—> ICE / Immigration / Video from ICE shooter POV released, firestorm ensues

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 139K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
The shooter must not have spoken with an attorney if this is his video.

If this is in fact real, then they don't need anything else to prosecute him. They have what is practically a confession.

Part of my skepticism is that I cannot possibly fathom what would lead him to release this film.
Click to expand...
I think the shooter, and conservatives, think this video vindicates him because it paints the victim as an “agitator.” That’s really all I can come up with.
 
Rock said:
We are in a bad place that conservatives think the video vindicates the shooter and everyone else thinks the video, correctly, shows a horrific murder.
Click to expand...
What is the argument that it vindicates the shooter? People are really saying that? Maybe I'm violating my own principle to "remember that MAGA has no bottom" but this is mystifying to me. It shows obviously that he was not hit at all. He doesn't even react. If he was hit at all, you'd expect at least some reaction.
 
superrific said:
The shooter must not have spoken with an attorney if this is his video.

If this is in fact real, then they don't need anything else to prosecute him. They have what is practically a confession.

Part of my skepticism is that I cannot possibly fathom what would lead him to release this film.
Click to expand...
Some people are pieces of shit; some people are fucking stupid. What you have here is the classic, stupid fucking piece of shit combo.
 
altmin said:
and he walked in front of the car twice, REALLY trying to provoke a situation he could fire in
Click to expand...
This. He positioned himself in front of a running car. I don't claim to know law enforcement best practices, but I think it's a safe guess that you shouldn't choose to put your body in the path a vehicle is likely to travel.

Apparently this is known as officer-created jeopardy:

The phrases “officer-created jeopardy” or “officer-induced jeopardy” describe actions taken by police officers that increase the risk of injury to the officer and escalate the probability of use of lethal force by officers, which may have been avoided had the officer not placed himself or herself in a self-created dangerous situation.​
...​
Examples of officer-created jeopardy include, but are not limited to, removing a suspect from a vehicle when a violator refuses to sign a traffic citation, failure to de-escalate and call a supervisor, escalating a tense situation with a suspect by engaging in verbal bantering with the suspect, standing or moving in front of a suspect’s vehicle while the engine is running or reaching into a vehicle that is attempting to flee in a (last-ditch) attempt to pull the fleeing suspect out of the vehicle.​
​
 
rodoheel said:
Again I agree with removing Schumer but I don't think threatening a shutdown over ICE, symbolically or otherwise, would be a smart move right now. Can't go back to that shutdown well again so quickly.
Click to expand...
Understood but there is growing support for it. Just another perspective but Schumer was very quick to dismiss it and has been reluctant to shutdown generally, playing a big part in caving both times.
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
This. He positioned himself in front of a running car. I don't claim to know law enforcement best practices, but I think it's a safe guess that you shouldn't choose to put your body in the path a vehicle is likely to travel.

Apparently this is known as officer-created jeopardy:

The phrases “officer-created jeopardy” or “officer-induced jeopardy” describe actions taken by police officers that increase the risk of injury to the officer and escalate the probability of use of lethal force by officers, which may have been avoided had the officer not placed himself or herself in a self-created dangerous situation.​
...​
Examples of officer-created jeopardy include, but are not limited to, removing a suspect from a vehicle when a violator refuses to sign a traffic citation, failure to de-escalate and call a supervisor, escalating a tense situation with a suspect by engaging in verbal bantering with the suspect, standing or moving in front of a suspect’s vehicle while the engine is running or reaching into a vehicle that is attempting to flee in a (last-ditch) attempt to pull the fleeing suspect out of the vehicle.​
​
Click to expand...
I won't cross in front of a running car even if I was the one driving it and had to get out to do something (like when i am plowing my driveway or stopping to get the mail). I knew and worked with Anton Yelchin. The Tragic Death Of Anton Yelchin, The 27-Year-Old Actor Who Was Killed By His Own Car
 
superrific said:
Back in the day, swing voters were educated professionals. You know, like the substantial number of posters here who used to identify as GOP and conservative. You can reason with those people.

Now the swing voters are rando weirdos who show up intermittently to elections and if we're lucky have scratched the surface of a political issue or two, if we're lucky. We have viral internet that can take any slightly awkward phrasing and turn it into evidence of some anti-American leftist conspiracy.

