JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
1d ago
So, yes, they do prosecute illegal immigration, but they highly prioritize people who are also breaking the law in other ways
Gasp! So they are doing exactly what they promised to do - prioritize enforcement over the most violent lawbreakers? And that's somehow a bad thing?
I mean, my position is - if you are here illegally, you must get out, voluntarily or involuntarily. I can be persuaded otherwise in the case of minors who had no choice when they were brought in, but for adults every single illegal should be, ideally, deported. The reality is, of course, it is not possible to deport 15 million people in any reasonable time with any reasonable procedure. Priorities should be made. You are describing the case where ICE is prioritizing violent gang members. That's not ICE "expanding" their role, it's ICE contracting their role - from deporting every single illegal - which is theoretically their role, but practically is not possible - to deporting only the most dangerous ones. The fact that people are complaining about it only supports my assumption that the goal of those complaints is nothing but prevent any law enforcement from happening altogether - it does not matter what and how happens, there always will be something that is wrong and must be stopped, the only acceptable solution for the complainers is to not have ICE do anything at all. Sorry, I did not vote for that.
Instead they choose to show up in force, in very prominent ICE gear,
If they show up without gear, the left would scream "oh, they were not clearly marked, we thought they were just bandits, and that's why we tried to ram them with cars and attack them!". If they show up with clear markings and gear, the left would scream "how dare they to intimidate us with their uniforms and their gear, clearly they are at fault when we tried to ram them with cars and attack them!". Heads I win, tails you lose.
In reality, sometimes the police needs to be clandestine - when there is a risk that the criminals may hide or run away otherwise. Sometimes, there is a case for undercover work. But in most cases, when the arrest is made, the police does clearly identify itself and must do so. Law enforcement is not something that should be hidden and happen in shadows - it is the right thing to do, and must be done publicly and openly.
My point is simply that they have powers that go beyond simply deporting people for breaking immigration laws.
Powers like what?
JarJarJedi
1d ago
It does nothing of the sort. And after this one: https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-new-video-shows-moment-ice-agent-was-rammed-by-renee-good-from-officers-pov it is pretty clear they were intent on confronting ICE officers - they clearly said so - and were not fleeing anything. You do not tell people "come at us!" when you are fleeing.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
face recognition for check-in and boarding is a thing in some airports, the whole country uses pretty much only payment apps, etc, but the AQI can be bad, the public toilets are dirty, taxis and some train stations smell like cigarette smoke, nobody speaks anything but Mandarin (or some other Sinitic language), there are touts who will try to sell you shit
So basically the standard Hollywood future dystopia?
JarJarJedi
1d ago
I already see here leftists comparing Good to the American revolutionaries attacking the redcoats, so it looks like they do not see themselves bound by any social contract or agreements when they are on the losing site. If they win the elections, then it's "remember our democracy, you should submit to the will of people!" but if they lose, it's "we do not have to follow a bunch of Hitlers, we are the resistance!".
a) created the dangerous situation by walking in front of her car
No he did not. Walking in front of you car does not represent any danger to you. And she should not be driving anywhere while the police instructs her to stop. You are fishing for excuses to justify the situation which she entered voluntarily, with clear intent to impede police work, and escalated voluntarily, operating heavy vehicle in immediate vicinity of people - while her "wife" is filming, so that was clearly intended to stir up some shit and get some propaganda pictures maybe. OK, she got what she wanted. And it's entirely, absolutely, 100% her fault - at any moment of it, starting from 12:01am that day and ending the moment she was shot, she could stop and exit the situation, and she would be alive and well. She constantly made the choices that drove her towards the ending that happened.
And you can't claim self-defence if you're unnecessarily walking in front of moving vehicles in the middle of the road.
