Here are 3 frames, one for each shot… absolutely not in the path danger. And let’s just say he was, there’s clear case law in that:
A law enforcement officer may not deliberately or recklessly place themselves in a position of danger and then justify deadly force as self-defense when that danger was foreseeable and avoidable.
-Kirby vs. Duva court ruling
They’re using the South Park, “They were coming right for us” defense. This is supposed to be a joke, not an actual defense.
https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/9b5egn/south-park-it-s-coming-right-for-us
And the joke is how obvious of a lie it is.
The only, only reason that the civil rights movement worked was because they had black panthers backing them up. Without threat of violence peaceful protests dont work.
This is bullshit. The Civil Rights Movement worked because people couldn’t argue in favor of the relentless violence inflicted on non-violent protesters.
This entirely modern bullshit is propaganda designed to incite violence today.
For the past two hours, you’ve been arguing against gun rights. Which is okay - you do you. Not everyone should own a gun. We all see the stats.
But you do realize the white woman who got executed didn’t incite violence?
And you do realize that at the height of police brutality during BLM violence - armed BLM protesters stood peacefully to protect the disenfranchised, protesters like yourself - the normally aggressive police behaved?
We get it. YOU don’t like guns. But when they’re shooting unarmed white women who don’t incite violence, a lot of people would prefer to keep their guns with them right now.
deleted by creator
AHAHAAHAH they couldn’t argue in favor of relentless violence?
They could and absolutely did.
Google “radical flank effect”
Edit: to clarify this is in support of ops comment. What they’re talking about is called the radical flank effect.
For those of us that are lazy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_flank_effect “The radical flank effect refers to the positive or negative effects that radical activists for a cause have on more moderate activists for the same cause.” "Greater differentiation between moderates and radicals in the presence of a weak government.[2][13][14]: 411 As Charles Dobson puts it: “To secure their place, the new moderates have to denounce the actions of their extremist counterparts as irresponsible, immoral, and counterproductive. The most astute will quietly encourage ‘responsible extremism’ at the same time.” "
For those of us that are lazy….
Hey, that’s me!
Holy hell
Like a drive by, but en passant
Or just use any other better search like Bing or duckduckgo. googol sucks and was never any good; quit pushing garbage.
Kinda crazy that in a space where we are concerned about a armed and masked gunman murders a woman in cold blood, as we wonder how to best cope and move forward - people will still argue about search engine choices.
Going to take me a lonnnng time to retrain my brain to not use “google” as a verb. I need to swap to the generic “search” or something
Edit: I didn’t realize, but am not at all surprised, that “google” is officially a verb in the Merriam Webster dictionary
Or we make Google the generic term for searching something online and they lose the trademark.
I hope you’re this pedantic when people ask for a Kleenex or a q-tip, or when they use Velcro
They might be, depending on their region.
I only know what a q-tip is because I’ve seen americans say it online.
And while Kleenex is a brand over here, you’d get a slightly funny look if you asked for ‘a kleenex’ rather than ‘a tissue’.Velcro is definitely used here though, and so is googling, but variants of ‘look it up’ are more commonly used because it’s more generic.
It’s not “Velcro” you’re using. That’s a company. You can’t use a company to hold stuff in place. You can use Velcro-brand hook- and loop-fastener.
What else can you call a qtip?
Cotton bud, cotton swab, ear bud
was never any good
This is a lie. Google used to be borderline psychic.
fr. in the early days of the web, like pre 2005, it was a revelation
Right? Google has been shit for at least 5 years, but let’s not pretend it wasn’t the best search engine by far for years.
I use google as a generic verb to search for something on the internet
I looked at it this way: the biggest outcry against ICE has been now that a white woman has been killed by them.
Difference here is, this, they can manipulate into a reason to close the polls.
The outcry is still limited because the woman shot appears to be in a gay relationship (a lady declaring herself as her wife was on scene at the murder).
So most conservatives are still unable to empathize nor see this as ‘one of their clan’ at risk, even though it was a white person.
