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
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
The prompt did not include the fact that Trump declared them to be terrorists which I believe is what makes that kind of attack legal. If they are enemy combatants you are allowed to follow up and ensure they have been killed
> If they are enemy combatants you are allowed to follow up and ensure they have been killed
Not true. Launching an attack on shipwrecked enemy is a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions. [1, Chapter II Article 12] It's also prohibited by DoD's own guidelines. [2, page 1071, section 17.14]
It's not a question of whether or not what happened was illegal, it's a textbook example of a war crime. It's a matter of whether or not the justice system still has enough power to identify who is responsible and hold them accountable.
How is that different than the Nuremberg defense in combination with Hitler declaring Jews subhuman? One can claim Trump knowingly committed an international crime by declaring someone a terrorist when it would result in the US' criminality but the people involved are also guilty.
Definitely not anti-jewish slop. The article simply debunks bogus claims made by notable Jews that the pyramids were constructed by their ancestors even though the pyramids were constructed before Jews existed.
reply