What ICE is doing on US streets looks terrifying, but don’t forget: it could happen anywhere
Nesrine Malik
This shocking moment is the outcome of a political, institutional and media environment that is not far off Britain’s
Are we about to send Ms Malik off to Sudan? Really?
Trump ran on a platform of getting rid of the illegals and that is what he is doing. There would be no violence if the left respected the outcome of that election, but they won’t, hence the confrontation between the law and activists paid to create mayhem.
Has this Malik woman commented on her co-religionists actions in Iran?
So if someone runs on a platform of achieving something, and gets elected, they should then have a free hand to do absolutely anything in getting that achievement, even thinkgs that the voters would not have voted for, breaking existing laws, and violating the constitution?
Well, apparently violating the constitution is only allowed to Democrats then?
Don’t threaten us with a good time, Nesrine…
Meanwhile back in Nesrine’s home country:/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80%93present)
As of 5 February 2025 the conflict has caused 12 million people to be forcibly displaced, 9 million internally and 3.5 million have fled the country as refugees,
But never forget, we’re the monsters.
But the killing of Renee Good earlier this month by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer, as well as the regular, often violent confrontations that ICE stages on US streets, show so much that is unravelling in plain sight.
The left really know how to pick them, like George Floyd was treated like he was Terry Waite. Renee Good drove her car at an officer and hit him, and had he merely wounded her, nothing would have happened to him, and she would be tried for at bare minimum, assault, but possibly attempted murder. Threatening people with a car makes you a fucking scumbag.
Remember when people protesting over rights were like this?
One of the things the Enraged Lefties never mention when it comes to Renee Good, and which can be clearly heard on every video of that incident out there, is that those ICE agents were surrounded by plaquard-waving and screaming Peaceful Protesters with their phones out in the hopes of catching *exactly* an incident like happened to blow it up on Social Media….
Trust the Progressives to happily throw one of their own under the bus to further the Cause..
George Floyd was treated like he was Terry Waite.
All the way down the line. Those who get themselves into situations by their own stupidity are treated as victims.
Evolution should continue, unimpeded…
Terry Waite was trying to get John McCarthy released by going to see his kidnappers and saying the Archbishop of Canterbury sent him. Brave? Stupid? Both probably.
I’m not sure the mozzers who kidnapped McCarthy – and then Waite – were particularly interested in Christian ecumenical outreach. “The Archbish of Cunterbury? Who he? Bwahahahahahah!”
Its probably apocryphal, but at the time it was claimed that the reason no Russians were kidnapped was that one had been but the KGB got hold of the kidnappers and posted their genitals back to the organisation that had claimed responsibility.
It’s more likely the KGB had a hand in it somewhere along the line.
Predictably it ended up with two hostages. Which is what he was told before he went. Just made it more likely the kidnappers would get what they wanted. Or could have cost soldiers’ lives in a rescue attempt.
God botherers. More trouble than they’re worth.
Its this way across the board. The Left wants to paint the Right as ‘Nazis’ in all things. But there are so few racial attacks that the Left is left (heh!) to make their own hoax racial attacks.
They are finding so little ‘rightwing violence’ that they have to grab every victim they can in the hope that one of them will be ‘mediagenic’ enough to function as a martyr – but all their victims turn out to be horrible people who got themselves into their own mess.
And because they can’t find a proper victim of . . . anything from the right, they’re working themselves up into a proper lather, going insane out of frustration.
They like to post the Mitchell and Webb ‘are we the baddies?’ meme – but a large part of their insanity is them not being able to face the fact that *they* are the baddies.
Its always projection with them.
I read elsewhere that the ICE officer managed et off 4 shots in that time. Kudos on the grouping.
Renee Good’s husband/wife (plus 4 siblings who have emerged from the woodwork* at the hint of $) have already lawyered up.
The officer clearly did nothing wrong but who’s to bet Governor Walz doesn’t authorise a settlement in the tens of millions before it can get thrown out of court?
* not unlike the relatives of the late Jordan Neely (whose beneficial influence on his disreputable life was minimal to say the least) straight after he was legally killed by Daniel Penny.
The officer is going to be fabulously wealthy. Funding sites have already given him a million bucks.
