5 ms·
We're all just content for ICE
- woggy 9mo ago[flagged]
- Dylan16807 9mo agoAgreed. It is relevant.
- tastyface 9mo ago[flagged]
- mickle00 9mo agocompletely agree
- jacobthesnakob 9mo agoYou’re all just content for internet outrage bait.
- woggy 9mo agoAre you denying that this is happening?
- tastyface 9mo agoIMO green accounts with negative points should be assumed to be trolls or agitators. Engaging is a waste of time; just flag if you’ve got the power and move on without a second thought. (I think I’ve been shadowbanned from flagging. What a fucking site, eh?)
- woggy 9mo agoWhat is a green account?
- anonzzzies 9mo agoI think green and negative should have an indicator really; usually a troll.
- jacobthesnakob 9mo ago[flagged]
- bigyabai 9mo agoIt's not against the rules, but it's absolutely a tell. If you've lurked on HN with showdead enabled, you know exactly what kind of people rely on green accounts.
- gnabgib 9mo ago> Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- zahlman 9mo ago[flagged]
- jacobthesnakob 9mo ago[flagged]
- mopsi 9mo agoThat tells more about your googling skills than about the availability of the material: https://xcancel.com/maxnesterak/status/2008961959731859757 https://xcancel.com/maxnesterak/status/2008961959731859757
- pixelpoet 9mo agoMassive influx of green accounts to "correct" wrongthink in 3... 2... It's been so extreme lately.
- zahlman 9mo ago[flagged]
- clipsy 9mo ago[flagged]
- zahlman 9mo agoHere's some of the video, as part of a wider analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8&t=5m56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8&t=5m56s At 6:55 (in slow motion) we see the officer in front of the car, recording with his own phone. 7:01, the car moves forward and the wheel can clearly be seen to spin as the car struggles to gain traction. There is a clear attempt to accelerate sharply. 7:23, some explanation: "As you can see, the officer has his gun out, the tires are still pointed directly at the officer, and the car is moving forward.... the officer is struck by the vehicle, which you cannot see from this angle." (But if you take the full speed video frame by frame, around 6:38 you can clearly see for multiple frames that the officer is taken off balance and takes a while to recover. Then there's more footage from in front of the car. At 7:53 you can see the impact plain as day. That's a CNN analyst saying: "Well, the slowed-down version is showing me that when the SUV pulls forward, they make contact with the agent in the street, and then immediately following that contact, you hear three gunshots follow." (Sound sync is an issue with video like this and it makes far more sense to me that the shots are concurrent with, or immediately before impact. They cannot feasibly be any kind of revenge for being hit because it would be utterly impossible to aim.) "Contact" is an understatement given the video; you can clearly see that the officer is leaning considerably forward over the hood of the SUV as a direct consequence of the impact. All of this is also corroborated by the officer's own cell phone footage, wherein he completely loses control of the camera as a consequence.
- zahlman 9mo agoThis has already been flagged and killed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46595868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46595868 It's interesting to me that submissions like this routinely get a dozen or so upvotes very quickly, on what is transparently a very politically inciting headline promising a contentious political editorial.
- woggy 9mo agoWhat's interesting to me is how little this whole situation is being talked about here. Not a single topic on the front page while ICE agents are routinely pulling people (including US citizens) out of cars, breaking into houses and shooting people on the street.
- zahlman 9mo agoIt's talked about plenty. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46547612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46547612 from just the other day got nearly 400 upvotes and 200 comments. "including US citizens" is weasel wording here. ICE operates on reasonable suspicion, as they are legally entitled to do. Furthermore, they are federal LEO, and as such may arrest people they know to be US citizens if those citizens commit federal crimes. This is all quite clear in the law, and even reported by left-wing sources in the same breath that they claim the footage contradicts things that I (from watching it myself) believe it reasonably supports (subjective rhetoric aside). In particular, the victim in the recent case was "blocking the path of an officer’s vehicle", which the SF Chronicle explicitly calls out as valid cause for such an arrest. LEOs tend to shoot at those who resist arrest in a manner that endangers their lives. That endangerment is not required to be itself an attempt at murder. The other thing I find interesting is that the officers were not masked in this case, contra the usual narrative.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9mo ago> ICE operates on reasonable suspicion, as they are legally entitled to do. Speaking of weasel words, "reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime" is a higher standard than you imply. It requires the officer to be able to articulate their reason for suspecting a specific crime. Huh, crime is a funny word, actually. Did you know that overstaying a visa is a civil offense? But I guess it's possible, though perhaps not reasonable to suspect, that she crossed the border illegally. So, if that's the crime, the agent would need to articulate their reason for suspecting that the woman had illegally crossed the border. Did he ever articulate that reasoning? Did he ever even articulate the crime? > LEOs tend to shoot at those who resist arrest in a manner that endangers their lives. Oh, I guess we'll just ignore all that "RAS" stuff, then. If that's the case, the agent didn't have the authority to arrest the woman at all. So, rather than resisting arrest, she was defending herself from an unlawful assaulter (with the intention not to kill, as you seem to admit in another comment). And the assaulter, in a fit of rage from seeing her attempted escape, shot her in the head three times to, er "defend himself" from a moving vehicle. Honestly, I've read enough of your comments to know you're not stupid. Why go to such lengths to defend these actions of the agent in question? Do you really not think the agent should be expected to behave more professionally? Regardless of the fear he felt, I don't believe you simply can't see how he needlessly escalated the situation well before the woman tried to drive away.
- notepad0x90 9mo agowhy was this flagged dead? is it some sort of a bot war? link seems normal.
- lawn 9mo agoNot just bots. There's plenty of fascists on this site who flag everything that goes against their narrative.