29 ms·

As far as I understand it, he laid hands on the officer, then struggled against arrest. He had a gun on him, which is not in itself a problem, but he had alrea

by CMay 9mo ago

As far as I understand it, he laid hands on the officer, then struggled against arrest. He had a gun on him, which is not in itself a problem, but he had already broken the law 3 times by this point and the fact he had a gun on him instantly escalates the potential threat. They don't know if he has multiple guns on him or just the one. Supposedly one of the videos shows him reaching for some black object. I don't know. He wasn't killed for owning a gun or carrying a gun. He wasn't killed for laying hands on the officer. He wasn't killed for resisting arrest. It was likely the entire combination of things that caused him to demonstrate he was a credible threat to their lives and reaching for an object. No matter what you think, Alex made a whole string of mistakes. The officer may have also made mistakes. With any luck investigation will reveal more details. I'm not predisposed to assuming that Alex is innocent and the officer is guilty, because there is a lot of activist pressure to push exactly that perspective. I prefer to preserve the capacity to make up my own mind.

oceansky 9mo ago
There are multiple videos from multiple angles and a multitude of witnesses. The only investigation being done is by the DHS, who is blocking all other state level investigations. The same DHS who lied about easy disproven things that were recorded and destroy evidences. What are you waiting or expecting from a investigation to make up your mind?
- CMay 9mo ago
  In the case of George Floyd, that was local police. In this scenario, these are federal law enforcement officers so it probably is correct for this case to be handled federally as far as I know. I don't know what you're referring to about DHS lying about disproven things and destroying evidence. If you can give me links I'll look into it. > What are you waiting or expecting from a investigation to make up your mind? I've seen enough video to know that it's not impossible the officer reacted within the spirit of the law. To get a sense for that requires testimony from the officer that fired the shot. Please watch court cases some time and you'll get a sense for how the application of these kinds of laws work. I'm not a lawyer, but if you ever have to defend yourself against someone you'll be thankful the laws work the way that they do. We have a justice system for a reason. It doesn't always work, but it lays out a process for evaluating evidence. Why do we do it that way? We do it that way, because it is not that uncommon that perceptions, witnesses, videos and many other things can be deceptive. They can make you believe things which are not true. So you try to establish all of the relevant facts as they apply to the law. Not based on how you feel, but based on the law. It actually hurts some of the witnesses that are obviously activists, because it means they aren't unbiased objective observers, but are predisposed to a perspective and have a possible agenda in mind which risks reducing the quality of their testimony. A law enforcement officer that thinks he might be found guilty also risks their testimony being weak. The video quality is also often bad and there are people obstructing important details at times. All of those things have to be considered. Of course when you are emotionally invested, you might want them to just rush to what you obviously see. Again, you will be very thankful that the justice system generally doesn't rush to those conclusions so readily if you ever have to defend yourself in court when you know you're innocent.
  - jaybrendansmith 9mo ago
    Good lord. There's no helping you if you cannot see with your eyes, my friend. I'd have to be blind to not see this poor man trying to defend a woman, then tackled, beaten, disarmed, shot dead in the back and head with 10 bullets.
    - CMay 9mo ago
      I've seen enough of these kinds of situations to know it's easy to trick people into seeing what you guide them to see. It's like lying with statistical charts, but more insidious. Why is it so important to you that other people see what you see before any investigation is complete? Look at how courts handle video evidence to gain some perspective on why your thinking which seems to rely so heavily on video evidence alone is simply flawed.
      - flumpcakes 9mo ago
        > to rely so heavily on video evidence alone is simply flawed. Don't trust your eyes. That is the final and most essential command.
        CMay 9mo ago
        Your eyes matter. Videos matter. It's just, they aren't the only things you should factor in. Why have ears, if sight alone is enough? Why have touch, if sight alone is enough? What you are saying is, trust your eyes alone! Pay no attention to what you can touch or what people involved might have to say. That is the final and most essential command. It goes both ways. With your eyes that you trust so much, hopefully you can see at least that.
        jaybrendansmith 9mo ago
        Dude. My dude. Seven different angles. There's no mistaking what happened. You would trust the judgment of someone else when there's that much contrary evidence to what they are claiming? Do you not make your own judgments in your life?
inetknght 9mo ago
> As far as I understand it, he laid hands on the officer, then struggled against arrest. That's not how I understand it. > Supposedly one of the videos shows him reaching for some black object. I don't know. It would be good if you'd watch this review. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIOwTMsDSZA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIOwTMsDSZA
- CMay 9mo ago
  So I checked it out, but it's not really relevant. These activists appear to have followed the federal law enforcement. That highly suggests they knew exactly who they were. The officers didn't show up unannounced to the front door of someone who happened to be an activist. No reasonable court is likely to determine that they were unaware who they were dealing with.