The big bucks will come when he sues numerous celebrities and media companies for saying he “murdered” her. “Allegedly” is conspicuously missing from their proclamations.
Commies never use “allegedly” when indicting people of the right. They won’t get away with it this time.
Federal enforcement – MN isn’t on the hook here as they weren’t involved.
So Walz isn’t going to be in a position to do anything short of trying to arrest the ICE officer on state criminal charges – and that has a 99.99999999999% chance of not going anywhere.
Their problem is they’re using an old playbook that prescribes looking for martyrs.
But you can’t get a martyr from scumbags and people who went out looking for trouble. In the old days you could get the media to hide the scumbag/looking for trouble part – but the media doesn’t have that control today.
Its all about control of narratives and if you can’t stop counter-narratives then you’re vulnerable to someone putting out a more convincing one.
Sadly she’s already bred, which exempts her from the Darwin Awards.
… it could happen anywhere
I wish…
What ISIS is doing on UK streets looks terrifying, but don’t forget: it could happen anywhere
Fixed that headline for her!!!
.
It seems that in Dem-run states and cities where the state and city authorities have decided that ousting illegal immigrants who rob, rape and kill is in the public interest and who therefore actively work with ICE, the local rates of murder, rape and burglary have dropped by some 50% or more. The obvious conclusions to draw are:
Who’d a thunk??
ICE may look as if it came out of nowhere, but the sort of authoritarianism that results in these crackdowns never does. It takes shape slowly, in plain sight, in a way that is clearly traceable over time. First, there needs to be a merging of immigration and security concerns, both institutionally and in the political culture. Established in the wake of 9/11, ICE was part of a government restructuring under President George W Bush. It was granted a large budget, wide investigative powers and a partnership with the FBI’s joint terrorism taskforce. The work of enforcing immigration law became inextricably linked to the business of keeping Americans safe after the largest attack on US soil. That then extended into a wider emphasis, under Barack Obama, beyond those who posed national security threats, and on to immigrants apprehended at the border, gang members and non-citizens convicted of felonies or misdemeanours.
Leaving aside considerations of the situation in Iran or Sudan, 19 Islamists flew planes into the World Trade Center and into other targets. What in this awful woman’s mindset should the reaction have been? No doubt the West should have accepted Sharia law and all the other ‘goodies’ on offer from Islam. One wishes that the 3 prior presidents to Trump had had the good sense to start enforcing the laws on immigration rather than seeking to allow illegals to vote for political gain or at best showing indifference to those trying to come in illegally.
The US has passed through that veil. But there are warning signs in the UK. The relentless portrayal of immigrants as a threat to safety and social cohesion. The same glamorisation of the imagery of crackdown, now a feature of government propaganda as ministers attend Home Office immigration raids. The same expansion of powers and discretion to the police to include ever wider definitions of what a public order infraction is, such as factoring in the “cumulative impact” of pro-Palestine rallies. The transformation of protest into dissidence. The empowerment of the UK Border Force, which now has the right to seize someone’s mobile phone even when they are not under arrest. The swirl of nativism that underpins it all. Throw in one charismatic and mendacious political leader, and a rightwing press amplifying all the necessary fever dreams of a country in crisis, and you are on a path to passing through that veil. It can happen in Britain too, just with fewer guns.
So Jews can just be expect to be subject to intimidation from Islamist mobs? Islamic extremism just has to be accepted? I for one am sincerely hoping that we have a leader with the vision that Trump has. One thing’s for sure – I adhere to the classic trope:
‘What’s the difference between the Islamist, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the moderate Muslim?’
‘The Islamist is the only one who is real’
It isn’t ‘nativist’ to think that the country is better off restricting the number of Muslims coming in, as well as looking to deport those who cannot adhere to Western societal norms, which includes eating pork and drinking alcohol, at a bare minimum. Given demography, any other policy is frankly national suicide. These people can’t be bargained with, can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, remorse or fear, and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until we are dead.
.
I think making pork compulsory is going a bit far V_P. Bacon, obviously.
I don’t even care if you’re a law-abiding illegal immigrant. The point is, you’re illegal, you shouldn’t be here. We, as a nation, via our elected representatives, have decided what the law is. What the process is to come in or not. If you are hear and not approved, then you go.
