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

221–230 of 236 posts

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#221

Post by zahlman »

metaphysicalyes wrote: post #121
hairofadog wrote: post #93

They have released a version of the masked agent's bodycam. Seems to be another Rorschach test: they released it because they think it's exculpatory, but to my eyes it's even worse. He's engaged in a petty argument with the driver, tries to block her car with his body as she drives away, shoots her, then says "fuckin' bitch!" after he's killed her. https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mbz3v...

Very convenient because right around the moments of shooting the video goes blank and the viewer can confirm the below preconceived notions: 1. The masked gunman was in grave danger when in fact he had stepped aside. 2. The car accelerated rapidly before the shots instead of after the driver was in immeasurable agony. 3. All three shots by masked gunman were in self defense. Not that the next two shots were in the dr…

All of this happens in a split second. It's simply not possible, in the evidenced time frame, to fire one shot in self defense and then realign and fire two more with murderous intent. It is also not at all plausible that the position of the two individuals could have changed that much in between the shots. It's also very clear in other video that the officer has been struck and his balance severely disturbed; it takes considerable time for him to recover and he has very clearly fired all three shots before he has properly stood up.

In short, other video evidence clearly rules out any possibility that "he had stepped aside". And we can see the relative timing of when the SUV's wheels start to spin, too, even in the video from behind the SUV where Good is obscured from view by the other officer.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#222

Post by zahlman »

tstrimple wrote: post #122
hairofadog wrote: post #93

They have released a version of the masked agent's bodycam. Seems to be another Rorschach test: they released it because they think it's exculpatory, but to my eyes it's even worse. He's engaged in a petty argument with the driver, tries to block her car with his body as she drives away, shoots her, then says "fuckin' bitch!" after he's killed her. https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mbz3v...

I wish this video would put an end to the claims that she was blocking traffic. This video makes it clear that the very person who shot her was the one who blocked traffic. She was trying to get around that vehicle. Unfortunately I know it won't.

The vehicle is perpendicular to the road and has remained in that position for a considerable period of time as Good circles around and then the other officer approaches the driver's side window. There is no "that vehicle" that she could plausibly have been "trying to get around". Every video makes this clear, including the officer's.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#223

Post by zahlman »

mindslight wrote: post #212
bananabiscuit wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://x.com/i/status/2010037103665787019

What specific vehicle(s) in that video are being blocked? The posted commentary sounds like it's an open and shut case, but this is what I saw from it: Before we first see the Pilot, a black Jeep starts to head up the road, then decided to reverse the other way instead. Presumably this is due to the Pilot, but it is unclear of whether they approached and asked to go past but were denied, or whether they simply didn't…

> The first time we see the Pilot it is blocking both travel lanes

And it stays in this position for a considerable period of time, while Good's partner is walking around outside the vehicle and behaving belligerently.

The fact that she waves some cars past certainly doesn't negate the apparent intent to obstruct the ICE vehicle.

> Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it?

Resisting arrest in a manner that causes a LEO reasonable fear of death or serious harm, as an objective matter of settled case law, justifies the LEO's use of lethal force. Relevant case law specific to the situation where someone is trying to flee, includes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor .

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#224

Post by zahlman »

metadope wrote: post #59
cmxch wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we give money to groups that aid and support the protection of illegal aliens, no sense in not outspending them.

Here you appear to be using "illegal aliens" as a synonym for "immigrants". Groups that aid and support immigrants are doing a service that benefits America and all Americans; we should give them money so they can continue to help. Immigration is of benefit to most nations; we are no different. But if and when you call immigrants illegal aliens, you're removing an important distinction and distorting reality. Have yo…

No, the comment is using a term that describes people who legally are not entitled to be in the country, to refer to people who legally are not entitled to be in the country.