It’ll take a MAGA-hat-wearing white guy being shot by ICE before they start to worry about the new SS.
imgine seing your spouse executed by the police
if it happens to me i’m throating a cop
Most people won’t be affected until it’s an old boomer on an electric scooter
There’s an undeniable racial component, yeah, but there’s also the very real fact that those suffering past abuses were broadly in a different category from the majority of ordinary (white and white passing) American citizens, creating the illusion that they themselves were safe, or could choose to be safe by keeping their heads down.
As soon as the victim is in a position that you yourself could easily find yourself in (like dropping your kid off at school in a residential area), and you can imagine that you might make the same choices (like trying to leave a dangerous situation safely), your own safety is under direct threat.
A lot of people were sad, angry and outraged before, but now they’re scared.
Yeah, acknowledging the racial component is fine, but the OP frames it in a much more productive way than @[email protected].
I have personally given the speech about how your white skin won’t save you from the ICE thugs. They’re not checking documentation. There’s no judge. And if they don’t care about proof of citizenship, why do you think they’d give a fuck about the color of your skin? That’s not much of a shield.
But this one is different, and it’s not just race. “Could easily find yourself in” hits the nail on the head. It’s not just that she’s white; it’s that you can tell what she was doing. She was turning around to leave, allowed traffic to go in front of her first, and then allowed the truck to pass before she went, not knowing the unmarked truck was ICE.
She wasn’t on the front line of a protest. She wasn’t living in a barely habitable apartment complex struggling to scrape by. We should, and often do empathize with those people as well, but they’re not as relatable.
Race might be a good chunk of why it’s so easy to empathize, but it’s not the only reason. Renee Good’s crime was turning down the wrong street.
And often after fear, comes rage.
Blame the media for their conservative/racist leanings. I hadn’t heard much if anything about other similar cases until this happened. And I sure hadn’t seen a video of those incidents.
Just wait until they shoot a white conservative man in the face. Then there will be riots. Women aren’t as important, they are disposable. White women might be “higher up on the chain” but they’re still women therefore unimportant. Lol if I wasn’t scared enough before I’m 1000% more scared now. She is me, I am her. We’re fucked.
Note: I do not believe white people are superior in any way. I recognize white privilege and I do try to use my privilege for good and to help the less fortunate/less privileged. I just know how these low life fuckers think.
Like Charlie Kirk outrage?
I don’t condone any shooting or terrorist acts, but I wish there was half as much outrage for school shootings.
Why would there be? Conservatives get shot by the police all the time and we just laugh at them. People say you’ll care when it’s in your neighborhood. Well they’re in the suburbs now and we still have plenty of people claiming that anyone attacked by federal agents is an agitator.
The last big white riot we had was Jan. 6 so I wouldn’t really be banking massive social position change on conservatives getting upset at other conservatives.
Are they humanly capable of emotions, which would include crying?
deleted by creator
she tried to run over the cop and/or thats what he thought when he fired, anyway
Even if this was true, it’s honestly irrelevant. You’re not supposed to fire upon the driver of a running/moving vehicle period, lest the vehicle become an ‘unguided missile’ (via dead weight pressing on the accelerator) that can cause who knows how much more damage.
ICE’s own rules explicitly prohibit it, I saw someone citing them earlier.
deleted by creator
I understand that people are being told different stories, the created issue is that those stories aren’t questioned with even the slightest scrutiny. for this situation, the only evidence that the officer was going to be hit by the vehicle is from a video that’s 500 feet away with 15 pixels for the car and officer.
no one wants to find clarity if it already fits their narrative
There are two other videos, one fairly close and on the left side of the vehicle showing she tried to avoid hitting the officer while fleeing from masked gestapo wannabes threatening her life.
The video from like 10 feet away shows the “officer” isn’t even in front of the car 🤷
He is for the first shot, you just can’t see him because another terrorist is blocking him; you can see his legs between the legs of the other guy.
But he intentionally positioned himself that way because he wanted an excuse to murder.