  - inetknght 9mo ago
    > it's not really relevant It's relevant because you said you didn't know. The review provides information that helps you to know. > These activists appear to have followed the federal law enforcement. Nothing illegal about that at all. > That highly suggests they knew exactly who they were. ... No reasonable court is likely to determine that they were unaware who they were dealing with. That's not relevant. What's your point? No reasonable court would find that the activists did anything wrong, while they certainly would find two federal employees ("officers") are culpable in the murder of one of those activists. > The officers didn't show up unannounced to the front door of someone who happened to be an activist. So?
    - CMay 9mo ago
      You probably linked the wrong video, because the video you linked is not relevant. > Nothing illegal about that at all. The first thing I said is that it's not illegal. > No reasonable court would find that the activists did anything wrong, while they certainly would find two federal employees ("officers") are culpable in the murder of one of those activists. The videos don't show all the events leading up to the moment he was shot, but multiple federal laws were broken just in the videos we do have. Murder has a specific definition and nothing here suggests murder.
avcloudy 9mo ago
This is just lunatic speech. The one place he didn't have a gun was in his hands. You're out here acting like if he'd had a gun strapped to his ankle it would have been proof beyond any doubt he was intending to shoot and kill ICE officers. He was pepper sprayed and on the ground surrounded by 6 agents when he was killed. At the time when an agent said that he had a gun (this was after his gun was removed), he was physically pinned with his arms restrained. He wasn't 'reaching for an object'. He was carrying his phone in his hand before he was restrained and shot a dozen times.
- CMay 9mo ago
  They don't necessarily know that's the only gun he had and the officers aren't Neo, seeing every camera angle at once. What you see from your outside perspective is not what they see. They have to act based on the information they have, which is why it's important you listen to law enforcement for your own safety. All the whistles make that harder, which might be part of the point.
  - avcloudy 9mo ago
    Again: he was on the ground, with his eyes sprayed with mace, and he was, at least until seconds before he was shot, physically restrained. It doesn't matter if he could potentially have had another gun. They aren't Neo but there were six of them surrounding him, and the one who shot him only took eyes off to mace another protestor.
spacechild1 9mo ago
I have seen the videos. He was already on the ground, fixated by several ICE agents, when he was shot 10(!) times. That was after he had been peppersprayed and beaten to the head. At no point did he actually draw or reach for his gun. There was absolutely no reason to shoot him. > With any luck investigation will reveal more details. Kristi Noem said: "This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and kill law enforcement." She even went so far as calling this an act of "domestic terrorism". At this point, do you seriously believe there will be a neutral investigation?
- CMay 9mo ago
  Being on the ground doesn't remove any potential that he could be dangerous. I don't know why he was being beaten on the ground, that seemed a little excessive. Not sure how many times he was shot, but generally if law enforcement ever makes the determination to shoot they do it to shoot to kill. They knew he had 1 gun, so he could have 2 guns. The officers don't see the angle most of the camera angles see. They see the perspective they see, from themselves. That is the perspective that will matter by law. What situation were they in and what did they see when they made their decision? You have the luxury of seeing a perspective the officer did not see, and the officer has the luxury of seeing a perspective you did not see. People who are in favor of throwing the officer's life away without knowing all of the details are doing basically doing exactly what they're accusing the officer of in suggesting that he threw away this person's life without knowing all the information. I don't know what Kristi Noem is on about, but she's a political appointee and not an investigator.
  - spacechild1 9mo ago
    > Being on the ground doesn't remove any potential that he could be dangerous. When the shots were fired, he was restrained by several agents and did not pose any immediate threat. > Not sure how many times he was shot It was ten shots, fired by two agents. That is a lot of shots. Yes, the shooting itself was very likely an accident by grossly incompetent agents. (You can hear an agent shout the word "gun", which probably triggered the other agents to immediately start firing.) However, it was the ICE agents who started the very situation that led to this tragedy: One agent violently pushed a women from behind. Why? Alex tried to help her and he immediately got peppersprayed in the face. Why? Then he was wrestled to the ground. Why? Then he was beaten to the head. Why? All these actions are already outrageous in themselves. It is worrying how police brutality has been normalized in the US. It is pretty rich to blame Alex when it was really the ICE agents who started this whole mess! In fact, the videos are so damning that even Stephen Miller had to backpedal and admit that these agents "may not have been following proper protocol". > I don't know what Kristi Noem is on about, but she's a political appointee and not an investigator. What confidence do you have in DHS to lead an independent investigation of their own people?
platevoltage 9mo ago
He was killed for carrying a gun. How do I know that? Thats what they've been saying over and over again. Absolutely gross.

