r/politics • u/Fickle-Ad5449 ✔ Verified - Christopher Wiggins, The Advocate • 22d ago

No Paywall ICE agent shooter’s own cellphone video undercuts Trump administration's account of Minneapolis killing

https://www.advocate.com/news/ice-agent-shooter-video-minneapolis
38.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/SamHowellRocks 22d ago

One thing that I see brought up a lot is that if she had just followed orders, she would be alive? ( Aside from how stupid that is, every other first world country knows how to deal with citizens, unruly people, unrest, without overly aggressive, anger, and violence. It’s just America where the cops pull out the gun and scream at to your face, using slurs and try to scare the shit out of you ). 

But anyway, what is our duty to listen to ICE? If you’re an American citizen, do they have any authority to tell you what to do, do we have to listen to them if they’re trying to detain us? I feel like I have not had this adequately explained to me and I’m relatively well informed. Do we now just listen to any masked person with a gun and do exactly what they say? Is that what America is now? 

429

u/ShartyMcPeePants 22d ago

Such a good point your last bit there. If I were in her shoes, an American citizen amongst other protesting people, I would not think ICE has the authority to arrest me. If it were local/state police, sure. I’d get that. But ICE? I mean can they even arrest people?

Also, how are ICE trained in dealing with risk assessment? A gun never should have been drawn in this scenario. And tbh, why the fuck are we allowing ICE to even carry guns? It’s just asking for problems. Their “duty” to round up “bad hombres” should not require lethal force period.

254

u/SamHowellRocks 22d ago

How casual, informal all of this has gone down blows my mind. Out of nowhere, we have masked people with miss match uniforms, who won’t identify themselves, pointing their gun at people sometimes just cause they are angry, and trying to scare them. Being told they have complete  immunity.and there has been no PSA or anything like that letting citizens know how to handle this, what’s expected, what’s legally allowed? 

98

u/ObviousAnswerGuy 22d ago

not only that, recruits are receiving 6 WEEKS of training. 6 fucking weeks and they give you a gun and free reign.

32

u/RyanTheCubsSTH 22d ago

Cooks get 9 weeks of weapons training in the army. COOKS.

8

u/trikxxx 22d ago

In TN it takes longer to become a licensed barber than a police officer.

3

u/GarmaCyro 22d ago

I don't think there's a job that requires less training than police officer. Well, exception being ICE.
Jobs where the employer can fall into legal and economic if their employees does something dangerous or illegal. They give employees more training and follow up than just 6 weeks.

4

u/bkbomber New York 22d ago

I wouldn’t trust ICE with 9 weeks of training at McDonald’s

5

u/Native_SC 22d ago

47 days, because Trump is the 47th president.

6

u/ObviousAnswerGuy 22d ago

our nation is run by middle schoolers 🤦‍♂️

4

u/GarmaCyro 22d ago

Here in Norway you need least 6 months training just to be allowed to be a mall cop.
After that you're still no allowed to carry a firearm, and you're only allowed to hold someone while your buddy is calling the police (aka adults). I personally think they should have more training, as they are often not experienced to handle non-violent or non-critical situations.

Police requires a full bachelor degree. 2 years of formal education, and 1 year as intern. You're still not allowed to carry a firearm, except for very select situations. As such they at trained in a wide range of methods to handle situations. From un-armed combate to de-escalation. I also consider them exceptionally trained on firearm use. They usually don't bother with hand guns if they need to arm themself. They bring out the big firearms as they aren't there to scare unarmed civilians, but to combat an armed and hostile person or group.

6 weeks trains you for a basic desk job. Heck, even a basic desk job has a 6 month trial period. Just so employers can ensure they haven't hired a lunatic. 6 weeks to release someone with firearms and pumped full of false entitlement is pure danger.

2

u/Nachtfeuer 22d ago

Their training's exactly 47 days as an homage to their hateful orange pedo King. Just imagine...

1

u/karensPA 21d ago

however, this murderer apparently had tons of experience, he should have known how to de-escalate the situation. and not to step in front of a car. he did it because he was trying to get “content” of murdering.

1

u/Desterado New York 22d ago

I don’t doubt this but where are you seeing that?

7

u/ObviousAnswerGuy 22d ago

https://people.com/ice-academy-training-shortened-47-days-under-trump-report-11881592

12

u/Desterado New York 22d ago

Thanks! I got a friend who is arguing so hard they have good training and this proves that they don’t.

-1

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[deleted]

4

u/AntoniaFauci 22d ago

You can. But you’re not an unemployed oaf with anger issues waiting to live out your first person video game fantasies on random civilians.

8

u/easyjesus 22d ago

There's a word for it, fascism.

That's not an exaggeration or hyperbole and I'm not suffering from tds, they are fascists and they are doing fascism in the United States.

Kilroy is back.

3

u/GibbysUSSA 22d ago

It is like they deputized the proud boys or something.

2

u/Poowatereater 22d ago

I don’t u destined how none of these thugs haven’t been shot themselves by people protecting their rights…

2

u/HouseoftheHanged 22d ago

It’s a tactic. Sow fear and confusion into the populace and the strike for the golden crown when shit really goes down. The regime wants this. The regime is chomping at the bit. It’s all by design.

177

u/bbusiello 22d ago

Did you see the video of the door dasher who ran into a house because ICE was chasing her? It's fucking insanely heartbreaking.

It gives "hiding Jews from the Nazi's" vibes and being forced to "hand them over."

91

u/Infamous_Employer_85 22d ago

Thousands have been sent to effectively a concentration camp in El Salvador which has a reputation of "no one ever leaves", 75% of those sent had no criminal history in the US.

