Shooting at fleeing suspects is absolutely not legal without actual articulable facts that they pose a threat to the public. This isn’t even a legal defense.
Arguably, this is a murder confession.
I mean, this administration has made it very clear that ICE gets to call the shots and declare whatever they want. There is no oversight. That’s on purpose.
In Germany a few years ago, police shot a fleeing non-violent weed dealer in the back of the head, instantly killing him. It was in a residential area, and the bullet flew right past a playing kid, iirc.
It was ruled a good shooting, as it would not be acceptable for the public safety to risk that he might have gotten away.
oh horrible weed, what ever will the public do if those horrible weed heads…checks notes…sit on their couch playing video games and eat too many chips
It would seem they are training the public to fight for their lives when ICE comes knocking. At some point ICE thugs will be ran over, shot, or stabbed if they keep doing this shit. Or maybe we’ll just roll over and let them walk all over us, murder us in the streets, and be sent to die in a concentration camp.
I think that’s on purpose. When people recognize ICE is just as likely to murder them as arrest them, then they’ll start fighting back.
Once people start fighting back, the administration can use that as justification to declare things like insurgencies and national emergencies.
Also, their propaganda works a lot better on morons when they can show their noble and loyal
gestapopedophile protectorspolice being attacked bypeople defending themselves against tyrantsevil bad people.
I think it’s quite clear at this point that DHS agents are being told/trained that ANY moving vehicle is automatically a threat to their lives or the public simply by the nature of it being a moving vehicle.
Even it were legal, it’s still incredibly stupid. Shooting the driver turns a controlled vehicle into an uncontrolled vehicle, which is way more dangerous. You’re basically guaranteeing that the car is going to hit something or someone and cause collateral damage.
You see, they were so concerned about the damage that a single (allegedly) illegal immigrant could cause to the community that they had to act immediately.
“An officer discharged his weapon”…“The driver of the vehicle was struck”
Quite intentionally using passive voice in that second statement as if the officer didn’t intend to shoot the victim. This is murder.
The passive voice is actually common in police reports throughout the United States. This is not new. (The passive voice is also a bad habit of journalists who report on officer-involved violence.)
The difference now is that the state agents are loyal to the regime rather than the state. There’s not even a pretense of enforcing the law.
Using the word “anymore” implies there was a time we could trust them. I feel this creates a false narrative.
That statement had nothing to do with trust. “Anymore” simply says that they used to try to cover the murders up but now they don’t even bother.
Edit: person above was referring to the post title and not the content. My bad.
I believe the comment you’re responding to was referring to OP’s post title, not the comment in the post that was responding to the DHS statement
To be honest I didn’t even read the post title, just the content. Headlines and post titles are always sensationalized or outright fabrications and I rarely read them.
So yeah, I agree with GP in that case.
It began operations on March 1, 2003, after being formed as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, enacted in response to the September 11 attacks.
It’s wild how long ago it seems, but there has been extreme distrust in the DHS since the beginning, when it was clear that 9/11 was used to expand surveillance capabilities of the state.
Osama bin Laden won. Who would have thought it would have taken so little to topple the American Empire?
Eh, he was setup. Unless somebody can explain how a skyscraper collapses into it’s footprint without timed charges taking out the foundations.
Skyscrapers are essentially a bunch of very heavy concrete+steel slabs with, comparably, weak spacers in between them. If one of the floors collapses on top of the other with enough speed/force to break the spacer it continues to fall unabated. Now it has double the weight and it’s no longer static meaning that it’s constantly accelerating due to gravity.
This cascades down every floor gaining increasing amounts of mass*speed(energy) and by the time it hits the foundation it’s more powerful than any sort of “timed charge”.
The amount of energy needed to start this cascade is several orders of magnitude less than what is needed to ‘push it over’. By the time it’s behaving under physics like the ‘jenga tower’ scenario you’re envisioning it’s <10% the height of the original structure.
Yeah, but what’s to stop it from faking to the side? Especially with an uneven start to the collapse?
I totally get the idea of it collapsing. That’s obvious. Why straight down? If any part of that mass falls at an uneven rate, that skyscraper is going to demolish a massive area as it collapses.
Skyscrapers operate on very different principles than a jenga tower, because you’re thinking of it as one your intuition is going to be completely incorrect. It’s not just a bunch of concrete blocks stacked on top of eachother, you can not build very tall using those concepts. Think of a skyscraper like a bunch of those tensegrity table things linked up to each other in an alternating/spiral configuration.1
A strong sideways push can break the balance and cause one floor to crash into the one below it, which breaks that central chain causing it to smash into the floor below it, etc. In order for it to “fall to the side” instead it would need to break both the center chain and at least 2 of the outer ones. You would think this means it only needs ~3x more energy is needed to tip it sideways, but you underestimate the power of leverage.
In short it needs a strong sideways push to fall down and it will collapse on itself, straight down, long before there’s enough energy to cause it to “fall sideways”.
^1 This comparison is only slightly more correct than the ‘jenga tower’ model, but I’m hoping it will help with conceptualizing and intuition. I would encourage you to look at the mathmatical models of skyscrapers, but that’s left as an “Exercise for the reader”^
Remember kids! The only purpose of police throughout history is to protect the property and wealth of the owning class. This is one way they achieve that goal.
Every single egalitarian society had no cops
Eh, kinda true? Some egalitarian societies had no cops, many did in some way, shape, or form. I don’t have the means to provide links as sources but they’re out there… Many egalitarian societies had some form of “law” enforcement (“law” in quotations being not just the written-law the Western world is familiar with but cultural codes of conduct and the natural social contract) but had wildly different approaches to it. One society I’ve read about had seasonal rotations for the role of “police” as no one person could hold that position of authority indefinitely - thereby the abusive authoritarian cop would likely find themselves on the other side when their victims now hold the badge, so better be on your best behaviour when it’s your turn.
