941–950 of 977 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I have seen footage of ICE shooting a woman in the face and killing her. Is that propaganda?
(There is also no valid reason to flag my comments.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the trajectory of the bullet goes through the front windshield and struck the driver, what location would that place the officer at? Somewhere near the front of the vehicle?
DHS training manual says not to stand in front of a vehicle, so if a bullet went through the front of a vehicle I would judge whether the situation should have happened at all. But also, depending on the angle of entry, you could be quite far to the side and still shoot through the front. Ignoring the curvature of the Earth, if the car was facing North the shooter could have been in Vancouver. Or if the direction of…
Supposing that you could cite this, it is irrelevant, because he was not "standing" there but completing a circle of the vehicle to gather video footage.
> But also, depending on the angle of entry, you could be quite far to the side and still shoot through the front.
There are photos of the bullet hole in the windshield and it's quite clear that the impact was quite square.
> Or if the direction of entry is the most important to you, most of the bullets went through the side window, what position does that indicate?
It indicates the result of the car moving during the fraction of a second required to fire multiple shots (faster than a human can consciously process the decision to stop firing, and congruent with standard LEO training to fire multiple shots).
> Or maybe none of this is important in the case of propaganda, like I implied.
This is not an argument and is also not appropriate rhetoric for HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much of the situation were you actually able to know? Were you privy to the entire conversation?
The amount of credulity you’re exhibiting is incredible given the tidal wave of evidence that there’s a highly politicized, highly funded paramilitary organization of the government that has to date not been publicly held accountable for any of its actions that clearly violate the rights and safety of even the lawful residents of the United States.
The claim that ICE exists and is highly funded is not in dispute. ICE has existed since 2002 and the current funding was provided in the Big Beautiful Bill and was never in question.
"Paramilitary" is a subjective assessment.
Anyone being "held accountable" for anything, ever, in the legal system, takes years. Trump has not even been in office (this time around) for a year yet.
The actions you describe as "clearly violating rights" simply do not do any such thing. The rights of American citizens don't work the way that protesters have been implying.
ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers. They are explicitly empowered in the relevant law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 , section (a)(5)) to make arrests without a warrant of any person (including citizens) for any federal crime that they actively see happening, and any federal felony on reasonable suspicion.
Which makes perfect sense, because those are things that any other federal law enforcement officer would be able to do, without a warrant, in the same situation.
The Tenth Amendment does not bar federal officers from prosecuting federal crime and does not bar them from being in your state in the first place. It also doesn't give your local law enforcement the right to interfere with them. It only relieves them of the burden of helping to enforce federal law.
Even a Mother Jones article admits it's "not illegal" generally for the ICE agents to wear masks (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/06/ice-immigration...). (Aside from any question of anonymity, in the Good case, the face coverings on agents appear to be fabric appropriate to the near-freezing weather.) Attempts to pass state laws to prohibit the masks are being challenged (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-14/federal-...); I'm not convinced they would matter anyway given the Supremacy Clause.
When protesters are resisting arrest, physical force is sometimes required to enact that arrest. (And it's strange to make this argument about "safety" when many protesters are attempting to endanger the officers as well as counter-protesters and critics.) All the same things would be playing out if you had the same actions taken against state LEO that were trying to enforce state law.
I have thus far seen video footage of the ICE protesters:
* vandalizing unattended federal vehicles and stealing a firearm from one of them
* throwing dangerous objects at officers
* intentionally ramming cars
* boxing in officers on the street
* attempting to booby-trap the area around ICE facilities presumably in the hope of injuring the agents
* repeatedly refusing to leave when officers tell them to leave and there is clearly nothing preventing them from leaving, then resisting arrest when that refusal leads to an arrest
* effectively enacting their own "Kavanaugh stops" (without any legal authority) on other random citizens that they wrongly suspected of being plainclothes ICE agents because they happened to own the wrong model of SUV
* vandalizing the vehicle of counter-protesters while they were stopped at a traffic light, physically climbing onto the vehicle, making threats, and soaping up the front window to obscure visibility (a clear safety threat to everyone)
* running in front of a parked ICE SUV and pretending (very obviously) to get hit by it
* using a loudspeaker at close range next to a counter-protester, in a manner that would clearly cause or threaten hearing damage
And a lot of this directly leads to the situations that they subsequently propagandize.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to interfere physically with law enforcement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm paying attention, just not buying into administration wanting a civil war. Won't happen.
Regardless, would you agree that we're watching a constitutional crisis unfold? The stability of case law is being completely undermined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why then don't people unite against the dominance of not very friendly and culturally alien migrants, Muslims?
