https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46595868
It's interesting to me that submissions like this routinely get a dozen or so upvotes very quickly, on what is transparently a very politically inciting headline promising a contentious political editorial.
"including US citizens" is weasel wording here. ICE operates on reasonable suspicion, as they are legally entitled to do. Furthermore, they are federal LEO, and as such may arrest people they know to be US citizens if those citizens commit federal crimes.
This is all quite clear in the law, and even reported by left-wing sources in the same breath that they claim the footage contradicts things that I (from watching it myself) believe it reasonably supports (subjective rhetoric aside). In particular, the victim in the recent case was "blocking the path of an officer’s vehicle", which the SF Chronicle explicitly calls out as valid cause for such an arrest.
LEOs tend to shoot at those who resist arrest in a manner that endangers their lives. That endangerment is not required to be itself an attempt at murder.
The other thing I find interesting is that the officers were not masked in this case, contra the usual narrative.
Speaking of weasel words, "reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime" is a higher standard than you imply. It requires the officer to be able to articulate their reason for suspecting a specific crime. Huh, crime is a funny word, actually. Did you know that overstaying a visa is a civil offense? But I guess it's possible, though perhaps not reasonable to suspect, that she crossed the border illegally.
So, if that's the crime, the agent would need to articulate their reason for suspecting that the woman had illegally crossed the border. Did he ever articulate that reasoning? Did he ever even articulate the crime?
> LEOs tend to shoot at those who resist arrest in a manner that endangers their lives.
Oh, I guess we'll just ignore all that "RAS" stuff, then. If that's the case, the agent didn't have the authority to arrest the woman at all. So, rather than resisting arrest, she was defending herself from an unlawful assaulter (with the intention not to kill, as you seem to admit in another comment). And the assaulter, in a fit of rage from seeing her attempted escape, shot her in the head three times to, er "defend himself" from a moving vehicle.
Honestly, I've read enough of your comments to know you're not stupid. Why go to such lengths to defend these actions of the agent in question? Do you really not think the agent should be expected to behave more professionally? Regardless of the fear he felt, I don't believe you simply can't see how he needlessly escalated the situation well before the woman tried to drive away.
I didn't use the word "articulable", but the fact that someone does not articulate a basis for suspicion does not imply that the basis cannot be articulated.
> So, if that's the crime, the agent would need to articulate their reason for suspecting that the woman had illegally crossed the border. Did he ever articulate that reasoning? Did he ever even articulate the crime?
All of this is completely irrelevant. You are conflating entirely different things. The point about "ICE operating on reasonable suspicion" relates to their general operation with respect to suspected illegal immigrants, which justifies the fact that on occasion their targets happen to turn out to be US citizens. They are not legally required to be correct 100% of the time.
The current case is about someone explicitly not suspected of being an illegal immigrant, whom federal ICE agents were nevertheless completely legally entitled to arrest, because of their judgment that she was committing a federal crime: specifically, obstruction of (federal) justice.
And, as it turns out in my current research, they were legally entitled to order her out of the vehicle even without intent to arrest her nor suspicion of any crime (although she was caught in flagrante delicto with regard to the crime):
> If a police officer lawfully orders you to exit your vehicle during a traffic stop, you are required by law to comply.... In the Mimms case, the Court ruled that police officers can instruct drivers to exit their vehicles during a traffic stop without needing additional probable cause or reasonable suspicion. This authority was expanded in Wilson to include passengers. It is important to understand that an officer does not need probable cause or reasonable suspicion of another crime to issue this order. Additionally, officers can also instruct vehicle occupants to re-enter the vehicle."
> If you refuse to comply with a lawful order from an officer, you could be arrested. This scenario assumes the traffic stop itself was lawful, based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
(via https://jmarshlaw.com/can-you-refuse-to-exit-your-vehicle-wh... many other sources can easily be found with a search engine. Emphasis theirs. It should not require explanation that "the car is perpendicular to the road across the middle" is sufficient justification for a traffic stop. Traffic is already stopped!)
> Oh, I guess we'll just ignore all that "RAS" stuff, then. If that's the case, the agent didn't have the authority to arrest the woman at all.
Search engines tell me that "RAS" stands for "Reticular Activating System", a structure found within the brain. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You beg the question without even stating it. I have no idea what the antecedent of "that" could possibly be in "if that's the case", but also you have to establish it to have a logical argument.
> So, rather than resisting arrest, she was defending herself from an unlawful assaulter
No, she was not assaulted. There was no threat to make unlawful physical contact with her.
There is also no reasonable possibility that she could have failed to understand that she was dealing with ICE officers, who definitionally are federal LEO. There were identifying markers all over the place, she had already seen one up close and personal (the sarcastic "I'm not mad at you" moment), and multiple witnesses have corroborated that there was an active anti-ICE protest and that she was there to participate in it.
> And the assaulter, in a fit of rage from seeing her attempted escape
The only way I can possibly imagine that you think this makes sense, is if you are under the incorrect impression that the officer saying "get out of the fucking car" and "fucking bitch" is the one who was struck. The evidence directly contradicts the first (it was said by the other officer who approached the driver's side window) and does not support the second (no evidence of who said it, despite widely disseminated propaganda). There was simply no time in which to "see her attempted escape" and process it in any conscious manner. The simple, obvious motivation is the objective fact that a car was headed towards him in the instant before the shots (and did strike him, and did visibly cause him to lose his balance, as corroborated from multiple angles).
> Honestly, I've read enough of your comments to know you're not stupid. Why go to such lengths to defend these actions of the agent in question?