Americans are all like “yeah but they do useful jobs”. OK, so lobby your representatives to change the process to allow more people in from Mexico legally. Have people think about it and debate it. Maybe it’s a good idea. I’m not against Alfonso Cuaron living in London. Pep Guardiola probably makes us richer. Her voice has gone in my opinion, but lots of people want to pay to hear Anna Netrebko sing at Covent Garden. On the other hand, I think importing care workers is a bad idea.
On the subject of care workers I often see hulking great black men escorting/pushing those with Downs etc though my small town or visiting our community cafe with them. They usually behave extremely well and display kindness and patience to their charges. My gripe is that 2 carers to one disabled person is far from uncommon.
Do the maths, it doesn’t work.
The problem with the care situation is that it’s using debt to solve the servant problem. Instead of families looking after grandad, women are working, paying a bit of tax, and the state hires people to do it. But we can’t pay people enough, so we import them.
Sounds like a great idea? Well, except that when those people get old, there won’t be enough tax paid by them to care for them.
Women want their pointless fannying around jobs instead of what they should be doing.
Illegal immigrants are by definition not law-abiding.
Western Societal norms include the option to be different. Imposing eating pork and drinking alcohol on teetotallers, Jews and vegetarians would be descending to the level of Putin and ISIS/Al-Qaeda.
There are moderate Muslims – I’ve met a few – but their voices are ignored by the media (the views of moderate Muslims don’t sell newspapers) and drowned out in mosques by the shouting radicals.
V-P, please don’t join the anti-freedom ranks of the mullahs.
There are very few “moderate muslims” – beyond, say, Laila Cunningham (pbuh) or Sajid Javid, who are probably cultural rather than practising muslims. Most muslims cannot comprehend pluralist societies, because Islam is an absolutist politico-religious ideology that governs the minutiae of daily life. Many “moderate muslims” don’t want to kill you – yet! – but they’ll lobby endlessly for concessions to their disgusting faith…
When we’ve deported the obviously bad ones, we need to create a muslim-unfriendly environment – no more mosques, no halal slaughter, no sharia courts, no more muslim schools, no foreign imams, etc – and provide a generously subsidised re-emigration scheme…
If there are so few then we’re not going to miss them.
Pants on fire. Mainstream media still fully supports the invasion.
it could happen anywhere
Unfortunately, could isn’t will. But we can hope.
According to Wikipedia her citizenship is Sudan so I’m guessing she has a visa entitling her to live and work here? Why would we give visas to foreign journalists working in the British press? Does she often interview Sudanese residents/illegals? It’s not as if there is a shortage of British people who would like the job.
Once the visa is gone legal process can cure this matter.
Never mind Nesrine, what does Amelia have to say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8bgow7i5Pg
The first few minutes will have you spraying your rice krispies, especially the AI “live action” user meme version.
.
The only problem with that picture, PJF, is that a girl(?) with purple hair is more likely to be waving a rainbow flag and weigh 150lbs more.
Oh, you occasionally see slim, attractive young women with purple hair. They’re the alphas that everyone fancies, to the suppressed, jealous fury of purple-haired land-whales. Some things never change.
To me purple hair conjures up Gabriella Drake in Gerry Anderson’s UFO.
And she was Gay.
I guess you didn’t watch the video, Mohave Greenie.
The visual character (an even simpler cartoon) was created by government propaganda twats and in their twatty world view even “far right extremists” can be purple haired girls. The problem for the twats is that their “far right extremist” Amelia is the sensible one in their propaganda. So she has become a splendid “fuck you government twats” meme, purple and all. They’ve actually managed to make anti-immigration patriotism cool and inclusive for their fellow kids.
Just watch the first five minutes, it’s hilarious.
The problem is that kids know it’s bollocks, unless they’re the head girl/Little Eichmann types who are already on board.
If you ever see a camera crew interviewing a group of kids for the BBC about “what kids think” they’ve been specially selected by the school as the on-message ones. They want a good image for the school and to promote certain messages. You won’t hear kids being interviewed about porn bans who are like “fuck that, we’re using VPNs haha”.
Propaganda is a very weak tool. It mostly reinforces what people already think. Germany was not stuffed full of liberal-minded hippies in 1933 who were turned towards hating Jews and being big fans of Lebensraum overnight.