Because your premise is untrue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument is that people recklessly driving their vehicles with a total disregard for the lives around them are a danger to the people in front of their car and anyone else on the street, which is recognized by the Supreme Court even when nobody is directly in front of the car. They don’t have to wait until you kill someone and get tried for it. They can legally just shoot you under current law. That’s what the co…
>The argument is that people recklessly driving their vehicles with a total disregard for the lives around them are a danger to the people in front of their car and anyone else on the street And my argument is that no matter what SCOTUS law one cites, or hand-waving about self-defense that is said, that shooting her in the head from the side of the car was not only tactically unnecessary, but objectively made the sit…
She accelerated her car before turning the wheels knowing people were in the path of her car. (Even if you argue that the wheels spinning before the wheels turn doesn't count, cars do not turn rotate on their central axis, so accelerating while turning still endangers people in front of the car.) Nobody can read her mind but the possible consequences of that action are obvious. Legally that constitutes intent, regardless of what we might want to project on her state of mind.
Further, if you do want to talk about state of mind, you cannot argue that any person behaving rationally would choose to commit a felony and flee from LEO in a vehicle in the first place. This is an extremely high-risk move for zero benefit and the video confirms it didn't even take place out of panic, which was my original thought. On the ground in that situation there can be no analysis of "what is she thinking" because she abandoned the reasonable course that anyone there would have expected her to take.
> that shooting her in the head
No confirmed gunshot wound is in her head. Where did you hear this? It appears the ICE officer fired center of mass, as two confirmed gunshot wounds are in her chest and one in her arm.
I realize that arguing these technical issues will not change your mind, because for you the emotion of "people dying is bad" trumps all the reasons it happened. But I hope it will get you to consider what other people are thinking.
> tactically unnecessary, but objectively made the situation worse
That isn't clear at all because you cannot know what the counterfactual is. There were armed people who could have shot James Fields before he accelerated into a crowd. If they had, Heather Heyer would be alive today. If they had shot him, then people would be making the same argument you're making. Hitting the gas while your car is surrounded by people is no different than firing a gun randomly. In the very best case, your are operating a deadly weapon with a total disregard for human life. In some situations (self-defense), that may be justified. But it is not innocent.
The way to stop this from happening is to stop encouraging people to commit crimes by interfering with law enforcement. There are other effective ways to protest. Another good start would be winning elections. Encouraging people to get into violent encounters with law enforcement is risking peoples' lives for nothing. Once you choose violence you don't know where it's going to go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DHS training manual says not to stand in front of a vehicle, so if a bullet went through the front of a vehicle I would judge whether the situation should have happened at all. But also, depending on the angle of entry, you could be quite far to the side and still shoot through the front. Ignoring the curvature of the Earth, if the car was facing North the shooter could have been in Vancouver. Or if the direction of…
> DHS training manual says not to stand in front of a vehicle Supposing that you could cite this, it is irrelevant, because he was not "standing" there but completing a circle of the vehicle to gather video footage. > But also, depending on the angle of entry, you could be quite far to the side and still shoot through the front. There are photos of the bullet hole in the windshield and it's quite clear that the impac…
And there is also video from multiple angles with enough detail to determine that the gun was fired while the officer was still in front of the vehicle.
For an idea as to how this gets translated into the reality on the ground here in Minneapolis this is an article on what’s going on from the main newspaper in the state. > In the past week alone, ICE boxed in a Woodbury real estate agent recording their movements from his car, slammed him to the ground and detained him at the Whipple Federal Building near Fort Snelling for 10 hours. A 51-year-old teacher patrolling t…
If all those things happened in Spain where I live, I'm 99% we'd have actual riots on the streets, together with a lot of other unpleasant-but-needed civilian action, until things got better, like we've done in the past (sometimes maybe went slightly overboard with it, but better than nothing). Why are Americans so passive? You're literally transitioning into straight up authoritarianism, yet where are the riots? How…
If violence is warranted, the time and place for it is not when they're all together, armed to the teeth, and looking for a fight. It's when they're off duty, alone, and not expecting a confrontation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really do not add much value to any conversation you're a part of. The reading comprehension just isn't there. It remains true, my views are gained from submission to my faith. I recognize they're not my views. It's submission to our higher power. The difference is that you think your views are yours. But you're a moral relativist being manipulated. Blowing with the wind in society, you're a "cool guy". Anything…
For anyone who wants a term to refer to this seemingly nonsensical behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, bad wording. I was using the "you all" in the same context as the parent's "collective we". Yes, there's tens of thousands out in the streets protesting, but also yes there's tens of millions who aren't.
I think it's millions, not tens of thousands protesting. I hate that the online world is so polluted with America Bad that we cannot even have a good discussion. There is literally nothing American citizens could be doing right now that would meet with approval from outsiders.