zlacker

Do these [1] look like blocking traffic?

[1] >>46598192

>>fzeror+(OP)
They will claim that if the person was in front of the car when ICE rammed into them, it means they were blocking the car

>>fzeror+(OP)
Most of those are shorts clips that do not show the context of the situation. These sorts of clips are what is causing people to believe the actions of federal agents are not justified when they actually are. When the initial clip of Renee Good came out people thought that the she did not drive into the agent but now that other angles have come out it is clear that she did hit the federal agent. It is always important to find the whole clip and not just propaganda clips

>>Steven+Nu
It's as if you're trying to find every excuse to just not research on your own; instead you expect everyone to feed you information

Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1q9tg16/updated_111_mi...

>>chaps+Vz
I have been keeping up to date on the videos coming out. The video you posted shows Renee obstructing

>>Steven+iB
I'm not attempting to dispute whether or not she was obstructing.

>>Steven+iB
Also why are the videos made to be so small? Seems like the person who made that video wants to hide the details of the situation

>>chaps+RB
Then I must have not understood your point. Could you clarify? I have been following all of this closely

>>Steven+Nu
In what world do you think it's acceptable to knee someone in the face repeatedly when they're on the ground and not resisting? You clearly didn't watch the videos at all.

>>Steven+aC
I'm not understanding your point either, so here's how I'm interpreting what you're saying, in good faith: "she was in the way, so it was worth shooting her. fullstop".

So I'm struggling to understand why you seem to be okay with shooting someone for being in the way. So please explain to me why you think "obstruction" was worth shooting her.

>>fzeror+PD
Saw the video that you are referring to and it looks like the person is in fact resisting. Also I would not call that good law enforcement and don't agree with the officer doing that

>>chaps+qE
She wasn't shot for obstructing federal agents. The series of events are as follows: 1. She obstructed federal agents 2. She resisted arrest/detainment 3. She accelerated into a federal agent 4. She was shot

>>Steven+VE
Resisting? Where? Can you point to me in the 44 second clip where he is resisting? Because when the ICE agents move out of the way he's sitting there, completely still. He's so still that they lift him up entirely, with zero resistance or movement. What the fuck do you think he should do in order to not be resisting arrest, given that he's already completely still? You can see between the officers legs the only movement he's doing is when he's being kneed in the face.

>>Steven+uG
I'm sorry that you think she deserved death.

>>fzeror+YI
It seemed like he was resisting to me because the agents were struggling to get him in handcuffs. Without a full video it is difficult to tell for sure though. The video is missing a lot of context. What happened before that video clip would make all the difference in determining whether or not he was resisting and how much force was necessary. Again I don't condone the agent kneeing the man in the head

>>chaps+UM
I don't think that she deserved death. It's unfortunate that you are misrepresenting my comments. I believe that she made a series of bad decisions and was solely responsible for what occurred. I understand that we are living in emotional times but arguing in bad faith does not improve the situation. We should maybe stop this discussion as it doesn't seem that we are getting anywhere. I hope that you have a good day

>>Steven+2R
Please understand where I'm coming from:

My mom's dad was shot and killed by police. Absolutely nobody in my family knows anything about it, but the default is "he was a bad person and deserved it" or, "he probably did something wrong." The coroner's report shows his death as a suicide, despite police shooting and killing him. This was a time before cameraphones and before I was even born, so it's impossible for me, let alone anyone else to know what happened.

A lot of how you approach this discussion reminds me of the side of my family that defaults to thinking that the police did nothing wrong, or that their actions were justified or within policy, even without knowing the full facts (or, any; it's willful ignorance out the wazoo), plus a handful of assumptions. And, just -- a person died and that's all you can muster? Callousness and an air of benevolence?

You can do better, friend.

>>chaps+KW
> You can do better, friend.

So can you. Your past experience was terrible, but that's no reason to ignore or misrepresent what others are saying.

What GP and I are both seeing in the Renee video is assault with a deadly weapon on a law enforcement officer. Lethal force is a valid response. That doesn't mean she deserves it, but that she was doing something stupid without realizing just how stupid it was. Most of these protestors are the same, they're new to this and being tricked by anti-ICE activists into thinking it's completely safe without getting all the information.

>>Izkata+Cu1
> That doesn't mean she deserves it, but that she was doing something stupid without realizing just how stupid it was

Am I right to say that your argument can be summarized as, "She didn't deserve it, but her actions were deserving of it"? Or maybe "merited"?

I'm genuinely confused by what you mean by "deserves".

(just to be explicit, the disagreement we have here is very much about what the word "deserves" means rather than anything productive)

>>Steven+2R
It has been well established that ICE agents are intentionally stepping in front of slow moving cars to justify a claim of self defense.

They also intentionally bump into people and then claim they are being assaulted. Their superiors have made it clear that will face no consequences for this, and they have aggressive quotas to meet.

>>chaps+iF1
"Deserved" is a stronger word than "earned" or "merited", there's a sense of satisfaction or entitlement (though negative) behind that word. Something like, to say that she deserved death means saying she should have died for what she did, that it was the right outcome. That's not what we're saying. It's more like, the actions the officer took weren't in the wrong despite the bad outcome. She made really bad choices, and she was the one at fault, but there were better possible outcomes given the exact same series of events and she didn't deserve to die. But it's not a surprising outcome either.

Another quick aside since I suspect this is a second point of confusion, "lethal force" does not mean "with the intent to kill", it means "force that is likely to cause severe injury or death".

>>Steven+ON
Every time, the excuse is 'I need more context' when confronted with evidence because you do, in fact, condone it. Or else you wouldn't start your argument with 'he was resisting arrest'. And don't think I didn't see what you posted originally, you originally didn't even watch the damn clips and I had to tell you which one specifically to watch. Go back and watch any of the other clips I posted. Watch them very carefully.

>>Izkata+wi2
> Another quick aside since I suspect this is a second point of confusion, "lethal force" does not mean "with the intent to kill", it means "force that is likely to cause severe injury or death".

It.. is not. I suspect that you have some fundamental misunderstandings of firearm safety and I would not feel safe at a range with someone who thinks this way.

>>chaps+4C3
I believe it's a legal term that's leaked out into general use:

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

> Deadly force, also known as lethal force, is the use of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person.

Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7

> (a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.

>>Izkata+ci5
(that wasn't what I was responding to.....)