@bubbatheclown
A deranged man is what happens in a healthy civilization when you try to reintroduce the gestapo. I mean instead of the classic non-deranged-common-sense-trump-dick-rider-whore man.
A deranged man is what happens in a healthy civilization when you try to reintroduce the gestapo. I mean instead of the classic non-deranged-common-sense-trump-dick-rider-whore man.
He may have wrongly anticipated that after the fight broke out and the preconditions for murder were satisfied, he would have a chance to draw, point, and fire his gun
I don't think "may have" is sufficient grounds for self-defense. A dude who hates me can walk to me with a knife on his belt, but until it's clear he's trying to stab me, killing him isn't self defense.
You could very well ask why a person looking for a fight doesn't just start off by throwing the first punch, and the answer is they want the other person to provoke them to violent retaliation.
If ICE knew he was planning to do this, then wouldn't the logical move be to not give him that reason (i.e. don't throw him to the ground in the first place)?
I think we have evidence now he wasn't a saint, but I don't think it's sufficient to classify deadly force as justified in this scenario.
A good attorney won’t argue motive, psychology, or vibes. They’ll lock the witness into one observable fact:
“Was his hand there?”
“Yes.”
“No further questions.”
He'd exhibited violent behavior toward ICE before, they recognized him going into the second encounter, and such a man having a gun on him was the final straw.
Ah, so if ICE officers recognize someone causing trouble before and in their minds he’s causing trouble again but this time has a gun holstered to his waste, they get free rein to impose public execution.
A good attorney won’t argue motive, psychology, or vibes
Well, they might argue those things if it helps their case. Attorneys are like that sometimes.
If people want to convince others that ICE and the current administration's illegal immigration policy are bad,
I am doubtful referring to ICE as the Gestapo will convince a set of the people.
Calling them the Gestapo seems a bit everyone I disagree with is literally Hitler,
X is going to destroy the country,
Boy cried wolf.
It seems exaggeration, not speaking to specifics and truth of what ICE truly is.
It seems caricature, insult used to dehumanize other side,
To 'justify own actions against ICE and ICE policy.
No need for restraint, because they are Gestapo, Nazis.
Which is ironic.
They don't have to convince most people, just convince one guy that it's okay to treat ICE like the Gestapo. And also convince him that suicide by cop is more honorable than anything similar in Japanese culture.
I am doubtful referring to ICE as the Gestapo will convince a set of the people.
Regardless of the fairness of the comparison, trying to convince people they voted for Hitler is trying to prove way more than you have to. Arguing that ICE is a net loss is easier and sounds less extreme. Try running against hardline CCP officials in China and comparing them to Hitler and accusing them of genocide. Even if it's true, the populace will see you as crazy.
The difference in views of what ICE is. . . Between the Left and the Right.
If one believes that ICE 'is as bad as the Gestapo, then such resistance one see's in Minneapolis seems more reasonable.
If the government suddenly tried banning guns, I could see many people on the Right organizing against such overreach.
I do not think the Left is 'trying to radicalize individuals for suicidal attacks on ICE.
Generally speaking, I think many on the Left think ICE is 'really bad, and are exaggerating out of passion of how much they dislike ICE and what ICE does.
. . . But propaganda does exist. Both from inside and outside.
But I do not think intent is to create suicidal attacker individual,
It is by USA Left to rally support in what they sees as moral,
And by Outside Countries and Organizations to create dissension in America.
I do not think the Left is 'trying to radicalize individuals for suicidal attacks on ICE.
They aren't. It's just a few loud and corrupt leaders doing that.
Funding for ICE was raised to 100 billion dollars making it the highest funded federal law enforcement agency eclipsing the annual budgets of the FBI and DEA.
bot
It's also important to remember that officers dont have compound eyes like insects that are wired to the smartphone of every person in attendance. When these altercations happen, they aren't viewing the situation from every angle, they're only viewing it from one. They aren't sitting around, rewinding and rewatching every clip to see if the person does have their tires pointed this way or that way, or if they're reaching for a gun or to scratch their ass. They have seconds to react to one angle, one perspective- theirs. So footage showing what was going on behind the person has zero bearing on weather force was justified - there's no way for the officer to know that in the moment, and a person can't be expected to incorporate knowledge that they don't have into decision making.
This is why sane people when encountering cops or other agents of the federal government follow instructions and dont make sudden movements - hands on your head, stand still. If both these victims had simply done that, they would be alive today. The argument about whether they 'deserved' to die is retarded. They weren't executed after an agent or agency deemed them worthy of death. They failed to behave in a way which allows a civilized justice system to function in a smooth, nonviolent way, and died because of their own idiocy.
When you don't comply with basic orders from figures of authority, you are putting yourself under the law of the jungle. You are basically staging an insurrection against the established order. Unless you plan to stage an effective revolution against the powers that be, this is basically suicide and incredibly stupid.
This is why sane people when encountering cops or other agents of the federal government follow instructions and dont make sudden movements
If you get thrown onto the ground you are reflexively gonna make sudden movements. Your position is more reasonable in cases where the agents make it easy to comply. Also the default assumption should be that the other person isn't trying to kill you, since the vast majority of people who interact aren't trying to kill each other. Did they know he wasn't intending to harm them? Probably not. Did they have a good reason to assume he was going to shoot them? Very unlikely based on the video.
I was speaking about him placing himself in between the woman and the officer. As a civilian, that is a hostile move. It's saying that you are going to fight the officer to prevent him from continuing. That's why he got thrown to the ground. If an officer is misbehaving, record them. Don't act like you're a marvel superhero, because you arent.
