Official Minnesota ICE shooting thread

You can buy a lawyer to argue anything. That's what they do. But it doesn't make what they say true.

What most posters here don't seem to realize is that this is only a beginning. Under this regime there will be more such deaths of US citizens who opposed them and exercise their right to protest. And you will continue to say the protestors were rightfully killed. Until the goons come for you or someone you know.

These are not protesters in many cases. They are disruptors, obstructors of a legal action. And that is what resulted in the interaction which ended with the shooting, and will probably do so again. Once again, if local LE would provide a presence to control the true protestors and eliminate the interaction with ICE these things would not take place. The same thing applies to the pro Hamas/anti Israel "protests".

But of course, everything you say is true. LOL You have quite an opinion of yourself. And they hardly fully support the shooting.

Not "fully" supporting? So a bet each way?

You have a view of protest that would make protest invisible. That would certainly suit Trump and ICE.

Sure thing, mate. Obstructing law enforcement operations is a crime, and not a legally protected form of protest.

I wonder what a body language expert would make of a person attired in a battle uniform, wearing a mask so they can't be seen or identified, carrying a firearm and spitting out expletives at a woman in a car? I wonder if that could be construed as "threatening" or "aggressive"?

It is. If you saw video from Chicago, you can see a fool go up and try to hold the ICE vehicle’s door closed. Upon trying to escape, the person was thrown to the ground, cuffed, and arrested. Reasonable enough. It would have been a problem if the person had been shot for that, though.

Your "obstruction" is someone else's right to protest. In neither instance does it confer the right to kill on immigration agents.

I realize the fool in Chicago was not in a vehicle that the officer was in front of, so it was easier for the officer to subdue and detain the protestor. In the case in which the protestor was in a vehicle, the officer in Minnesota decided to not to move to the side of the vehicle initially, and decided to stand and draw a weapon instead of get out of the path of the car. And still sustained a light, glancing blow from the vehicle. The driver unnecessarily put herself at risk at multiple points of the incident, but the driver did not attempt to drive into the officer there.

He understands America far better than you. Sad. Commonly-accepted options:

1 - Protest one’s government in fully legal ways.

2 - Protest one’s government in non-violent ILLEGAL ways. Despite Trump and MAGAs clear preference, we have a FEDERAL holiday celebrating an American legend who endorsed exactly this. Perhaps you know who he is.

Not accepted: Government agent firing 2 shots into the head of a citizen passing him by in her car.

The non-American understands all this much better than you utterly false patriots.

Are people allowed to hit police officers with their car in Nee Zealand?

If they attempt to drive to the side of the officer and wind up hitting an officer who fails to move to the side of the vehicle, they should be arrested for reckless endangerment.

Is that being “allowed to hit police officers with their car”? That seems like the polar opposite of allowing someone to do that. I don’t think they should be shot for it, though.

You hit that straw target head-on, though, joedirt.

There’s a serious and reasonable argument to be made over whether the officer should face consequences for the shooting. I can imagine some of those arguments, and have seen some decent points on both sides of that elsewhere. Here, though, people keep leaning into some relatively poor arguments.

There are no good arguments about whether or not consequences should be enforced, because the enforcing of consequences isn't the question here. The question is "Did the officer fear for his life, and was the shooting therefore justified under the law?" Again, we can't answer that question, because our answer relies far too heavily on what we want to believe, not what went through that officer's mind as the events unfolded. How us it even possible to answer a question about one's state of mind without making inferences that obscure the question?

ICE agent clearly sees that the vehicle is moving forward and decides to stand his ground and actually leans into the hood of the vehicle in order to get off a better shot at Good than he would if he took a step back to avoid the vehicle. He actually moved closer to the vehicle instead of moving away. His intent was to shoot Good to kill her and not defend himself.