mean extra-judicial punishment, then the chance of that is also zero. The bravest we have representing us is on the street, and even of those all they did was shout "murderer" then back off and let their friend bleed out when the police said they were not allowed to render aid. So basically it is safe to say of those of us speaking who were not on the street already, that we would do even less than that. Best case scenario is the people vote "lets not do that again" and we actually don't. But in no case do the murderers actually find accountability.
- dragonwriter 10mo ago> Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court. Removal doesn't change the substantive law applied, only the venue of the trial. Supremacy Clause immunity will be litigated, of course. > Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi). The majority of the delay in the Horiuchi case was the 5 year gap between the events and state charges being filed. If state charges are filed in this case, I don’t see much likelihood there will be that kind of delay first.
- mothballed 10mo ago>only the venue of the trial. The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem. IANAL but I don't see why a federal pardon wouldn't be binding on a federal court when the pardon is for the exact thing being considered (or possibly, a la Hunter Biden, pardoned of everything a federal criminal court could ever consider).
- bbatsell 10mo agoThe president can only pardon crimes against the United States. Even if removed to federal court, state charges remain state charges and the judge & jury must follow state laws. Only the venue changes, with the intent being that the federal judge will potentially serve as a more neutral arbiter.
- mothballed 10mo agoHmm... this is far outside my domain but apparently there has been no litigation deciding on this yet[]. While no court has conclusively decided this issue, precedent and the structure of the Constitution dictate that answer is “no.” The availability of an immunity defense arising under federal law does not change which sovereign is prosecuting the offense. The president may not pardon such offenses even when they have been removed to federal court. This stands in sharp contrast to convictions under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, which allows federal courts to incorporate state criminal law to cover acts committed on federal land not otherwise covered by federal law (for example, a domestic assault that takes place on a military base), and which may be pardoned by the president. Those are federal offenses—“against the United States”—because the federal statute borrows the law of the state surrounding the federal enclave, and they are prosecuted by the Justice Department. The charging documents themselves arise under federal law for purposes of Article III. Your and their argument is compelling, but so is the counter argument IMO. Seems like something that might be tested at some point. If you have any further citations where a court has decided on this would love to look over it. [] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/state-prosecutions-of-federal-agents-and-the-presidential-pardon-power https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/state-prosecutions-of-f...
- the_doctah 10mo ago[flagged]
- goatlover 10mo agoDude put himself in front of the vehicle which is contrary to LE training. Then he fired three times, twice on the side for good measure. It was clear she had backed up to leave after another agent grabbed her door and was reaching into the vehicle. Contrary directions were yelled at her. ICE has no business enforcing traffic laws on citizens.
- yongjik 10mo ago[flagged]
- esseph 10mo agoVouching for your statement here just so I can call this cop a fearful loser. I am a combat veteran who served during GWOT. This guy should be stripped of all pay and rank, and barred from any police department in the US. His inability to control his own fear got someone killed. He is solely responsible for a death and wrecklessly endangering others. The passengers in the car should also be able to sue him until he is penniless. The state should go after him for wrongful death. Fuck that guy. And that's VAST majority of these fucking idiots.
- blactuary 10mo agoAbsolute nonsense And if it were true that he was at risk of being hurt by the car, shooting the driver would be the last thing to do. Look what happened when he shot her, she lost control, accelerated, and ran into a parked car
- wrs 10mo agoNor should the people who hired them.
- closingreunion 10mo agoThe agent was according to VP "traumatized" from an earlier event, yet was on the street with a firearm.
- amelius 10mo agoSounds like a more systemic problem then.
- prodigycorp 10mo agoAnd the thing is that if the agent is putting himself in situations where he's getting dragged by cars, there's clearly an issue with training.
- 0xy 10mo ago[flagged]
- tomlockwood 10mo agoIn no way is this "towards" anyone.
- 0xy 10mo ago[flagged]
- tomlockwood 10mo agoDoesn't contradict what I said at all. You think she was aiming at this chump?
- Timshel 10mo ago? in the second video and others you can see the car never hit him ...