That's why he got thrown to the ground.
Yeah but shooting him was extremely disproportionate. That's my point.
There's always going to be disproportionate responses. It takes two to tango, and I think its a lot less of an ask to tell civilians to not behave like aggressive retards towards federal officers than to expect thousands of officers to all make 100% perfect split state decisions in response to every altercation. In other words, its easier to reduce the number of altercations than to reduce the mistake rate in responding to them to zero. Out of how many countless altercations, we've had what? Two deaths? It seems like the death rate isn't the problem, it's a volume issue.
I also think the argument over the gun is retarded. It's completely irrelevant and people are allowed to carry firearms, including at protests.
There's always going to be disproportionate responses.
I'm not saying it's realistic for things to never be handled badly. Planes crash, cars get into accidents, etc. I'm just saying this particular shooting was unjustified. At the very least it should be acknowledged. Yeah Alex Pretti did some bad things, but he's already paid for his crimes many times over. I think people are more focused on making sure the remaining guilty parties are tried and that this doesn't set a bad precedent.
I'm not saying it's realistic for things to never be handled badly. Planes crash, cars get into accidents, etc. I'm just saying this particular shooting was unjustified. At the very least it should be acknowledged. Yeah Alex Pretti did some bad things, but he's already paid for his crimes many times over. I think people are more focused on making sure the remaining guilty parties are tried and that this doesn't set a bad precedent.
The dangerous precedent has already been set, and it's being studiously ignored in favor of histrionics over these shootings. The dangerous precedent is opposition politicians urging their citizens to confront and harass federal officers who have been deployed to enforce federal law. This shooting is the painfully predictable outcome of such statements - and because I don't believe that high-level politicians are stupid, it is the desired outcome. The intent behind making such statements is to sow chaos with the perfect understanding that it will result in violence and lives lost. Those lives lost can then be martyrized and instrumentalized against their political enemies.
It's heartening to see that some on the right understand now how this dirty game is played and are refusing to focus on the media-spotlighted shooting as if it happened in a vacuum, and is some tragedy brought about by a single ICE agent exercising bad judgement. If George Wallace had told people to fight and resist the federal agents deployed to Birmingham, the same violence and chaos would have taken place, and it would have been on his head. He did the mature, responsible thing and bent to federal law. The current Democratic leadership, in Minnesota in particular and nationally in general, are intentionally fanning the flames of confrontation. They are doing this because immigration enforcement is the exclusive purview of the federal government, yet even though they lost a slate of federal elections they think they should still be able to determine immigration enforcement policy.
The dangerous precedent is opposition politicians urging their citizens to confront and harass federal officers who have been deployed to enforce federal law.
Two things can both be bad.
It's not about being bad, it's about incentives. If you give in to the moral panic and outrage and excoriate ICE for 'bad training' or whatever, you are doing exactly what the people who are the ultimate cause of the disorder and violence want, thus rewarding their actions, which are far more insidious and damaging than two agents making bad split-second decisions.
If you give in to the moral panic and outrage and excoriate ICE for 'bad training' or whatever, you are doing exactly what the people who are the ultimate cause of the disorder and violence want
So when someone does something immoral, I should give them a pass for political reasons? I think that kind of thing leads to pretty bad outcomes. Not gonna whitewash either side just because the other side is doing bad things.
It's not necessarily political reasons; it's just recognizing when you are being manipulated and doing something to prevent that. A person who is perfectly rational and principled is also perfectly predictable, and another person with bad intentions will easily be able to control them to achieve evil ends. This is what I think the deeper meaning is behind the biblical injunction to be a wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. It's not enough to just be moral and good, you also have to understand how evil people think and take advantage of otherwise noble impulses to pursue nefarious ends - so that you can recognize them and counter such machinations. In this case, being principled means allowing one group to profit from sowing discord and causing violence. That's not noble at all in my view, it's rigid and unreasonable.
Being principled means you can criticize the people being manipulative and have greater credibility when doing so. Yeah it's predictable, but no one wants to cooperate with an unpredictable person.
Additionally, it's far easier for the Governor to take 5 minutes to train the public to keep their distance from law enforcement instead of a year-long PSA training encouraging the public to obstruct law enforcement, or a year-long ICE training to learn how to deal with indoctrinated vigilantes that shouldn't have been there in the first place were it not for all the activism training them to become a paramilitary group.
So when someone does something immoral, I should give them a pass for political reasons?
Isn't that exactly what you are doing by excusing the Governor's and Mayor's immoral actions? Giving them a pass for political reasons?
I can't imagine what must be going through the mind of Renee Good's wife in the solace of introspection when she remembers her last words to Renee Good: "Drive baby, Drive!"
A simple shouted cue in a high-stress moment could have plausibly influenced Good's behavior in seconds, and that makes the tragedy feel even heavier, because a person who arguably cared much for Renee Good might have been partially responsible by encouraging her to hit the gas in a tense situation.
But I suppose we can also give her a pass for "political reasons."
Isn't that exactly what you are doing by excusing the Governor's and Mayor's immoral actions?
I didn't excuse them. I haven't criticized them directly yet, but that's not the same as saying they are justified. I do think that they are accountable for their corrupt actions though, I didn't mean to imply they were not.
I also remember Minneapolis police, in a way, have trained the public that it was okay to fight back against the local police after the George Floyd incident, so the priming and training of that public to form vigilante groups physically attacking law enforcement was many years in the making.
But I suppose we can give the entire city a pass for "political reasons."
My first debate on DART is literally defending the police, I haven't given rioters a pass.