Do you really expect somebody to buy this? It's such a low-effort BS it's embarrassing. No, it wasn't a situation of a policeman just jumping into traffic on a random street. She knew why the officers were there, there were no "moving vehicles" except her and she drove there specifically and purposely to engage the officers. The police does not owe her - a criminal - the duty to run away from her. And in the situation she was in - vehicle stopped with people surrounding it - while she was in no immediate danger - moving the vehicle in a way that endangers the people is initiation of violence, thus justifying the response. That would be true even if she was not a criminal, intentionally confronting the police officers on duty, which she was.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Not a good criteria, there's a word for eating excrement and a word for obsessively eating dirt, but neither are standard behaviors.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
I don't see why it matters that this person was supposedly a "police officer."
In the matters of self-defense, it does not matter much, the rules of imminent danger are for everybody (though police officers probably will get more leeway in court afterwards). It matters in the context - obstructing police officer is a crime. Refusing lawful orders of a police officer is a crime. Nothing in it justifies deadly force - since our legal system does not have summary in-situ execution as a criminal punishment - but it at least justifies an arrest. If the person being arrested resists with deadly force - then using deadly force in response becomes justified too.
If you surround someone's car aggressively, it's understandable for them to react in a self-preserving manner
I'll remember it for the next time the leftist rioters block the streets, I am sure you would unconditionally support running them over. However, self-preserving manner in case of encountering police officers - and here's where it is relevant - is stopping the car, shutting the engine down and following the orders of the police. If you need further instructions, there's a good video from an esteemed self-preservation expert named Chris Rock, who explains the details, look it up. Trying to run over police officers is not a good recipe for self-preservation.
Even if the arrest is justified, no human can be blamed for not wanting to be detained.
A human can - and will be - blamed, and shot - for trying to achieve their desires by means of murdering other humans. Not "wanting" to be arrested is fine, trying to avoid being arrested by attacking a police officer with deadly force is very bad for your future life expectancy.
Almost every video I've seen of someone being arrested, they resist at least a little bit at first
Stop watching videos of people being stupid. It is not good for you, as instead of intended effect - pointing at them, laughing and saying "that would teach me to never do that!" - you seem to arrive at the opposite conclusion - "resisting arrest is what everybody should do". Don't do that, it is bad for you. Even if you do not get shot, you certainly will not get any sympathy from the police and the court for that. Unless, of course, it is politically convenient for Democrats, then you'll get plenty. But it could be posthumously, so I do not recommend that at all.
Nobody likes to be in captivity.
If you don't do the crime, you don't do the time. If you do not want to be arrested, do not mess with police officers on duty.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
So, you are saying Renee Good is actually participating in a revolution against the government of the United States, with the purpose to violently overthrow it and establish a new one? I don't think the rest of the Left is going to agree to say it in the open, but if so, ok. Then I am not sure why you expect anything but a violent response - how do you think a violent revolution works? Either you seize the power or you get hanged (or shot), that's how the revolution works.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
well, in this case, they shot a protestor!
I am not sure how this is connected to the claim above. Yes, the person they shot may have been a part of the protest. But how that changes anything? They did not come out targeting this particular person. They came out doing their thing (immigration enforcement) and the "protestor" attacked them and caused them to fear for their lives, at which point they exercised their universal right to self-defense (which would apply even if they were private citizens) and shot the attacker.
They can do it much better than what most local police forces have.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true, but they don't have much choice - the local police is explicitly instructed not to protect them from the attacks (at best), so they have to protect themselves. That does not make them "a national police force" - no more than me defending myself from being attacked on the street makes me part of "national police force". Ideally, of course, local police would do their job and protect them - but that's not going to happen because it is under the control of leftists government which is not intent to let federal immigration laws be enforced if they can help it. That still does not make ICE "a national police force" - their goal is still enforcing the immigration law.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
Even if all the money stolen were local money and not from federal budget (which is my taxes), I don't think its a good thing. It's not a good thing because it finances the left's NGO networks and political campaigns, via kickbacks, and provides people like Ilhan Omar with ironclad voting blocks - which also pulls the whole political frame way to the left.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
Also, ICE seems to be expanding past ots original scope, and is now basically a full national police force
What do you mean here? Do they prosecute non-immigration offenses? Any documented examples of that?