- 0xy 10mo agohttps://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/experts-analyze-new-video-fatal-ice-shooting-minneapolis/ https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/experts-analyze-new-v... >Johnson said his biggest takeaway from the video was a crunching sound he heard immediately before the gunshots, which he believes is the sound of the SUV hitting the ICE agent. >"That data point for me shows that there was contact made with the agent, who is now in reasonable fear, who could clearly articulate being hit with an SUV as reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. And then the shots were fired," said Johnson.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- 10mo ago
- antonymoose 10mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- PlunderBunny 10mo agoNot judging your reply, but my understanding of the meaning of the word ‘trigger happy’ is that the shooter is too hasty in deciding to fire, and has nothing to do with their skill or accuracy.
- antonymoose 10mo ago[flagged]
- muwtyhg 10mo agoSo if a cop fires a single shot into a suspects head because the suspect hiccuped, is the cop not being "trigger happy" because he didn't magdump?
- antonymoose 10mo agoA vehicle is a deadly weapon. A hiccup is not.
- muwtyhg 10mo agoI never mentioned a vehicle, let's stay with the hypothetical. Is the cop who fired a single shot into someones head because they were startled by a hiccup "trigger happy"? Or do they need to "mag dump" for the term to apply?
- goatlover 10mo agoThe car accelerated after she was shot and hit another parked car down the road. It could have been a bystander. It was an out of control vehicle, that's why LE is trained not to shoot a moving vehicle.
- WizardLicker 10mo ago[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 10mo agoThis is factually inaccurate based on all of the evidence that has been presented.
- ratrace 10mo ago[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 10mo agoThe video shows she turns the vehicle away from the officer and the officer makes no effort to retreat or step away from the vehicle. This is in direct conflict with ICE and DHS use of force policy. 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...
- ratrace 10mo agoHe was moving to assist with an arrest another officer was in the process of making, and it is clear in the video that she looked forward and saw the officer in front of her and decided to accelerate anyway. It doesn't matter if she thought she wouldn't have hit him if she turned hard enough to the right, she hit him anyway.
- toomuchtodo 10mo agoAgain, that is not what the evidence shows, and you are free to follow along as the officer is prosecuted for official confirmation of the facts of the case.
- ratrace 10mo ago
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- slg 10mo agoThe part that gets me is that even if you stipulate that this man’s life was in jeopardy and that the driver’s actions justify using lethal force (which I don’t agree with, but just go with me for a second), his actions clearly did not make himself or anyone else safer. Just look at what happened to the car after he shot her, it swerved off out of control and rammed another car. It should be obvious that a car without a driver is much more unpredictable and dangerous that a car with a driver, so how can you believe that killing the driver was the appropriate response. Even if you think he was justified in his use of force, everyone should be able to see that how he used force was at best inappropriate. Not being able to admit that is a sign that you’re letting your bias overrule what you’re seeing.
- hypeatei 10mo agoThe cruelty is the point. They want to appear like strong-men dealing with criminals and the base goes along with it. In reality, they're quite weak and know this is very unpopular so they've dedicated press conferences along with the VPs time and the President's time to calling the victim a domestic terrorist.
- jrs235 10mo agoThe Legal Concept: Barnes v. Felix (2025) This is the most critical recent "code" development. In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Barnes v. Felix that courts must look at the "totality of circumstances" leading up to a shooting. The Rule: If an officer recklessly steps in front of a vehicle (creating the danger themselves), a court can now rule that their subsequent use of force was unreasonable because they "precipitated" the threat. Impact: This case effectively ended the "moment of threat" defense, where officers used to argue, "It doesn't matter how I got in front of the car; I shot because it was about to hit me." Now, the law says: "If you put yourself there unnecessarily, you are liable."
- hckrnrd 10mo ago9-0 opinion [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf]
- the_doctah 10mo ago[flagged]
- muwtyhg 10mo agoYou mean the woman who was driving the car? I think we do take away the license of people shown unfit to drive, or with conditions that may cause their driving to hurt others (conditions that cause sudden loss of consciousness, confusion, etc). If the officer has PTSD from being dragged, he should not be given a gun and told to stop someone operating a car using his own body. Not to mention, do you think we hold our law enforcement to the same standard as our civilians? Do we expect more or less restraint from them in situations like this? Are they trained to handle these situations? If so, what failed in this instance?