Changing labels doesn't change reality. The complaint revolves around groups that are supporting people who are not attempting to go through legal immigration channels.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#225

Post by mindslight »

zahlman wrote: post #223
mindslight wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific vehicle(s) in that video are being blocked? The posted commentary sounds like it's an open and shut case, but this is what I saw from it: Before we first see the Pilot, a black Jeep starts to head up the road, then decided to reverse the other way instead. Presumably this is due to the Pilot, but it is unclear of whether they approached and asked to go past but were denied, or whether they simply didn't…

> The first time we see the Pilot it is blocking both travel lanes And it stays in this position for a considerable period of time, while Good's partner is walking around outside the vehicle and behaving belligerently. The fact that she waves some cars past certainly doesn't negate the apparent intent to obstruct the ICE vehicle. > Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it? Resisting arrest in…

You keep throwing "belligerently" out there to describe protest behavior. Yes, protesting is belligerent.

I don't see which vehicles here you are saying were obstructed

The first black Jeep is a probable ICE vehicle, but it looks like they decided to reverse without interacting with her, so that's not obstruction.

Black sedan (ICE) pulls out at 1:23, but then pulls over.

Grey SUV with plate on dash (ICE) pulls out then pulls over to side at 1:28

Green light SUV (not ICE?) drives by at 1:32 and is not seen again (goes past).

Light grey larger SUV (ICE) pulls out 1:48

Large white SUV (ICE) pulls out at 2:12

Light grey larger SUV goes around her to the right at 2:33, while another vehicle goes around her to the left (not due to obstruction, setting up to surround)

Grey SUV with plate on dash (probable ICE) pulls back out and is not seen again (presumably drives past)

From there onwards she is waving all ICE vehicles around and the escalation begins in earnest, so possibility of obstruction is moot.

It seems to me that every ICE vehicle that stopped near/around her did so of their own volition? If there was obstruction, one would expect to see some vehicles stopped around her for some time? I can't speak to before the video started, something the video didn't capture, what informed the original black Jeep driver to back up, etc.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#226

Post by zahlman »

mindslight wrote: post #225
zahlman wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first time we see the Pilot it is blocking both travel lanes And it stays in this position for a considerable period of time, while Good's partner is walking around outside the vehicle and behaving belligerently. The fact that she waves some cars past certainly doesn't negate the apparent intent to obstruct the ICE vehicle. > Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it? Resisting arrest in…

You keep throwing "belligerently" out there to describe protest behavior. Yes, protesting is belligerent. I don't see which vehicles here you are saying were obstructed The first black Jeep is a probable ICE vehicle, but it looks like they decided to reverse without interacting with her, so that's not obstruction. Black sedan (ICE) pulls out at 1:23, but then pulls over. Grey SUV with plate on dash (ICE) pulls out th…

> You keep throwing "belligerently" out there to describe protest behavior. Yes, protesting is belligerent.

You keep throwing "escalation" out there to describe ordinary law enforcement procedure. No, "get out of the car" is not an escalation; it is a response to someone who has already demonstrated non-compliance with a previous request to stop the obstruction.

> I don't see which vehicles here you are saying were obstructed

The ones that cannot continue forward in a straight line because the SUV is in the way, perpendicular to the road.

(I don't know how you're deciding which vehicles are or are not ICE in this video.)

> but it looks like they decided to reverse without interacting with her, so that's not obstruction.

This is beyond absurd. No, if I see that you're in my path, and I elect to choose a different route to avoid you, you have still obstructed me. You have hindered my passage in the direction I want to go, and you have blocked that path.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obstruct

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#227

Post by zahlman »

luke5441 wrote: post #166
bananabiscuit wrote: post #85

I don’t think this is as clear cut as anyone on either side is claiming. Looking [1], it does appear that Renee attempted to run the car right into the ICE officer, the wheels were still pointing slightly left, and the officer was still in front of the car. Also in [2] you can see that she was looking directly at the officer during this initial acceleration attempt. The only thing that saved the officer in that initi…

I'm getting really depressed here that people watch those videos and actually think this was not murder. It's like they live in a different reality or something.

Please explain what you think the word "murder" means, first.

Then please explain your understanding of the law, with regards to the circumstances under which LEO are permitted to use their weapons.