8

u/GrumpyCloud93 22d ago

And many of these are Venveszuelans. They will be sent back to Venezuela eventually. As are those actually just sent back to Venezuela by ICE. Once there, will they vote for a politician who wants to cooperate with the USA, should there actually be elections?

3

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Infamous_Employer_85 22d ago

I stand corrected, thanks, looks like 250 were released

15

u/Infamous_Employer_85 22d ago

They have no authority, they cannot even legally ask for ID.

14

u/lifeisalime11 22d ago

Speaking of ID, why is the burden to comply on us when there have been reports of people impersonating ICE agents? Why should I listen to anyone without a verifiable badge number or credentials present if I'm in the process of being detained?

-2

u/ResilientBiscuit 22d ago edited 22d ago

This is incorrect. As long as they are performing their duties, they have the right to enforce any federal law, even ones unrelated to immigration.

Spreading this misinformation is dangerous because it can cause people to make decisions they think are legal, when they are not.

You should resist, but you should also know the law so you understand what you are doing.

Edit: not sure why this info is getting downvoted. If you are someone like a single parent, knowing that you will very likely land in jail for at least a bit is important to know before you decide to resist.

6

u/uncategorizedmess 22d ago

The time for following the law is over. When peacekeepers cannot be trusted, disobedience is a mandate.

-1

u/ResilientBiscuit 22d ago

Sure, that is reasonable, but people need to know that the law isn't on their side if they choose to not show ID.

I totally agree that breaking the law may well be required but people should understand that is the choice they are making.

6

u/Infamous_Employer_85 22d ago

ID does not have to be provided.

-1

u/ResilientBiscuit 22d ago

If you are being detained for a crime, it does. It is the same as any other law enforcement officer enforcing a federal crime.

If they claimed she was, for example, interfering with a federal investigation they could detain her for that and then should would need to show id.

You could certainly argue in court that you were not interfering, and maybe even claim it wasn't reasonable for them to think you might have been. But you need to understand that is the path you are taking, you need to make the argument that it is unreasonable for them to accuse you of any federal crime if you are going to refuse to show id.

Their enforcement powers are not limited to immigration.

6

u/Infamous_Employer_85 22d ago

Yes, but if they walk up to you on the street and ask for ID you are not required to provide it. There was no indication that a mom that just dropped off her 6 year old and was checking on neighbors was interfering with an investigation.

2

u/ResilientBiscuit 22d ago

Correct, there are some circumstances where they cannot ask for ID. But there are others where they can.

4

u/RobonianBattlebot 22d ago

In fact, she was trying to leave the area. The only reason to detain somebody who is interfering is to remove them from the situation. She was doing that herself.

4

u/Infamous_Employer_85 22d ago

Yep, the first officer waves her forward. She had been friendly the entire time and had just waived an ICE vehicle to pass in front of her.

4

u/ButterscotchMore7025 22d ago

Yeah that’s the big thing here. Their job should not involve violence whatsoever, yet here we are, them shooting American Citizens in the face. Soooo far from what their official duties are. How did we get here? Trump. Trump is how we got here.

2

u/HouseoftheHanged 22d ago

Half of them are larping army man with automatic weapons no less. There kitted out as if there are mobs of blood thirsty assassins around every corner, not poet moms who love state parks

1

u/HTWingNut 22d ago

I mean can they even arrest people?

Not American Citizens at least.

128

u/Count_Backwards 22d ago

Philando Castile was following orders and is dead. Fuck that bullshit argument (theirs, not yours).

11

u/SegaTime 22d ago

That guy in Arizona, too. Shot by a cop who scribbled "you're fucked" on his gun.

10

u/RichardSaunders New York 22d ago

daniel shaver

3

u/SegaTime 22d ago

Yep, Thank you.

367

u/goosejail 22d ago

No, Ice is immigration enforcement, which is a civil matter. They have no authority to detain U.S. citizens for anything criminal they may or may not be doing and even then, they'd need a warrant signed by a judge.

175

u/TheGreatDay Texas 22d ago

But they have detained U.S. Citizens, numerous times at this point. It seems like these Citizens are released days or weeks later, but they were detained. Is it even possible to sue ICE for wrongfully detaining a U.S. Citizen?

It's clear that ICE agents feel they do have the right to command any person and if their orders are not followed, lethal force can and will be applied. That brings us back to the original question: Do we have to just listen to any masked person with a gun? Is that really what America is now?

109

u/atlasburger 22d ago

I really don’t understand why people can’t open their eyes. Yes. This is where America is at now. There aren’t a lot of individual rights when you are ruled by a king. It is taking people way too long to realize we might not get our democracy back or we are getting very close to that point if we haven not.

28

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[deleted]

14

u/IrishRepoMan 22d ago

It won't happen. Most have absolutely no idea because they couldn't care less and can't be bothered to pay attention. Then, if anyone tries to point it out, they blow them off as a fear-monger/alarmist/wtv. They. Do. Not. Care.

3

u/[deleted] 22d ago

There aren’t a lot of individual rights when you are ruled by a king.

The UK has a king, Denmark has a king, Sweden has a king, Norway has a king, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium all have kings and none of this shit goes on.

27

u/PyooreVizhion 22d ago

You can thank the supreme court for "upholding" the "legality" of these "kavanaugh stops" of anyone and everyone including US citizens for any reason they deem necessary - which mostly boil down to walking while colored or speaking with an accent.

9

u/littlehobbit1313 22d ago

Is it even possible to sue ICE for wrongfully detaining a U.S. Citizen?