What Null said. https://files.xvertigox.com/vertigo-archival/video/minneapolis-ice-shooting-26-01-08.mp4
Slowed down clip showing him very clearly leaning over the hood, just to the side of the car (he’s on a patch of ice and his weight leaning on the car causes him to slide), reaching over for the first shot directly through the front windshield, then being able to step back and firing directly into her open windows and eventually shooting into the car that’s already in front of him.
If by “in front” you mean “leaning over the side of the hood” then sure.
He may have been technically in from, but he wasn’t in the path of the b vehicle or she would have flattened him when her head injury apparently caused her to floor it into the parked car and telephone pole down the street.
Precisely! One has to look also for the wheels. She was turning away off him. Also, if he really felt threatened he would have first move to the side, not concerning himself with shooting. Everyone knows a bullet won’t stop a car. And, secondly, to stop the car you would aim to the wheels probably but no officer did it… They were all concerned with terroricing the population and that’s the reason behind this MURDER. Fuck nazis and pedophiles’ apologists.
I think you hit on an important point. People, especially conservatives imo, are super willing to not question something if they want to believe it. The confirmation bias is so strong it trumps morality most of the time. I think confirmation bias has gotten worse specifically because of the Internet. Algorithms feeding you constant validation has led to self righteousness levels that are off the chart.
Having said all this, I am baffled that anyone can see something like this and not even question it. I think it is remotely possible the cop feared he could be hit for a brief moment, but that doesn’t justify murdering a person obviously. I think he fired at least a couple seconds after that moment.
But here we are. The Shitter thread I saw where the close-up video was posted was absolutely loaded with morons commenting with certainty that the murderer did the right thing. The absolute strongest position anyone should have in favor of the fascist should be “I think it was justified”. But no, they’re 100% certain after 5 seconds of viewing the post. Society is sick, and the disease is mostly conservative politics.
I agree with you mostly, but I think it’s closer that religion is the main underlying problem. Every single Republican and conservative Nazi out there will profess Jesus as their Lord and savior. Or some other bullshit prophet. They willfully lie to themselves. Whatever is broken inside of them, to believe with zero proof, have Faith, trust in magical sky daddy… Childish fantasies. This is what fractures societies everywhere. That and Capitalism of course.
I would agree, but I don’t see how Christianity itself is to blame exactly, since if they followed the teachings of Jesus in any way, they’d be overcome with empathy for a murder victim. Bastardized interpretations of religions are the excuse to be shitty, not the cause to be shitty, imo. When it is an excuse, you get to pick and choose which thing is supposedly a Christian value that excuses your behavior. In this case they’d have trouble even doing that though. It would have to be something like “well this woman is a part of the RADICAL left and all they want is for Christians and anything decent to be destroyed!”
Notice how none of that remotely reflects anything Jesus said. If Jesus were alive today, they would 100% kill him for being a RADICAL leftist
I just saw that pro-human extinction post that got deleted. Are you okay?
deleted by creator
Is there something wrong? If you need to talk, I’m here.
When will it be enough that people actively start opening fire on ICE the second they pull out to their street? This is getting ridiculous. Not even white women are safe.
The problem is that’s when he “gets” to declare Marshall Law and take over the government and the military.
So far, judges have denied him access to military even though he keeps screaming about terrorists and buildings burning, when really there are people in frog costumes and people with whistles.
Hitler took control of German government and military the second a building caught fire. This is likely what he’s trying to make happen.
Elections happen this year that could generate some congressional power challenges against his orders with more urgency. How much hope do I have that elections even happen? Will several red states change last minute election rules and post office cancel ballot deliveries or straight up replace federal electors again? Will he make up a fake excuse to end elections or arrest opponents? Who knows. Once he steals power instead of having it with legitimacy is when gloves have to come off. In the meantime it has to stay peaceful. We dug this hole ourselves at this point.
At some point you have to say enough is enough instead of coming out with this stupid ass excuse.