- the_doctah 10mo ago[flagged]
- muwtyhg 10mo agoFemale is a word that can refer to any species. Woman is a human female. The use of "female" is often used to dehumanize the subject, and is almost never used consistently. I am guessing you do not, off the cuff, refer to men as "males". It sounds weird as hell. > Anyway, law enforcement is fully within their right to meet deadly force with deadly force Do you disagree that the driver had her wheels turned away from the officer who shot her?
- the_doctah 10mo ago[flagged]
- blactuary 10mo agoThere was no deadly force from the driver, you either haven't watched the video or you are incredibly dishonest
- _DeadFred_ 10mo agoHe hand switched at the 29sec mark freeing up his right weapon side hand. He was along the side of her vehicle at the time.
- duxup 10mo agoThey shouldn't, and shouldn't be given a job like that. But I think it's by design. Create confrontation so the administration can take further steps. A lot of these guys behave like they really want someone to provoke them so they can shoot someone ... even when they're not provoked: https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1q7u4kz/ice_agent_pulls_weapon_on_crowd_and_appears_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1q7u4kz/ice_agen... https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q7y43s/cbp_points_gun_directly_at_protesters_head/ https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q7y43s/cbp_poin... These are the folks this administration want out there, to distract folks, fracture country, all of the above probably.
- like_any_other 10mo ago[flagged]
- duxup 10mo agoDid you watch my links? Think they should be pointing their weapons at those people? You can make a list of your own gripes but that doesn’t justify those actions. No individual citizen should be subjected to that behavior or killed because someone has a list of scary news stories… Right and wrong didn’t change because you’re scared.
- like_any_other 10mo ago[flagged]
- mindslight 10mo agoIf you want to talk about "the rule of law" and not be a screaming hypocrite, you need to start with the highest law in the land which is the US Constitution. It has a few things to say about both the right of us citizens to criticize our government, and our right to not be violently assaulted and summarily executed by government tyrants. This is not surprising, as it was written in the aftermath of similar historical events which kicked off the founding of our country based around individual liberty and limited government. Perhaps try reading some history about our hard-won civil liberties instead of freebasing so much social media that you want to throw away what remains of those liberties just to spite your fellow citizens, whom social media has also made you hate.
- cmxch 10mo ago[flagged]
- tomlockwood 10mo agoICE agents should be tried in the Hague.
- jeroenhd 10mo agoThe Hague Invasion Act will put a stop to that pretty easily.
- like_any_other 10mo agoSee also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46559015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46559015
- Hikikomori 10mo ago"That's fine dude. I'm not mad at you." "Fucking bitch" And people here defend his actions as self defense. He was angry. He shot in anger. This is murder.
- newfriend 10mo ago[flagged]
- IshKebab 10mo agoShe clearly didn't. She was trying to leave.
- slowmovintarget 10mo ago[flagged]
- IshKebab 10mo agoThat doesn't make it ok to kill her. That's very very well established in law. If someone is fleeing you can't attack them.
- Freedom2 10mo agoApparently you can?
- drewbug01 10mo ago> you you can’t, they can. Important distinction.
- rationalist 10mo ago> That's very very well established in law. If someone is fleeing you can't attack them. FYI: Maybe in some jurisdictions within the United States, but not all.
- commandlinefan 10mo ago[flagged]
- jadamson 10mo agoIt very much is the same incident.
- commandlinefan 10mo agoApparently it is, my mistake. Surprisingly that the angle makes it appear so different.
- denom 10mo agoThe shooter’s final comment in that video I think accurately sums up his mental state: completely disconnected his actions.
- mekdoonggi 10mo agoImagine if Biden's Attorney General had gone on TV wearing a cowboy hat and said, "Derek Chauvin was acting in self defense" one hour after the video came out. What the admin is doing is treason.
- almosthere 10mo ago[flagged]
- bbatsell 10mo agoAbsolutely fascinating that this report is very detailed about _certain_ things... but edits the source video to fade out right at the relevant instant and then completely omits the fact that the agent called her a "fucking bitch" immediately after executing her. (The released source material is several seconds longer.) Edit at 21:29 UTC: BBC has edited the article to include the following line: "In the final part of the video the car is seen veering down the road. The ICE agent swears." Again, that "final part" has been edited out entirely. It shows that the agent was not affected by the SUV, and maintains his iPhone in his offhand recording the incident without issue. "The ICE agent swears." is used euphemistically to obfuscate what he actually did and said, which was to angrily call the victim a "fucking bitch".