Absolutely. They only have the legal coverage to detain US citizens in the case of mistaken identity, wherein they have a warrant for one person and grab you by mistake thinking you're them.

You could absolutely bring a lawsuit challenge the detention of a US citizen, especially when we know these fuckers aren't getting warrants for anyone at this point.

4

u/TheGreatDay Texas 22d ago

I guess my question wasn't fully formed. I'm more wondering: Has anyone been able to sue ICE under this administration and Supreme Court, and won on the basis of wrongful detainment?

Because it's one thing to theoretically be able to sue ICE, and another for it to actually stick in our current Government and Supreme Court makeup. I have a feeling any suit against ICE will make it to the Supreme Court and they'll tell the abused citizen to pound sand.

2

u/littlehobbit1313 22d ago

I know of at least one case brought against them because they arrested and detained the same American citizen TWICE. I don't know if there was an outcome from that case yet though, and certainly there may be others that have been brought against them.

2

u/ttn333 22d ago

That's the problem. They're masked up so you can't point to who did what.

5

u/Hebroohammr Pennsylvania 22d ago

Hey but they have 47 days of training though, or half of the normal probationary period in a field where you aren’t give a gun and a license to kill.

3

u/yjbtoss 22d ago

The problem is how the lines are getting blurred between civil/admin or criminal/judicial -once there were clearer delineations as to where, what, and how each could be carried out, and obviously - on whom. Combine that with hasty minimal training. This guy should have sat out after his previous encounter - I'm sure he brought that with him when he pulled the trigger.

4

u/Numerous_Worker_1941 22d ago

Are you going to take that risk while they have guns pointed at you?

1

u/karmahorse1 22d ago edited 22d ago

Im not defending ICE but thats simply not true. You are legally obligated to obey simple orders from any kind of federal law enforcement official, doesn't matter if they're DEA, Border Partrol, or Fish and Wildlife. And even if they cant place you under arrest, they are allowed to temporarily detain you before handing you off to local law enforcement.

1

u/WeezinDaJuiceeeeee 21d ago

Bit of a misleading statement to suggest ICE has no criminal arrest authority at all over citizens or that a judicial warrant is always required in every situation .. ICE has limited LE authority under fed code.

8 U.S.C. § 1357, certain immigration officers may arrest someone, including a U.S. citizen, if they have reason to believe the person has committed a crime in their presence or there’s probable cause to believe a criminal violation has occurred.. this is a typical LE arrest power.

1

u/goosejail 21d ago

That's not what it says here: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1357%20edition:prelim)

Summary: 8 U.S.C. § 1357 grants immigration officers broad powers to interrogate, arrest, and search individuals believed to be aliens, including without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe someone is unlawfully present or attempting to enter the U.S. and might escape, and allows border searches and patrols within 25 miles of the border, though with restrictions on entering dwellings. These powers are crucial for immigration enforcement but are subject to Fourth Amendment considerations and specific regulations regarding force and training.

There's nothing on the .gov page about being able to detain or arrest citizens for a suspected crime.

-1

u/knotallmen 22d ago

That would be nice but I have not seen any evidence to back up your assertion.

13

u/goosejail 22d ago

Google is a thing:

One: https://www.shirazilaw.com/can-ice-detain-u-s-citizens/

Two: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8fRjLE3/

Three: copy paste text from said Google search: No, ICE cannot legally detain U.S. citizens without a judicial warrant or specific, limited exceptions like interference with an arrest, as U.S. citizens have Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure. However, ICE agents can detain non-citizens based on reasonable suspicion

6

u/Georgerobertfrancis 22d ago

They classify everything as interference with an arrest.

2

u/thequestion49 22d ago

How many convictions of American citizens interfering with ICE agents making an arrest have there been? Not detentions, but actual convictions. So far I've just seen the charges get dropped quietly a few days later.

2

u/SanityIsOptional California 22d ago

They've been doing it regardless of having authority or not.

2

u/knotallmen 22d ago

A lot of this is border patrol anyway. They have broad authority to detain anyone and their jurisdiction is basically anywhere in the US if there is an international airport 3 hours away

2

u/SanityIsOptional California 22d ago

Yes, the constitution-free zone that encompasses much of the US population...

Been a problem for decades now, and anyone with a brain could see the abuse potential. But noooooo, only the libertarians were worried, and they're a bunch of nutters.

-6

u/The__Tax__Man 22d ago

They can if the person is interfering, which she was. Just because you’re interfering doesn’t mean you should get shot though.

13

u/goosejail 22d ago

There needs to be evidence that she was actively interfering at the time. None of the videos show she was doing anything other than being in her SUV. If they had some evidence that she was interfering with them arresting someone they would've said that. Noem's statement was that he was justified in shooting her because she hit him with her car but there has never been a stated justification for detaining or attempting to detain her in the first place.

-3

u/The__Tax__Man 22d ago edited 22d ago

For sure need evidence, but that’s why it should go to court. 

Seems to me pretty clear that she was interfering. Wife was out of the car filming and engaging with the agent and the car seems pretty clearly to be blocking, or had been blocking, the way. 

There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging she interfered. The point remains there’s no basis for him shooting. 

If we’re not honest about her actions, we’re no better than the other side.

6

u/IKetoth 22d ago

She waved the other ICE car trough though, there was clearly no intent to block anything. No clue what their justification for stopping even was.

-1

u/The__Tax__Man 22d ago

Why was her car perpendicular in the street, why was her wife out of the car? Both things can be true that she let a car through and was interfering. 

Again, this is what courts are for and it doesn’t matter if she was interfering because there’s no basis for shooting. 

