29 ms·

I think there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere

by kcplate 9mo ago

I think there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE. The driver ignored direct orders to exit the vehicle and chose to flee instead. Her act of fleeing created a dangerous situation where a law enforcement officer had to make a split second decision and still was physically struck by the vehicle. I think it’s up to investigators, prosecutors, judge, and jury to decide if action against the agent is appropriate understanding all of the evidence surrounding the incident. We have had the benefit of days of analysis with slowed down video from multiple vantage points. That officer had 2 seconds mere moments after being directly antagonized by one of the people from the vehicle. The inconvenient truth here is that the constitution EXPECTS the executive branch to enforce the laws that congress passes. ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner many years ago. If we the people don’t like a law, we the people should undo it the way we originally “did” it…via congress. I have never voted for Trump. I don’t like many of the things he does and says. I can be critical of the Trump messaging and rhetoric (including around this situation, which like the outraged—-is filled with excessive emotion and a rush to judgement). At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy.

mindslight 9mo ago
> there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE You are still handwaving while not pointing to specific evidence. Please tell me exactly what they did that physically interfered with or physically antagonized ICE? Does one of the videos show one of them straight up physically attacking an ICE agent, and it's just obvious or something? Alternatively if the claim is that they had planned to physically interfere with ICE but never got the chance, then presumably there is the evidence of whatever physical items they had that look like part of a plan to interfere with ICE. Because it feels like the continued lack of specifics in favor of handwaving and innuendo is an attempt to use protected first amendment activity - criticizing of government agents including heckling - into what seems like a cause of action for people who do not like the protected first amendment message. I keep asking because I know I could easily be wrong here, but I still have yet to see anything claiming any sort of physical attack or physical obstruction that would give credence to claims of obstruction that allegedly precipitated the assault on the car. > ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner As a high level goal, I'm mostly ambivalent about these! Maybe even slightly pro as I've come around to seeing the virtues in legibility, especially if there would be common law equitable judgement applied to situations created by the situation festering so long (cf adverse possession). But a need to enforce immigration (or any other) law has absolutely zero bearing on whether citizens are allowed to criticize the agents for doing so. It also has absolutely zero bearing on justifying an escalation of what seems to be at most a minor physical skirmish into a summary execution by ignoring common sense rules of engagement (don't step in front of a car that is about to move) codified in the agents' own written procedures. My problem is entirely with the methods by which it is being achieved - pointlessly cruel, inhumane, procedurally unconstitutional (as we're discussing), secretive and hidden instead of openly documented, directly contrary to the law for people that are here legally, denial of due process exacerbating the previous issues, etc. The cruelty deviates so far from the norms of free society, and is so completely unnecessary, that it informs my seeing this whole current call of enforcing immigration laws as a mere pretext for something much more dark and sinister. Take a detour here - why hadn't immigration laws been fully enforced for the past two decades? My understanding is that the primary driver was businesses interests that rely on manual labor - they saw it was lucrative to kill the bargaining power of American labor by using undocumented workers with very little bargaining power or recourse. What really is the chance that those business interests have been finally made to take a back seat, versus those business interests now being content that labor's economic power has been fully smashed and this change is merely the next step in subjugating the common American? Most especially with the figurehead leading the charge being a business owner highly reliant on cheap undocumented labor in the industries of real estate development, hotels, golf courses? > At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy. If we're talking about lofty goals like the rule of law, then why are you not as concerned about the laws regarding freedom of speech or deprivation of life [, liberty, or property] contained in our country's very charter? Because what I see here is the creation of anarcho-tyranny - an unconstrained gang of masked thugs doing effectively whatever they feel like, enabled by a federal government that has stopped even attempting to enforce its own laws that would otherwise restrain them for the sake of our natural rights and liberties. (I will also say, your criticism of Trump's statements there is quite tame given how aggressively dismissive those statements are from someone who is supposed to be leading the country rather than dividing it)
- kcplate 9mo ago
  This conversation is not productive. This woman’s death was not about free speech and it’s not about Trump. It’s about decisions and actions that she made and the agent made in their interaction. There will be legal accountability performed by people who will see all of the available evidence, understand all of the policies, procedures, and legalities that govern something like this and will make judgments. Those people are not me and likely not you.
  - mindslight 9mo ago
    Wow. I wrote a pretty substantive comment so you could see we have some common ground and I'm not just a "fAr lEfT wAcKo", but apparently that's "not productive". If you want to be done, sure, be done. I think we could have converged much quicker if you hadn't been leading with these kind of abstract-oblique points that demand adding nuance, but then avoiding the nuance. And also I've got to say, this last comment is a whole bunch of retrenching at "nobody can know" FUD. But at any rate, let us make no mistake: this incident is most certainly about our freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to criticize government agents in ways they may not personally appreciate. I did finally just watch a video of the run-up of where they surround the car. She was stopped across the street like an asshole, blaring her horn, and seemingly mocking/heckling the agents. Vehicles were going by her just fine (including some ICE vehicles), just as you'd expect in regular city traffic. But being an asshole is not illegal, and what she was doing looks to be exactly first-amendment protected activity - heckling ICE agents because she disagreed with what they were doing. Even if there is something there that ICE can legally stretch into a federal crime, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of necessitating a high stakes boxed-in gun-drawn escalation that induces a fight or flight response. And given that the killer had previously fucked around and found out about moving vehicles six months prior, his positioning and subsequent reaction would seem to be highly deliberate and likely even premeditated. Renee most certainly could have done many things differently, and I wish she had. But government agents also have a duty to execute their roles in good faith to minimize harm regardless of whom they're dealing with and what they've done. What these agents did here was the complete and utter opposite, making them responsible for her death.

