Live data from Hacker News

Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

startribune.com

411–420 of 895 posts

Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

#411
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My post contains all the information you need to answer that question. The current story is obviously a flamewar topic, a political battle topic, and a repetitive topic. I'm not saying it isn't important—of course it's important, far more important than most things on HN's front page*. The issue is that HN's frontpage is not optimized for importance but for something else ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=…

I think the unease many people feel here is that this strict bureaucracy taken to its extreme conclusion would become something akin to a tragicomical farce: "No posts about the controversial nukes raining over Europe allowed, such flamewars would destroy our valuable forum for discussing the really interesting and intellectual political topics". Clearly there must be a line somewhere. It was not here and today, but…

Bureaucracy? ouch!

Yes, when you bring up extreme scenarios such as nuclear war (or civil war, as slg did - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46746817), that's a way of saying that we're fiddling-while-rome-burns, burying-head-in-sand, etc. The problem is that you're assuming your conclusion by invoking those scenarios. That doesn't make the argument stronger.

I agree that the probability of such scenarios is not zero, and no I would not like to end up in the same bucket as the schmucks in Dr Strangelove or (more tragically) the last person in the "first they came for" meme. But none of us knows the future, and there's another scenario with nonzero probability as well. That is the scenario in which HN goes through swings and fluctuations (conditioned by macro trends), sticks to its mandate, and emerges intact.

As far as probability goes, that second scenario has the advantage of having happened many times already. Each time it's happened, I've ended up feeling that we made the right call. Does that prove it's the right call this time? Nope—we don't know the future, like I said. But at least there are close historical precedents supporting it, as well as the core principles of HN supporting it.

There's another argument too, although I quake a bit at bringing it up. Suppose the truly extreme, end-of-world scenario really is coming to pass. What contribution do we make by jettisoning HN's mandate, going to war and turning the site into a battlefield, sooner rather than later? How do more posts of angry denunciations and screaming at each other move the needle on the end of the world? That is the step in the argument, like the ??? of the underpants gnomes or the "then a miracle occurs" in that physics cartoon, which no one ever spells out.

I don't think anyone who has been inhaling the profoundly pointless triviality of the internet message board genre for as long as we have really believes that there's some unrealized potential to help society via shriller and more sarcastic flamewars. I assume also that anyone who genuinely believes that we're already in an extreme scenario has more important things to do than post angry comments on the internet. It seems clear that this is not about effecting change or effective opposition—it's about expressing feelings. I'm all in favor of feelings, but that's not the conversation that people say they're having when they have these conversations. (I'm not talking about you here! just so that's clear.)

> Have you not noticed any increase in people saying "this time it's different", or that different kinds for people are saying it now? Is it really just the same old people repeating the same old phrase

I don't think it's all the same people (though some!) but to me it's the same dynamic. But I hear you, and yes I might be wrong and live to regret it. I'm not speaking from a place of certainty.

> Small note: It has never been a repetitive topic, since all discussions about ICE performing extrajudicial killings have been quickly flagged of the front page and never (as a topic) discussed by the wider community.

Well, I was thinking of this thread: Minneapolis driver shot and killed by ICE - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46531702 - Jan 2026 (351 comments), although you're right that that one wasn't on the front page (I thought it had been, because we turned off the flags on it, but apparently not.) But there have been major threads on this topic (or topic cluster): https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu..., some have been on the frontpage, and that's of course only a slice of the political stories that appear here.

Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

#412

Watch this at the 5 secod mark[]. It looks like the agent that picked up the disarmed gun had his finger on it and ND'd the initial shot. He jolts his arm right as the first shot goes off. Then all the other officer panic and fire. Edit: ND = negligent discharge [] https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2015145197965881786

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It is not about punishment." I’m not sure how you can possibly make that assertion. They disarmed him and then they shot him.

> They disarmed him and then they shot him. So you're saying you can show me a video where it's clear that the gun is in an LEO's physical possession, everyone involved clearly has time to update on this information, and someone makes an evidently conscious decision to shoot him anyway, despite him clearly no longer posing a physical threat? Really? Because otherwise, it is not about punishment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvpbr/footage_of_the...

Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

#415
post #404

Earlier 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…

I suspect it won't matter to you, but there's clear footage now of officers having removed the gun from the suspect long before he was shot. He was pinned and prone when he was executed. Claiming this was "defensive" is just a lie.

I've watched four videos but haven't seen any footage (clear or otherwise) of gun removal. Can you post a link to clear footage of the removal?

One video [1] shows someone walking away from the scene with a gun a fraction of a second before the shooting begins. But I can't see that the gun was removed from the protester.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvpbr/footage_of_the...

Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

#416
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. https://bsky.app/profile/bellingcat.com/post/3md6vlu7hb22t

This doesn't contradict what I said, because "moments before" is like 2 seconds. It seems plausible to me that the agent reacted to a gun being pulled out of pants and panic shot within 2 seconds. His gun was not already drawn, so that's a plausible lag time. If we assume that ICE did not execute a guy for literally no reason whatsoever, that seems to me the most likely explanation for why he drew and fired.

My dude, they were already beating him for no reason whatsoever. When someone showed me this video the first time, I thought the outrage was that they were beating a guy who wasn’t resisting for no reason whatsoever, which is true, but then they also killed him, again for no reason. They were already violent criminals before they murdered him. If he had been drawing it would have been justifiable self defense and ICE would still have been entirely in the wrong. Though he didn’t.

Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

#417
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICE has regularly attacked protesters and bystanders who are simply recording, walking away and so on. Even people just driving through their neighborhood have been dragged out of their vehicles and apprehended. Citizen or otherwise doesn’t seem to matter. They aren’t professionals and operate with neither the training, nor the will to obey the law. Much of the time they seem to believe trying to bait folks into an e…

> ICE has regularly attacked protesters and bystanders who are simply recording, walking away and so on. > Even people just driving through their neighborhood have been dragged out of their vehicles and apprehended. Citizen or otherwise doesn’t seem to matter. I have seen many claims of this sort, but every single time there's been video available of the incident, it's become clear to me that nothing of the sort is g…

You're being downvoted because you're being wilfully obtuse, not because you're a bootlicker.

Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's almost like people walking around with guns is a bad idea.

Yeah, somebody should do something about that. Masked men with guns and unlimited immunity aren't good to have around in your community. Oh, wait, you meant the victim .

Por qué no los dos?

(To borrow a meme.)

Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

#419
post #382
post #358

Why is this being hidden off of the main HN pages? There are clearly enough points for it to be significantly up weighted. I don’t understand the censorship.

Some naive people here, still think the HN page listing is based on points and comments...

You are downvoting what is the evidence in front of your eyes. Downvoting the observation does not change the ranking anomaly. If you want trust, you can’t run the front page like this.

Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

#420
post #384
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you just claimed that anyone saying he wasn't obstructing is engaging in a fallacious argument. He wasn't obstructing, he was filming them. That's a literal fact, not a fallacy.

[flagged]

Surely you mean moving the goalposts?
Post reply on HN