Everything is different now. I wish people would recognize that there are no simple answers, no simple things that Schumer or Jeffries or Jeff Jackson or anyone can do to shift public opinion so suddenly as to form the kind of resistance you seem to want. And there is a president who does whatever the fuck he wants regardless of the law, which makes it hard to resist from the Senate floor.

Remember the tik tok law? Yeah, lol. It met the fate that the Epstein file release law is getting today. There is literally nothing Schumer can do to change Trump's behavior. Any rights that are won have to be enforceable in court or they are useless. And even then it's an issue because we have a corrupted, compromised, lunatic Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
A budget shutdown does not need Supreme Court or any court review. It would also potentially starve ICE of funding, which now receives more funding than any other domestic law enforcement agency. Inside the beltway, many experts are very clear that Schumer is not the Democratic advocate that he once was with some wondering if he is compromised in some way.

Many experienced, educated and informed democrats want him replaced. I am just wondering what the board thinks.
 
Mundial said:
A budget shutdown does not need Supreme Court or any court review. It would also potentially starve ICE of funding, which now receives more funding than any other domestic law enforcement agency. Inside the beltway, many experts are very clear that Schumer is not the Democratic advocate that he once was with some wondering if he is compromised in some way.

Many experienced, educated and informed democrats want him replaced. I am just wondering what the board thinks.
Click to expand...
I think the Baileys got to him.
 
Mundial said:
A budget shutdown does not need Supreme Court or any court review. It would also potentially starve ICE of funding, which now receives more funding than any other domestic law enforcement agency. Inside the beltway, many experts are very clear that Schumer is not the Democratic advocate that he once was with some wondering if he is compromised in some way.

Many experienced, educated and informed democrats want him replaced. I am just wondering what the board thinks.
Click to expand...
I don't have any opinion on replacing him, but the idea that he should be saying Abolish ICE is insane. ICE will not be starved of funding. Trump will find the money.

A budget shutdown obviously does not need Supreme Court review, but anything Schumer would obtain does. And the president can veto anything. So the idea that if Schumer was more aggressive, he'd be able to accomplish something is pure insanity.
 
superrific said:
Why would this be your reaction, calling me a clown? How the hell am I supposed to know whether this is real? There's no provenance on the video.
Click to expand...

The Clown emoji was meant to convey my feelings towards this entire fiasco. My reaction was one of skeptical/exasperated laughter because this video is clearly real, but the time we live in is almost a parody of itself when the initial reaction of someone as intelligent as yourself is to question the legitimacy of said video.
 
4thgenheel said:
yeah, a lot of what they do and what they instruct "suspects" to do results in catch 22 situations and it often seems intentional so that they can claim that their actions are justified regardless of what occurs.

and it is impossible to comply when you're being given conflicting instructions.
Click to expand...
The pro police side is saying the same things they say every time this happens and the anti-police side is saying the same things they say every time.

Regardless of what was said, this same scenario has played out dozens of times and it ends with the officer not being charged.

No reason to believe this will end any differently.
 
dukeman92 said:
The Clown emoji was meant to convey my feelings towards this entire fiasco. My reaction was one of skeptical/exasperated laughter because this video is clearly real, but the time we live in is almost a parody of itself when the initial reaction of someone as intelligent as yourself is to question the legitimacy of said video.
Click to expand...
I see. I thought you were insulting me. Generally speaking, I'd request that you skip emojis (other than the most basic ones like thumbs up or thumbs down) with me because I have a great deal of trouble deciphering what they mean in any given instance.

I don't think it's crazy to question the legitimacy of the video at all. I mean, maybe we're in agreement, but the release of the video is astoundingly idiotic and I would have thought even a dumb fuck ICE goon would realize that it's evidence -- even if he thinks it's favorable, you don't release evidence related to your own shooting.
 
ZenMode said:
The pro police side is saying the same things they say every time this happens and the anti-police side is saying the same things they say every time.

Regardless of what was said, this same scenario has played out dozens of times and it ends with the officer not being charged.

No reason to believe this will end any differently.
Click to expand...
Derek Chauvin might want a word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top