4 ms·

I think you might be accidentally or willingly misunderstanding the context if that is your takeaway -- no one, neither immigrant nor innocent bystander, should

by tomrod 3mo ago

I think you might be accidentally or willingly misunderstanding the context if that is your takeaway -- no one, neither immigrant nor innocent bystander, should be killed because administrative warrants are being enforced. And ICE doesn't require hundreds of individuals deployed to one place. There simply was never a reason for such a surge. EDIT: to the dead comment below -- your comment doesn't have to meet my approval -- the comment is simply at odds with reality and is a thought terminating cliche. Feel free to take it in a more general framing: if you don't want people you don't support, while they are in power, killing people, take time to understand why others might be upset. Not only is it your civic duty, its also part of being in society.

Chance-Device 3mo ago
[flagged]
- tomrod 3mo ago
  Perhaps it would be helpful to understand that people feel it necessary to flag the comment -- I tried to explain it in my parent comment here.
  - Chance-Device 3mo ago
    It’s not necessary at all, it’s grassroots ideological censorship.
Chance-Device 3mo ago
[flagged]
- wilg 3mo ago
  Well one way you can understand why the poster finds it controversial would be to read it before commenting.
fastball 3mo ago
Is the idea that with worse technology, DHS will kill fewer people?
- tomrod 3mo ago
  Is it binary? I don't think the technology is the core issue, the concern is over the people enforcing and the policies governing their actions -- the technology becomes a flashpoint when the prior two are issues. Scaling bad actions and actors even though the tech itself is neutral. TFA's point is really getting at that -- who is accountable for scaling bad actions and actors?
  - fastball 3mo ago
    But the scaling needs to be relevant to the actual actions you are concerned about. It's a stretch that any software Google/DeepMind/etc is selling to DHS is allowing / helping them to scale the murder part of their operations. In fact, usually software translates to "less boots on the ground" which one could then assume would decrease the number of encounters like those highlighted in the article.
Chance-Device 3mo ago
What would you do instead?
- tomrod 3mo ago
  Honestly? A few ideas 1. US aid abroad to help stem the conditions that drive many of the migrants to flee their homes. Build up institutions, enforcement, and anti-corruption frameworks so these nations can better build themselves. I'd even be open to hawkish approaches -- frankly it's been surprisingly to see the positive responses to Venezuelan interference by the US. 2. Immigration enforcement needs use-of-force accountability and less lethal approaches. The specific clashes between protesters and ICE come from actions that appear practically designed to encourage confrontation. Agents that kill innocent people should also be held accountable, meaning civil liability reform is necessary. 3. Ensuring we have a shared reality -- hold organizations accountable when they lie or disinform. Example - the majority of immigrants aren't actually criminals, nor are they "stealing jobs" in any coherent way -- studies show that many immigration policies have been net positive on communities. So when Fox News or similar organizations bring up random anti-immigrant commentary, dressed as news instead of entertainment, there really should be consequences for misinforming. 4. Targeted investigations instead of street sweeps. While Kavanaugh stops may be legal, like many enforcement policies over the years they are less effective unless the goal is "enforce stereotypes broadly."
  - Chance-Device 3mo ago
    I mean, you have an immigration policy or you don’t have one. If you have one, you need to enforce it. The unfortunate truth is that any attempt at law enforcement sometimes leads to deaths, and it doesn’t matter what you’re enforcing. The US should not have responsibility to solve all of the rest of the world’s problems to justify enforcing it’s borders.
    - questionableans 3mo ago
      Third option: realize the effect of the policy is undesirable and change it.
loeg 3mo ago
[flagged]
- tomrod 3mo ago
  This is false. > Good was in her car, stopped sideways in the street, which led Ross to circle her vehicle on foot. Other agents approached, and one ordered her to get out of the car while reaching through her open window. Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward and to the right, into the direction of traffic. At this point, Ross was standing several feet away at the front-left of the vehicle which was turning away, when he fired three shots, killing her. [0] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/08/questions-follow-after-ice-agent-kills-renee-good-in-minneapolis https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/08/questions-follow-af... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good
  - loeg 3mo ago
    > Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward No one disputes this. She and the others were deliberately antagonizing agents first. They were not random innocent third parties. She deliberately ignored the lawful orders of armed officers and drove towards them. In almost any other situation involving police, no one would be surprised if this happened.
    - questionableans 3mo ago
      Real police are trained not to stand in front of or reach into vehicles.
    - tomrod 3mo ago
      Reading comprehension is critical to ensure you don't ignore the whole picture, which you are doing. > began moving forward and to the right, into the direction of traffic You can watch the videos from neutral sources if you're concerned. There was no one in her way.