- nilslindemann 10mo agohttps://www.facebook.com/reel/1821042778609819 https://www.facebook.com/reel/1821042778609819
- perihelions 10mo agoUnedited audio: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/minneapolis-mayor-demands-transparent-investigation-into-ice-shooting-protests-2026-01-09/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/minneapolis-mayor-d...
- lenkite 10mo agoGood freaking lord - the world has gone nuts.
- charcircuit 10mo ago[flagged]
- moralestapia 10mo agoI'm not from the US so I have to ask, Are ICE agents like police? In the sense that, can they detain someone they suspect of being a criminal, etc...?
- clot27 10mo agoThey can detain whoever they suspect of being illegal immigrant
- newfriend 10mo ago[flagged]
- mekdoonggi 10mo agoThey are armed like special police forces, acting on behalf of the administration, with no legal jurisdiction. They are like an occupying force. Our congress will not reign in the administration, and so we are being terrorized by our own government (that we also pay money to :))
- jaybrendansmith 10mo agoWe should all stop paying taxes at once.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- giardini 10mo agoThey do have jurisdiction: they are legally police officers who can enforce all laws: federal laws directly, state & local laws by arresting and passing detainees to state and local authorities.
- defrost 10mo agoFalse. They have limited police powers, particularly against actual citizens. ICE sees its mission as encompassing both public safety and national security. However, its powers are different than the average local police department in the US. Its agents have the power to stop, detain and arrest people they suspect of being in the US illegally. They can detain US citizens in limited circumstances, such as if a person interferes with an arrest, assaults an officer, or ICE suspect the person of being in the US illegally. Despite this, according to news organisation ProPublica, there were more than 170 incidents during the first nine months of Trump's presidency in which federal agents held US citizens against their will. See: https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-detained-against-will https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-... Again, consider becoming better informed.
- haunter 10mo ago[flagged]
- H8crilA 10mo agoThe community here doesn't want this post now, and it wouldn't want it 15 years ago. That doesn't mean the topic isn't important.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- SoftTalker 10mo agoI posted a comment on here and then deleted it when I considered the topic. From the guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities.... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. There are plenty of places online to discuss politics and current events and HN is intended to be something else.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo ago> There are plenty of places online to discuss politics and current events Where? I keep seeing this claim but I don't think it's accurate. Not trying to be snarky, but you might find that all of those places you would suggest are distinctly different from HN in a way that leaves HN frequenters wanting HN. (Though, maybe not; I am genuinely curious for any suggestions.) > HN is intended to be something else I don't really disagree but I also firmly believe that if the political situation in the US magically reverted back to ca. 2010, people wouldn't be posting an article reporting about another video that surfaced showing how a woman was extra-judicially executed by an ICE agent; it would be something like Obamacare Bad and it would get flagged because it's way more obviously partisan. The only reason this is considered "political" at all is that a certain politically partisan tribe in the US is trying desperately to paint the events as anything other than the factual statement that "a woman was extra-judicially executed by an ICE agent".
- JCattheATM 10mo ago
- blindriver 10mo ago[flagged]
- dayyan 10mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- fabian2k 10mo agoTaking a step to the side certainly is an "other objectively reasonable means of defense".
- JCattheATM 10mo agoOf course this is flagged lol
- jennyholzer6 10mo ago[flagged]
- JCattheATM 10mo agoOnly indirectly I think, not sure it makes it better, but it's a VC backed site where the dollar is king, overshadowing any and all moral concerns.
- wltr 10mo agoI’m not even surprised any more.
- newfriend 10mo ago[flagged]
- jennyholzer6 10mo ago[flagged]
- deckar01 10mo agoIt looks like he fell backwards, implying the car hit him, but the bodycam actually detached. Until another bodycam shows why it fell, the car either clipped his vest or he pulled it off while drawing his gun…
- fabian2k 10mo agoIt's not a bodycam, he had his smartphone in the hand and was filming with it.
- deckar01 10mo agoI see it in the reflection of the car now. He is holding a phone out in front. That makes it less clear how close his body actually was to the car.