.
Schools are always stuffed with statist shit. I remember growing up and we all got Silver Jubilee mugs. How is that anything about improving children’s education? Gove had his thing about kids learning the names of all the Kings and Queens of England. Why? Everything before the industrial revolution is fun, but not actually that useful.
Germans had Anti-semitism related questions in maths. The soviets were anti-evolution teaching because it goes against the principles of communism.
It’s why kids mostly learn more outside schools. Back in the 1980s, if you were into computing, you bought books about doing it for your ZX Spectrum and that’s all they had in them. No-one doing courses for kids in playing guitar on YouTube is trying to indoctrinate them in anything.
Gove had his thing about kids learning the names of all the Kings and Queens of England. Why?
Transmission of culture, mainly. The left want to erase our history and culture; Gove wanted to transmit and preserve it.
When I was at school in the 60s, there was no indoctrination that I can recall. When my daughter was at school in the 90s & 00s, teachers attempted to stuff her head with all sorts of crap…
“When I was at school in the 60s, there was no indoctrination that I can recall”
Our English teacher was, I inferred, a Labour man but never tried to indoctrinate us. Heavens, he even recommended The Leopard.
Them wuz the days.
This woman and her ‘wife’ were idiots, as they all are.
Trump was elected to deport illegals, ICE are the tool employed for that purpose.
Illegal immigration is a vast issue in the States, as it is here – so is legal immigration – and the protests are scam bullshit at least partly funded by shadowy cunts like Alex Soros.
All that much is true.
However, I am personally very concerned about state power, especially the power and authorisation to take lives, and I strongly believe that it should only be exercised in extremis.
In my view – and I can only go on what I’ve seen, I wasn’t there as none of us were – this was not in extremis.
The car hit him a glancing blow, true, and that is a serious assault meriting jail time for her, but we’ve all seen the videos from every angle and he was not objectively in any real danger.
The worst he faced was bruising, which he got, and he only got that because he moved in front of the vehicle.
One round appears to have gone through the windscreen, and that’s probably what will save him from a murder or manslaughter conviction (since it proves he was at least slightly in front of the vehicle when he first fired).
But thereafter from all the accounts I’ve read and what I’ve seen he put two further rounds into her face as she drove away, at a point when she was by definition no longer posing any threat (I don’t think she was ever posing much of a threat, but that’s by the by).
Clearly those were the shots which killed her, because the one through the windscreen hadn’t as she was able to continue driving past him. (It might have been in the process of killing her, I don’t know.)
His view of the risk he faced might well have been coloured by his own earlier experience of being dragged, and certainly he would have been hyped up by the atmosphere and shit that has been going on for months, and something should very definitely be done about that, but it is IMV not acceptable for armed state employees to kill people, even annoying and irritating people who in many ways are a drain on society, when the people concerned are engaged in relatively trivial matters (protest) even where they behave stupidly and put an officer (albeit with the officer’s own foolishness in moving to the front of the vehicle) at risk of some injury.
Let the stupid cow drive off, take her licence plate, deal with her later.
I agree.
…it is IMV not acceptable for armed state employees to kill people…
Agreed. However, is it also “not acceptable” for angry citizens to kill state functionaries, as several of the blowhards on here fantasise about doing?
If those State agents are acting outside their legal authority then it is entirely acceptable for us, as citizens, to use force to resist them. That’s not only self-defence but also defence of our rights as free-born Englishmen.
And if what those State agents are doing is sufficiently serious then yes, defence against them legitimately includes deadly force.
I don’t know where the balance is in this Yankee case, but in principle yes, it has to be legitimate to run over an agent of the State who is acting outside legitimate authority in a sufficiently serious way.
If those State agents are acting outside their legal authority then it is entirely acceptable for us, as citizens, to use force to resist them.
Of course. But the blowhards here don’t make that qualification! In their juvenile revolutionary nihilism, our entire social order must be destroyed in order to be purified. Miliband et al should be dragged to the gallows…etc
Do you approve of that?
Do I approve of that?
Probably.