"Come on, you're better than this" is still fundamentally ad hominem. But I am not at all "going to lengths". I am pointing out things that anyone who examines the evidence impartially, and who knows the law (or even attempts to find it out), can clearly see.
> Do you really not think the agent should be expected to behave more professionally?
I see no fault in Ross' professionalism. In fact, he did an excellent job of not succumbing to Good's partner's provocation.
As for the other agent, I am willing to excuse the use of the word "fucking" on the third or fourth iteration of "get out of the car" without any sign of compliance, given that that is a lawful order.
> I don't believe you simply can't see how he needlessly escalated the situation well before the woman tried to drive away.
To be able to see it, it would have to have happened. The evidence directly contradicts you, very clearly.
Ross did not even speak to Good during the supposed "escalation". He was dealing with her partner, outside the vehicle on the far side, before walking back to his peers taking a path in front of the vehicle (under the reasonable expectation that the car would stay put, because Good was being ordered to get out of the car and also just on general principle).
It is Good's partner who escalated, by choosing to use her freedom of speech to engage belligerently, and then by encouraging Good to "drive, baby, drive".
The other officer was issuing a lawful order. If you appear to be obstructing traffic generally, and especially in a way that blocks the path of a law enforcement vehicle, that is a crime, and when they are federal LEOs then federal jurisdiction applies. When an LEO lawfully tells you "get out of the car", you are legally required to get out of the car. In practical terms, you get out of the car and talk to a lawyer later if you have reason to suppose it wasn't a lawful request.
Yes, but I'd point out that I was intending to speak "to the person" with those words. It is not to say "you're better than this" but instead to say I know you reach a certain baseline level of skill in critical thinking. Given that, I am genuinely not sure why you would choose to defend the actions of the agents. I suppose that's not really different, though.
Regardless, I guess I have my answer. "I wouldn't be murdered because I would comply with all of the agent's unreasonable demands." I will spare you an attempt to explain either the clear lack of reason in the agent's demands or the folly of this reasoning.
Apologies for not responding to the rest.
Because an application of critical thinking to the available evidence clearly exonerates the agents in this specific case.
> I wouldn't be murdered because I would comply with all of the agent's unreasonable demands.
As an objective matter of fact, the demand to exit the vehicle was reasonable and legally justified, and she was legally required to comply with it. I have already repeatedly explained why, and given appropriate citations.
The evidence does not support the use of the term "murder" to describe this killing.
> I will spare you an attempt to explain either the clear lack of reason in the agent's demands or the folly of this reasoning.
Your claim of "clear lack of reason" is contradictory to evidence and you have not even attempted to make a case for it beyond bald assertion.
This is obviously false.
> you have not even attempted to make a case for it beyond bald assertion
That is correct: I am not attempting to sway you with the evidence you've already decided is in favor of your assertions. I instead "baldly assert" that said evidence seems to corroborate my perspective, the same as you.
No, it isn't. I showed the reason, repeatedly. And I cited the relevant law.
> I am not attempting to sway you with the evidence you've already decided is in favor of your assertions. I instead "baldly assert" that said evidence seems to corroborate my perspective, the same as you.
I clearly explained, with timestamps and extensive logical reasoning, how the evidence clearly does corroborate my perspective. I have calmly and repeatedly walked through it all and pointed out fallacies committed by you and others.
You have merely asserted that the evidence corroborates your perspective.
Why would any third party who sees this agree with you?
This is moot. Losing points in a debate competition does not invalidate the belief for which one is arguing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
You're not going to suddenly change your mind strictly because you realized you made a bad argument; admittedly, you might do so after your bad argument makes you rethink the matter but it's certainly not a guarantee. Critically, anyone's ability to change their mind starts first and foremost with it being willing to adopt such a change.
> You have merely asserted that the evidence corroborates your perspective.
This is all you've managed to do as well, despite using more words; there seems to be no reason to point it out. Of course, that is what we are both doing. Oftentimes it's called a "discussion". The problem I am having with this one, which I believe is shared by others, is that you don't seem to be taking other perspectives seriously. Why should I, or any third party who sees this this, offer yours that dignity?
I did not make this argument. I simply pointed out the difference between my conduct and that of others, and between the logical validity of my argument and that of others.
> You're not going to suddenly change your mind strictly because you realized you made a bad argument
Of course I am not going to change my mind, because I did not make the argument you ascribe to me.
>This is all you've managed to do as well, despite using more words
This is blatantly untrue. I provided evidence and reasoning. You provided neither.
> Of course, that is what we are both doing. Oftentimes it's called a "discussion".
This is not a discussion. It has not at any point been a discussion. It has just been me pointing out where you (and others) are factually incorrect, where you (collectively) have hypocritically made emotional appeals while falsely accusing me of doing so (which again does not make you incorrect, but hypocrisy is a moral failing), and so on. It could not possibly be a discussion, because you repeatedly ignored that I was focused on a legal analysis while incorrectly accusing me of conflating that with a moral analysis, while engaging in a moral analysis that I repeatedly told you I was no concerned with. Again, my only interest in morality here is because my moral character has been unfairly impugned.
Shame on anyone who supports this.
This is not defensible in a democracy. Never mind that ICE is not wanted in these cities by the citizens or their elected officials. This is massive federal overreach for political reasons.
It's been so extreme lately.
jacobthesnakob•3w ago
woggy•3w ago
tastyface•3w ago
woggy•3w ago
tastyface•3w ago
gnabgib•3w ago
anonzzzies•3w ago