- padjo 10mo agoShould be possible to give a good estimate if you know the camera configuration. Clearly the car didn’t hit him very hard if he’s still holding a phone in one hand afterwards. To me this video confirms that the story from the administration that he was run over and hospitalised is nonsense. It also confirms that the couple were being confrontational and obstructionist, but I still don’t think that’s a reason for her to die. A rational organisation would reflect and ask how this sort of scenario can be handled better in future, but that doesn’t seem likely here.
- blindriver 10mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- joeyh 10mo agoThis video has been edited at 0:42, likely removing something from it. Source: CBC analyst
- defrost 10mo agoThat was very much my initial reaction. ( I'm outside the US, I've worked for deacdes in "intelligence" (being accurate about video, signals, resources, data) for well heeled private clients and state, national level governments. ) Wider angle earlier release video that showed the other officer approach the side window, reach in and attempt to grab keys and or unlock and open door (prompting car to reverse, turn wheels, and move forwards) show this officer turning, crouching, drawing, stalking in to aiming at driver all prior to the forward motion. This released footage does not appear to have that sequence.
- NedF 10mo ago[dead]
- daemonologist 10mo agoCBC quote: A security expert who has analyzed the new video filmed by an ICE officer says it appears to have been edited to remove crucial moments that show when shots were fired at Good. Thomas Warrick, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think-tank, said when the 47-second-long video is watched second-by-second, it briefly goes black around the 42-second mark. "There's no logical reason why somebody holding a cellphone has a black frame at that point," said Warrick, a former deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at the Department of Homeland Security. He said the phone evidently didn't fall to the ground, because the officer is holding it at the end of the video and pointing it toward Good's car. "So, clearly, he never dropped the phone. Why is that black frame there? What happened?" Warrick said. "This is going to fuel the narrative that evidence is being manipulated." https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/ice-shooting-minneapolis-live-updates-9.7036845?ts=1767995855368 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/ice-shooting-minneap...
- nmeagent 10mo agoWarrick apparently retracted that accusation after closer examination, FYI.
- resumenext 10mo ago[flagged]
- rationalist 10mo agoRage Rooms are a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_room
- resumenext 10mo agoAnd now twitter.
- cmxch 10mo ago[flagged]
- dragonwriter 10mo ago> She accelerated against the officer, hit them That didn't happen; the thing being sold as an impact is the officer dropping his cellphone to shoot her.
- cmxch 10mo ago[flagged]
- dragonwriter 10mo ago> intentional impact by the decedent striking the officer with their body cam (not a cell phone) It is a cellphone camera, you can even see where he switches hands in the video, as well as a reflection in the car window of him holding it. Like the rest of your lies, this is incredibly lazy. > And if you simply want to keep trying to justify attempted murder on an ICE officer, The only murder attempt was by the officer, and it was successful. And, even before thet, ICE officers with their very narrowly constrained legal authority had no lawful justification for approaching the vehicle and having one of the officers try to open the door; ICE officers were engaged in criminal misconduct even before escalating to murder.
- grumio 10mo agoThey did do something wrong. Shooting at a vehicle is not self defense. That is a DOJ rule which no doubt you've seen in these several threads you frequent and troll.
- mickle00 10mo agoWhy would the ICE agent release this? Does he think this makes him look good? (it doesn't...)
- bitlax 10mo ago[flagged]
- the_doctah 10mo ago[flagged]
- WickyNilliams 10mo agoNot to exonerate him, but to condemn her. For being a woman, who did not know her place. For many that alone will justify her murder
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- andrewinardeer 10mo agoRemember a week ago? Everyone was talking about the Eppy Files. Crickets now, huh?
- tim333 10mo agoThere have been distractions.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- hypeatei 10mo agoHere is a synced up version (from both angles): https://bsky.app/profile/ragnarokx.bsky.social/post/3mbz7pt4wrs2d https://bsky.app/profile/ragnarokx.bsky.social/post/3mbz7pt4... > I synced up the video from the Johnathan Ross and a bystander to help show what was happening when he fumbled his camera. He was already out of the way at that point and already had his gun drawn. It wasn't him being hit, it was him shooting Renee Good.
