Sounds like ICE's official word right now is that the guy had a gun. But the video clearly indicates that they all tackled him to the ground and were wrestling him maybe 4 vs 1, before they all shot him together. I'm not quite sure how a gun can have come out of this. Maybe the guy while struggling on the ground happened to reach in the direction of someone's gun while getting curbstomped, I dunno. What I'm most worr…
>> Sounds like ICE's official word right now is that the guy had a gun. Look at the gray agent taking the victim weapon, that had just been pepper sprayed. He was disarmed before being killed. "Footage of the grey coat officer retrieving the gun" - https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvpbr/footage_of_the...
Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
821–830 of 895 posts
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#822Earlier quoted context omitted.
What unlimited terms? It seems like they can kill whoever they want whenever they want. And I don't think there are enough of them to fight a civil war.
I mean unlimited presidential terms without having anything like elections to get in the way.
Is there any mechanism already where a war or active civil unrest causes a delay in elections in America? I've read that America has no such provision in our election laws to delay/cancel an election like that.
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#823Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean unlimited presidential terms without having anything like elections to get in the way.
Is there any mechanism already where a war or active civil unrest causes a delay in elections in America? I've read that America has no such provision in our election laws to delay/cancel an election like that.
Do you think it's necessary?
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#824Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but by engaging in this kind of framing you're essentially saying that all [state] violence is excusable by default I disagree that it has that effect. With the assumption of good faith, comments like GP aren't fishing around for an excuse; the point is to highlight what's legally relevant and where there is room to disagree with the interpretation of video. I don't think it's plausible that defense for the agents…
> (I can't tell from the video I've seen who fired or how many shots or anything like that) You can’t count the number of gunshots? Huh. And here I thought your handle meant zahl + man.
I can't hear or see them, no. The video footage available isn't high enough quality. There's too much chaos, people are using phones that they can't hold steady, etc.
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#825Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bargain with law enforcement has always been that ostensibly if you comply, they will take you in peacefully. For obvious reasons, this is highly advantageous to both parties. It seems like a foolish choice for them to reneg on this. They are essentially signaling that you are a trapped rat with no way out.
That’s true if you want to keep the peace. The way to read their actions is that they’re trying to incite violence. If Trump can incite violence then he can invoke the insurrection act, or perhaps declare some form of martial law to seize more power. Perhaps even parlay this into cancelling the midterm elections.
Or simply that the current ICE and Border Patrol agents are too poorly trained to act as law enforcement.
Which, given the statistic that a decent percentage of ICE applicants can't get a passing score on an open book test [0] doesn't surprise me.
[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ice-is-reportedly-hiring-p...
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#826Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you completely and totally misread my comment and incorrectly imputed my intent. I am in no way allied with ICE, what they are doing is abhorrent and wrong. I'm not sure why you're attacking me or assuming I have a position completely opposite of the one I have. I used caveat words- "I think it's factual". That's the way somebody states their subjective opinion of what they believe the facts are. I have nothi…
This construction: > whether the protestor could possibly have wielded their gun while being restrained by agents, or whether he is disarmed by the gray-jacketed agent, or what caused the agents to fire when they did Is a list of excuses for the shooting (to wit: "maybe he wielded the gun", "maybe he wasn't disarmed", "maybe they had cause to fire"). It's all things that would have (arguably) made it justified. You'l…
LEO are also individuals who get due process rights. The law will generally require considering whether Y or Z happened if there's reason to suppose that it might have.
More importantly, when X is phrased in a way that implies intent or motives not in evidence, or plays up the injustice of X in legally irrelevant ways, that's reason to push back in an open Internet discussion.
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#827This links to a synchronized amalgamation of multiple video angles: https://streamable.com/udofq5
It clearly shows that Alex Pretti never drew a weapon, and his (legally owned and carried) CCW was removed by one of the agents from its holster seconds prior to other agents shooting Alex in the back. Agents are visibly using pepper spray, pistol whipping his head, and even though it’s 5+ vs one, don’t even appear to be attempting to handcuff or properly restrain.
Another video from a VFX editor showing position of hands during the incident: https://www.reddit.com/user/AriFeblowitzVFX/comments/1qmf89x...
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#828Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a real point. It's only illegal to support a sanctioned person if you know or should have known they were sanctioned.
Yeah you aren't getting the point. I'm not saying that the proprietor would be at risk for unfair prosecution, I'm saying the policy would be useless because it is easy to avoid if you don't take it to an absurd extreme. I guess I should have spelled it out in the initial comment.
There's already a law against helping a criminal flee a crime scene, but the criminal may still buy a train ticket and the train company isn't liable unless he told them he was a criminal, but anyone who knew he was a criminal and helped him anyway goes to jail. This is nothing new.
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#829Earlier quoted context omitted.
We were discussing post level moderation and not comment level moderation. I'm suggesting the site allow more politics, I'm not condoning abandoning all the site’s rules. I don't think the level of discourse in the comments is being improved by the current level of post level moderation. The most noticeable impact is simply prompting tangents into the post level moderation itself like it did here which arguably lower…
Let's be honest: you're doing much more than "suggesting". The whole reason we can't have these posts on the front page is that the comments in the threads so frequently break the guidelines and turn the site into a place that repels people who want to have thoughtful discussions. So there is no yet-known way to have our cake and eat it; the presence of these stories on the front page means abandoning the site's rule…
>Let's be honest: you're doing much more than "suggesting".
Lol, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. I'll admit to including an undercurrent of shaming with that suggestion to hopefully cause some introspection, but it's still just a suggestion.
Beyond that, I just fundamentally disagree with the point you seem to be making People can't be trusted to talk nicely so they won't get any place to talk at all just doesn't feel like the right principle for the moment.
Regardless, my original point stands. Everyone's unique role in life grants them a certain amount of power. Now is the time to consider what it will take before you use your power to exert whatever positive influence you can.
Re: Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning
#830Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah you aren't getting the point. I'm not saying that the proprietor would be at risk for unfair prosecution, I'm saying the policy would be useless because it is easy to avoid if you don't take it to an absurd extreme. I guess I should have spelled it out in the initial comment.
There's already a law against helping a criminal flee a crime scene, but the criminal may still buy a train ticket and the train company isn't liable unless he told them he was a criminal, but anyone who knew he was a criminal and helped him anyway goes to jail. This is nothing new.
No, I mean that it wouldn't hamper ICE all that much unless you took it to an extreme. An onerous policy inflicted on the people of Minnesota that accomplished little in the way of disrupting federal operations.