Anonymous #2 4w

The only possible exception would be something like hot pursuit… but being illegal isn’t a criminal offense, so they’d have to actively be committing a felony or whatnot.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

im not in the habit of giving the benefit of the doubt to the squad that blew the head off an innocent bystander and then killed more people, only to be told they have absolute immunity.

14

Anonymous #4 4w

He knows (or absolutely should know) better. Their qualified (not absolute) immunity goes away if it’s determined that they violated someone’s civil rights. Which they may have done here. But it’s usually too late, because the agency that threatens to bust down your door with guns blazing is difficult to sue if they shoot you

1

Anonymous #5 4w

Well they didn’t kill 10 million in a day did they? No atrocities start off the bat like that. At the beginning Nazis weren’t appearing as a threat. However we have been putting people in “ICE detention centers” depriving them of food and water, have been told to call ICE if we suspect a person is illegal (racial profiling), and now are witnessing ICE executing people and being told that they have Absolute Immunity…

32

Anonymous #4 4w

That’s weird, y’all didn’t even interact 😭

4

Anonymous OP 4w

Detention centers have been a thing throughout the entire history of of ICE. I fully agree that there needs to be immediate changes in the way ICE is handled under the Trump administration, but to call him a Nazi is undermining the atrocities committed in Germany by actual Nazis. If Trump finds a way to run (and win) a 3rd term, I’d be much more inclined to have a conversation comparing the two

13

Anonymous #1 4w

They shot a civilian three times in the head with no reasonable case for self defense. Is the shooter in custody?

11

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

No reasonable case for self defense is objectively false no matter what way you lean😭

-1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

No, and I don’t expect him to end up in federal custody until the next admin is in. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if every ICE agent gets pardoned just for good measure. The only hope is that Minnesota somehow gets him for something, but they have no way of obtaining evidence because the FBI won’t let them. My point was that “absolute immunity” is not a thing for ICE agents anyway. They have qualified immunity

15

Anonymous #5 4w

*ahem* the DOJ is pretty clear on this.

8

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

Ice is part of DHS not DOJ right

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

Loud and wrong. Go ahead and read 2 (2) loud for the class

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Shit, that’s a good point.

3

Anonymous #5 4w

I think shooting someone three times in the head takes more effort than moving half a foot to the right to get out of the way of the car.

10

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

I mean, we all know they’re not bringing justice, but neither is the DOJ so

6

Anonymous #5 4w

You didn’t watch the video, did you?

7

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

It also takes more effort to drive your car into an ICE agent than it does to not

-2

Anonymous #5 4w

In many states, the act of self-defense needs to be proportional. That car was moving at 5 mph MAX before he shot her, and was not going to (and did not) hit him. His life was not threatened. The second and third shots in the window, and not through the windshield, corroborate this

21

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

I watched pretty much every available angle. Good’s wife yelling “drive baby drive” while an ICE agent is visibly in front of her car is a terrible look

-2

Anonymous #5 4w

Three. Shots. The agent triple tapped her and then ran to an unmarked getaway vehicle. How much danger do you think she posed?

11

Anonymous #2 4w

DHS policy is similar, if not stricter, on fleeing subjects and moving vehicles https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/23_0206_s1_use-of-force-policy-update.pdf

6

Anonymous #1 4w

She did hit him, so you’re objectively wrong about that. LEO’s are often trained to go one above the threat level on the use of force continuum, which is directly in line with the threat level presented to the ICE agent. Not to mention the level of leeway that LEOs are given during split-second events under Graham v. Connor

-1

Anonymous #5 4w

They surrounded a civilians car, were visibly armed, faces masked, and tried to yank her out of the car. They literally pulled the “they were coming right at us!” Defense, and you’re falling for it. Hook, line, and sinker.

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

im reading a 2018 dhs department policy on the use of force 044-05 that says only authorized secret service or appropriately trained dhs law enforcement officers (ice maybe) may discharge firearms to disable moving vehicles for physical protection. so technically its a maybe that it was allowed, depending on his training verification. sane people will say obviously he wasnt trained and it wasnt really for physical safety, but in regards to actual policy he might get a green light

2

Anonymous #4 4w

it has been 8 years since then, and i think #1 has a more up to date source, but this might be the most lenient version

1

Anonymous #5 4w

Graham v. Connor is talking about an arrest, stop, or seizure. Are you saying that’s what was happening here? I don’t have any proof that he wasn’t actually hit, maybe he was grazed, but it didn’t look like he suffered any significant injury

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

She is clearly aware of who she is interacting with in the officer’s video. If she was so terrified of the people she was dealing with, she shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Who would have thought that blocking 2 lanes for ICE agents to conduct their business would be met with an attempt to detain?

-1

Anonymous #5 4w

Cars had already moved past her, and you’re saying she’s blocking two lanes? Also, do you have any idea how easy it’d be for kidnappers to disguise as ICE?