JarJarJedi
2d ago
Technically, "insurrectionist" would be more appropriate, but as this term was suborned to mean "a person who protests while not being a Leftist", reclaiming it may be a more complex task. The point is she was intentionally breaking the law in order to achieve a political goal, which is pretty close to terrorism. While, strictly speaking, terrorism implies public intimidation, and the goal of the anti-ICE rioters is to impede and intimidate law enforcement, but not necessarily the general public (though antifa, which are part of these riots, are 100% classic domestic terrorists), I think insisting on these distinctions practically always is an attempt to muddy, rather than clarify, the issue. If we have a movement that employs violence in order to achieve their political goals, they are the bad guys, and whatever stigma is attached to the words "domestic terrorist" in the minds of the public, they deserve 100% of it, even if technically another term may describe some of them more precisely.
The head of Minnesota’s state investigations agency said Thursday that the U.S. attorney’s office has barred it from taking part in the investigation
Isn't this always what happens when FBI takes over? The FBI is not exactly knows for their laissez faire ways of letting outsiders access details of their investigations. And given as both city and state government pretty much officially proclaimed they are at war with the feds, I am not sure why they would expect the feds to react with giving them extra VIP deal with information access on this case. They'd have limited access normally, and they probably will get no access at all now that they have positioned them as openly hostile.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
She was not climbing through that window because she was panicking and trying to flee, she was clearly looking for trouble.
So was Renee Good - the whole reason why she was there was to block ICE from performing their duties. It's not like she was randomly stopped on the way to a grocery store and it escalated - she specifically went there to engage ICE and impede them. That is very much "looking for trouble" and while it is sadly tolerated way too much in and by itself it is already a crime. Not a deadly threat yet, of course, but definitely looking for trouble is there.
The difference is whether there was an imminent deadly threat. A tiny woman breaking a window and trying to fit through it is hardly one - Byrd could have subdued Babbitt with his right hand tied behind his back (if he weren't a massive coward of course). There's no way ICE officer could have subdued an SUV driving towards him, unless he's Jack Reacher, who as we know is a fictional character.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
And, on top of that, the whole event was following at least two crimes already committed by her - intentionally impeding a law enforcement action (that's why she was there at the first place) and refusing to follow a legal order of a law enforcement officer.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
There are of course corner cases. This is not one of them. If you have a police officer standing in front of your vehicle, you do not drive forward. In fact, you do not drive anywhere at all when the police officer is near your vehicle, until they clearly tell you you can go. But most of all, you do not drive forward when the said forward is occupied by the body of the police officer. Nothing unclear here. Just as nothing unclear was in Rittenhouse's case - the thugs clearly were about to inflict grave bodily harm (look up Andy Ngo if you want to see what happens when the victim is not armed), so self-defense is justified.
Was the lady actually trying to kill him?
It does not matter. The concept of self-defense does not require psychic powers. You don't need to know what the attacker really thinks - you only need to know their actions would cause a reasonable person to fear for their life and bodily integrity. Having a car driving over you is certainly one of these things that would, whatever the driver might be thinking about at that moment.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
- Have you considered, like, not fleeing the police? Defense lawyers hate this weird trick!
- I am not sure how the police can "convert" you not ramming them with your car into threats. Like, how that would work - they'd jump behind the wheel and ram themselves, and then say you did it? I have my doubts.
