Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 135 posts

Re: U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

#41

Post by tguvot »

hiQloIQ wrote: post #24
tguvot wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

genx or genz ?

GenX; our economic leadership raising prices on EpiPen, running ponzi schemes through big tech investment vehicles (for example but not limited to, various trade groups and standards bodies), insurance CEOs getting shot. The last gasp of 1900s American coke and booze binging wastoids. First generation of Americans handed a cubicle and Excel sheet as they got into the workforce, rather than a hammer, blow torch, or en…

all i was asking if genx "are low skilled know-nothings living on auto pilot inside media propagated memes about America" or did you mistyped

Re: U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

#42

Post by 8bitsrule »

halperter wrote: post #3

> American taxpayers have spent billions on these organizations with little return, while they often criticize U.S. policies, advance agendas contrary to our values, or waste taxpayer dollars by purporting to address important issues but not achieving any real results. >By exiting these entities, President Trump is saving taxpayer money and refocusing resources on America First priorities. Taking a look at the actual…

For a long I've wondered when, in the view of the current administration, the US was great the last time. I'm trying to decide when in the 1800s that was.

Re: U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

#43

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

jmye wrote: post #38
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The idea that that’s an offense worthy of execution is utterly antithetical to any conceivable value you might say this country was based on. What a shameful, repugnant comment. What an abject failure of anything one could call “education”.

[flagged]

Re: U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

#44

Post by nielsbot »

kazinator wrote: post #12

An organization that is contrary to the interests of the US: that's exactly the sort of thing you want no American representatives in. Ideally, you don't even want second-hand information about what they are talking about and what decisions they are making.

In your opinion, what's an example of such an organization? And why? What are the US's interests in that case?

Re: U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

#45

Post by tguvot »

kazinator wrote: post #12

An organization that is contrary to the interests of the US: that's exactly the sort of thing you want no American representatives in. Ideally, you don't even want second-hand information about what they are talking about and what decisions they are making.

pretty sure that all decisions are published. protocols of the meetings as well

Re: U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

#46

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

kazinator wrote: post #12

An organization that is contrary to the interests of the US: that's exactly the sort of thing you want no American representatives in. Ideally, you don't even want second-hand information about what they are talking about and what decisions they are making.

> interests of the US

To achieve your goal, you have to go one step further and remove deviators from parliamentary bodies too.

Re: U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

#47

Post by defrost »

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #39
defrost wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obstructing LEOs, whether state or federal, isn't a death penalty offence (with or without a trial) here where I live. We even investigate and charge LEO's for rape, stalking, murder, etc. when they overstep boundaries.

If.. and I do mean if there is a concern for life of the officer in question, yes, that is actually the expected response. And also yes, the officers in question are investigated afterwards, because you do want to know if the gun discharge was warranted. I watched the videos from several angles ( what a time to be alive ) and I will admit I would like to see how her car got into the middle of the road, but.. I can't…

It's pretty clear from the videos that there was no danger to the officer that fired.

They approached from the front, and stepped into the path of a turning "fleeing" vehicleto get a better shot at the driver and then jumping to the side.

> I will admit I would like to see how her car got into the middle of the road

I'm also curious about this, but in Australia this would have zero bearing on the "right" of a LEO to use lethal force.

> What I do know is that she had a choice to get out of the car, but chose to press gas.

She reversed, turned wheels to arc into the exiting lane and was shot by an officer who was already drawn prepared to fire.

That officer had the option to step either way, that officer chose to step into the turning arc to get a better shot and then side step clear .. they were not in any danger other than the danger they put themself in.

It's not acceptable here to kill people for fleeing.

I realise it's more common in the US which has a reputation for LEO's shooing unarmed people in the back.