8

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

It’s happened before, people got stuff off Amazon, faked some sort of raid, and got arrested for impersonating LEOs

12

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

Once again, she is clearly aware of who she is interacting with and to say that she didn’t is disingenuous. She allowed other cars to pass, but only moved slightly when an ICE truck attempted to pass her. Obviously the agents were unable to continue their investigation in an effective manner, which prompted the attempt to detain her (not arrest). They had already asked her to move her car and she chose to do it in the most minimal manner possible instead of just parking along the street

0

Anonymous #5 4w

What were they investigating?

8

Anonymous #1 4w

It still pertains to excessive force claims under the 4th amendment as you all are claiming. The graham factors give officers leeway due to the rapidly evolving nature of dealing with uncooperative suspects who can pose a threat to LEOs and others

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Ikr? Obstruction, which I’ve seen ICE sympathizers arguing, requires an active investigation. Also, obstruction doesn’t warrant the death penalty.

7

Anonymous #5 4w

Shooting a fleeing vehicle is not only illegal for law enforcement, it’s also immoral.

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

Obstruction warrants detainment. Trying to run over an ICE agent warrants lethal force

3

Anonymous #5 4w

“Trying to” The tires were pointed away from the agent. Again, someone didn’t watch the video close enough.

8

Anonymous #5 4w

I didn’t base excessive force claims on 4A. I used self-defense and DHS use of force policy. Graham was about stops and arrests. Are you saying this was a stop?

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

For attempting to flee, she sure made it a point to try and hit the ICE agent literally directly in front of her car

0

Anonymous #5 4w

“to try and hit” I hate repeating myself.

4

Anonymous #1 4w

It was a detainment, which is very legally similar to a stop

0

Anonymous #5 4w

And what was the articulable, reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed, being committed, or about to be?

13

Anonymous #1 4w

im simultaneously really curious what mind numbingly stupid stuff #5 is saying but also happy i dont have to see it

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

Yes, she tried to hit him head on, he was able to move enough to avoid serious injury. As even the NYT will tell you, all 3 shots were fired within ≈ 2 seconds of each other. He was firing as he moved out of the way and was only hit slightly

0

Anonymous #4 4w

They’re contending that this was self-defense and warranted legal force, but they’re citing Graham v Connor and idk if that’s entirely relevant here

1

Anonymous #5 4w

So that literally disqualifies self defense as an argument by your own words. He was able to move out of the way of the car.

7

Anonymous #1 4w

Lethal***

1

Anonymous #4 4w

Most recent comment

1

Anonymous #5 4w

“Tried to” Really don’t wanna beat a dead horse here.

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

Obviously not, because had he not moved at all he would have been run over completely. He made two quick movements simultaneously dawg. If someone tries to shoot you, and you get out of the way, but they’re still in possession of a lethal weapon, they can still try and shoot you again. Good’s car was being used as a lethal weapon in this scenario and she was still in operation of the lethal weapon she just tried to hit an officer with

0

Anonymous #5 4w

I feel like it’s difficult to argue that a car moving 5 mph is a lethal weapon

15

Anonymous #5 4w

I’ve been hit by a car moving faster than that and I didn’t feel threatened enough to decide “the only way to survive is to kill the driver.” Because NEWS FLASH, killing a vehicle’s driver makes the vehicle more dangerous!

13

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

I too make anecdotal fallacies on the internet

0

Anonymous #5 4w

Law enforcement are literally trained to understand the second point, but go off ig.

3

Anonymous #1 4w

Before I go to sleep I’m super curious to know what the reason for the stop was

6

Anonymous #1 4w

Cars weigh ≈ 2000, being hit by one at almost any speed leaves the potential for serious injury or death. Especially when they’re accelerating as Good was

0

Anonymous #5 4w

Hey localwendigo, I’m pretty sure that’s you.

1

Anonymous #5 4w

Her car was a big SUV which is around 4400 lbs or 2 tons

6

Anonymous #2 4w

I appreciate the assist twin🤞🏻

0

Anonymous #5 4w

Yes, because the weight of the car was the problem with your argument.

7

Anonymous #5 4w

If the risk of serious injury or death was significant at 5 mph, they would never set the speed limit around schools to 20

5

Anonymous #1 4w

You sir may win whataboutism of the year so far

-1

Anonymous #5 4w

Take that up with the IIHS

3

Anonymous #5 4w

So much for “at any speed”

9

Anonymous #5 4w

Oh okay phew it’s just pre-holocaust nazis

12

Anonymous #5 4w

Don’t leave me on a cliffhanger here. What crime were they investigating?

11

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

As I said before, LEOs are taught to use any level of force to neutralize a threat, oftentimes that’s going above the threat level presented. You’re also guessing what mph Good was accelerating at and neglecting that she was accelerating at all

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Immigration and Customs, as is their job

0

Anonymous #5 4w

Sorry they can just gun people down over a perceived threat? And that doesn’t scream authoritarianism to you???

6

Anonymous #5 4w

What specific violation of immigration and customs law were they investigating?

11

Anonymous #5 4w

ICE literally created more of a threat by killing her, leading to the car losing control. They literally escalated the situation.

