ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis
-
Yeah, but you are painting this tearjerking story without any specific knowledge of how this is being done. I think you've been assimilated by the Minnesoooota Democrats.
@Mik said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Yeah, but you are painting this tearjerking story without any specific knowledge of how this is being done. I think you've been assimilated by the Minnesoooota Democrats.
Maybe. I suppose to be fair I was getting my information from a few interviews. I can't say the whole system is like this, but I also haven't seen reports of ICE telling relatives where their family member is when they grab and throw them into a vehicle and speed off, nor reports of how due process is being applied to validate their citizenship. I do have evidence of american citizens being kidnapped then released (this happened to a Target employee near where i live and he was dropped off at a nearby Walmart with a bloody face). Yes, an american citizen was kidnapped, bloodied, and then dropped off miles away. I have evidence of cops going up to brown people here and "cold calling" asking them where they were born. I'd imagine there's a big financial incentive behind ICE right now to deliver a certain number of bodies so they get a bonus or something.
-
Coherent yes, but still an only a third party investigation unconvincingly presented as objective and factual. Of course the deceased and her partner were engaged in mischief and obstruction. Both could be dealt with later and elsewhere.
Beyond that, I remain doubtful. Especially since partisan politicians of all stripes and colours along with their appointed minions within hours of the incident weighed in as self appointed judges and jury on what happened.
Hopefully, the ensuing investigation and inquiry will reveal the truth. But that will occur if the “partisans” can keep their mouths shut and minds open.
@Renauda said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Coherent yes, but still an only a third party investigation unconvincingly presented as objective and factual. Of course the deceased and her partner were engaged in mischief and obstruction. Both could be dealt with later and elsewhere.
Beyond that, I remain doubtful. Especially since partisan politicians of all stripes and colours along with their appointed minions within hours of the incident weighed in as self appointed judges and jury on what happened.
Hopefully, the ensuing investigation and inquiry will reveal the truth. But that will occur if the “partisans” can keep their mouths shut and minds open.
I'm not seeing very many ambiguities anymore in terms of what happened. And even if all relevant facts are agreed on, the different interpretations will remain. We'll never possibly know exactly what was going on in the head of the officer who shot her, and it will never be an objective fact whether he should have been in reasonable fear of great bodily harm in that moment.
-
I mean, he was holding his camera with his right hand, walked in front of the vehicle and switched hands so he could take out his gun. He wanted something to happen and it did. I didn't watch Megyn's video above, but my opinion remains the same... absolutely unnecessary shooting, but also absolutely legal (technically) if a vehicle is driving (barely) towards a cop. If he really thought the vehicle was a risk he wouldn't have walked in front and switched hands so he could have a gun to shoot with.
-
Of course, both participants had it well within their options for the killing not to have occurred. It's two separate discussions about whether the officer committed murder, and whose behavior was ultimately more responsible for the unfortunate ending. Maybe they have exactly equal culpability, that would be nice.
-
There oughta be a name for that sort of posting style.
Declaration of authority by experience.
Short declarative sentences that cut through the bull and the ambiguity.
The moral weight of deep sadness.
meanwhile, it wouldn't be difficult to find someone with his exact credentials that thinks the opposite.
It doesn't usually work out well to extrapolate deep systemic issues - crises even - from isolated, juicy, narrative-driven law enforcement anecdotes. But whomever wrote that, is intent on carrying on that dubious tradition.
The implication that a society of several hundred million should expect to reduce to zero the juicy anecdotes of unnecessary deaths caused by law enforcement, simply by "increasing standards and accountability", remains as stupid as it always has been, and always will be. Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I don't actually believe very many people have "militarized police" high on their list of practical worries. And those who could legitimately claim that, would intersect almost unanimously with strong tribal feels about politics in general.
Just not this
deeply concerned
center right, non-partisan
military veteran
Social media poster with a profound message.
Education is extremely important.
-
I wouldn't place any stakes on the notion that there isn't an equal and opposite precedent.
said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
I wouldn't place any stakes on the notion that there isn't an equal and opposite precedent.