- xtiansimon 10mo agoHe killed her. Watching the synced videos, I'm realizing now the sound of "OOHHH" does not come from the shooter, but afterwards. It's another officer. I no longer have the impression of an officer surprised, threatened and reacting to danger. You can clearly see on the POV-cam the driver's hands turning the steering wheel. She's trying to get out of that situation and drive away. That's clear, and it gives the shooter time to step out of the way. Well, the shooter is not having it. And despite there being a civilian on the other side of the car, and officers all around the car, he choose to kill the driver, discharging his weapon. Felony Obstruction becomes punishable by death. _"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"_ – Mario Savio The ultimate sacrafice
- jrs235 10mo agoNotice he's also holding his phone out in front of his body making it appear that the vehicle was closer to his body than it really was.
- the_doctah 10mo ago[flagged]
- muwtyhg 10mo agoDude... look at your post history and tell me you don't engage in the worst kind of political rhetoric here. You are obsessed with "leftists" and your comment history shows it.
- the_doctah 10mo ago[flagged]
- irthomasthomas 10mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- computerthings 10mo ago[dead]
- theyknowitsxmas 10mo ago[flagged]
- cmxch 10mo ago[flagged]
- _DeadFred_ 10mo agoThe fact you same people the day prior said that Jan6 was peaceful shows you have zero moral integrity. Just the basic corruption creed of "for my friends everything, for my enemies, the law". Why are you building a case for extrajudicial murder based on: an American speaking sarcastically to an government employee. an agent placing himself against training in potential danger, knowing the obligation is on the agent to keep the situation safe the agent shakes the cell phone he is holding as he distarges his government issued weapon to murder a mother (who as you pointed out, used sarcasm). THis shows how little danger/how little contact if any was made against him. Ice ROUTINELY makes more contact with their vehicles against protesters. Are you saying protestors now would be in the right to start shooting ICE when that occurs? ICE has shown they will murder American's without remorse, so protestors actually have 'fear for their lives'. Will you call for ICE agents arrests and they be charge and have the FULL WEIGHT of attempted murder against them if their vehicles make contact with protestors? Since this contact justifies killing in your mind, then locking ICE agents in prison for life if they make contact with their vehicles is letting them off easy, right? Oh I forgot 'for my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law'. The only thing relevant is did the agent put himself in harms way and against training (yes) Could the agent have handled the situation differently? Again yes, by the fact he was in so little danger he was able to continue filming holding his personal cellphone while murdering this mother. You also leave out the part where he calls her a bitch after murdering her, showing that an agent of the United States murdered an American out of malice, not fear. Edit: Downvoting instead of responding you are pathetic. If you have to write a paragraph of justification for the extra judicial murder of a mom and one of your key points is 'sarcasm was used by a mom', then the extra judicial murder isn't justifiable.
- _DeadFred_ 10mo ago[dead]
- commiepatrol 10mo ago[flagged]
- cmxch 10mo ago[flagged]
- Jordan-117 10mo agoWeird that you note her irrelevant banter, but miss the part at 0:40 where she is clearly turning her steering wheel hard to the right prior to accelerating, when he's standing near the left front corner of the vehicle. It's hard to tell if she grazes him with the bumper/mirror or if he just jumps back, and it's a jumpy move to be making with people around -- understandably panicky given the shouted conflicted orders and the armed man reaching in and trying to open her door. But she was obviously not intentionally trying to run the guy over. And the officer's shoot-to-kill response was wildly disproportionate and against protocol. LEO are supposed to be trained to handle high-pressure situations like this, and one who overreacts and kills an unarmed civilian should be held to a much higher standard.
- jrs235 10mo agoNotice he's also holding his phone out in front of his body making it appear that the vehicle was closer to his body than it really was.
- cmxch 10mo agobecause narrative security apparently precedes truth here, because truth that counters narrative must be silenced. https://x.com/AlphaNews/status/2009679932289626385?s=20 https://x.com/AlphaNews/status/2009679932289626385?s=20 She accelerated against the officer, hit them, he defended himself, which stands counter to the bloodlust directed towards ICE. — Order of events based on video analysis: - The agent approaches the vehicle, which is stopped or slow-moving. - The woman speaks through the window (partial audio/transcript includes phrases like "Big boy, show your face," "I'm not mad at you," and references to not changing plates or being a U.S. citizen—tone appears defiant or sarcastic). - The agent positions himself near or in front of the vehicle. - The SUV then accelerates forward, with the hood/grille filling the camera view (suggesting very close proximity, potentially a bump or near-miss). - The camera shakes/tumbles, ending with views of the street and the vehicle driving away.