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

Let's call a murder a murder

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 236 posts

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#131

Post by bananabiscuit »

mindslight wrote: post #113
bananabiscuit wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with this more if Renee was just a random person that ICE decided to give a hard time. But in this case, it was her decision to become involved and attempt to obstruct the officers from doing the job they explicitly have the authority to do [1]. Also in this case Renee is the one who made the first life threatening action. The fight-or-flight situation is her own doing. People should protest but there a…

Can you elaborate on specifically what she did to " attempt to obstruct the officers ", ideally with a source that isn't just hearsay or seemingly outright fabrication (eg the administration) ? Everything I've seen starts off with a description of her "blocking" one lane of a two lane street, which is a perfectly normal activity in city traffic for a multitude of purposes. And those purposes would certainly include f…

Not sure if there anything definitive. I got the impression that Renee and her wife were positioning their car specifically to impede ICE, going off of what I saw from the interaction in the second video I linked in my original post. Does not look like any normal traffic interaction to me, but I could be wrong. This seems like a detail that will be easy to definitively verify or disprove once more information comes out.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#133

Post by metaphysicalyes »

empath75 wrote: post #123
bananabiscuit wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once the officer sees that Renee attempted to hit him with her car, he (tragically indeed) has the right to use lethal force. When somebody tries to kill you, I don’t think it’s reasonable to (in that same split second) give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they won’t try to immediately kill you or one of your partners again.

Have you stopped to consider how you got to the point that you are defending this. Like, I get sort of working this over in your mind to yourself, but you have gone out of your way to excuse a cop gunning down a mom that just dropped off her kid at school. She had stuffed animals sitting in her dashboard. Her kid is an orphan. You didn't have to do this. You could have just stayed silent. Now you're the guy that is g…

I have been curious about this as well. So far what I have discovered, for a significant section, it is schadenfreude borne out of their past injustice. It roughly translates to: nobody was on my side when I was kicked down and this is my moment to rejoice where others like the victim do not have privilege to human dignity either and therefore assuaging the previous resentful assumptions to the contrary.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#134

Post by lesuorac »

Jensson wrote: post #69
lesuorac wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this even relevant to the discussion at hand? The issue from the article is that an "Immigration" agency used lethal violence against a _citizen of the US_. This is not an illegal aliens issue.

The original poster was the one that questioned the funding, so talking about funding is on topic. The illegal aliens issue is why they need so much funding. USA has a bigger illegal alien issue than any other developed country, so to fix that it makes sense they need more funding to try to solve it.

By definition a US citizen is not an illegal alien. OP is right to question if ICE should have an unlimited budget when they're clearly using that budget on things that are _not_ immigration (illegal aliens).

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#135

Post by bananabiscuit »

metaphysicalyes wrote: post #129
bananabiscuit wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once the officer sees that Renee attempted to hit him with her car, he (tragically indeed) has the right to use lethal force. When somebody tries to kill you, I don’t think it’s reasonable to (in that same split second) give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they won’t try to immediately kill you or one of your partners again.

I hope you are not claiming perception of intent is enough to claim a life. It is the actual intent that counts. Appeal to mental ineptitude is not a defense of murder. If a person can't distinguish between intention of person to kill others vs escaping when driving in a completely different direction then that person does not have right to posses a weapon which can take human life. Also interesting that you do not a…

I hope you are not claiming perception of intent is enough to claim a life. It is the actual intent that counts.

No, I am not claiming that. I explained previously why it looked to me that Renee intended to hit the officer with her car, very hard, and the only reason it was a slight hit was because she lost traction on the ice. [1] And also she did hit the officer, this was even acknowledged in the NYT analysis of the event. Again, he got lucky that he was able to jump out of the way, only because the icy road caused her wheels to lose grip.

At that point, I would think there is an argument to be made that the officer’s life was threatened, and he is allowed to use lethal force, he does not have the time to second guess if Renee is going to change her mind and not hit anyone with her car. I am NOT saying that the officer is definitively absolved, just that based on what I’m seeing, it is not as clear a case of murder as a lot of people claim.

Also interesting that you do not address the 2nd and 3rd shot at all.

This is confusing to me and I don’t really know what to say about that, the lethal intent is there with the 1st shot. Is it that we expect the officer to go from deciding that she is enough of a threat to be shot, to deciding that she is a non-threat in the split second after his first shot?