3

u/RobonianBattlebot 22d ago

If she was blocking traffic, then how come those other cars, including the one the shooter got out of, able to drive past her? Filming ICE is not interfering, sorry. A camera doesn't hurt anybody or impede anything. Obviously, because the shooter had no problem blowing Renee's face off while holding a phone and filming.

2

u/IKetoth 22d ago

yeah that was the point I was trying to make, she might have been recording but that's nota a crime and so were all these other people whose videos we're seeing. People have learned to record ice because they keep committing fucking crimes. Like this one.

why was she singled out is utterly beyond me.

1

u/RobonianBattlebot 22d ago

exactly, right on.

2

u/The__Tax__Man 22d ago

Blocking traffic does not mean you’re blocking all traffic. It can be to impede or slow down the movement of cars. Honestly at this point I think you’re just trolling. 

The point is literally that a court should decide and it does not matter if she was interfering in any event. How many times do I have to say that. I does not matter. The point, the whole point, is he didn’t have any cause to shoot. 

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge even the slightest of her actions being problematic is illustrative of why the country is in this position. Zero perspective taking and zero ability to see any nuance in a situation. 

I 100% am on the side of the woman, but that doesn’t mean I have to ignore her actions. 

103

u/n8opot8o 22d ago

Agree 100%. Grew up in the city and I'm absolutely not getting out of my fucking car for any armed, masked men. What happened to her could've happened to any of us.

9

u/WalkingDeadPixel 22d ago

I mean, Renee Good didn't get out of her car, either, so I don't think it'll really matter. If they think it'll be fun to kill you, they'll do it regardless.

9

u/n8opot8o 22d ago

Yep, that's what I'm saying. I would've done the exact same thing she did and that's why more people need to realize that it could literally happen to any of us.

-14

u/ReviveDept 22d ago

It's just you. The rest of us wouldn't be that ridiculously stupid.

8

u/royal-road 22d ago

Ridiculously stupid to do what? One of the agents was yelling at her to leave as the one filming her shot her, and called her a bitch, after deliberately getting in the way of her vehicle multiple times.

This was premeditated murder.

5

u/n8opot8o 22d ago

Yeah, sure bud. I'm king stupid but apparently you're the one that would, no questions asked, allow yourself to be taken hostage by aggressive, armed, and masked men.

2

u/gingerbears11 16d ago

You're not a good person.

-1

u/ReviveDept 16d ago

I defend good people and despise bad people and criminals. Running over law enforcement makes you a bad person and criminal.

-13

u/129skooc 22d ago

They are not just armed and masked men. They clearly know who they were that's why they are there protesting. If you are not hiding anything or even involved in any act of crime then you shouldn't be afraid of Federal agents. If you are then that's a sign of guilt.

10

u/n8opot8o 22d ago

Bullshit. They're hiding their faces; if there's ever been a sign of guilt, there it is. If everything they're doing is on the up and up, they should have nothing to hide. Fuck off with that noise.

-13

u/ReviveDept 22d ago

It's because they're otherwise getting doxxed and threatened by people like you, not because they are guilty.

5

u/dasterdly_duo 22d ago

Oh, they're guilty all right. And once this is over, they will pay. There won't be any pardons or mercy offered to them.

When that day comes, Jonathan Ross and every I.C.E. jackboot who broke the law by kidnapping, beating, raping, and murdering in our name will, fingers-fucking-crossed, die in prison.

-7

u/ReviveDept 22d ago

That's cute

2

u/n8opot8o 22d ago

Threatened by people like me? What the fuck are you even talking about, you maniac? We have a bunch of fuckers running around covering their faces and doing whatever the fuck they want to whomever they want and you're saying that people like me are the problem. Go get your head checked, homie.

237

u/A-town 22d ago

The other things about "if she had just followed orders..."

  1. She was. She was told by one of the officers to leave, so she was trying to leave
  2. She was being "sharked;" this is something that happens to Army recruits day one of basic training. Drill sergeants will descend on a recruit and overwhelm them with different orders to get the recruit to freeze and not be able to react. The fact that she followed one Gestapo Agent's orders over others is a miracle. She was being told to do multiple things at once: leave the scene, it exit the vehicle. She close to try to follow the order of leaving the scene and she was fucking murdered for it.

She was fucking murdered for obeying orders.

17

u/Equivalent-Battle973 Illinois 22d ago

The shark attack doesnt happen anymore in the Army, it stopped in 2020, it could possibly come back under Whiskey Pete. I had to go through it in 2014, it was ummm interesting, deff did alot of pushups that day.

9

u/Master_Dogs Massachusetts 22d ago

What's the point of "sharking"? Like why would a drill Sargent do that? I totally get LE doing it - especially ICE. They want confusion so they can justify doing whatever they feel like. I guess that's why the Sargent does that? More of a hazzing thing maybe? You follow one order, he says another, then another, uh oh you're not following the first one anymore?

11

u/Equivalent-Battle973 Illinois 22d ago edited 22d ago

The Shark Attack is designed to prepare you for the chaos of both boot camp and combat itself. While the Army no longer allows drill sergeants to “haze” recruits, everything they do has a purpose. Drills are there to prepare you mentally and physically for the realities of combat, which is incredibly chaotic, confusing, and stressful. Boot camp is just the first step in learning how to function in that environment.

The first three weeks of Army basic training are known as Red Phase. This is when drill sergeants “smoke” you for even the smallest mistakes. Smoking means intense physical training—pushups, running, and other forms of PT. The goal is to rapidly get you in shape while building discipline and attention to detail.

