8 ms·

As far as her vehicle was concerned, I've seen elsewhere that she had been parked earlier and had pulled out but was letting other vehicles go through first, wa

by pstuart 9mo ago

As far as her vehicle was concerned, I've seen elsewhere that she had been parked earlier and had pulled out but was letting other vehicles go through first, waving them on. Not complying with a masked men with guns who gave conflicting info (leave now/get out of the car) who were going to mess her up as much as they could? Really? She was trying to leave. You should watch the video where Alex Pretti tries to protect and aid a women who was pepper sprayed by ICE officials approaching them, and then tackled and shot multiple times, and then more for good measure. > I'm not a fan of anything that's going on, and it appears that people are trying to make things worse, not better. Why? If you are a rationalist, you should be taking in all possible information and be prepared to change your mind as compelling evidence is presednted. Let's work backwards from the situation: Why is ICE in Minnesota in the first place? Ostensibly because of financial fraud (not their area of interest), and more so, as a show of strength and intimidation. Steven Miller has publicly stated that ICE has zero accountability and freedom to act as they see fit. 1st Amendment and 4th Amendments are doormats to these people. And with Alex Pretti, they now declare that 2A is null and void too. So your position is kneel and comply regardless of why? Edit: I didn't downvote you because I wanted to answer with dialog instead. You send some very mixed messages about not liking what's happening but also blaming the victims for their fate.

rationalist 9mo ago
> blaming the victims for their fate I don't blame them for getting shot. From what I can tell, they should not have been shot. Since when is victim-blaming binary? I can't say that victims should be aware that their actions or choices have consequences? > masked men with guns Did they not know they were going to protest ICE? That they were masked? (And that they're masked because people are harassing them and others?) If I don't want to risk being shot, I don't go around to other people who I know have guns and are being harassed and assaulted. Neither group should be assaulted - the protestors or the officers. If I assault someone with a gun, I should be prepared that they might use that gun, especially when they can't think straight because I'm yelling in their faces, blowing whistles at them, kicking the lights off their cars, etc. If I choose to be a part of a group that's doing those things, I should be prepared to be treated as a member of that group. > be prepared to change your mind What should I change my mind about? 'They should not have been shot' - do I change that? > Edit: I didn't downvote you because I wanted to answer with dialog instead. I upvoted you as a thank you for taking the time to write and be apart of this dialogue.
- pstuart 9mo ago
  Please note that my objective in this discussion is to try and reach some sort of consensus, and that text communication can easily be misconstrued even when both parties know each other and are "on the same side". The situation with ICE is in a sense uncharted territory (even with traditional abuses by police there's ostensibly some accountability, but ICE has been declared by the administration to have carte blanch in their operations -- explicitly told that they can act with impunity). From the goog ai: The First Amendment protects the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly, allowing public protest in traditional forums like streets, sidewalks, and parks. While peaceful protest is protected, the government can impose content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions, such as permits for large, disruptive, or traffic-obstructing events. > If I assault someone with a gun, I should be prepared that they might use that gun, especially when they can't think straight because I'm yelling in their faces, blowing whistles at them, kicking the lights off their cars, etc. It should also be noted that Pretti was absolutely within his rights and had permits to carry and never brandished it. I'm not a gun nut and think that bringing a gun to a protest is not a good idea, but it's a non issue on the justification of his murder. ICE's presence and actions are not in good faith -- they are not there to catch "murderers, rapists, and other bad guys". They are hunting for any possible bounty regardless of legality and have detained US citizens. > If I choose to be a part of a group that's doing those things, I should be prepared to be treated as a member of that group. It's been shown that "being a part of that group" has been loosely applied where people in the vicinity who are not protesters are also being attacked by ICE. Note that ICE was enforcing the law and removing "bad guys" in the previous administrations without going to the extremes they are now. And most importantly, it's clear that the Trump administration wants some sort of violence to occur so that it can "justify" notching up enforcemnt even further -- likely martial law. If you evaluate whats happening as if the government is acting legally and in good faith you are either misinformed or a supporter of the administration and have no loyalty to the Constitution.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]

by pstuart 9mo ago

rationalist 9mo ago

> blaming the victims for their fate I don't blame them for getting shot. From what I can tell, they should not have been shot. Since when is victim-blaming binary? I can't say that victims should be aware that their actions or choices have consequences? > masked men with guns Did they not know they were going to protest ICE? That they were masked? (And that they're masked because people are harassing them and others?) If I don't want to risk being shot, I don't go around to other people who I know have guns and are being harassed and assaulted. Neither group should be assaulted - the protestors or the officers. If I assault someone with a gun, I should be prepared that they might use that gun, especially when they can't think straight because I'm yelling in their faces, blowing whistles at them, kicking the lights off their cars, etc. If I choose to be a part of a group that's doing those things, I should be prepared to be treated as a member of that group. > be prepared to change your mind What should I change my mind about? 'They should not have been shot' - do I change that? > Edit: I didn't downvote you because I wanted to answer with dialog instead. I upvoted you as a thank you for taking the time to write and be apart of this dialogue.

pstuart 9mo ago
Please note that my objective in this discussion is to try and reach some sort of consensus, and that text communication can easily be misconstrued even when both parties know each other and are "on the same side". The situation with ICE is in a sense uncharted territory (even with traditional abuses by police there's ostensibly some accountability, but ICE has been declared by the administration to have carte blanch in their operations -- explicitly told that they can act with impunity). From the goog ai: The First Amendment protects the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly, allowing public protest in traditional forums like streets, sidewalks, and parks. While peaceful protest is protected, the government can impose content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions, such as permits for large, disruptive, or traffic-obstructing events. > If I assault someone with a gun, I should be prepared that they might use that gun, especially when they can't think straight because I'm yelling in their faces, blowing whistles at them, kicking the lights off their cars, etc. It should also be noted that Pretti was absolutely within his rights and had permits to carry and never brandished it. I'm not a gun nut and think that bringing a gun to a protest is not a good idea, but it's a non issue on the justification of his murder. ICE's presence and actions are not in good faith -- they are not there to catch "murderers, rapists, and other bad guys". They are hunting for any possible bounty regardless of legality and have detained US citizens. > If I choose to be a part of a group that's doing those things, I should be prepared to be treated as a member of that group. It's been shown that "being a part of that group" has been loosely applied where people in the vicinity who are not protesters are also being attacked by ICE. Note that ICE was enforcing the law and removing "bad guys" in the previous administrations without going to the extremes they are now. And most importantly, it's clear that the Trump administration wants some sort of violence to occur so that it can "justify" notching up enforcemnt even further -- likely martial law. If you evaluate whats happening as if the government is acting legally and in good faith you are either misinformed or a supporter of the administration and have no loyalty to the Constitution.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]