Re: U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

#48

Post by cthalupa »

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #37
arunabha wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, according to your logic, the appropriate punishment for allegedly blocking federal LEO operations is to get killed? Who decided that she was'blocking' any operations? It seems to have been an ICE agent. So, now it's ok for an ICE agent to be the judge, jury and executioner? Sometimes, it's hard to believe the level to which we seem to have sunk. What's worse is that the partisan divide is so great that even norma…

[flagged]

Holding a random person to the same standards for judgment as the people we are entrusting the enforcement of law, sometimes with deadly force, is an insane thing to do.

It doesn't matter if she was impeding an ICE smash and grab. It doesn't matter if she might have clipped the ICE officer at 4-5 mph when she freaked out - because the officer shot her after all the ICE agents were already out of danger of death or significant bodily harm. And it's not clear that she even clipped him.

Most police departments have policies around this. The DOJ does. I can't find if DHS does. You are explicitly not supposed to shoot at people fleeing in cars outside of it being an immediate necessity to save lives or significant bodily harm. That clearly is not met here. It's also not even a smart way to handle it - dead people can't control the accelerator or the steering wheel. Point proven when right after that the car accelerates.

The expectations for someone given the power to enforce the law, detain people, and use lethal force when required to are, and should be, many times higher than that of an everyday citizen. Should she have tried to flee? No. She would have hit him for sure if he didn't step out of the way. But it doesn't matter relative to the greater issue at hand here, which is that we should be able to trust our LEOs to not needlessly use lethal force - but we can't.

Re: U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

#49

Post by cthalupa »

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #39
defrost wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obstructing LEOs, whether state or federal, isn't a death penalty offence (with or without a trial) here where I live. We even investigate and charge LEO's for rape, stalking, murder, etc. when they overstep boundaries.

If.. and I do mean if there is a concern for life of the officer in question, yes, that is actually the expected response. And also yes, the officers in question are investigated afterwards, because you do want to know if the gun discharge was warranted. I watched the videos from several angles ( what a time to be alive ) and I will admit I would like to see how her car got into the middle of the road, but.. I can't…

As others have noted, I don't understand how anyone can view that video and believe that any ICE agent was at risk of losing their life, but shooting at someone behind the wheel of a car that is heading towards you is not the correct way to resolve that situation even from a purely selfish and pragmatic perspective. We even see the "why" in this video. Dead people can't control the accelerator or the wheel. A severely injured person might just mash down on the pedal harder as a reaction. The car's most violent acceleration comes after she's been repeatedly shot.

Re: U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

#50

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

defrost wrote: post #47
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If.. and I do mean if there is a concern for life of the officer in question, yes, that is actually the expected response. And also yes, the officers in question are investigated afterwards, because you do want to know if the gun discharge was warranted. I watched the videos from several angles ( what a time to be alive ) and I will admit I would like to see how her car got into the middle of the road, but.. I can't…

It's pretty clear from the videos that there was no danger to the officer that fired. They approached from the front, and stepped into the path of a turning "fleeing" vehicleto get a better shot at the driver and then jumping to the side. > I will admit I would like to see how her car got into the middle of the road I'm also curious about this, but in Australia this would have zero bearing on the "right" of a LEO to…

Friend. Just from pure logic if the path was blocked by ICE agent then her pressing a gas means attempt to run that ICE agent over. And if you look at the vid in slow motion, he does jump to the side to avoid a swipe.

And I guess this is where the lawyers will have a field day. Best I can say is that he is lucky to have protection that comes from being LEO, where the standard is just different.

To be fair, here it was literally face to face.

As I am rewatching the video in slow motion, it does seem like he was preparing for the eventuality, but the entire interaction and change in stance takes mere seconds.

To me it is not the question of whether they are right, but whether she had a good reason to be there. If she was following them around and ended up in that situation as a result, I might be more inclined to give ICE a pass. If she is an actual random individual that simply did not know what to do and panicked, then it is an actual problem.

That said, it does not appear atm that that was the case. FWIW, I am not happy about it as I believe it further undermines existing system, but what I think does not really matter.

Post reply on HN