Here's a treasure trove of precedent for those who wish to argue in the opposite direction.
-
There oughta be a name for that sort of posting style.
Declaration of authority by experience.
Short declarative sentences that cut through the bull and the ambiguity.
The moral weight of deep sadness.
meanwhile, it wouldn't be difficult to find someone with his exact credentials that thinks the opposite.
It doesn't usually work out well to extrapolate deep systemic issues - crises even - from isolated, juicy, narrative-driven law enforcement anecdotes. But whomever wrote that, is intent on carrying on that dubious tradition.
The implication that a society of several hundred million should expect to reduce to zero the juicy anecdotes of unnecessary deaths caused by law enforcement, simply by "increasing standards and accountability", remains as stupid as it always has been, and always will be. Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I don't actually believe very many people have "militarized police" high on their list of practical worries. And those who could legitimately claim that, would intersect almost unanimously with strong tribal feels about politics in general.
Just not this
deeply concerned
center right, non-partisan
military veteran
Social media poster with a profound message.
-
There oughta be a name for that sort of posting style.
Declaration of authority by experience.
Short declarative sentences that cut through the bull and the ambiguity.
The moral weight of deep sadness.
meanwhile, it wouldn't be difficult to find someone with his exact credentials that thinks the opposite.
It doesn't usually work out well to extrapolate deep systemic issues - crises even - from isolated, juicy, narrative-driven law enforcement anecdotes. But whomever wrote that, is intent on carrying on that dubious tradition.
The implication that a society of several hundred million should expect to reduce to zero the juicy anecdotes of unnecessary deaths caused by law enforcement, simply by "increasing standards and accountability", remains as stupid as it always has been, and always will be. Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I don't actually believe very many people have "militarized police" high on their list of practical worries. And those who could legitimately claim that, would intersect almost unanimously with strong tribal feels about politics in general.
Just not this
deeply concerned
center right, non-partisan
military veteran
Social media poster with a profound message.
@Horace said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I doubt you could know that since your sample set is limited to white cop/black perp/viral video scenarios.
-
I "know" it because a criminologist I follow has said it. I don't "know" it because of the anecdotes I get from my media diet.
Gemini seems to agree, reproduced below. ChatGPT was less committal.
body cams were supposed to bring a huge amount of bad police behavior to light. What has been the real effect of bodycams vis a vis transparency and accountability in what would otherwise have been civilian said / cop said conflicting accounts of events?
The introduction of Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) was pitched as a technological panacea for police misconduct—a "neutral observer" that would force transparency. The reality, however, has been far more complex.
While they haven’t been the "silver bullet" for systemic reform many hoped for, they have fundamentally altered the "civilian said / cop said" dynamic, often in ways that surprise the public.
Here is the breakdown of the real-world effects of BWCs on transparency and accountability.
1. The "Civilizing Effect" is Real, but One-Sided
The most consistent statistical finding is a massive drop in complaints against officers (some studies show reductions of up to 90%). However, the reason for this drop is often misunderstood.
- Fewer Frivolous Complaints: The primary driver for the drop in complaints is not necessarily that police stop misbehaving, but that civilians stop filing false or exaggerated complaints when they know they are being recorded.
- Officer Exoneration: In "he said / she said" disputes, BWCs have proven overwhelmingly effective at exonerating officers. Police unions, initially skeptical, have largely pivoted to supporting BWCs because the footage protects officers from baseless allegations more often than it indicts them for misconduct.
- Behavioral Change: There is a "civilizing effect" where both parties—officer and civilian—tend to de-escalate when they know a camera is rolling. However, this effect creates a plateau; once the cameras become routine, the behavioral modification can wear off.
2. The Transparency Bottleneck: Who Owns the Footage?
This is the single biggest failure regarding the "transparency" promise. The existence of footage does not equal public access to footage.
- Discretionary Release: In most jurisdictions, the police department owns the footage. They often have the discretion to release it immediately if it clears an officer (e.g., showing a suspect had a gun) but can withhold it for months or years if it incriminates an officer, citing "ongoing investigation."