We want our society to move from where we are to where we want to be. Don’t fool yourself. There will be strong resistance. Some of that resistance will be extreme. I’ve absolutely no doubt “liberals” would use terrorism to prevent “liberalism” being overturned. They’ve shown enough sympathy with terrorist using causes.
So if we aren’t willing to match that, we’re inevitably going to lose. If we aren’t willing to let our opponents lay down their lives for their cause they’ll walk all over us.
Thanks for the only intelligent response, so far…
We want our society to move from where we are to where we want to be.
Agreed
Don’t fool yourself. There will be strong resistance. Some of that resistance will be extreme.
I don’t fool myself; and, yes, there’ll be some extreme resistance. But responding to violence with violence is different to initiating violence….And the former retains the moral high ground, while not losing public support.
So if we aren’t willing to match that, we’re inevitably going to lose. If we aren’t willing to let our opponents lay down their lives for their cause they’ll walk all over us.
At which point, we’ve an approximation to civil war, and retaliatory violence would be justified. However, if order dissolves completely, the outcome becomes highly unpredictable. The left would probably attempt to seize power “to fight fascism”, while the “centrists” would probably hover in the wings ready for a swift comeback after a Thermidorian Reaction.
So I favour a constitutional revolution with a Parliamentary majority…but people on the streets…
The moral high ground, Theo? Morality gets decided by the winners. Haven’t you noticed?
If those State agents are acting outside their legal authority then it is entirely acceptable for us, as citizens, to use force to resist them. That’s not only self-defence but also defence of our rights as free-born Englishmen.
Having the right to do something doesn’t mean you should try to enforce it, especially if you then endanger yourself and others. Every male in the US knows when an armed cop tells you to stop and get out of the car, that’s what you do.
The idea of having rights to do something is nicely expressed in this sailing ditty about the “rules of the road” at sea:
Quite so. Apparently pedestrians have priority under the new Highway Code, but a 2-ton SUV has physical priority over me so I defer to it, especially when I’ve failed to make eye contact with its distracted MILF driver. So, I meekly stay on the pavement and let it pass. Every time. Same goes for cunts on bikes.
This is called “the survivalist instinct”.
“If those State agents are acting outside their legal authority then it is entirely acceptable for us, as citizens, to use force to resist them. That’s not only self-defence but also defence of our rights as free-born Englishmen.”
I’m actually not so sure. Where the state is concerned, we’re not variable speed response of ramping up violence as the left uses: it’s right-side politics which is a switch: stay quiet or shoot everyone – there’s nothing in between.
Until you go into a hot shooting civil war, the response to the state using force should be to keep your mouth shut, don’t resist, don’t fight BUT LAWYER UP HARD. It may take time but that if the state is overreaching, you should then get large, justified protests.
The right is clear on this: once you start using force against the state, there is no going back. You have left your peaceful world behind. If you think – as the lefties seem to want to – that you can use small amounts of force, you are going to end up getting people killed. They know they’re cosplaying: Rachel Good’s “wife” complaining that she didn’t think they’d have real bullets. This is nonsense and it’s getting people killed.
If she was still operating the vehicle she was still a threat. The policy is shoot to stop; once the shooting starts it stops when the threat does.
What threats posed by someone in a vehicle when you are alongside it and the vehicle is driving away?
I’m not a lawyer obviously but as I understand it he has to have been in reasonable fear of his life for it to be a justified shooting at that moment.
I just don’t think it’s possible, based on what I’ve seen, that he was.
As I say I wasn’t there, maybe there’s stuff we don’t know that would convince a jury.
She puts it in reverse and drives into you again, and this time you have no clear shot.
If she puts it in reverse and drives towards you in such a way as to reasonably make you fear for your life then you can open fire again.
I think (though not a lawyer) that ‘clear shots’ are irrelevant to the legal question.
Pistol shots can and do ricochet off windscreens anyway, but irrespective of that I don’t think we should (or do) allow government agents to shoot people because of something they might do (other than in the case of a weapon pointed directly at you for obvious reasons linked to timings, lethality, inability to manoeuvre yourself out of the way etc), and that isn’t altered by the question of whether or not they had a great shot?
If she’s a violent felon – and she is by virtue of trying to run the cop over – then she’s still considered a danger to others while attempting to flee.
But was it a felony? You’re assuming it was, but I’m not sure.
