ICE Murders Innocent Person in Minneapolis

[reo]

2 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

So you can have an opinion on the justification of the agens actions but no comment on the justification of the women's actions. 

 

Because you know that all of her actions were unjustified and are 100% the reason the agent had to make a split second decision. She had loads of time to think about her actions and its irrelevant to you, but a split second decision based upon a vehicle accelerating toward the agent is where you want to focus all your effort.

 

That's fine. It just shows your not serious about evaluating the entire situation. 

 

Good talk.

 

Her actions aren’t immaterial to the entire situation — they’re immaterial to the legal justification for lethal force. That’s not evasion, it’s how use-of-force law works.

 

I’m focusing on the officer’s decision because that’s the decision that ended a life and carries the highest legal and ethical threshold. Evaluating that decision separately isn’t unserious — it’s required.

 

We’re not going to agree, and that’s fine. Good talk.

 

[OzTitan]

10 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

Which previous administration was "better" at deporting criminal illegals?

 

So when you mention intimidation I assume you mean in the community. So if any law enforcement has an illegal criminal in its custody, they should turn them over to ICE to prevent that criminal from being released into the community? Or you think its better to release the criminal back into the community?

It seems basically all of the recent ones are more efficient than current, what are they actually getting for all this extra money spend?

 

This is part of why it seems to be about intimidation and having an armed general purpose federal force at the administration's disposal for me, and I doubt criminals care much either way. 

 

I'm not really across all the talking points but I assume you're bringing up the custody thing to blame any poor performance on layers below ICE but if that's the case then it just further shows their inefficiency and questionable purpose if giving them blank checks actually does little. 

[ctm]

There is only one relevent point.....was the use of deadly force justified or not?

 

The parked car, her sexual orientation, etc  are a blame the victim mindset and attempted diversion from what actually matters.

[OzTitan]

16 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

So you can have an opinion on the justification of the agens actions but no comment on the justification of the women's actions. 

 

Because you know that all of her actions were unjustified and are 100% the reason the agent had to make a split second decision. She had loads of time to think about her actions and its irrelevant to you, but a split second decision based upon a vehicle accelerating toward the agent is where you want to focus all your effort.

 

That's fine. It just shows your not serious about evaluating the entire situation. 

 

Good talk.

That is the standard laid upon a professional with a gun and for good reason. They have to make split second decisions and the right ones at that. This is why the temperament required for a job like that is not for everyone. It shouldn't be for someone who draws and shoot in that exact specific situation, is the reasonable reality.

[OzTitan]

11 minutes ago, ctm said:

There is only one relevent point.....was the use of deadly force justified or not?

 

The parked car, her sexual orientation, etc  are a blame the victim mindset and attempted diversion from what actually matters.

It's all they have

[ctm]

3 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

It's all they have

.....that and the FBI refusing to cooperate with the locals

[OILERMAN]

29 minutes ago, ctm said:

There is only one relevent point.....was the use of deadly force justified or not?

 

 

Rhetorical I know, but a ridiculous question, we all know the answer

[OILERMAN]

 

[IsntLifeFunny]

3 hours ago, LongTimeFan said:

But it is 100% relevant that the shooting even occurred. 

Correct. 

[reo]

9 minutes ago, Titandan said:

She sees right through the fake outrage.

 

 

Yep... don't care at all.

[Jamalisms]

8 hours ago, Titandan said:

Yes Kirk was like a young Hitler with a retarded face to head(gum to teeth) ratio, Trump is a fat and ugly devil, and ICE is the gestapo. 

 

Let's keep inciting violence, bro.  We need to exterminate every trace of these maga vermin until all that's left are the people that agree with us. 

 

Inviting violence, like sending secret police to democratic states and intimidating, abducting and murdering innocent people? 

 

Dumb motherfucker.

[reo]

Just now, Titandan said:

None of yall know who she was lol

 

Caring about someone being killed unjustly doesn’t require knowing them personally. That’s called empathy, not opportunism.

 

Accountability isn’t reserved for famous people or political symbols. It applies precisely because she wasn’t someone powerful or well-known. Dismissing her death because she wasn’t famous is the opposite of a serious moral standard.

 

You don’t have to mourn her personally to believe the state shouldn’t kill people without justification.

 

The fact that you think this is credible says a lot about you.

[LongTimeFan]

The fact you think that all the decisions she made up to the point the agent had to make a split second decision are unimportant says more about you and accountability for your own actions.

[reo]

8 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

The fact you think that all the decisions she made up to the point the agent had to make a split second decision are unimportant says more about you and accountability for your own actions.

 

At this point you’re no longer engaging the standard — you’re repeating the same assertion and adding personal commentary.

 

I’ve never said her prior decisions were “unimportant.” I’ve said they are not dispositive of whether lethal force was justified. That’s a legal distinction, not a character judgment.

 

I’ve explained that difference multiple times. If you disagree, that’s fine. Repeating the same point with insults doesn’t change the analysis.

[reo]

7 minutes ago, Titandan said:

Just being honest, bro. 

 

On a human level, yes. Wish everyone the best... wish she was still alive. It's tragic on a human level. 

 

But none of you really care about her. You wouldn't know whatever happened to her if your movement hasn't made a big deal about it.  

 

The state shouldn't have killed her.  And she shouldn't have acted a fool.  And your side is still encouraging that kind of behavior to this day... 

 

You’re assuming motive instead of addressing principle. People don’t have to know someone personally to care whether the state used lethal force lawfully. That’s not performative — that’s a baseline civic concern.

 

Saying “you don’t really care” is mind-reading, not an argument. The issue isn’t whether people knew her — it’s whether the state is allowed to kill someone without meeting the legal standard. That concern exists regardless of politics.

 

This idea that care only counts if it’s personal or apolitical is just a way to dismiss accountability. Empathy and rule-of-law don’t require fame, proximity, or ideological purity.

 

You’re speculating about people’s motives instead of engaging the substance. Whether someone “really cares” is irrelevant to whether lethal force was justified.