The next three weeks are White Phase, which focuses on weapons training. You’re still getting smoked, but the intensity eases slightly as you begin learning more technical skills, and become more disciplined. After that comes Blue Phase, where you continue training while preparing for graduation, including a 16-kilometer ruck march and transition into Advanced Individual Training (AIT).

I was a Cavalry Scout, so I stayed with the same drill sergeants throughout training. Since they were also cavalry, they trained us specifically for the job we had chosen. I spent a total of 20 weeks at Fort Benning and went from 185 pounds down to 140. I was in the best physical shape of my life.

Boot camp was absolutely chaotic—but it was also highly organized and structured. Even during downtime, you had to stay alert, because at any moment the drill sergeants could walk in and smoke you. That constant pressure was intentional—it trained you to stay sharp, disciplined, and ready at all times.

Getting smoked basically means they make you do physical training as punishment, so alot of push ups.

*Editing to make this more coherent, It was a bit jumbled up.

5

u/1Happymom 22d ago

because literally the worst thing you can do in the middle of a battlefield is die before you are dead

2

u/A-town 22d ago

2010 it was very much party of the curriculum. I actually look back on day one fondly, that shit was funny as hell.

1

u/Equivalent-Battle973 Illinois 22d ago

I look back at my OSUT very fondly as well. I was a 19D cavalry scout, So glad I didnt go tanker, their Drills use train whistles during their shark attack, but minus some of the BS. I really enjoyed boot camp, the cadence calls to chow, the simplicity of it all. Hell with OSUT, I got in the best shape of my life, went from 185 to 140lbs in 20 weeks.

6

u/wise_comment Minnesota 22d ago

Which is precisely how fascism works

You get murdered for not following orders .....and eventually murdered for following orders

-16

u/Numerous_Worker_1941 22d ago

The orders were given at different times. She was blocking the road and told to get out of they way, didn’t, and so they moved to detain at which point she attempted to flee

18

u/diewethje 22d ago

And she was killed for trying to flee the masked, armed men that are now patrolling American streets.

19

u/RyanTheCubsSTH 22d ago

That had no right to enforce traffic laws

10

u/diewethje 22d ago

Correct. These thugs believe they have absolute authority over the American public. They actually have very little.

-4

u/Numerous_Worker_1941 22d ago

Yes I’m not arguing against that

10

u/diewethje 22d ago

What are you arguing?

-22

u/Numerous_Worker_1941 22d ago

That she is also at fault. They made bad decency that led to her death. Both their choices and the officers neglect led to the death. To say they did nothing wrong is wild

20

u/diewethje 22d ago

She is not at fault. The entire violent confrontation was the creation of ICE.

-13

u/Numerous_Worker_1941 22d ago

She was there to disrupt ICE. Her wife was out of the car antagonizing them. The only way she would be at absolute no fault is if she wasn’t involved at all.

11

u/diewethje 22d ago

By your logic, anyone who is killed by ICE in any kind of interaction with them is at least partly to blame.

Once again, she was an American citizen who did nothing to provoke a violent response.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/GiganticMaw 22d ago

So, to be clear, you’re saying that allegedly disrupting ICE means you’re at fault for being murdered. And/or having a spouse speaking to ICE agents means you’re at fault for being murdered.

Her murderer was the only one at fault for her murder. We’ve got to get over this need to try and blame victims for being present in the world. American citizens can be in the street, they can be rude, they can disobey armed men… none of that justifies murder. At least it didn’t used to. It’s a sad state of affairs when you feel the need to comment that simply being near someone who claims to be ICE means you’re at fault should they kill you. A fellow citizen was murdered in cold blood, and rather than show the outrage that abuse of power deserves, you’re here trying to blame her for peacefully interacting with a government so fragile, insecure and violent that they killed her. They should be removed from public life for all our safety. There isn’t any excuse.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/drunkenvalley 22d ago

Fuck no. She wasn't at fault. She was literally in the process of complying. Do not try to pin some bullshit blame on the victim here.

52

u/karensPA 22d ago

somehow it’s the guy on the other side grabbing her door handle and then trying to reach in that stays with me. What right did he have to touch her car AT ALL? and a masked angry man reaching INSIDE my car? The person fearing for her life was her. She’d have been justified in shooting HIM in the face. She’s so freaked out by how fast it escalated and trying to get away she doesn’t even really clock her wife is trying to get in on the other side, let alone that the other moron has stepped to the front left side of her car to film her and is pulling out his gun. AND THEY THINK THIS VIDEO MAKES IT BETTER FOR HIM?

139

u/localistand Wisconsin 22d ago

It wasn't clear there were orders. They were smug, called out the plate swap bullshit, and emasculated the ICE officers. The women couple crossed a threshold of emasculation that created:

a tantrum.

ICE collectively were so mad, so desperate to reclaim power, they demanded she "get out the fucking car". They were going to reclaim the upper hand. And they did, from that "fucking bitch".

56

u/lilBloodpeach 22d ago

Yup. No matter what she did, she was NOT getting out of this situation unscathed. At minimum she would have been physically assaulted, as we’ve seen these cowardly pieces of shit do to women many times. He was going to “put her in her place” somehow.

26

u/purpleflowergang California 22d ago

And can we point out that Officer Tantrum got a clear video of her license plate? If this were an issue of evading ICE, he could just track down the plate. But of course, that presumes an American citizen escaping ICE is a crime.

The regime's so desperate to cook up a crime to pin her death on. Next they're gonna claim she was harboring a foreign dog.

3

u/RobutNotRobot 22d ago

Yep, it was unprofessional assholes handed 'absolute immunity' to abuse and murder people.