"we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” - Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts
I don’t think people calling for restraint understand what we’re up against.
It’s pretty stunning how they talk like terrorists and abusers and people just go with it.
But I guess I know from experience that conservative culture has a lot of “shut up and deal with it” conditioning. And not like “practicing stoicism is good for you” dealing with it. It’s more like “know your place, respect your betters, and shut your mouth.”
It’s the “might makes right” approach.
Most of us get educated about why that’s bad in pre-school. Nobody likes a bully and often bullying is ended with a swift punch in the face from the victim. People like Stephen Miller just haven’t got theirs yet.
*Martial Law
Trump can declare war without even telling congress about it. What makes you think he needs something real in order to “declare martial law”? At what point are you going to decide that NOT FIGHTING BACK is actually helping these people trample you?
As mentioned by others in this thread, the courts has repeatedly taken away his access to national guard because he is failing to show evidence of a domestic threat
He’s already stolen power. He’s admitted multiple times that they rigged the election.
Huh?
Trump said, on camera, “I was president, then I wasn’t. Then they rigged the election and now I’m president again.” That’s slightly paraphrased because I don’t care to listen to him talk again if I can avoid it, but the wording wasn’t ambiguous.
He admitted to it a few more times, but that was the most blatant one.
He meant they rigged it for Biden. He talks like an idiot
No, he really didn’t.
He vomits just enough word salad to give his supporters an excuse to pretend he didn’t say what he said, but he’s been remarkably forthright about nearly every heinous thing he’s done or is planning to do, from “grab 'em by the pussy” to “we need Greenland for national security.” And even when he doesn’t just publicly confess outright, you can tell exactly what he did because he falsely accuses others of doing it.
I thought he made some references to Musk taking care of the voting machines.
How does, “then they rigged the election and now I’m president again,” suggest that he’s talking about Biden? He plainly laid out the sequence of events. It was one of the least convoluted things I’ve ever heard the man say.
He was trying to be snide about the fact that he would have been president 2 terms in a row but they cheated him out of it.
*Martial Law
“Marshall [Plan]” is his bullshit excuse for attacking Venezuela.
He’s gonna do that anyway come midterms, no?
Yeah probably
Trump is going to declare Marshall Law anyway. Fighting back will only accelerate it. Regardless, Marshall Law isn’t a real thing in the United States. Although that won’t stop the president in the high castle.
He is allowed to take over state militaries in emergency situations. I also agree that I think he’s going to make up an excuse and do it anyway at some point before elections.
A lot of what he is getting away with is stuff that Congress could block. It’s their appropriate money he’s using, but they’re all his tools right now so they don’t fight back and just let him do it.
He is allowed
As opposed to?
Courts keep denying him access
The problem is that’s when he “gets” to declare Marshall Law and take over the government and the military.
Practically speaking, how is that any different from now?
Do you really think this is as bad as it can get?
Of course not. I’m asking what declaring Martial Law would change.
Martial Law would mean the real military rolling into towns, and the loss of recourse in the courts for federal overreach.
Currently we just have ICE, national guard, and police assaulting us, but under martial law there will be things like tanks and drone bombs.
Martial Law would mean the real military rolling into towns, and the loss of recourse in the courts for federal overreach
You believe the only thing stopping that is Trump saying “I declare Martial Law”?
He also can’t just kidnap a foreign leader without notifying congress – except he actually just can.
The only thing stopping Trump right now is the courts. Martial law is an endrun around the courts.
Yes, he is breaking laws, but once the court actually steps up and tells him to stop, he does. We unfortunately have a long history of extrajudicial foreign action that the courts just don’t care about, but that’s not the same as deploying military to one’s own country.
Bro fix your spelling. Your point is good and Marshall is HEAVILY undermining your content.
I wouldn’t hold out hope for the vote saving us. https://youtube.com/shorts/Y7b4r1FIG-A
Man known for lying. Says a possible lie. More at 11
Hopefully soon
Here’s the video. NSFW.
https://xcancel.com/maxnesterak/status/2008961959731859757#m
Yeah… That’s entirely fucked.