- In any case, this is explicitly not the case - nobody "converted" anything, the criminal chose to ram the police entirely on her own volition.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
Those who are less inclined to give deference to law enforcement argue that fleeing the police shouldn’t be a death sentence,
Classic noncentral fallacy. When you say "fleeing the police", the audience imagines an unarmed person running away, not a person trying to run over a policeman with a giant hunk of metal. Sure, fleeing the police alone should not result in deadly force, as it is not imminent danger to the policeman. "Fleeing" in form of ramming the policeman with the vehicle should elicit immediate deadly response, as it is a deadly threat. If you can not flee without threatening deadly harm to the policeman - well, you are fucked, do not flee, or try and eat the bullet. It doesn't even have to be the police - if you try to murder anybody with a vehicle, they have obvious right to self defense. The victim being the police just aggravates it, because the criminal must have known attacking the police is a crime - any sane adult does - and did it anyway.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
I am not sure I understand the details though. Like, can't ECB just decide to keep printing euros (in whatever form it takes, I am sure they can find a way), under the premise that France is too big to fail? I mean, France and Germany are like half of the EU economy, if they are OK with something I imagine EU is OK with it too. And Germany has pretty much the same deficit France has, so it's not like they have a standing to complain. Additionally, we have Russia, so if anybody would agitate for capital austerity, he'd be told "not now dummy, can't you see we're on the brink of war here?!" If you believe Eurostat, inflation is very low so nothing to worry about, right?
JarJarJedi
3d ago
JarJarJedi
3d ago
told me that having kids was the worst decision of her life, and she actively encouraged me to be kidnapped - her advice for if a stranger tried to abduct me was to go with them
Wow that sucks. I mean I can get regretting having kids - it's not always easy, and stress levels can be enormous. But telling it openly to your own kid, and trying to get the kid kidnapped (and likely murdered)... that's just fucked up.
That kind of readjusts my priors a bit. Maybe I never needed to be told it's ok to be white me, but clearly there are people who are, and books that do it for them are doing a good work then. Of course, some people who are already assholes enough might read it and become excessive assholes, but I think that'd happen to them anyway, so overall the effect is still positive.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
Agree, I don't see much similarity. But I suffer from the same predicament - I am a big fan of Watts' writing, and no fan at all of the man. Which unfortunately happens with more than one contemporary writer. It's easier when couple of centuries has passed and you can enjoy the writings without bothering too much with how the author's personality was totally disgusting. Yeah, maybe, but the guy is dead for 150 years, so who cares.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
I am not sure why, but for me the idea had always seemed natural. "It's ok to be selfish?" Well, duh, of course it is. I mean, I am not a psychopath, I empathize, I donate money to charity, I help others, some people even say they like me (weird, I know), but being selfish always came easy to me. Maybe that's why when I read Atlas Shrugged it wasn't a big revelation to me - maybe I was even somewhat underwhelmed. Like, if I'll be even more selfish that I already am, I will kinda be an asshole, and I don't really want to be an asshole. At least not much more of one than I already am.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
And also what the locals would say about it too. I mean, maybe Trump gets them the deal so good they don't want to go back to Denmark?
JarJarJedi
5d ago
I'm not sure one can pull it off as a true solitary actor, but politics would be a good venue. I mean, the cumulative damage from COVID lockdowns is estimated to be over 14 trillions. Of course, you'd have to be in the right place in the right time, but doing at least billions of damage may be even easier - e.g. become a mayor of a large city and defund the police, or something like that. Or maybe just promote the idea that half of the country population is irredeemably evil and stole everything from the other half. Bonus points if you can sell that idea to both halves. Imagine how much damage that could do.
Are you being purposely obtuse here? You know why - because she tried to run him over with her car. It's on video. It's had been mentioned in this discussion dosens of times. How anybody engaging in good faith in this discussion could not know that?
No, it can not. It can kill you for trying to kill them. And that's what happened. You are being purposely obtuse again by making it sound like only one second of the whole event happened and other events, immediately preceding and following it, did not, while you perfectly know they did.
It is possible, in theory. In this case, however, trying to kill a police officer with her car does justify the response. We are discussing a specific event, and you keep purposely ignoring the actual circumstances of the event, while making theoretical statements.
I think by this point it is clear you are not interested in discussing the particular event, but interested in extracting something like "since there could be a theoretical situation where police shooting would be wrong, the police can be wrong, therefore you just admitted the shooting is not justified!". I do not have any interest in this kind of discussion. When you are interested to discuss facts you may continue with somebody else.
More options
Context Copy link