Some societies would have the cultural practices of ritualistically beating and humiliating their politicians and police on a regular basis, parading them down the streets in clownish makeup while flogging them sticks and whips, pelting them with rotten food and excrement, as a reminder to these people of their place in society and who they work for. If you were a popular or well-liked politican or cop, the people would feel bad and go easy on you. Makes one think twice about taking on those roles, better be on their best behaviour if they do… A far cry from how we do things nowadays. Not full egalitarian by any means, even if many other practices were egalitarian.
It’s shaky ground to classify cultures or societies as “egalitarian” as societies aren’t that simple. They’re a wild and colourful carnival of social experiments (at least they used to be.) Some societies were egalitarian on seasonal rotation as well, switching back and forth between egalitarian to brutal authoritarian. It’s also similar to when people say “egalitarian societies only work in small populations,” as there’s very little evidence to be convincing either way. Some egalitarian societies were small, some were enormous and spanned continents. In fact, most egalitarian societies were large and you often find strict, hierarchical authoritarianism in smaller groups - especially within families and households. Some hierarchical, authoritarian societies didn’t have police either.
Not saying that’s what you were saying, but it’s more for other readers to not confuse such ideas as “Egalitarian = No cops” or “Egalitarian = No money” etc. Truth is we can have whatever society we want, they’re all just playground rules at the end of the day. The ultimate truth is we choose the society we want every day with our actions, the way we treat others, and our politics. The State is just copium for people who wish to believe someone or something is in control, when in reality we live in a perpetual state of anarchy.
Genuinely curious, do you have an example of this? The only ones I could find were very small scale.
Perhaps, people who are in “fear” of everything, even as someone flees, should not have access to any kind of weapon, or sharp or long objects, for that matter. They should wear mittens.
How people haven’t started shooting back i don’t understand.
For starters its suicide. The law – insomuch as it ever protected citizens-- flies right out the window if anyone shoots at or near a cop. And cops tend to get away with whatever they want.
If they’re going to kill you anyway, seems like fighting back is better than just letting them do it.
Maybe if I give them a hug they will cry and drop their weapons?
They look like they need a hug don’t they? Wish me luck.
For starters its suicide.
They’re killing you anyway. May as well take a few of em with you.
truly. they will likely intensify their efforts if we do, but the only other option we have is to keep rolling over and allowing it.
I can’t prove this, but I suspect they have some way of finding out who has a firearm, so they can avoid that person.
I also suspect, but cannot prove, that the media will hide it when one of them gets shot. I say this because one of them got hit by a car and it wasn’t nationwide news served up by tearful news anchors about this innocent agent who would never hurt a fly.
I can’t prove this, but I suspect they have some way of finding out who has a firearm, so they can avoid that person.
Nah someone carrying a “gun” just gives them a legal reason to shoot someone. Case in point Alex Pretti, Philando Castile, Daniel Shaver, Stephon Clark, Tamir Rice, etc. If an officer suspects you might be thinking about shooting then they can legally kill you.
We’re already pretty close to open civil war. Might as well rip the bandaid off and get it over with i guess. I’d rather not, but that’s the way things seem to be going.
They might intensify their efforts a little faster than they would have otherwise, but I guarantee you they will intensify their efforts either way.
You only need to see the number of all the “Back the Blue” bumper stickers to understand. A lot of us are conditioned to bow down to cops no matter what the facts of a situation are.
If I was going about my daily life with a 3 year old in the back I wouldn’t be too interested in getting into a shootout either.
But I agree, I’m waiting for a shoe to drop here, how much more tense can it be?
Not even putting in the effort to lie convincingly. The final insult.
Nah. The final result is when they don’t bother to lie.
“Yes, we shot him for no reason. Now shut the fuck up or you’re next.”
Give it a few more months.
From another article…
A witness told the Portland Press Herald that he heard gunshots, then saw an SUV attempting to “ram a small white car in the intersection” before agents in vests stopped the white car and pulled the man from the vehicle. Before he died, the victim was “bleeding profusely from the head,” that witness said. “He was talking. He said, ‘I tried to stop.’”
Another witness told the Press Herald that the victim’s family was apparently at the scene of the shooting. As the man lay on the street, an “older woman” was present “with a distressed family,” including a toddler—a little girl in Bluey pajamas. “You took her dad, you took her dad!” the woman yelled.
There’s basically no reality in which I ever have a fragment of faith in this country again if ICE traitors aren’t held accountable for their crimes the next time we have adults in charge.
So I’m gearing up to hate this removed for the rest of my life, cuz I seriously doubt that’s going to happen.
This is what happens when you have a man in charge with a double first name and a prior boss who had a removedold bed on her private government funded jet. Trump is a genital wart on the American people.
🌎🧑🚀🔫👨🚀
They weren’t happy about it either but when they spun their “excuse wheel”, that’s what came up.
lies have been SOP for the trump machine since day one. to expect otherwise is nice but ultimately fruitless
Lies have been SOP for the
trumpamerican machine since day one.The novel thing about the “trump machine” is the complete lack of effort and utter sloppiness of it.
yes indeed
celibacy, lack of accountability, racism and machismo are a helluva drug. And the media helping out by using the passive voice for the officers murder of that man is disgusting. What happened to journalism in the US.
snowballs chance they will investigate this either, same as with Renee Good and the other 6 or so people.