- The "One-Way Mirror": This has created a dynamic where BWCs are often used as a tool for prosecution (gathering evidence against civilians) rather than accountability (gathering evidence against police). Prosecutors love BWCs because they secure guilty pleas; civil rights attorneys often find them frustrating because access is blocked.
3. Resolving "Civilian Said / Cop Said"
In terms of pure evidentiary value, BWCs have virtually eliminated the ambiguity of what happened physically, but they haven't solved the debate over why it happened.
- The "Split-Second" Defense: A camera captures the action, but not the intent. An officer can still claim they "feared for their life" based on a movement they saw that the camera missed, or that the camera angle (which is chest-mounted and fixed) did not capture. Legal standards (like Graham v. Connor) judge use of force based on what the officer perceived at the moment, not 20/20 hindsight. Therefore, video evidence often fails to secure convictions against officers even when the footage looks damning to the public.
- The Audio Gap: Most BWCs have a 30-second "buffer" (pre-event recording) that captures video but no audio before the activation button is pressed. This leaves the critical moments leading up to an altercation—the initial verbal exchange—in the "he said / she said" realm.
4. Unintended Consequences
- The "Yellow Sticker" Effect: A counter-intuitive study found that visual warnings (like a yellow sticker saying "CAMERA ON") actually increased use of force in some cases. The theory is that officers felt "emboldened" or "protected" by the camera—believing the footage would justify their aggressive actions—rather than deterred.
- Surveillance Creep: Privacy advocates point out that BWCs have turned police into mobile surveillance units. In domestic violence calls or mental health crises, police are recording people in their most vulnerable private moments. This footage can then be stored indefinitely, raising massive privacy concerns.
Summary
The real effect of body cams has been evidentiary rather than reformative.
They have been highly effective at resolving specific, individual disputes (usually in the officer's favor) but have had limited success in forcing systemic behavioral change or guaranteeing transparency, largely because the people being watched are often the same ones holding the remote control to the footage.
-
There oughta be a name for that sort of posting style.
Declaration of authority by experience.
Short declarative sentences that cut through the bull and the ambiguity.
The moral weight of deep sadness.
meanwhile, it wouldn't be difficult to find someone with his exact credentials that thinks the opposite.
It doesn't usually work out well to extrapolate deep systemic issues - crises even - from isolated, juicy, narrative-driven law enforcement anecdotes. But whomever wrote that, is intent on carrying on that dubious tradition.
The implication that a society of several hundred million should expect to reduce to zero the juicy anecdotes of unnecessary deaths caused by law enforcement, simply by "increasing standards and accountability", remains as stupid as it always has been, and always will be. Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I don't actually believe very many people have "militarized police" high on their list of practical worries. And those who could legitimately claim that, would intersect almost unanimously with strong tribal feels about politics in general.
Just not this
deeply concerned
center right, non-partisan
military veteran
Social media poster with a profound message.
@Horace said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
There oughta be a name for that sort of posting style.
Declaration of authority by experience.
Short declarative sentences that cut through the bull and the ambiguity.
The moral weight of deep sadness.
meanwhile, it wouldn't be difficult to find someone with his exact credentials that thinks the opposite.
It doesn't usually work out well to extrapolate deep systemic issues - crises even - from isolated, juicy, narrative-driven law enforcement anecdotes. But whomever wrote that, is intent on carrying on that dubious tradition.
The implication that a society of several hundred million should expect to reduce to zero the juicy anecdotes of unnecessary deaths caused by law enforcement, simply by "increasing standards and accountability", remains as stupid as it always has been, and always will be. Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I don't actually believe very many people have "militarized police" high on their list of practical worries. And those who could legitimately claim that, would intersect almost unanimously with strong tribal feels about politics in general.
Just not this
deeply concerned
center right, non-partisan
military veteran
Social media poster with a profound message.
Hahahaha sadly whenever I see a "read more" and it's that structure (usually 5-10 paragraphs) I immediately move on. It's like some of those ads that start out with "do not buy Skylight..." (clearly a commercial for Skylight), I immediately say "ok!" and move on. SUCKERS.
