8 ms·

People 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

by kccoder 9mo ago

People 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 9mo ago
[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 9mo ago
  These 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 9mo 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. 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
        The 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 9mo ago
        Hmm... 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 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - goatlover 9mo ago
    Dude 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 9mo ago
    [flagged]
  - esseph 9mo ago
    Vouching 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 9mo ago
    Absolute 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 9mo ago
Nor should the people who hired them.
closingreunion 9mo ago
The agent was according to VP "traumatized" from an earlier event, yet was on the street with a firearm.
- amelius 9mo ago
  Sounds like a more systemic problem then.
  - Zigurd 9mo ago
    I doubt the people creating these problems understand "systemic."
    - salawat 9mo ago
      That is a quality specifically selected against or so I hear. LE wants executors and enforcers. Not thinkers.
- prodigycorp 9mo ago
  And 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 9mo ago
[flagged]
- tomlockwood 9mo ago
  In no way is this "towards" anyone.
  - 0xy 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tomlockwood 9mo ago
      Doesn't contradict what I said at all. You think she was aiming at this chump?
    - Timshel 9mo ago
      ? in the second video and others you can see the car never hit him ...
      - 0xy 9mo ago
        https://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 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- 9mo ago
antonymoose 9mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- PlunderBunny 9mo ago
  Not 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 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - muwtyhg 9mo ago
      So 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 9mo ago
        A vehicle is a deadly weapon. A hiccup is not.
        muwtyhg 9mo ago
        I 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 9mo ago
      The 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 9mo ago
[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 9mo ago
  This is factually inaccurate based on all of the evidence that has been presented.
  - ratrace 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
      The 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 9mo ago
        He 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 9mo ago
        Again, 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 9mo ago
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
slg 9mo ago
The 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 9mo ago
  The 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 9mo ago
  The 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 9mo ago
    9-0 opinion [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf]
the_doctah 9mo ago
[flagged]
- muwtyhg 9mo ago
  You 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 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - muwtyhg 9mo ago
      Female 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 9mo ago
        [flagged]
    - blactuary 9mo ago
      There was no deadly force from the driver, you either haven't watched the video or you are incredibly dishonest
_DeadFred_ 9mo ago
He 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 9mo ago
They 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 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - duxup 9mo ago
    Did 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 9mo ago
      [flagged]
  - mindslight 9mo ago
    If 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 9mo ago
[flagged]

by kccoder 9mo ago

People 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 9mo ago

[flagged]

toomuchtodo 9mo ago
These 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 9mo 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. 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
        The 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 9mo ago
        Hmm... 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 9mo ago
[flagged]
- goatlover 9mo ago
  Dude 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 9mo ago
  [flagged]
- esseph 9mo ago
  Vouching 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 9mo ago
  Absolute 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 9mo ago

Nor should the people who hired them.

closingreunion 9mo ago

The agent was according to VP "traumatized" from an earlier event, yet was on the street with a firearm.

amelius 9mo ago
Sounds like a more systemic problem then.
- Zigurd 9mo ago
  I doubt the people creating these problems understand "systemic."
  - salawat 9mo ago
    That is a quality specifically selected against or so I hear. LE wants executors and enforcers. Not thinkers.
prodigycorp 9mo ago
And 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 9mo ago

[flagged]

tomlockwood 9mo ago
In no way is this "towards" anyone.
- 0xy 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tomlockwood 9mo ago
    Doesn't contradict what I said at all. You think she was aiming at this chump?
  - Timshel 9mo ago
    ? in the second video and others you can see the car never hit him ...
    - 0xy 9mo ago
      https://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 9mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
9mo ago

antonymoose 9mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
PlunderBunny 9mo ago
Not 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 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - muwtyhg 9mo ago
    So 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 9mo ago
      A vehicle is a deadly weapon. A hiccup is not.
      - muwtyhg 9mo ago
        I 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 9mo ago
    The 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 9mo ago

[flagged]

toomuchtodo 9mo ago
This is factually inaccurate based on all of the evidence that has been presented.
- ratrace 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
    The 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 9mo ago
      He 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 9mo ago
        Again, 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 9mo ago

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

slg 9mo ago

The 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 9mo ago
The 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 9mo ago
The 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 9mo ago
  9-0 opinion [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf]

the_doctah 9mo ago

[flagged]

muwtyhg 9mo ago
You 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 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - muwtyhg 9mo ago
    Female 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 9mo ago
      [flagged]
  - blactuary 9mo ago
    There was no deadly force from the driver, you either haven't watched the video or you are incredibly dishonest

_DeadFred_ 9mo ago

He 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 9mo ago

They 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 9mo ago
[flagged]
- duxup 9mo ago
  Did 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 9mo ago
    [flagged]
- mindslight 9mo ago
  If 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 9mo ago

[flagged]