by kcplate 9mo ago

mindslight 9mo ago

> there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE You are still handwaving while not pointing to specific evidence. Please tell me exactly what they did that physically interfered with or physically antagonized ICE? Does one of the videos show one of them straight up physically attacking an ICE agent, and it's just obvious or something? Alternatively if the claim is that they had planned to physically interfere with ICE but never got the chance, then presumably there is the evidence of whatever physical items they had that look like part of a plan to interfere with ICE. Because it feels like the continued lack of specifics in favor of handwaving and innuendo is an attempt to use protected first amendment activity - criticizing of government agents including heckling - into what seems like a cause of action for people who do not like the protected first amendment message. I keep asking because I know I could easily be wrong here, but I still have yet to see anything claiming any sort of physical attack or physical obstruction that would give credence to claims of obstruction that allegedly precipitated the assault on the car. > ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner As a high level goal, I'm mostly ambivalent about these! Maybe even slightly pro as I've come around to seeing the virtues in legibility, especially if there would be common law equitable judgement applied to situations created by the situation festering so long (cf adverse possession). But a need to enforce immigration (or any other) law has absolutely zero bearing on whether citizens are allowed to criticize the agents for doing so. It also has absolutely zero bearing on justifying an escalation of what seems to be at most a minor physical skirmish into a summary execution by ignoring common sense rules of engagement (don't step in front of a car that is about to move) codified in the agents' own written procedures. My problem is entirely with the methods by which it is being achieved - pointlessly cruel, inhumane, procedurally unconstitutional (as we're discussing), secretive and hidden instead of openly documented, directly contrary to the law for people that are here legally, denial of due process exacerbating the previous issues, etc. The cruelty deviates so far from the norms of free society, and is so completely unnecessary, that it informs my seeing this whole current call of enforcing immigration laws as a mere pretext for something much more dark and sinister. Take a detour here - why hadn't immigration laws been fully enforced for the past two decades? My understanding is that the primary driver was businesses interests that rely on manual labor - they saw it was lucrative to kill the bargaining power of American labor by using undocumented workers with very little bargaining power or recourse. What really is the chance that those business interests have been finally made to take a back seat, versus those business interests now being content that labor's economic power has been fully smashed and this change is merely the next step in subjugating the common American? Most especially with the figurehead leading the charge being a business owner highly reliant on cheap undocumented labor in the industries of real estate development, hotels, golf courses? > At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy. If we're talking about lofty goals like the rule of law, then why are you not as concerned about the laws regarding freedom of speech or deprivation of life [, liberty, or property] contained in our country's very charter? Because what I see here is the creation of anarcho-tyranny - an unconstrained gang of masked thugs doing effectively whatever they feel like, enabled by a federal government that has stopped even attempting to enforce its own laws that would otherwise restrain them for the sake of our natural rights and liberties. (I will also say, your criticism of Trump's statements there is quite tame given how aggressively dismissive those statements are from someone who is supposed to be leading the country rather than dividing it)

kcplate 9mo ago
This conversation is not productive. This woman’s death was not about free speech and it’s not about Trump. It’s about decisions and actions that she made and the agent made in their interaction. There will be legal accountability performed by people who will see all of the available evidence, understand all of the policies, procedures, and legalities that govern something like this and will make judgments. Those people are not me and likely not you.
- mindslight 9mo ago
  Wow. I wrote a pretty substantive comment so you could see we have some common ground and I'm not just a "fAr lEfT wAcKo", but apparently that's "not productive". If you want to be done, sure, be done. I think we could have converged much quicker if you hadn't been leading with these kind of abstract-oblique points that demand adding nuance, but then avoiding the nuance. And also I've got to say, this last comment is a whole bunch of retrenching at "nobody can know" FUD. But at any rate, let us make no mistake: this incident is most certainly about our freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to criticize government agents in ways they may not personally appreciate. I did finally just watch a video of the run-up of where they surround the car. She was stopped across the street like an asshole, blaring her horn, and seemingly mocking/heckling the agents. Vehicles were going by her just fine (including some ICE vehicles), just as you'd expect in regular city traffic. But being an asshole is not illegal, and what she was doing looks to be exactly first-amendment protected activity - heckling ICE agents because she disagreed with what they were doing. Even if there is something there that ICE can legally stretch into a federal crime, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of necessitating a high stakes boxed-in gun-drawn escalation that induces a fight or flight response. And given that the killer had previously fucked around and found out about moving vehicles six months prior, his positioning and subsequent reaction would seem to be highly deliberate and likely even premeditated. Renee most certainly could have done many things differently, and I wish she had. But government agents also have a duty to execute their roles in good faith to minimize harm regardless of whom they're dealing with and what they've done. What these agents did here was the complete and utter opposite, making them responsible for her death.