951–960 of 977 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For anyone who wants a term to refer to this seemingly nonsensical behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Pathetic. You guys really don’t have anything to say, do you. Pure feelings, pure emotions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Another quick aside since I suspect this is a second point of confusion, "lethal force" does not mean "with the intent to kill", it means "force that is likely to cause severe injury or death". It.. is not. I suspect that you have some fundamental misunderstandings of firearm safety and I would not feel safe at a range with someone who thinks this way.
I believe it's a legal term that's leaked out into general use: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force > Deadly force, also known as lethal force, is the use of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person. Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7 > (a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause deat…
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…
> I wonder if Europe and Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the world know what they're missing by not having LEO as qualified as ICE running their streets.
"Europe" is of course not a place, but maybe you'd be surprised to know this does happen in "Europe" and other countries. In fact France specifically legalized police shooting vehicles fleeing traffic stops even if the police themselves are not in danger, and about a dozen people are killed that way every year.
Heck, here's a video of a shooting in Canada where the police fired at someone just trying to get away:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would that be different from current municipal police forces?
“Under control of the mayor” would be different from many current municipal police forces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pathetic. You guys really don’t have anything to say, do you. Pure feelings, pure emotions.
This is just more of the same. These things you accuse others of are simply your own insecurities. Every single word, at least in these last two comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the poorer parts of the world, people absolutely detest illegal immigrants (or basically most working migrants as well) because they are taking jobs from the locals. They hate refugees because there's not enough resources to go around to use in feeding and housing them. Welcoming people in because "no-one wants to do those jobs" is very much a luxury belief of the well off.
I think the number of people who welcome immigrants for this reason is actually quite small, and is mostly business owners. And to be fair, they are not entirely wrong -- all evidence we have suggests that many of the jobs are so hard that getting citizens to do them would require bumping the wage 3, 4, 5 times, and even then it is a tough sell. What I think has happened culturally is that Americans see us as the shi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything you write here assumes that the world is far more rigid and full of inevitability than can be justified.
it only assumes that the government is aware of their own laws and has half a brain to realize what that means, what I wrote is being proved true right now
* It assumes that a person's immigration status is not malleable and cannot be normalized. This is strictly false.
* It assumes that immigration laws are static. Again, strictly false.
* It implies that all force is equal in violence, which is something I usually only hear from high schoolers who have just encountered libertarianism and love it
* It suggests that there is no moral agency in acting on behalf of the government, only in acting against the backdrop reality of this monolithic slab of granite.
* It suggests even that the violence currently taking place is for the purpose of enforcing laws. This isn't true for the U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization who are being unlawfully detained, it isn't true for the thousands of non-citizens with legal status who are being detained and moved across state lines. It isn't true for the non-citizens who are being arrested literally while attending the process of maintaining their legal status. It isn't even true for those without legal status who are having their doors kicked in without warrants, and it isn't true for those without legal status who are being detained and tortured. None of this is actually according to the law, it's just what they can get away with and make a spectacle of violence.
I'm not even exactly clear who the nebulous group of people is that you want to blame for getting people caught up in the government's violence. I guess if you're mad at coyotes, sure, be my guest? If you're mad at anyone involved in the process of asylum you're mad at people following the law. If you're mad at people helping their neighbors you've lost the plot. If you're mad at state or city governments not enforcing federal laws for then either you don't like federalism or you don't understand it, but at best your assumption is historically contentious.
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 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…
> One does not need slow-mo to see she wasn't trying to kill anyone. 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 consequence…
You are correct, she didn't get shot in the head, she was shot in the chest and lived for 20 minutes while she was denied medical attention.
Any resistance to tyranny will involve disobedience of varying levels of severity. This administration is fascist in the true meaning of the word. A woman blocked the street, got killed then called a f*cking b*tch by the cop after he shot her, and a domestic terrorist before her body was cold by the DHS secretary and president and vice president.
You say she shouldn't have been there. I say ICE shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have issued conflicting orders, shouldn't have gotten in front of her car, and should have kept going around her like they had been. I say her demeanor before she left meant she clearly was not trying to harm anyone. Period.
Authority is not ipso facto moral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but we still have some real elections coming up, Unless the president declares a permanent temporary state of emergency for whatever reason that would prevent such elections.
There is no precedent for this. The executive lacks the authority. It would require Congress to enact a law, and this is easier said than done. The states run elections, and while the feds have some input on how elections for federal office are conducted, it is quite limited. The vast majority of the population is relying on these protections holding.
The executive lacks the authority to do more than 99% of the things done in 2025. Just about all of it is blatantly illegal or unconstitutional.
But, turns out, there is no enforcement mechanism against any of this. There is nobody that can put a stop to the illegal behavior. The legislative branch and the judicial branch can write sternly worded letters, but they have no army to enforce obedience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One does not need slow-mo to see she wasn't trying to kill anyone. 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 consequence…
I highly disagree with your analysis. And yes, some of my perspective is based on the ideology that the ICE agents are largely incompetent, racist, hateful human beings led by people of the same quality. You are correct, she didn't get shot in the head, she was shot in the chest and lived for 20 minutes while she was denied medical attention. Any resistance to tyranny will involve disobedience of varying levels of se…
There were no conflicting orders, unless you mean ICE telling her to get out of the car while Good's partner yells "drive, baby drive!"
> shouldn't have gotten in front of her car,
It certainly would have been smarter for the ICE agent on a personal welfare level, but the idea that the cops have to leave you an escape route is silly. It's policy mostly for police safety; from everyone elses' standpoint, you don't get to say "the cops have stopped me and I don't have a way out so I have no choice but to run them over."
> Any resistance to tyranny will involve disobedience of varying levels of severity. This administration is fascist in the true meaning of the word.
Right, well, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who is out protesting and resisting the incompetent, hateful, and violent thugs of a fascist regime should absolutely, 100% expect to be killed. I mean, that's what fascist thugs do. Instead, Good and her partner appear to have been caught totally off guard, with her partner demanding to know why they had real bullets. There's a disconnect somewhere.
Anyway, I guess one of my overarching points is that this is not actually unusual police behavior, even by international standards. It's getting so much attention because of its political salience. I don't know (and doubt) there is any coordination going on, but in these situations I think people should always ask themselves why: a) this event, like many others, is incorrectly being treated as unprecedented or beyond the norm and b) why it is so emotionally charged when similar past events were not, c) whether the emotionality is productive at all personally and d) whether the outrage is likely to lead to desirable political consequences. For a closely related example in the lattermost question, I am no lover of cops, but it appears the actual political results of the BLM protests were highly mixed, at best, and in some cases made things worse. So, for example, returning to a situation where we have immigration laws and minimal enforcement is clearly not a desirable end for anyone except maybe some classes of businessmen.