9

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

Pretty sure her resisting escalated the situation, she could have stepped out of her car when ordered to do so

0

Obstruction 1) requires an active investigation to be ongoing. 2) isn’t punishable by death.

5

Anonymous #1 4w

It literally doesn't matter, they were doing their job and she was obstructing it. DHS hasn't provided specifics as to why they were there

0

“It literally doesn’t matter” lawl ok gn bud. If they didn’t have RAS then the stop was unlawful. And if that’s the case, her civil rights were violated, and qualified immunity goes out the window

8

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

You’re actually fucking stupid, I already explained this

0

Anonymous #5 4w

She resisted because they tried to yank her out of her vehicle. They escalated first.

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

She resisted by refusing to move her car, had she done so in the first place, there would have been 0 need for a detainment

0

Anonymous #5 4w

She was literally trying to and waved cars past her to avoid blocking traffic. I already explained this. They had 0 reason to detain her period. They’re immigration agents, not law enforcement. What jurisdiction did they have?

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

Impeding an ICE investigation. Read up on U.S. v. Varkonyi twin

0

Anonymous #8 4w

You can ask the vital records department or department of health in the county/state you were born for a copy if you don’t have one

6

Anonymous #5 4w

You literally think ICE should be able to mag dump a civilian because they THOUGHT the civilian posed a threat. By your own words, we don’t know what ice was doing there. How could she impede an investigation she was unaware of to the point of needing to be executed?

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

There is legal backing to support that yes. She was completely aware of an ICE presence and made it a goal to impede their ability to traverse the roadway

1

Anonymous #5 4w

She waved cars by but okay “twin”

9

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

Cars, not ICE vehicles. What was her goal then if not to impede traffic and the ongoing ICE investigation

0

Anonymous #5 4w

18 USC 111 requires force. She didn’t use force to prevent them from going through the road

6

Anonymous #5 4w

I don’t know, we can’t ask her because ICE shot her head off for thinking she MIGHT pose a threat by (possibly) bumping into one of them.

8

Anonymous #5 4w

If their end goal was to get her to move, why surround and stand in front of her car?

10

Anonymous #1 4w

I should probably do that thanks. It’s supposed to be in the safe with the rest of my family’s but ig it magically disappeared when I was looking for it a couple years ago

1

Anonymous #8 4w

Ah yikes definitely try to find it ASAP then

1

Anonymous #7 4w

Nazi’s usually don’t get elected, lose an election and then become a lame duck president. I don’t like Trump, but as I said, calling him a Nazi is an unequal comparison. He is his own special version of fuck-up

-6

Anonymous #5 4w

“Nazi’s usually don’t get elected…” Who’s gonna tell them?

23

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

It’s called a full sentence, that’s why there’s a comma and not a period. Hope you don’t study politics the way you study grammar

-3

Anonymous #5 4w

You’re talking mad shit for someone who doesn’t punctuate most of their comments.

12

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

I appreciate the expert analysis

-2

Anonymous #5 4w

You’re welcome.

10

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

Bro got nuked and had to put a period at the end of the you’re welcome 🤣

8

Anonymous #9 4w

Do you not know that “You’re welcome.” Is a full sentence?

9

Anonymous #9 4w

When these people resort to ad hominem and insults instead of an argument, you already know it’s over😭

-1

Anonymous #5 4w

You insulted my grammar first.

20

Anonymous #5 4w

I know his ass was like hmmm I better put a period at the end of this just to play it safe LMFAO I’m actually cackling

-3

Anonymous #5 4w

Calling him a Nazi is not undermining the Holocaust. History is there for a reason. If we as a society start to see cracks in something that is eerily similar to a past atrocity we should ring alarm bells. The facts remain the same, this administration is telling people that if you suspect a person is illegal, call ICE. Speaking Spanish, darker skin, having an accent, to this administration is deemed enough for probable cause. The detention centers are simply not fit for any human…

23

Anonymous OP 4w

There have already been reported deaths due to the conditions. Now if you want to pretend none of this is reminiscent of early Nazi Germany, even in the slightest, then you are the one insulting the legacy of the Holocaust.

18

Anonymous OP 4w

Except for the fact that Hitler didn’t exactly have a term limit. Which is why I said that if Trump finds a way to circumvent the precedent set in place after FDR, I’m open to a genuine conversation about comparing Trump to Hitler and his administration to Nazis

-5

Anonymous OP 4w

People die in prison from horrible conditions everyday. When have we ever compared modern prisons to Nazi extermination camps? Two things can be true at once. 1. Trump is a bad president and his policies need not to be continued after his inevitable death/end of term. 2. He is nowhere near close to being Hitler or the head of a Nazi regime

-4

Anonymous #3 4w

Ok now look up what the Nazis were doing leading up to that.

6

Anonymous #5 4w

Trump is actively removing the term limit, my friend. Open your eyes a bit more. Yes we’re not Holocaust level yet, but we’re approaching it. It’s truly ignorant to not notice these patterns.

12