ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis

[Axtremus]

Glaring omissions on constitutional rights, due process, and accountability.

[Mik]

@jon-nyc said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:

You’d get absolute majorities signing up for that.

It’s a reasonable position. God knows we need reasonable.

[Axtremus]

@jon-nyc said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:

You’d get absolute majorities signing up for that.

But not a Senate filibuster proof majority, much less a Presidential veto-proof majority. I'd venture to say that an "absolute majority" among the GOP base voters oppose #4. You cannot even get someone like @mik to support all 4 points (he opposes #3). The electoral math is not there for an immigration reform "grand bargain."

[Mik]

I think number 3 is worth considering but needs more nuance. The fact that you snuck in should not be a reason you can stay.

[jon-nyc]

It’s more like the fact that the economy is dependent on you is the reason you could stay. Maybe time bound so we gradually shift to more natives/legals in the jobs but over a timeframe that doesn’t shock the market.

[jon-nyc]

said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:

As he lay still the thug backs up and puts 3-4 more rounds into his motionless body.

It was six shots. Of the total of 10 that they put into the unarmed man who was already pinned down, 6 were pumped into his body from a distance as he lay face down, motionless, and alone.

[jon-nyc]

All the maga types defending this by saying ‘but he was carrying a gun’ remind me of the woketards who say they’re all for free speech but hate speech totally different.

[Doctor Phibes]

@jon-nyc said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:

All the maga types defending this by saying ‘but he was carrying a gun’ remind me of the woketards who say they’re all for free speech but hate speech totally different.

Two words - Kyle Rittenhouse.

[Mik]

Rittenhouse is not applicable here. He went down to protect his family’s business from a marauding mob. This guy went to oppose law enforcement he did not agree with. This is not to say I’m defending the ICE agents here, but the two situations could not be more different

[Horace]

looks like we're headed for a government shutdown over this stuff. I guess that serves somebody's purposes.

[Mik]

The question I ask myself is which party is trying to serve the interests of Americans and which trying to obtain power? While I don’t always approve the methods, I think the answer is obvious.

[jon-nyc]

I agree it’s obvious. If it wasn’t obvious to you in November of 2020 it certainly became so over the next two months.

[89th]

[jon-nyc]

@Mik said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:

Rittenhouse is not applicable here. He went down to protect his family’s business from a marauding mob. This guy went to oppose law enforcement he did not agree with. This is not to say I’m defending the ICE agents here, but the two situations could not be more different

Seems like the main difference is Rittenhouse’s exercise of his second amendment rights ultimately led to him killing someone whereas Pretti’s exercise of his second amendment rights led to him being killed by masked federal agents.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Mik said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:

Rittenhouse is not applicable here. He went down to protect his family’s business from a marauding mob. This guy went to oppose law enforcement he did not agree with. This is not to say I’m defending the ICE agents here, but the two situations could not be more different

I'm afraid that my ability to distinguish between 'law enforcement' and 'marauding mob' isn't what it once was.

[jon-nyc]

[AndyD]

Was the first shot by law officers into the disarmed man's back as he was getting up? Or have I got it wrong?
Here is the instant taken from the video...

P.S. If yes, I'd call it execution

[jon-nyc]