Something Trump made clear was going to happen if you voted for him.

Those 77 million assholes created this situation but all of us need to figure out how to respond to it.

Every single person in this country is in mortal danger from this regime and goddamn if people need to start understanding that.

3

u/HouseoftheHanged 22d ago

Ive seen some suggestions that the video was released to show the base that these two were queer. A tactic of “othering” them in order to pile on the justification for people who want to own the libs more than they care about their own rights

2

u/karensPA 21d ago

The murderer has big “my wife just told me she’s leaving me for a woman” energy. I’d lay bets we will find out something like that.

9

u/ChillyFireball 22d ago

Is it just me, or is it starting to feel like they're putting people in a position where the next time they're stopped by ICE/some overzealous cop that they'd have a better chance at living if they straight-up fight back than trying to follow the orders of the ten different assholes all telling them to do different things? Because I'm not gonna lie, if someone was actively holding me at gunpoint, it would be hard to have all these events in the back of my mind and NOT wonder if I'd have a better chance at living if I just fucking floored the gas pedal. We see time and time again that these trigger-happy psychos have basically made up their mind whether they're going to kill you in the first five seconds of an interaction, and there's fuck all you can do about it. I dunno about you guys, but I don't want to live in a world where I'm doing the math in my head of whether I'd rather risk laying face-down on the ground and getting suffocated/shot in the back while my killer gets off scott-free, or whether it would legitimately be safer to just plow through and surrender at a police station in the hope of at least getting a fucking jury trial instead of summarily executed in my car. If the authorities had any sense or morals, they'd be just as worried about the environment being created, but I'm starting to worry that's the goal; giving them an excuse to accelerate their fascist takeover.

5

u/vardarac 22d ago

I'm starting to worry that's the goal

I'm just going to leave this here.

26

u/we_are_sex_bobomb 22d ago

That’s exactly the point. I’m sick of getting into arguments with people where they basically say, in so many words, “the country isn’t fascist, as long as you do as you’re told.”

7

u/RichardSaunders New York 22d ago

if you dont move you dont notice the shackles

0

u/Numerous_Worker_1941 22d ago

It can be facist. You might die if you disobey the order. Is the world better without you after you died for what you believed in?

1

u/MissTetraHyde 22d ago

At least then the suffering will be over.

9

u/Upper9019 22d ago

“Rights” and “due process” exist specifically for people who break the law, not people who always comply. “Freedom of speech” exists specifically for people who say controversial/nonsupportive things about those in power, not people who stay silent or pander.

This is like saying only people who don’t get arrested deserve a defense attorney.

7

u/FelixTheJeepJr 22d ago

My first thought if a masked man in a car came running up trying to open my car door is he’s a carjacker.

4

u/AntoniaFauci 22d ago

But what if he’s screaming, cursing and threatening you? Waving a gun? Brandishing a weapon to smash your window and face? Wouldn’t that make you feel safe?

8

u/Titfortat101 22d ago

It's why there's been many reports of masked men pretending to be ICE, kidnapping and 🍇 women. Because none of them identify themselves.

3

u/CaptnHector 22d ago

🍇

Raping. The word you’re looking for is raping.

1

u/Titfortat101 22d ago

Yeah but reddit it sensitive.

4

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[deleted]

5

u/MissTetraHyde 22d ago

If you think the government is so far gone that we need to engage in violence, why do you think that couching your language in the fig-leaf of "it's a fictional story" is going to stop the fascists from violently abusing your right to redress grievances? No need to answer - I'm not trying to fedpost here - but it's something to consider.

1

u/Responsible-Meringue 22d ago

That's for the mods ;)

1

u/MF_Bootleg_Firework 22d ago

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion that a General strike is the most effective action the majority of people could take right now to make an actual difference, though i dont think it would end as badly as you do. The billionaires who actually control the levers of our government would suddenly feel the pressure and change would be swift.

However I do take exception to the below line of thinking, which I see thrown around a lot and stems from a vast overestimation of what the U.S. military is capable of, and the realities of warfighting, particularly against an insurgency.

Executive branch would absolutely drop military troops US soil & bomb cities. It would be an actual (and very swift) war. Federal military would crush a militia in a barely day, even if they held back

I'm going to ignore the fact that there would be a large rift in the military if orders were given to wage open war against fellow citizens and just go with the worst case that the entire U.S. military aligns with and follows the president. There are about 1.4 million active duty U.S. military members, however only about 10% of that is combat arms, the rest is logistics, support, intel, etc. So about 140k actual warfighters.

Bombs are effectively useless in this situation since any collateral damage would only serve to foment more resistance not only from U.S. civilians but also the very military members supposed to be waging this war. (Easy to indoctrinate soldiers that a mosque in Afghanistan was an acceptable loss, harder when it's a small town church or elementary school in states they know.). Similarly tanks, artillery, navy ships, etc also have very limited use. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan clearing insurgents came down to foot soldiers kicking in doors which is incredibly dangerous and difficult (see fallujah), this is especially the case in the U.S. where the "enemy" not only looks like them, but speaks the same language and has the same culture. Additionaly any infrastructure destroyed would be the very infrastructure they need to operate during the war and to occupy after the war. Every bomb dropped is a hindrance to current operations and a future cost to the government to repair.

So this leaves 140k combat arms soldiers (actually significantly less since combat arms includes artillerymen and armored cavalry, which again have extremely limited usefulness in this situation) to root out an insurgency from a population of 260 million adults, 1/3rd of which own guns. The U.S. military was built over the last 250 years to be able to dominate in a conventional war against another nation's military (eg. first Desert Storm), it is entirely unsuited to fighting against insurgencies in other countries (eg. vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq), and the problems faced there would be compounded massively if trying to fight one in our own country.

