Politics

[Tanks]

Final question, and this is for the protesters. You are protesting the activities of agents acting within their authority. The can detain those who are reasonably suspected of breaking our immigration laws. That's literally their job. If you sincerely believe they are wrong to do that, why are you instead not protesting your Representatives and Senators for not changing the authorities? Wouldn't that literally be "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances?

They tried that last election and lost. As Obama once said, "elections have consequences". They won't have chance to have a legislative voice until 2028.

One other thing. If one looks carefully at the placards etc., protesting ICE or Venezuela attack, or Israel it is driven by the same leftist organizations. They mobilize very quickly now.

 

[Tanks]

Good reverses and immediately goes forward while turning her wheels from hard left to hard right hitting the officer.

I have yet to see a video from the front that shows her hitting the officer. Even the officer's phone recording does not show that as it stops when he starts firing.

 

[skydiver386]

I have yet to see a video from the front that shows her hitting the officer. Even the officer's phone recording does not show that as it stops when he starts firing.

 

[Brent in Az]

Glad to know you believe in the my way or the highway mentality of Mao or Stalin.

Shame on people for having opposing views

Shame on people standing up for the ICE agents, eh?

 

[Aaron N]

Shame on people standing up for the ICE agents, eh?

No, not at all. But there is a big difference between supporting and being intentionally antagonistic (this is true for both ends of the spectrum). We are in a political climate where whoever is the loudest is right, and Mr Trump treats statesmanship like is Monday Night Raw and everything needs to be as dramatic as possible. ICE 100% should be doing their job, but I guaren-damn-tee you they can be doing it with a lot more tact and less publicity. Less publicity means less negative publicity, which means more effectiveness. It’s the same for blowing narco boats out of the water, It’s been going on for decades, but now that the administration feels the need to brag about killing civilians, rightfully, people are put off.

 

[Wheels]

I have yet to see a video from the front that shows her hitting the officer. Even the officer's phone recording does not show that as it stops when he starts firing.

In the 32-33 second mark the shooting officer seems to make a sudden and unnatural move. His chest goes forward and his feet go backward. Hard to see from distance but around the 1:03 mark the officers feet jerk back. I suppose it is open to interpretation if he was hit or jerked to get out of the way.

 

[LivingTheDream]

This leads to my first question: For both sides, what additional facts (not opinions, facts) could arise that might make you change your opinion? For those who think it was a legal shoot, what would make you change your mind? For those who think it was an agent over-reacting, what additional fact might make you think otherwise

This is a well thought out question. My thought is that it was a justified shooting though probably a bad shooting, meaning that he had reason to react the way he did but it probably wasnt the best reaction. I would like to see some case law regarding a police officer being in front of a vehicle and here the law cited. I think this is a bit unique in it was a federal agent carrying out a legal federal duty. But will try to read up on it.

What I would really like is for the adults (media, politicians, any leaders) say hey dont disobey law enforcement, dont interfer with ongoing investigations or arrests. Let your grievances be know through organized and approved protests, if you thinking something is wrong, film it, report it. Dont get involved.

This lady is dead because someone else told her to get involved, people will fundraiser off her death, and end of the day, people will move on to the next thing.

This is why I disagree with Sen Kelly, he encouraging people not to follow illegal orders is sowing the seeds for the next one of these incidents.

And before anyone says well Trump, I get it, he needs to do better as well.

 

[Brent in Az]

No, not at all. But there is a big difference between supporting and being intentionally antagonistic (this is true for both ends of the spectrum). We are in a political climate where whoever is the loudest is right, and Mr Trump treats statesmanship like is Monday Night Raw and everything needs to be as dramatic as possible. ICE 100% should be doing their job, but I guaren-damn-tee you they can be doing it with a lot more tact and less publicity. Less publicity means less negative publicity, which means more effectiveness. It’s the same for blowing narco boats out of the water, It’s been going on for decades, but now that the administration feels the need to brag about killing civilians, rightfully, people are put off.

I'm an "Eye for an eye" guy. I think Trump is too.
I hope that ICE continues to lay the smack on these radical and violent agitators. ICE can't do anything with less publicity. They are constantly under the microscope, being followed, and media cameras on them 24/7.
Things are coming to a boil in this country, and these radicals are going to regret who they pick a fight with. Playing nice guy doesn't work anymore
The strong survive, The weak get swept into the dust bin of irrelevancy.
Watching narco terrorists getting blown to bits is entertaining. It's mostly the liberals that have a problem with it

 

[Pondoro]

 

[Pondoro]

ICE..? No..russian anti-riot police..