by tomrod 3mo ago

Chance-Device 3mo ago

[flagged]

tomrod 3mo ago
Perhaps it would be helpful to understand that people feel it necessary to flag the comment -- I tried to explain it in my parent comment here.
- Chance-Device 3mo ago
  It’s not necessary at all, it’s grassroots ideological censorship.

Chance-Device 3mo ago

[flagged]

wilg 3mo ago
Well one way you can understand why the poster finds it controversial would be to read it before commenting.

fastball 3mo ago

Is the idea that with worse technology, DHS will kill fewer people?

tomrod 3mo ago
Is it binary? I don't think the technology is the core issue, the concern is over the people enforcing and the policies governing their actions -- the technology becomes a flashpoint when the prior two are issues. Scaling bad actions and actors even though the tech itself is neutral. TFA's point is really getting at that -- who is accountable for scaling bad actions and actors?
- fastball 3mo ago
  But the scaling needs to be relevant to the actual actions you are concerned about. It's a stretch that any software Google/DeepMind/etc is selling to DHS is allowing / helping them to scale the murder part of their operations. In fact, usually software translates to "less boots on the ground" which one could then assume would decrease the number of encounters like those highlighted in the article.

Chance-Device 3mo ago

What would you do instead?

tomrod 3mo ago
Honestly? A few ideas 1. US aid abroad to help stem the conditions that drive many of the migrants to flee their homes. Build up institutions, enforcement, and anti-corruption frameworks so these nations can better build themselves. I'd even be open to hawkish approaches -- frankly it's been surprisingly to see the positive responses to Venezuelan interference by the US. 2. Immigration enforcement needs use-of-force accountability and less lethal approaches. The specific clashes between protesters and ICE come from actions that appear practically designed to encourage confrontation. Agents that kill innocent people should also be held accountable, meaning civil liability reform is necessary. 3. Ensuring we have a shared reality -- hold organizations accountable when they lie or disinform. Example - the majority of immigrants aren't actually criminals, nor are they "stealing jobs" in any coherent way -- studies show that many immigration policies have been net positive on communities. So when Fox News or similar organizations bring up random anti-immigrant commentary, dressed as news instead of entertainment, there really should be consequences for misinforming. 4. Targeted investigations instead of street sweeps. While Kavanaugh stops may be legal, like many enforcement policies over the years they are less effective unless the goal is "enforce stereotypes broadly."
- Chance-Device 3mo ago
  I mean, you have an immigration policy or you don’t have one. If you have one, you need to enforce it. The unfortunate truth is that any attempt at law enforcement sometimes leads to deaths, and it doesn’t matter what you’re enforcing. The US should not have responsibility to solve all of the rest of the world’s problems to justify enforcing it’s borders.
  - questionableans 3mo ago
    Third option: realize the effect of the policy is undesirable and change it.

loeg 3mo ago

[flagged]

tomrod 3mo ago
This is false. > Good was in her car, stopped sideways in the street, which led Ross to circle her vehicle on foot. Other agents approached, and one ordered her to get out of the car while reaching through her open window. Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward and to the right, into the direction of traffic. At this point, Ross was standing several feet away at the front-left of the vehicle which was turning away, when he fired three shots, killing her. [0] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/08/questions-follow-after-ice-agent-kills-renee-good-in-minneapolis https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/08/questions-follow-af... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good
- loeg 3mo ago
  > Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward No one disputes this. She and the others were deliberately antagonizing agents first. They were not random innocent third parties. She deliberately ignored the lawful orders of armed officers and drove towards them. In almost any other situation involving police, no one would be surprised if this happened.
  - questionableans 3mo ago
    Real police are trained not to stand in front of or reach into vehicles.
  - tomrod 3mo ago
    Reading comprehension is critical to ensure you don't ignore the whole picture, which you are doing. > began moving forward and to the right, into the direction of traffic You can watch the videos from neutral sources if you're concerned. There was no one in her way.