by CMay 9mo ago

oceansky 9mo ago

There are multiple videos from multiple angles and a multitude of witnesses. The only investigation being done is by the DHS, who is blocking all other state level investigations. The same DHS who lied about easy disproven things that were recorded and destroy evidences. What are you waiting or expecting from a investigation to make up your mind?

CMay 9mo ago
In the case of George Floyd, that was local police. In this scenario, these are federal law enforcement officers so it probably is correct for this case to be handled federally as far as I know. I don't know what you're referring to about DHS lying about disproven things and destroying evidence. If you can give me links I'll look into it. > What are you waiting or expecting from a investigation to make up your mind? I've seen enough video to know that it's not impossible the officer reacted within the spirit of the law. To get a sense for that requires testimony from the officer that fired the shot. Please watch court cases some time and you'll get a sense for how the application of these kinds of laws work. I'm not a lawyer, but if you ever have to defend yourself against someone you'll be thankful the laws work the way that they do. We have a justice system for a reason. It doesn't always work, but it lays out a process for evaluating evidence. Why do we do it that way? We do it that way, because it is not that uncommon that perceptions, witnesses, videos and many other things can be deceptive. They can make you believe things which are not true. So you try to establish all of the relevant facts as they apply to the law. Not based on how you feel, but based on the law. It actually hurts some of the witnesses that are obviously activists, because it means they aren't unbiased objective observers, but are predisposed to a perspective and have a possible agenda in mind which risks reducing the quality of their testimony. A law enforcement officer that thinks he might be found guilty also risks their testimony being weak. The video quality is also often bad and there are people obstructing important details at times. All of those things have to be considered. Of course when you are emotionally invested, you might want them to just rush to what you obviously see. Again, you will be very thankful that the justice system generally doesn't rush to those conclusions so readily if you ever have to defend yourself in court when you know you're innocent.
- jaybrendansmith 9mo ago
  Good lord. There's no helping you if you cannot see with your eyes, my friend. I'd have to be blind to not see this poor man trying to defend a woman, then tackled, beaten, disarmed, shot dead in the back and head with 10 bullets.
  - CMay 9mo ago
    I've seen enough of these kinds of situations to know it's easy to trick people into seeing what you guide them to see. It's like lying with statistical charts, but more insidious. Why is it so important to you that other people see what you see before any investigation is complete? Look at how courts handle video evidence to gain some perspective on why your thinking which seems to rely so heavily on video evidence alone is simply flawed.
    - flumpcakes 9mo ago
      > to rely so heavily on video evidence alone is simply flawed. Don't trust your eyes. That is the final and most essential command.
      - CMay 9mo ago
        Your eyes matter. Videos matter. It's just, they aren't the only things you should factor in. Why have ears, if sight alone is enough? Why have touch, if sight alone is enough? What you are saying is, trust your eyes alone! Pay no attention to what you can touch or what people involved might have to say. That is the final and most essential command. It goes both ways. With your eyes that you trust so much, hopefully you can see at least that.
        jaybrendansmith 9mo ago
        Dude. My dude. Seven different angles. There's no mistaking what happened. You would trust the judgment of someone else when there's that much contrary evidence to what they are claiming? Do you not make your own judgments in your life?

inetknght 9mo ago

> As far as I understand it, he laid hands on the officer, then struggled against arrest. That's not how I understand it. > Supposedly one of the videos shows him reaching for some black object. I don't know. It would be good if you'd watch this review. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIOwTMsDSZA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIOwTMsDSZA

CMay 9mo ago
So I checked it out, but it's not really relevant. These activists appear to have followed the federal law enforcement. That highly suggests they knew exactly who they were. The officers didn't show up unannounced to the front door of someone who happened to be an activist. No reasonable court is likely to determine that they were unaware who they were dealing with.
- inetknght 9mo ago
  > it's not really relevant It's relevant because you said you didn't know. The review provides information that helps you to know. > These activists appear to have followed the federal law enforcement. Nothing illegal about that at all. > That highly suggests they knew exactly who they were. ... No reasonable court is likely to determine that they were unaware who they were dealing with. That's not relevant. What's your point? No reasonable court would find that the activists did anything wrong, while they certainly would find two federal employees ("officers") are culpable in the murder of one of those activists. > The officers didn't show up unannounced to the front door of someone who happened to be an activist. So?
  - CMay 9mo ago
    You probably linked the wrong video, because the video you linked is not relevant. > Nothing illegal about that at all. The first thing I said is that it's not illegal. > No reasonable court would find that the activists did anything wrong, while they certainly would find two federal employees ("officers") are culpable in the murder of one of those activists. The videos don't show all the events leading up to the moment he was shot, but multiple federal laws were broken just in the videos we do have. Murder has a specific definition and nothing here suggests murder.

avcloudy 9mo ago

This is just lunatic speech. The one place he didn't have a gun was in his hands. You're out here acting like if he'd had a gun strapped to his ankle it would have been proof beyond any doubt he was intending to shoot and kill ICE officers. He was pepper sprayed and on the ground surrounded by 6 agents when he was killed. At the time when an agent said that he had a gun (this was after his gun was removed), he was physically pinned with his arms restrained. He wasn't 'reaching for an object'. He was carrying his phone in his hand before he was restrained and shot a dozen times.

CMay 9mo ago
They don't necessarily know that's the only gun he had and the officers aren't Neo, seeing every camera angle at once. What you see from your outside perspective is not what they see. They have to act based on the information they have, which is why it's important you listen to law enforcement for your own safety. All the whistles make that harder, which might be part of the point.
- avcloudy 9mo ago
  Again: he was on the ground, with his eyes sprayed with mace, and he was, at least until seconds before he was shot, physically restrained. It doesn't matter if he could potentially have had another gun. They aren't Neo but there were six of them surrounding him, and the one who shot him only took eyes off to mace another protestor.

spacechild1 9mo ago

I have seen the videos. He was already on the ground, fixated by several ICE agents, when he was shot 10(!) times. That was after he had been peppersprayed and beaten to the head. At no point did he actually draw or reach for his gun. There was absolutely no reason to shoot him. > With any luck investigation will reveal more details. Kristi Noem said: "This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and kill law enforcement." She even went so far as calling this an act of "domestic terrorism". At this point, do you seriously believe there will be a neutral investigation?

CMay 9mo ago
Being on the ground doesn't remove any potential that he could be dangerous. I don't know why he was being beaten on the ground, that seemed a little excessive. Not sure how many times he was shot, but generally if law enforcement ever makes the determination to shoot they do it to shoot to kill. They knew he had 1 gun, so he could have 2 guns. The officers don't see the angle most of the camera angles see. They see the perspective they see, from themselves. That is the perspective that will matter by law. What situation were they in and what did they see when they made their decision? You have the luxury of seeing a perspective the officer did not see, and the officer has the luxury of seeing a perspective you did not see. People who are in favor of throwing the officer's life away without knowing all of the details are doing basically doing exactly what they're accusing the officer of in suggesting that he threw away this person's life without knowing all the information. I don't know what Kristi Noem is on about, but she's a political appointee and not an investigator.
- spacechild1 9mo ago
  > Being on the ground doesn't remove any potential that he could be dangerous. When the shots were fired, he was restrained by several agents and did not pose any immediate threat. > Not sure how many times he was shot It was ten shots, fired by two agents. That is a lot of shots. Yes, the shooting itself was very likely an accident by grossly incompetent agents. (You can hear an agent shout the word "gun", which probably triggered the other agents to immediately start firing.) However, it was the ICE agents who started the very situation that led to this tragedy: One agent violently pushed a women from behind. Why? Alex tried to help her and he immediately got peppersprayed in the face. Why? Then he was wrestled to the ground. Why? Then he was beaten to the head. Why? All these actions are already outrageous in themselves. It is worrying how police brutality has been normalized in the US. It is pretty rich to blame Alex when it was really the ICE agents who started this whole mess! In fact, the videos are so damning that even Stephen Miller had to backpedal and admit that these agents "may not have been following proper protocol". > I don't know what Kristi Noem is on about, but she's a political appointee and not an investigator. What confidence do you have in DHS to lead an independent investigation of their own people?

platevoltage 9mo ago

He was killed for carrying a gun. How do I know that? Thats what they've been saying over and over again. Absolutely gross.