ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis
-
She was there to agitate and block the ability of LEOs to do their job. Explicitly. That is why she was there. Her wife was filming. It was a social media anti-ICE stunt. But ICE has guns, and big SUVs can actually be considered deadly weapons in the heats of moments. A moment she absolutely wanted to be in.
Education is extremely important.
-
You’re probably right. We will all hear how many rounds hit her where on her body she was struck. We know one round entered the driver’s side windshield. As @jon-nyc already pointed out the LEO also did appear to fire twice into the back of the escaping vehicle. Would be most embarrassing if the killing shot was to the back of her head..
-
You’re probably right. We will all hear how many rounds hit her where on her body she was struck. We know one round entered the driver’s side windshield. As @jon-nyc already pointed out the LEO also did appear to fire twice into the back of the escaping vehicle. Would be most embarrassing if the killing shot was to the back of her head..
@Renauda said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
You’re probably right. We will all hear how many rounds hit her where on her body she was struck. We know one round entered the driver’s side windshield. As @jon-nyc already pointed out the LEO also did appear to fire twice into the back of the escaping vehicle. Would be most embarrassing if the killing shot was to the back of her head..
Yeah those who want to apply force are probably overrepresented in professions where the use of force is an option. This is part of the FAFO equation.
-
@Renauda said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
You’re probably right. We will all hear how many rounds hit her where on her body she was struck. We know one round entered the driver’s side windshield. As @jon-nyc already pointed out the LEO also did appear to fire twice into the back of the escaping vehicle. Would be most embarrassing if the killing shot was to the back of her head..
Yeah those who want to apply force are probably overrepresented in professions where the use of force is an option. This is part of the FAFO equation.
Indeed. The coroner’s autopsy ought to shed some light on the question.
I still maintain that she should have been dealt with later - her vehicle would have been easily traceable - and through good services the municipal Police who are actually trained to deal with public mischief perps.
-
Why would she be directing traffic to move forward if she were trying to impede traffic? I'm still unsure of her intentions. I remember a group of folks were convinced the a police officer was guilty of manslaughter while she said she thought she had a Taser in her hands. The fact that she screamed "Taser, Taser" seemed to me to suggest that she really did confuse the two weapons - as challenging as it was for some to believe that two very different appearing weapons were involved.
-
Why would she be directing traffic to move forward if she were trying to impede traffic? I'm still unsure of her intentions. I remember a group of folks were convinced the a police officer was guilty of manslaughter while she said she thought she had a Taser in her hands. The fact that she screamed "Taser, Taser" seemed to me to suggest that she really did confuse the two weapons - as challenging as it was for some to believe that two very different appearing weapons were involved.
Why would she be directing traffic to move forward if she were trying to impede traffic? I'm still unsure of her intentions.
Noam and other Admin minions are certain the deceased was a fanatic left wing domestic terrorist with malign intent.
I think her intent didn’t extend beyond being a nuisance engaged obstructive public mischief. Most certainly nowhere as mischievous or obstructionist as were the January 6 doofuses who, as we have been repeatedly told, were peacefully taking selfies in front of the Capitol building until provoked by law enforcement.
-
She was there to agitate and block the ability of LEOs to do their job. Explicitly. That is why she was there. Her wife was filming. It was a social media anti-ICE stunt. But ICE has guns, and big SUVs can actually be considered deadly weapons in the heats of moments. A moment she absolutely wanted to be in.
@Horace said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
She was there to agitate and block the ability of LEOs to do their job. Explicitly. That is why she was there. Her wife was filming. It was a social media anti-ICE stunt. But ICE has guns, and big SUVs can actually be considered deadly weapons in the heats of moments. A moment she absolutely wanted to be in.
Yeah, it was truly a FAFO moment. I still think the officer didn’t expect to discharge his weapon but once he did he committed to the act.
-
Another story where both sides get what they want. How nice.
-
There are stories now that she had resisted arrest 3-4 times that day, using her vehicle to bar agents, then pulling away when they tried to arrest her. That is a very dangerous game and kind of shakes the whole “she panicked” narrative.
-
-
Stories don’t help. From what I have seen it was in no way justified. And I normally come down on the side of law enforcement in these things. The guy should not have been in front of the vehicle. They are trained not to do that. He drew his weapon before she started moving forward.
