Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Bro is like, “can we please stop talking about this extra judicial politically motivated murder and please focus on the semantics of my argument?”
Correction: Not a bro.
Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
251–260 of 895 posts
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So a U.S. citizen who is a legal, permitted gun owner with no outstanding criminal charges, legally carrying in public, who complies with the law and informs a DHS officer that they are legally carrying, is effectively subject to summary execution without due process.... a federal officer shooting and killing a legal gun owner solely for possessing a gun in their presence. This completely misrepresents what happene…
> Another source ( https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-tackled-by-ice-in-chao... ) gives another claim from the same police chief: >> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming." You've misread your link. The "violently resisted" quote is from a tweet by DHS, not local police: https://xcancel.com/DHSgov/status/2015115351…
Direct multiple-paragraph quote:
> The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted on X further details about what led up to the shooting. "DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here," the post reads.
> O'Hara said that Pretti was a “lawful gun owner” with a permit.
> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
> The DHS wrote that when a federal agent feared for his life, "an agent fired defensive shots." The post also noted that the "suspect" had "2 magazines and no ID."
By any ordinary reading of prose, the article is attributing the quote to O'Hara.
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So a U.S. citizen who is a legal, permitted gun owner with no outstanding criminal charges, legally carrying in public, who complies with the law and informs a DHS officer that they are legally carrying, is effectively subject to summary execution without due process.... a federal officer shooting and killing a legal gun owner solely for possessing a gun in their presence. This completely misrepresents what happene…
> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming." This has already been proven to be a lie thanks to the five different videos of the incident in question. They shot him after removing his legal weapon for concealed carry that he was permitted to have on his person.
Show me one of them. Show me how you think it demonstrates such a thing. Make sure it is something that starts well before the actual apprehension.
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#254So if you exercise your second amendment right and ICE goons harass you they'll freak out that you're "armed" and execute you.
2A only gives you the right to buy the gun, not actually use it for its intended purposes
Nah if you are somebody like the Bundys you can point guns at cops all day and conservatives will praise you.
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like the citizen was disarmed by an agent, then executed by an agent, then a different agent emptied a clip into the corpse. https://bsky.app/profile/bradmossesq.bsky.social/post/3md6pi... --- Related, six days ago. Since then, the FBI agent who indicated a civil rights investigation into the shooting of Renee Good was warranted, has resigned. https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mcpk34cyu22p
[flagged]
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
So democracy is falling in the most militarily powerful country on earth, citizens are being executed and rights stripped… and you think it’s not OK to be angry? You think we just shouldn’t discuss it at all because people are angry? Putting our heads in the sand will not help.
there are a lot of places to be angry on the internet. in fact, basically every single website other than HN is a place to be angry. HN is deliberately not that, or at least it aims to not be that.
But people on HN are angry in non-political threads all the time, to the point that there are several items in the guidelines about it (the latest being "don't be curmudgeonly".)
And not everyone in every political thread is simply expressing anger. The majority of comments in this very thread are reasonable. The ones that aren't have been flagged, which is proper.
But flagging all political threads for "anger," regardless of the actual anger on display, while being far more lenient towards it elsewhere (no one is flagging every thread where someone expresses rage about javascript or AI or the modern web) seems hypocritical.
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think it would be more constructive if the helpful and forthcoming answers happened in public You're in luck, because there are thousands of public answers and you can search them easily: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang&type=comment&dateRange... (by dang), https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... (by tomhow). The answers we give by email are no different from the ones we give in publi…
With the direction we're headed, there's a non-zero chance that some day soon I'll click on over to https://news.ycombinator.com/active and see "[flagged][dead] US Erupts in Civil War" and I'll click on the comments to see a copied and pasted comment from dang with a link to a dozen other comments explaining why this political story doesn't belong on HN. "Politics" doesn't care about your apolitical spaces. It's comi…
People have been making a version of this argument for as long as I've been doing this job. There is always a feeling of this-time-is-different, how-can-you-not urgency. I'm not saying that's wrong, but there's a counterargument. The counterargument is that political flames have a way of consuming everything they touch and that if we had listened to this argument in the past, HN would have ceased to exist years ago.
I believe that the bulk of this community favors the counterargument, and that it would be a big mistake to let political passions dominate how the site is operated, since that would be the end of HN qua HN. We think a website that's not overwhelmed by politics and political battle—that clears space for other things that gratify curiosity—has a right to exist. I believe most HN readers agree with that and are grateful that we haven't pulled the plug at moments of pressure.
I'm not saying anything radical here - this is the standard way that HN has always operated, and I'm repeating what I've always said:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26253103 (Feb 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25785791 (Jan 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23380817 (June 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453883 (July 2019)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16968668 (May 2018)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16581518 (March 2018)
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#258The video is horrifying: https://old.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qlpzu8/anothe...
That's all I'll say.
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think it would be more constructive if the helpful and forthcoming answers happened in public You're in luck, because there are thousands of public answers and you can search them easily: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang&type=comment&dateRange... (by dang), https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... (by tomhow). The answers we give by email are no different from the ones we give in publi…
> FWIW, here's a short version: users flag things for various reasons; we turn off flags on a few such stories, but not more; that's because HN isn't a political or current affairs site; I think you have misunderstood the request. The request was not to clarify the general moderation policy, but rather clarify the reasoning why this specific story was not considered as one of the few stories where such action was tak…
> but rather clarify the reasoning why this specific story was not considered as one of the few stories where such action was taken.
i think if you read more past discussions around moderation (including one dang directly linked) the reason for this would be obvious. read the search results for flags being turned off.
moderators try, as they said, to let the community moderate itself. they try to impress very little bias into the system. but they do try to promote constructive and interesting conversation, and the more things deviate from that mission, the less likely it is to be actively encouraged to be on HN
the likelihood of the conversation around this news post is very unlikely to be interesting and constructive. people have very entrenched beliefs and no one's mind is going to get changed from emotionally loaded comments on this post
additionally, this is now also the third post of this nature to be on HN in the past weeks, and there's unlikely to be anything new to the conversation added this time that wasn't covered by the previous thousands of comments on previous submissions
they are not actively reducing the visibility of this post. they're just declining to artificially inflate its visibility above the same criteria 99% of submissions also have
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming." This has already been proven to be a lie thanks to the five different videos of the incident in question. They shot him after removing his legal weapon for concealed carry that he was permitted to have on his person.
Show me one of them. Show me how you think it demonstrates such a thing. Make sure it is something that starts well before the actual apprehension.
[flagged]