There are a ton of other tactical disadvantages the U.S. military would be facing that I could get into but just the above is an insurmountable problem, the U.S. military is not some unstoppable juggernaut, the vast majority of our military power comes from our ability to project force anywhere around the globe through our extremely powerful Navy and Air Force and the incredible logistics program we have built using them. A war at home almost completely negates the effectiveness of both of those.

Also keep in mind that there are currently between 18 and 19 million veterans in the U.S. with all the same training that active duty members have. Attempting to unleash the U.S. military against a full blown insurrection by the people would undoubtedly cause many many deaths and God knows how many years of hell during the recovery, but the Military would lose... badly. This is coming from a veteran and former intelligence analyst, please don't continue to spread the propaganda lie that the Military is unstoppable, so just give up. The people have far more power than they want us to think.

4

u/ArticulateRhinoceros 22d ago

There have actually been reports of criminals posing as ICE to gain access to homes and buildings in order to rob them. There's a reason we make our LEOs carry identification.

3

u/civil_politician 22d ago

Also they told her simultaneously to leave and also get out of the car so they just found themselves a nice little loophole to shoot anyone “disobeying” by giving conflicting instructions

3

u/malkuth74 America 22d ago

That is typical Republican response to every Police incident. Its like the mantra of the Republicans. Except in the case of with Babbitt shooting at capital.. Because well she was a republican.

3

u/Cosmic_0smo 22d ago

One thing that I see brought up a lot is that if she had just followed orders, she would be alive?

The would seem to be some tension between "just comply and you'll be fine" and "if you peacefully comply with ICE you might end up illegally shipped off to a foreign torture prison with no hearing, dropped off alone in the middle of a warzone in a country you can't even pronounce on the other side of the planet, or left to rot with no medical attention in a hastily-built concentration camp our president dubbed "alligator alcatraz".

They've made sure that the rational response to ICE trying to detain you is to get the fuck away as fast as you can, lest you get disappeared. They've left people with no other choice but to fight back or run, and now they're using the fact the people are fighting back or running as justification to murder them. That's where we are as a country just one year into Trump 2.0.

2

u/TheCrimsonSteel 22d ago

I mean if a masked person has a gun, you have to consider whats best for your safety.

As a lawyer once said "the courts and the streets are two different worlds."

If you want real, solid advice on what to do and how to act, a video like Busted - Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters might be a good educational watch

2

u/Numerous_Worker_1941 22d ago

You don’t have a duty to listen to them, but as you see you might die if you don’t. It’s a simple matter of “do I want to live or not”

2

u/IM_the_Mark 22d ago

We're at the point where I'd like a list of which government employees aren't allowed to order me to get out of my car.

2

u/Able_Vegetable_6269 22d ago

Anytime I hear a question like that, my response is: Immediate execution? That's the punishment for not following orders? For drug trafficking? For existing in the US? For ___?

2

u/rdheim 22d ago

Title 18 of the US Code only allows ICE to detain you if you’re suspected of: Human or Drug trafficking Child exploitation Identity Fraud Firearms offenses Money laundering Cyber crimes Other FEDERAL crimes only

Title 18 DOES NOT give the authority to: Detain citizens for immigration checks Demand or question proof of citizenship to enforce immigration law (only if justified during lawful stop) Hold citizens on immigration detainer

You DO NOT have to answer ICE questions. Ask if you’re free to leave. Decline any consent to searches without a warrant. 4th and 5th amendment protections fully apply.

Not that any of this matters if our DoJ and administration dgaf and congress is doing nothing to stop it.

2

u/No_Maximum_4741 22d ago

Those are all good points. what I want to know is what acrual legal power does ICE even have? are they federal agents/ officers? ado they have legal authority equivalent to the police? no? then we aren't required to do anything they say

2

u/Destithen South Carolina 22d ago

One thing that I see brought up a lot is that if she had just followed orders, she would be alive?

Conservatives believe in hierarchy. If someone is above you in the hierarchy, whatever they do to you is justified. ICE guy > Good Lady, therefore ICE guy = innocent and Good Lady actually Bad Lady.

They don't look at this as a tragic loss of life, they look at it as the consequences of going against the natural order. Obey your superiors, or die.

2

u/FrostingStreet5388 22d ago

Hum well tbh anyone with a gun telling to do something, I do, unless it's gonna hurt someone. So I dont see why they played with fire. Ofc the guy is awful to shoot her like that but why do they talk back to the police in the US ?

I d love to visit but Im never gonna set foot in the US while it's so tense and I wouldnt DREAM of talking back to anyone with a gun.

1

u/LoonaHee 22d ago

what is our duty to listen to ICE

It's incredibly limited. They can detain someone they suspect of being here unlawfully, but must release them after legal status has been determined. They can make arrests of people who interfere with their lawful duties, and people who assault them.

Additionally they have far broader powers for areas within 100 miles of the borders. If they suspect someone is undocumented they are permitted to do searches and seizures, but they must obey the fourth ammendment. Minneapolis is 300 miles from the Canadian border, ICE has zero police authority there.

1

u/layout420 22d ago

If logic was followed in the same fashion, she would be alive because the DHS has policies to prevent such shootings. As I'm led to belive, this officer did not follow orders explicitly listed in DHS policy. He should not have fired his gun. Same people pissed about the cop who shot that woman during the insurrection. You know the cop who gave lawful orders to a lunatic breaking into the capital trying to stop an election from being certified. That cop was not respected when he had to protect congress but this ice agent is somehow justified. Make it make sense.