-
From [Nation] February 28, 2014. (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/us-border-agents-intentionally-stepped-front-moving-vehicles-justify-shooting-them/)
US Border Agents Intentionally Stepped in Front of Moving Vehicles to Justify Shooting at Them
The Los Angeles Times obtained an internal review of US Border Patrol’s use-of-force policies, which US Customs and Border Protection has refused to release publicly (members of Congress have seen a summary). While the Times did not offer the report in full, the paper did publish previously unseen snippets that portray a law enforcement agency operating under loose use-of-force standards and little accountability.
The review was completed in February 2013 by the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit that develops best practices for law enforcement use-of-force policies. It examined sixty-seven use-of-force incidents by federal border agents near the US-Mexico border that resulted in nineteen deaths.
Here are some key findings of the review, revealed by the Times Thursday:
Border Patrol agents have intentionally and unnecessarily stepped in front of moving cars to justify using deadly force against vehicle occupants.
Agents have shot in frustration across the US-Mexico border at rock throwers when simply moving away was an option.
Border Patrol demonstrates a “lack of diligence” in investigating incidents in which US agents fire their weapons.
It’s questionable whether Border Patrol “consistently and thoroughly reviews” incidents in which agents use deadly force.
The report is especially scathing in its critique of agents who’ve stood in front of moving vehicles, recommending that they “get out of the way…as opposed to intentionally assuming a position in front of such vehicles.” The authors add:
It should be recognized that a half-ounce (200-grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000-pound moving vehicle, and if the driver…is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat… Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents.
The report recommends that Border Patrol bar agents from shooting at vehicles unless their lives are threatened and also from firing at rock throwers. An internal response by Border Patrol, also obtained by the Los Angeles Times, rejected both these recommendations. The agency said a ban on shooting at rock throwers would endanger agents because they work “in rural or desolate areas, often alone, where concealment, cover and egress is not an option,” and that a ban on shooting vehicles would empower drug smugglers to run over agents. The response echoes statements made by Border Patrol chief Mike Fisher in November.
At least twenty-one people have been killed by Border Patrol agents working on the US-Mexico border since 2010. In 2012, agents shot at a 16-year-old boy multiple times in the back, killing him. The latest fatality happened this month, when a border agent near San Diego shot and killed an undocumented migrant for throwing rocks, one of which struck the agent in the head. In all these cases, it’s unknown as to whether any of the agents involved were disciplined, as CBP does not make that information public.
-
Geraldo Rivera apparently found the DOJ policy on defense against a car.
After some back and forth with Holmstrom, Rivera added, “Let me read one sentence. This is the use-of-force policy of the Department of Justice. Quote: ‘Agents may not fire at a moving car that is threatening them unless no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.‘ This is DOJ policy, signed off on by the country’s 25 largest cities.”
-
This isn’t an all or nothing type of thing. We can recognize that the agent’s actions crossed a line and based on the past history, he really shouldn’t have been in the field. We can also recognize that the woman and her wife weren’t heroes or victims, but instead were idiots that were full of shit, and by willfully putting yourself into violent confrontations can and should expect violence to happen.
We can also recognize that some culpability does lie with the administration, the agency, and the policy shortfalls while also recognizing that the opposition that twists and manipulates while also promoting forcible resistance also bears responsibility.
TLDR version? They’re all a bunch of assholes and anybody that puts all the blame one way or the other are doing nothing but continuing the cycle.
-
She had quite a lot of experience with public agitation to be one to "panic". Likely she figured it was the move that would maybe go viral, or whatever her ultimate intention was. She probably didn't lend credence to the possibility that she'd catch a bullet or three, but that's what separates professional agitators from those of us who do respect the objective fact that you're messing around with people with guns, and the ambiguous authority to use them.
We also don't actually know, even now, whether she'd have done anything differently, knowing the outcome. It's not as if martyrdom is an unheard of motivation for political zealots.
-
Spoke at length last evening with a very close friend who served thirty odd years on the Calgary Police Service. Some of those years with the tactical squad. Upon retirement the Service brought him back on contract to train police cadets on essentials of engagement and self defence.
He made some very interesting comments about the incident. First and foremost is the LEO made a fundamental rookie error by walking directly behind and then in front of an engaged vehicle with its driver still behind the wheel and its engine running. Secondly, if they wished to apprehend the woman, placing one of their vehicles directly in front (and behind, if practicable) of her vehicle would immediately deny any egress for her by vehicle. In any event, he would not have handled the situation as these LEOs. She would have been told to immediately vacate the area and the police would deal with her later at her home or in a place away from the ongoing operation. The videos in circulation clearly demonstrate she and her partner’s mischief and obstruction acts did not pose any immediate physical threat to any officer or public on the scene.