 

[SaintPanzer]

They tried that last election and lost. As Obama once said, "elections have consequences". They won't have chance to have a legislative voice until 2028.

One other thing. If one looks carefully at the placards etc., protesting ICE or Venezuela attack, or Israel it is driven by the same leftist organizations. They mobilize very quickly now.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Yes, elections have consequences. What I said was even the minority can propose a bill, even if it doesn't get through, and protesters can better (and less dangerously) spend their time petitioning their Representatives, whether they are in the minority or not. Had the minority proposed, and was ignored, that's one thing. But that's not what's happening.

On the other hand, I was promised (I think it was in 1986) that if we traded an amnesty, we would begin enforcing the laws we have. Apparently, a plurality seems to not want to keep that promise. And here we are.

Yes, they mobilize very quickly. Cui Bono?

 

[Rubberhead]

Those ICE agents are enforcing a set of federal laws. Those laws were written and passed a majority of the US House members made up of democrats and republicans where each member was voted for by their constituents. It was passed by a plurality of the US Senate, also voted for by each state's residents. It was then signed by a duly elected president and confirmed by the US Supreme Court.

No minority, no matter how passionate or vocal, has the right to interfere with the enforcement of US laws. There are methods available to all US Citizens to have their opinions considered so I have zero sympathy for anyone that willfully interferes with law enforcement. Zero.

 

[Rubberhead]

@SaintPanzer, I swear I didn't copy you. I was writing mine when yours posted but I couldn't see it until after. We did, however, say the same thing.

They say great minds think alike. Apparently, that's true for minds like ours too...haha

 

[BJH65]

I think the second and third shots could be a serious issue for the officer.

Police officers may continue shooting even after a suspect appears to no longer pose a threat due to a combination of human physiological limitations, tactical training protocols to ensure a threat is fully neutralized, and the intense stress of a lethal encounter.

Most AH members may not have personal experience as law enforcement officers and lethal force encounters, I highly encourage them to take a few minutes and conduct their own research. PoliceOne is an excellent resource as well as Mas Ayoob who has testified as an expert witness regarding this. This isn’t new.

Human Physiological & Psychological Factors

High-stress, rapidly evolving situations involve unavoidable human performance delays.

Action-Reaction Time: The time it takes for an officer to perceive that a threat has ended (e.g., the suspect dropping a weapon), process that information, decide to stop shooting, and physically execute the command to stop can result in several additional rounds being fired. This is often involuntary.

Adrenaline and Stress: The extreme stress and adrenaline rush of a lethal encounter can affect an officer's perception and judgment. Officers often lose track of how many shots they have fired in the moment.

My last day on the job after 25 years back in 2017. Not sure where the time goes.

 

[SaintPanzer]

Those ICE agents are enforcing a set of federal laws. Those laws were written and passed a majority of the US House members made up of democrats and republicans where each member was voted for by their constituents. It was passed by a plurality of the US Senate, also voted for by each state's residents. It was then signed by a duly elected president and confirmed by the US Supreme Court.

No minority, no matter how passionate or vocal, has the right to interfere with the enforcement of US laws. There are methods available to all US Citizens to have their opinions considered so I have zero sympathy for anyone that willfully interferes with law enforcement. Zero.

Actually, it was a majority of the House, then a majority of the Senate. Then signed by the President. Bills don't make it to the President to become law if they are not passed the Senate.

What immigration law has been challenged in the Supreme Court?

 

[Rubberhead]

Actually, it was a majority of the House, then a majority of the Senate. Then signed by the President. Bills don't make it to the President to become law if they are not passed the Senate.

What immigration law has been challenged in the Supreme Court?

Only "spending" bills pass our senate on a simple majority. Because of the filibuster, other bills require a supermajority (60 out of 100).

What immigration law hasn't been in front of the supreme court?

 

[John Wasmuth]

I still wanta see the scotus decision that says an LEO can’t stand in front of a car, or anywhere else for that matter…….

 

[Rubberhead]

I still wanta see the scotus decision that says an LEO can’t stand in front of a car, or anywhere else for that matter…….

Just the opposite, actually...Tennessee v. Garner, which was decided in March 1985, concluded that a police officer has a right to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if they believe the individual poses a dangerous threat to officers and others.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

 

[John Wasmuth]

Just the opposite, actually...Tennessee v. Garner, which was decided in March 1985, concluded that a police officer has a right to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if they believe the individual poses a dangerous threat to officers and others.

Well aware after spending the better part of 21 years as a Texas Peace Officer, just wanting to see what rifleman was talking about………. Which I’m calling BS on. Having been “the officer involved” I’m pretty lean on usc decisions even though I retired in 04.