Whether it was a felony depends on whether he had the authority to try to stop her, and whether his colleague had the authority to make her get out of the car.
I don’t doubt that she was being very irritating, but I can’t wave a gun at someone and demand that they get out of their car just because they’re being annoying.
He wasn’t a cop, he was an ICE agent, who Congress decided not to give general police powers to when they set it up.
If they didn’t have authority, then it looks rather like armed men trying to kidnap her, in which case running him over might be a legitimate action in order to escape.
That’s what I haven’t managed to get a handle on yet – whether demanding that she get out of the car was a legal order or not.
If a proper cop does it, I’d guess it is (in America anyway). But an ICE agent? They only have very limited authority over US citizens. Were they acting within it? I haven’t seen enough to be sure.
Uhm, an ICE agent *is a cop*. He is a federal law enforcement officer. He has the same authority as any other federal law enforcement officers.
Like, the BATFE has a specific mission-set – but an ATF officer can arrest you for smoking pot even though their focus is on guns, alcohol, and explosives.
Considered by whom? I doubt it. But we’ll see.
PJF said:
Not sure whose policy that is, but I don’t think ICE agents have general police powers. The law that created ICE (Bush era, so hardly pinko-liberal legislation) could have given them police powers, but didn’t.
In which case they’ve only got the normal citizen’s right to self-defence, which is only when it is “immediately necessary” against “an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence”.
That someone driving off might “reverse and drives into you again” is not a “threat of immediate violence”.
ICE is the merging of Customs and Border Patrol – they’re not a brand new thing, just a reshuffling of existing law enforcement agencies.
The June incident had reportedly left him with 60 stitches so he was undoubtedly twitchy about her running him over. He started to draw his weapon as she was putting the car into drive in response to being ordered by his colleague to get out of the car. One second after that she had hit him and been shot.
The only unusual thing about it by US law enforcement standards was that she was female and white.
“she was putting the car into drive in response to being ordered by his colleague to get out of the car”
an order that he had no authority to give, if what I’ve read is correct, and so an order which she had no obligation to obey.
I’m with Interested on this; when the State is wielding power, particularly deadly force, I want that to be the absolute minimum.
I’m kinda on the fence.
On the one hand, I think American law enforcement blokes are frequently homicidal loons and badly trained to boot.
On the other hand, I think (American) blue hairs are frequently homicidal loons.
As I understand it (usual caveats), ICE agents can detain US citizens in two circumstances:
1) To ascertain their citizenship.
2) To prevent interference in the lawful continuance of their duties.
This seems to fall under 2, but they still should have let the silly bitch drive off and dealt with her later. Apart from anything else, they’ve got more important things to deal with.
One issue in all of this, linked to the wider cultural and political problem, is that women blocking the carriageway are properly a mater for local law enforcement, but for various reasons local law enforcement is essentially trying to stay on the fence.
The problem is she wasn’t going to drive off – until they made the decision to arrest her for interference.
At that point you don’t let them go just because they want to.
Why not? You wanted them to stop interfering and you have achieved your aim.
Why would you think a law enforcement officer has no authority to detain someone interfering in a law enforcement operation?
There’s already been a federal court decision that protesting against a law enforcement operation isn’t, in itself, obstruction and so doesn’t allow ICE to arrest the protesters, even if the protest is at the site of that operation while it’s ongoing, so long as the protest is “peaceful and unobstructive”, and with similar restrictions on stopping vehicles.
I’m guessing that one’s going to end up in the Supreme Court before long, but even the current bench are very protective of citizens’ constitutional rights (possibly even more so than in the past), so I wouldn’t bet on them accepting the arrest of protesters as valid.
Now, what she was doing, and whether it counted as illegal obstruction of a law enforcement operation, I don’t know. But it doesn’t look obvious to me that this was a legitimate arrest.
She wasn’t just protesting. She was using her car to block them. ‘Protesting’ means ‘standing to the side, out of the way’ – yelling, screaming, blowing whistles, holding signs, filming are all fine if you’re doing that.
If you block them in, if you invade their perimeter, if you – as happened with the guy who got a rubber bullet in the eye – try to ‘de-arrest’ someone in their custody . . . well, you’re not protesting anymore.
