zlacker

[return to "Minneapolis driver shot and killed by ICE"]
1. subdav+nC[view] [source] 2026-01-07 22:30:55
>>fzeror+(OP)
There are at least 3 different videos from different angles. Here are all of them.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gb_IkGVK7WvsTAXfMvQU...

I've watched them all repeatedly. It's clear she was blocked in at the front, trying to pull out, and yielded, waving the ICE vehicles to go around front.

They instead got out, needlessly attempted to drag her from her vehicle, and she freaked out and tried to GTFO by turning right to avoid hitting any of them. She was shot and killed for it.

◧◩
2. zingab+pL[view] [source] 2026-01-07 23:17:34
>>subdav+nC
Has anyone seen vid of the lead-up? Everything I've seen is clipped to several seconds before the shots are fired. It doesn't justify the outcome but one of the narratives I've seen is she had been blocking the agents for some time.
◧◩◪
3. Tadpol+PL[view] [source] 2026-01-07 23:20:08
>>zingab+pL
ICE has no legal ability to detain or arrest citizens or enforce traffic laws. So, regardless, they should have called the police.
◧◩◪◨
4. kcplat+cc1[view] [source] 2026-01-08 02:14:00
>>Tadpol+PL
Are you really suggesting that an armed federal law enforcement officer doesn’t have the ability to detain someone that they suspect is interfering with one of their operations?

You might want to cite some case law here supporting that assertion. They may not be able to charge someone with a traffic infraction but can they detain someone? Absolutely.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ajross+dy4[view] [source] 2026-01-09 01:53:22
>>kcplat+cc1
> Are you really suggesting that an armed federal law enforcement officer doesn’t have the ability to detain someone that they suspect is interfering with one of their operations?

Well, gosh. It's a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure I was taught in school that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Something like that, anyway.

To be blunt: your assertion is batshit. NO, the cops can't just "detain" people on random "suspicion" of "interference". They need probable cause to suspect a crime in progress. Period. There are no exceptions. There never have been. If you want to argue that they clearly have the ability, you need to explain why that car in its perfectly legal travel lane was somehow a criminal violation. You seem extraordinarily inclined to split hairs on the other side of this argument, so it seems... odd that you're being so cavalier on this one.

No, ICE can't detain anyone on a "traffic infraction". No one can. That's not criminal, and you know it.

More to the point, obviously, sure: there are gray areas where cops stop teenagers to see if they run or smell like weed or whatever, and they can get away with it. They don't then proceed to shoot their suspects in the fucking face. Seriously? How are we possibly even having this discussion. There's no universe in which this is acceptable law enforcement practice.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. kcplat+1R6[view] [source] 2026-01-09 19:27:22
>>ajross+dy4
Yes, the fourth amendment exists. Yes, law enforcement officers can detain you if they’d have reasonable suspicion of a crime you have committed, or about to commit.

(That last bit I italicized you might want to read again, because it’s pretty important and you left that part out and it is the cornerstone to everything in this incident and specifically what I articulated in the comment of mine you replied to).

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. ajross+JR6[view] [source] 2026-01-09 19:30:48
>>kcplat+1R6
What crime was she "about to commit" then which she needed to be detained to prevent? Sketch for me the indictment you're imagining for which she got executed. You're doing hyper-specific hair splitting elsewhere in this thread, surely you'd like the opportunity here.

The ability of people on the right to throw all their principles about limited government and checks and balances and constitutional restraint out the window the second the person who got shot in their face is a political enemy is just amazing to me. You people are the ones who think we all need guns all the time to PREVENT this kind of thing, I thought!

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. kcplat+Ga7[view] [source] 2026-01-09 21:01:36
>>ajross+JR6
> What crime was she "about to commit" then which she needed to be detained to prevent? Sketch for me the indictment you're imagining for which she got executed. You're doing hyper-specific hair splitting elsewhere in this thread, surely you'd like the opportunity here.

That’s up to the agents to articulate and the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries to evaluate.

The fact is that law enforcement are able to legally detain people under certain conditions and those conditions do not need to be adjudicated in the moment of detainment. It can come later, and the LEOs can be held responsible if they violated someone’s rights. People on here commenting otherwise either misunderstand the law, or are intentionally providing misinformation to manipulate people and create outrage.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. ajross+Lc7[view] [source] 2026-01-09 21:12:51
>>kcplat+Ga7
> That’s up to the agents to articulate and the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries to evaluate.

Which will never happen, because the suspect is a faceless (literally) body in a morgue. You're just dodging. Because, and be honest with yourself: you want this to have happened. You want your enemies to be afraid of the (again, literal) secret police wandering the streets in pursuit of your personal political goals. And if the price for that is a few unconstitutional executions, you're willing to pay it and excuse it on the internet.

But you don't really believe this was legitimate law enforcement behavior. No one does. Real civil societies don't accept summary executions of probably-asshole probably-protesters who probably-obstruct visa check operations.

[go to top]