Then please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 and cite at least one point of disagreement with the legal argument presented, on any objective grounds (factual or legal).

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#228

Post by zahlman »

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #89
bananabiscuit wrote: post #85

I don’t think this is as clear cut as anyone on either side is claiming. Looking [1], it does appear that Renee attempted to run the car right into the ICE officer, the wheels were still pointing slightly left, and the officer was still in front of the car. Also in [2] you can see that she was looking directly at the officer during this initial acceleration attempt. The only thing that saved the officer in that initi…

It gets quite clear, when you change the setup a little bit. 1) Make the PO a regular human without a gun and you can imagine, that any normal person would have made just a quick sidestep to avoid collision, like most of us have experienced in person too. Use of force was totally unjustified, esp. when you combine it with: 2) Change the intetion of the driver to really want to harm the person ~2m in front of the car.…

> Use of force was totally unjustified, esp. when you combine it with: Change the intetion of the driver to really want to harm the person ~2m in front of the car.

Such intent is not legally relevant and the legal standard for use of force here is simply not what you appear to think it is. Please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 .

> Cop get trained, that you should not use your gun on close encounters with knives, bc the short distance No, the point of the training is not "don't use the gun in close quarters".

They are trained to not fuck around, and to shoot while they have the chance at range; and to not approach the person who brandishes a knife.

But "not approaching the person who brandishes an SUV" is unreasonable. By this standard, pedestrian crossings would be impossible. And in fact he was not "standing" in front of the SUV. He was in the process of circling back around it, while reasonably expecting the car to remain put, while regrouping with his allies as they demanded Good exit the vehicle.

> It is _very_ obvious. 2/3 shots hit the side of the car

This is also explained by the fact that the car is moving and turning such that the side of the car would face the gun. It does not in any way suggest malicious intent. The timing of the gunshots makes it clear that the officer fired three rounds continuously, most likely on instinct from training for that exact sort of firing pattern. There is enough time for the car to turn slightly (simply from the gun's mechanics), but not enough to allow for any kind of premeditation or even really conscious thought.

> the front wheel _never_ pointed at the PO.

I do not understand how it's possible to watch the video and come to this conclusion in good faith.

Of course, this does not mean that the wheel orientation was deliberate. But if the wheel "never pointed" that way and then continued to turn further right, the officer could not plausibly have been struck. Multiple videos make it abundantly clear that he was struck, and required considerable time (I would say more than a full second) to regain his balance.

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#229

Post by zahlman »

metaphysicalyes wrote: post #110
bananabiscuit wrote: post #85

I don’t think this is as clear cut as anyone on either side is claiming. Looking [1], it does appear that Renee attempted to run the car right into the ICE officer, the wheels were still pointing slightly left, and the officer was still in front of the car. Also in [2] you can see that she was looking directly at the officer during this initial acceleration attempt. The only thing that saved the officer in that initi…

First shot is a red herring. It might be legal in the US to shoot the driver trying to hit you when are already out of the vehicle's way. The more condemnatory are the 2nd and 3rd shot from the side window. This is pure cruelty and disregard of human life which in a parallel universe could be one of your family member. Anyone justifying this deserves no sympathy from rest of the human populace.

That is simply not supported by either facts or law. At this speed of firing, the decision must have been made in advance. The second and third shots are not "from" the side window; they hit there as a natural consequence of continuing to fire in a burst. I see nothing to support the claim that the officer was "already out of the vehicle's way" at the time of the first shot. In fact, he was struck by the vehicle; he did not succeed in getting "out of its way" at all.

A trained LEO in a self-defense situation is expected to fire multiple shots. Even civilians learn how this works in sufficiently advanced firearms training. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_drill . A failure to follow procedure here would be more consistent with "not actually self defense".

Re: Let's call a murder a murder

#230

Post by zahlman »

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.

As an objective legal matter, it is. There is abundant case law for this. Cases relevant to the specific case where the shooting victim is attempting to flee the scene include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner .

> 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.

The law quite literally does not work that way.

Post reply on HN