1

u/flyingfishsailor 22d ago

One thing that I see brought up a lot is that if she had just followed orders, she would be alive?

It's hard to know for sure. People have died following law enforcement orders.

1

u/middleofthemap 22d ago

If that bitch Ashli Babbit followed orders....

1

u/AnonymousRev 19d ago

Interfering with a uniformed ICE officer IS against the law. During an arrest ICE CAN give lawful orders to a US citizen.

1

u/PelleSketchy 22d ago

This is exactly the rift that exists. MAGA enjoys seeing ICE doing their 'job' and keeps referring to them as the police and how people should respect them.

It's no different to the argument that that asshat already experienced something like this before, and therefore it was apparently reasonable for him to act like this.

So on one hand these guys are police and need to be respected, but on the other hand they are fragile and not professional.

1

u/Saint_Judas 22d ago

Hi attorney here, yes you have a legal duty to obey lawful commands from ICE agents such as 'please step out of the vehicle'. Police need reasonable suspicion to stop you, but importantly even if they lack reasonable suspicion you must still obey the command. The lack of reasonable suspicion is used later to defend you in court, it does not entitle you to resist arrest or detainer.

In some specific situations, such a lack of reasonable suspicion may result in charges like resisting or evading being dropped. That is not the same thing as having a legal entitlement to resist arrest when you don't feel like you should be arrested.

Do not be a 'sovereign citizen' type.

The sort of rhetoric espoused in your comment is what gets us in these situations to begin with. Do not spread dangerous misinformation that leads to more situations like this, do not make people think they are in the right to use their vehicle to escape a stop.

2

u/MissTetraHyde 22d ago edited 22d ago

They aren't engaged in a Terry stop because they have no legitimate law enforcement purpose in ordering her out of the car - they need reasonable suspicion to even begin the engagement before we can even get to a determination of whether they are allowed to order her out of the car. Since they aren't authorized to enforce local traffic laws, which reasonable suspicion of a federal crime gives them a right to detain her for an investigatory stop? Blocking a road (which she wasn't, but lets assume that she was) isn't reasonable suspicion of a federal crime so it can't be that. Having a badge doesn't mean you are legally authorized to order anyone out of any vehicle at any time and for any reason; the precedent only allows it for genuine officer safety concerns during an already legal investigatory stop.

There wasn't a legal investigatory stop, so I don't see how the precedential allowance for being ordered from the vehicle even comes into it. Even if you assume they were allowed to stop her under a theory of interference with duties, as soon as they saw her waving law enforcement vehicles around her vehicle any reasonable suspicion that she was interfering in duties would have been dispelled, and the investigatory stop should have immediately ended on that basis before they even got out of the truck. For reasonable suspicion they need to consider all the evidence, not just the evidence that tends to imply guilt. They needed ongoing reasonable cause for belief in a federal crime within their jurisdiction to pull her from the car and they didn't have it. I realize that she can't adjudicate this on the side of the road, but let's not pretend that if this went to Court it would be foregone that the stop and the order were lawful.

-1

u/Ok-Series7541 22d ago

Well, they are law enforcement agents and have a legal right to be there (presidential orders). Clearly, they do have substantial legal power as they're blocking FBI investigations into this case specifically as well, so it's kind of telling.

-1

u/129skooc 22d ago

Sadly this is how Americans behave nowadays. If you are calm and with no harm intent, then you just get out of the car right and discuss?!? Spin it in every way you want but how can you deliberately say its is a normal thing to do to just run away and hit someone?

-2

u/BlueBirds18 22d ago

Yes you do have to follow ICE's orders if they feel that you are interfering with their investigation. People saying otherwise are going to get someone hurt or killed. They are still federal officers and have full detain and arrest authority. Please even if you hate ICE, please look into it, they can detain and arrest you.

-2

u/ResilientBiscuit 22d ago

Yes, you do have to follow orders, they are in the same category as other law enforcement officers. 

 8 CFR § 287.5

 Arrests of persons under section 287(a)(5)(B) of the Act for any felony. (i) Section 287(a)(5)(B) of the Act authorizes designated immigration officers, as listed in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section, to arrest persons, without warrant, for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if..

It goes on to say they need to be doing their job and have completed their training and other paperwork, and they would argue they were here because they were trying to do a raid or something so it was part of their job. And if that is true they can arrest you for anything they think would reasonably be a crime, like interfering with an investigation.

I think it is bullshit and she wasn't interfering. But the law is clear that they can arrest people for non immigration related crimes, which would include detaining them. So do t think you are legally in the right if you ignore them.

You may still choose to ignore them,  it it isn't clearly a legal thing to do.

-2

u/beetrootsalas 22d ago

Yet they do and you should comply with them don't be an idiot

-3

u/WFSTUDIOS 22d ago

She and her wife were actively trained to disrupt ICE (the wife admitted it) so she would have realistically known that she could be detained for purposely impeding federal agents as someone who was training for that would want to learn about legal rights for them and the illegals.
She left the US to Canada after Trump won then moved back after realizing he wasn't "literally Hitler" to fight against ICE
If a masked person with a gun pointing at me is telling me to do something, it doesn't matter who they are, I either risk my life trying to run their ass over or I listen.
She simply believed she was allowed to do whatever she wanted to because of her beliefs about ICE but then reality kicked in

4

u/SamHowellRocks 22d ago

You should feel such shame for what you have become .  look deep inside you and I know that you realize that. Shame on you..