Guy wearing tac gear with a police branding on him, no badge in sight and covering their face like a common thug. Shoots unarmed woman in vehicle while she was trying to exit the situation in any way possible.
The only part of this that I’m thankful for is that her death was probably quick and relatively painless. Everything else about this screams hostile takeover.
I mean, that’s not new, we’ve been seeing similar bullshit forever, brought to the spotlight previously by the BLM movement. They’re just not discriminating against only POC. Now it’s anyone who isn’t them.
We need more self-defense classes. For Renee.
For Good.
I know this is just emphasizing it but I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything other than anti-black rhetoric.
Like, I can believe that a genuinely ignorant but well-intentioned liberal thought “all lives matter” was valid because they were more concerned with being nice than real justice, but “white lives matter” could never be anything other than racist.
All Lives Matter is a perfectly fine position to have, just like thinking that all genders should be treated equally.
The problem is when you try to use that position to say that people aren’t allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.
“all lives matter” is a reaction from misinterpreting “black lives matter” as “only black lives matter”, rather than its real declaration of “black lives matter too”.
that’s why “all lives matter”, well-intentioned as it may be, is an issue.
It would be lovely if everyone took the time to explain that as nicely as you. Thanks!
It’s not nearly as present in discourse as it used to be, but it wasn’t too long ago that it felt like so many people had internalized the idea that saying “all lives matter” was 100%, no room for nuance, a dogwhistle for racist people who somehow really meant “white lives are the only lives that matter”. Maybe it was for some racist assholes.
I just felt like focusing on any one skin color was limiting. I wasn’t against BLM, I wanted even more!
well-intentioned as it may be
It’s not. It was always meant as a dismissal of the movement, nothing more.
I’d argue the “issue”/fault for the misinterpretation lies squarely in the poor wording of “black lives matter”. You can’t blame people for misunderstanding what is, objectively, a very vague message.
Not only is “black lives matter” vague, but its whole impetus, police brutality, isn’t even present in that phrase. You’re supposed to just magically know it’s about police treatment of black people.
“All Lives Matter” is a dishonest racist dogwhistle every time it’s used. The fact that all lives matter goes without saying – literally, it doesn’t need to be said. It is not a neutral/symmetrical response to “Black Lives Matter” because “black lives matter” actually does need to be said!
Not every time. I believe that all lives matter, and that the BLM movement is perfectly valid.
I believe that all genders should be treated equally and that the feminist movement is valid as well.
And there are absolutely people who believe that in order to achieve “equality” one group has to be drug down and treated the way the marginalized group was. There are people who honestly believe it’s impossible to be racist against white people, or that men can’t be victims of sexism.
As I said, the problem is when you use your broad belief to say that others can’t focus on a more specific one.
Sure, you believe that all lives matter, so does blm, but are you going to put that on a sign in the United States? Because in the US that phrase is practically exclusively used in response to blm, to dismiss black discrimination. It’s not a phrase that can honestly be taken at face value
Not every time. I believe that all lives matter, and that the BLM movement is perfectly valid.
Believing it is one thing. Using it as a retort to someone saying “black lives matter” is entirely another.
The fact that all lives matter goes without saying – literally, it doesn’t need to be said.
Neither does “black lives matter”, to the vast majority of people. It makes perfect sense for the typical person hearing that phrase for the first time to react with confusion. If you explicitly say “black lives matter” to someone, you are, whether you realize it or not, implying to that person that they are racist enough that they don’t believe the lives of black people have value.
If I made a point of telling you “you know, the earth is round”, that implies that I believe that you don’t already believe that (otherwise, why would I be saying it to you?). So a response fueled by confusion/indignance from you would make perfect sense.
people aren’t allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.
I honestly don’t understand why there needs to be segregation (pardon the pun) of effort based on immutable characteristics of the victim. Police brutality, for example, is a problem regardless of the victim, and it takes equal effort to call out and protest etc. against it as a whole as to do so with only one demographic of victim in mind.