[1] but just for posterity: a) when she accelerated, she still had her wheels pointing just left of center while the officer was directly in front of her. b) she was looking directly at the officer when she accelerated.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#136

Post by mindslight »

bananabiscuit wrote: post #131
mindslight wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on specifically what she did to " attempt to obstruct the officers ", ideally with a source that isn't just hearsay or seemingly outright fabrication (eg the administration) ? Everything I've seen starts off with a description of her "blocking" one lane of a two lane street, which is a perfectly normal activity in city traffic for a multitude of purposes. And those purposes would certainly include f…

Not sure if there anything definitive. I got the impression that Renee and her wife were positioning their car specifically to impede ICE, going off of what I saw from the interaction in the second video I linked in my original post. Does not look like any normal traffic interaction to me, but I could be wrong. This seems like a detail that will be easy to definitively verify or disprove once more information comes o…

So to be clear, you haven't actually seen any definitive evidence that her goal was to physically impede ICE, yet you're jumping to that strong conclusion based on how she stopped the car? Why wouldn't you assume she was merely turning her car for a better filming/viewing angle, sparing us all from having to view one more video with an A-pillar smack in the middle?

> Renee and her wife were positioning their car

What do you mean they both were? Was it a drivers' ed car with pedals and steering wheel on both sides? Is co-driving some kind of lesbian thing I don't know about?

Listen, I assumed good faith here. I use some pretty strong language to condemn this regime and its cheerleaders, but I personally had been steelmanning Trump up through June of 2020 (when it had fully set in for me that he was dividing rather than leading us through Covid). I really want to be mistaken here - it would be fantastic to find out that my country actually isn't being taken over by fascists, right? I welcome anybody that convinces me this isn't the case!

But trying to discuss these events in an intellectual manner, it seems I always end up seeing these telltale signs of motivated reasoning - in this case casually mentioning a detail ("her wife") that has seemingly zero bearing on the situation, yet what it does do is emphasize her identity as part of an outgroup. Now like everything, I could be misjudging here. Perhaps I've jumped the gun and you've got some very valid reason why that little detail, and only that little detail, is relevant. Please do enlighten me.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#137

Post by metaphysicalyes »

cmxch wrote: post #126

[flagged]

> If anything, it indicts Gruber for wanting to bandwagon

I am all for bandwagoning if it makes a dent in spread of fascism. I am all for bandwagoning behind keeping mothers alive. I am all for bandwagoning for the right to human dignity.

> She accelerated against the officer, hit them, he defended himself

By that standard all drivers in Manhattan will be dead within couple of months. Standing in front of a car which is clearly trying to move and on contact shooting two times from the side window is not the cheat code to kill you think it is.

Why do you feel the need to make disingenuous claims?

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#138

Post by bananabiscuit »

empath75 wrote: post #123
bananabiscuit wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once the officer sees that Renee attempted to hit him with her car, he (tragically indeed) has the right to use lethal force. When somebody tries to kill you, I don’t think it’s reasonable to (in that same split second) give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they won’t try to immediately kill you or one of your partners again.

Have you stopped to consider how you got to the point that you are defending this. Like, I get sort of working this over in your mind to yourself, but you have gone out of your way to excuse a cop gunning down a mom that just dropped off her kid at school. She had stuffed animals sitting in her dashboard. Her kid is an orphan. You didn't have to do this. You could have just stayed silent. Now you're the guy that is g…

I think this situation is very tragic, and I wish it had not happened.

The reason I am taking this stance, is because I think that, unless they are fine with becoming a martyr, people should not go and mess with government officers in the streets.

Yeah, I know: “victim blaming”, but there is a difference between officers descending upon a blameless victim vs. you going out looking to make trouble with authority. Even in the first case, the right thing to do (if you value your life) is to comply with the instructions (even if illegal) and challenge them in court later.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#139

Post by bananabiscuit »

mindslight wrote: post #136
bananabiscuit wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if there anything definitive. I got the impression that Renee and her wife were positioning their car specifically to impede ICE, going off of what I saw from the interaction in the second video I linked in my original post. Does not look like any normal traffic interaction to me, but I could be wrong. This seems like a detail that will be easy to definitively verify or disprove once more information comes o…

So to be clear, you haven't actually seen any definitive evidence that her goal was to physically impede ICE, yet you're jumping to that strong conclusion based on how she stopped the car? Why wouldn't you assume she was merely turning her car for a better filming/viewing angle, sparing us all from having to view one more video with an A-pillar smack in the middle? > Renee and her wife were positioning their car What…

Sorry, had a sentence mangled due to some editing, should have read “due to Renee’s positioning of the car, and her wife’s interaction with the officers”.

As for my biases: I don’t care for Trump, I like some things he does, I hate others, but I do think illegal immigrants are a problem.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#140

Post by zx0r2 »

Atreiden wrote: post #43
addandsubtract wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'S PoLiTiCaL

As self-proclaimed hackers who are part of a community whose core values include curiosity and critical thinking, we do ourselves, and the world, a massive disservice by closing our eyes and ears to important information just because it's political in nature. Hacker culture and fascism are antithetical, and we should all be acutely aware when the current regime moves towards violence to squash dissent.

the owners of this site support the current regime
Post reply on HN