Yep, I acknowledged that, though arguably it’s a reason for keeping him off duty, or this type of duty, until he can operate safely again.
I don’t think your timings are right, but even if they are he fired two of the shots -certainly and arguably most likely the shots that killed her, because they were head shots – after she was past him and posed no threat.
Each individual trigger pull is a separate action for legal purposes, and it wouldn’t matter if the first was fired when he was absolutely in reasonable fear of his life, the same has to be true of the next two, and I don’t believe he can have been.
Don’t get me wrong, the woman was misguided at best and traitorously evil at worst, and she’s part of or influenced by a movement that I believe seeks to destroy the west.
I shed not a single tear for her, and actually laughed when I read about it.
BUT.
The left had to invent stuff to lock up its opponents whereas all the Trump admin has to do is look around.
And leaving aside the (I think) important issue of principle, that we (the ‘right’ generally, I’m not a Yank) are better than those cunts and don’t need to resort to this because they’re begging to be dealt with legally, whether we like it or not we do live in a world where not everyone shares our views, and where a lot of floating voters are bleeding heart dicks who will be ripe for media influence.
Some of those people are going to be on juries, when the Trump side will be looking for convictions, and they’re all going to vote.
The Democrats are destroying themselves, this is the equivalent of interrupting them while they’re doing it.
(It’s not anywhere near true that this is a typical US cop/agent interaction, by the way.)
Tons of white men are shot every day – you just don’t hear about them.
What’s going to be interesting is that Minnesota is a “duty to retreat” state, not a “stand your ground” one (unless you’re in your home), so you can’t use deadly force unless it is not reasonably possible to escape to safety.
Since it seems the ICE agent had already stepped to the side of the vehicle, at least when he fired the later shots, that looks like a difficult requirement for him.
It will come down to jurisdiction – State law vs a Federal Legal Enforcement Officer conducting federal business
I expect that’s why the Feds have taken the case and shut local plod out of it.
No in ‘extremis’?
He was supposed to parse intention and capability in under a second? And then do it again in under a second?
Here’s something you should understand about American Use of Force.
If someone is a violent felon – you’ve observed them committing a violent felony (which trying to run someone over with a car is) then you can use lethal force to apprehend them if they attempt to flee *even if they’re not using lethal force when fleeing*.
She tried to kill him, she tried to flee, he stopped her from fleeing.
As for the officer ‘acting foolishly’. She was stopped. The officer passed in front of the car to assist his partner in apprehending her. She put the car in drive and hit the gas as he passed in front. Again – all on video. The only person acting foolishly was her.
If she had not chosen to protest, if she had acted calmly, if she had not tried to gun forward to flee as the agent passed in front of her – she would be alive and out on bail right now.
A car can be used as a lethal weapon. Adequately demonstrated in recent years.
So let’s change the car for a pistol & see how it looks. When she hits the ICE agent with the car that’s the first shot. Undoubtedly attempted murder with intent. Continuing to accelerate with the car is equivalent to continue shooting. If she was holding a pistol & continued squeezing the trigger would someone be entitled to use possible deadly force?
I also there’s a lot of illusions on the soft right. That when the left say they will “fight” for their cause, it’s under the impression “fight” is some sort of rhetorical device.. Personally I think when the left use the word fight they mean exactly what they say. They will use violence to get what they want. Or why use the word? I don’t think it matters that most of the left are pansy wusses couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Not all of them are. And the pansy wusses believe they would fight if it came to it & would aid & support those who used violence on their behalf.
The problem is, the soft right – who are another bunch of pansy wusses – are kidding themselves there’s some sort of soft way of winning. That the limp lettuce leaf will counter the club with the nails in. Sorry. You’re gonna lose big time.
FIFY
As usually happens, TDS forces commie Democrats to take opposite positions. In this case, they publicly support murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. And think it is the winning strategy.
>What ICE is doing on US streets looks terrifying, but don’t forget: it could happen anywhere
It does happen almost *everywhere* else. Indeed, based on global averages, ICE is exceedingly mild in their approach to law enforcement, especially immigration enforcement.
There’s plenty of other nations that would just go door-to-door, pull people out, and shoot them in the street if they had the wrong accent.