When it comes down to it, the action is really what matters, not the motive. Let’s say a white guy is murdered by unjustified ‘overzealous policing’, and a black guy is murdered the same way, but only the latter was motivated by racism. Well, they’re both dead for no good reason, and I don’t see how one can objectively consider the former case as somehow less atrocious than the latter just because there wasn’t racism involved.
The behavior is the true problem, and the only thing focusing on specific motivations for that behavior does, is divide people against each other, that should be in solidarity.
It’s because the behavior disproportionately affects certain demographics, and it’s more efficient to focus on one. Plus, depending on the demographic you might tailor your approach to the issue specifically to it.
It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
it’s more efficient to focus on one [demographic].
No, it literally is not.
Explain how this supposed efficiency manifests, since you disagree. How does focusing on one race of victim reduce police brutality more than focusing on police brutality itself, which takes the exact same amount of effort?
It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”
This is a false analogy, because cancers are too different to be accurately described as having a single shared fundamental cause to ‘attack’ with research.
A better analogy would be if someone was arguing for gun control by focusing on only cases where the bullet hits a certain body part. In this analogy, I am the one saying “why aren’t we just focusing on the guns themselves, who cares where people are getting shot, the important thing is that they’re getting shot!”
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
But there is no conclusive evidence that a criminal charge being ‘enhanced’ as being a hate crime, versus a non hate crime, has had any measurable impact at all on the incidence of said crimes, it’s basically just an ego stroke that doesn’t actually accomplish anything.[1]
What’s the difference between a murder that’s a ‘hate crime’ versus one that isn’t, really? Is the latter victim any less deceased? Is the latter perpetrator any less deserving of punishment?
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
It should be a factor insofar as whether the crime is deliberate or happenstance, but not beyond that (i.e. whether there IS motivation, but when there is, not WHAT the motivation is). Hot Fuzz satirizes (maybe not deliberately, but coincidentally at least) this well, I think—the townspeople are murdered by the cult for absurdly trivial reasons, like having an annoying laugh. Should that triviality lessen the severity of the crimes?
You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
Right, hence my clarification that the existence of motive makes a difference, but within the umbrella of ‘motivated crimes’, what the motive is should make no difference. I say all ‘motivated’ murders are equally heinous, whether the victim was killed because the murderer is bigoted against their race, or because they hate how the victim laughs.
In fact, it arguably makes things worse, as it gives bigotry within the justice system a stealthy tool of discrimination. I did some cursory poking around that seems to show that black people charged with violent crimes are more likely to have ‘hate crime enhancements’ attached to their charges than white people are. All other factors being equal for the sake of argument, this leads to longer average sentences for black convicts than white, for the same crime. ↩︎
I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything
Deliberately out of context, not to misquote you but to say that but this part of the sentence rings true for me, lol. I have never seen “white lives matter” expressed in any significant capacity. Probably saw it written or heard it said less than 10 times since BLM started as a named thing.
Sadly as history has proven, things do change…
But a whole lotta people gotta die before it does.
Honestly would like to see a white lives matter movement come out of the ladies death. That’s the second time a white woman has been shot and killed by cops that I can recall in the past little while (I assume it happens way more often but that’s two pretty high profile cases).
Even the racists know this was nothing more than another instance of murder by police. They would have murdered her if she were any other color.
Well said!
I don’t think the killing was race motivated
Maybe not the race of the person who got shot, but overall? This is ICE after all.
Not sure which comment to go with here.
The “white lives matter” people are split because the cop is also white (and she almost ran him over).
Turns out you don’t have to be black to get shot when running from (and nearly over) the cops. BLM supporters shocked.
BLM is shocked that white people don’t support one of their own when they do something wrong just because they’re white.
I could almost call you all morons for jumping to a very biased reading of the facts, though of course Trump went schizoposting on twitter to do the same thing.
a very biased reading of the facts
Go take a long fucking look in the nearest mirror.
yikes
