ICE fires first shot.

Page 55 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,489
16,822
146
Muse said:
What institution are you talking about. I'm not for nuclear armagedon, that's the one tool that would get us over everything in a hurry. I like to say (well, saying it here), Rome wasn't built in a day but nowadays it can sure be destroyed in a day.
Click to expand...
The US govt, primarily. I'd settle for the non-arts and environmental parts though, if there's anything left of 'em.
 
Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
41,180
10,377
136
[DHT]Osiris said:
The US govt, primarily. I'd settle for the non-arts and environmental parts though, if there's anything left of 'em.
Click to expand...
Destroying the US government would render America in complete chaos. Maybe a crisis could develop that causes a meltdown that would engender a constitutional convention. I think it's hard to predict how that would develop or play out but I suppose it could happen.
 
HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,739
33,346
136
Muse said:
Destroying the US government would render America in complete chaos. Maybe a crisis could develop that causes a meltdown that would engender a constitutional convention. I think it's hard to predict how that would develop or play out but I suppose it could happen.
Click to expand...
If Dems takeover in 2026/28 we might as well have a Constitutional convention. Republicans don’t follow the current Constitution and laws anyway and Trump has exposed all the flaws of the current version so maybe time for a redo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski, dainthomas, [DHT]Osiris and 1 other person
Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
41,180
10,377
136
HomerJS said:
If Dems takeover in 2026/28 we might as well have a Constitutional convention. Republicans don’t follow the current Constitution and laws anyway and Trump has exposed all the flaws of the current version so maybe time for a redo?
Click to expand...
Oh, it's time for a redo alright but getting from here to there is the challenge.
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,228
10,510
136
Some worthy comments from Reddit.
Supposedly the ICE handbook. You know, the "training and guidelines".
Sounds like stepping in front of a vehicle for a premeditated murder is so common, DHS had to issue new handbooks to explicitly forbid it.
Not that MAGA Nazis give a rats ass about life, or laws protecting it.

Dhs has specific guidelines for firing weapons and one of them is you can’t open fire on a car to try and stop it.
And deadly force is not authorize against fleeing suspects unless they pose a bigger threat
He committed murder.
Borrowed from the law sub:
“In 2014 DHS published an internal audit report stating that on dozens of occasions their officers would intentionally stand in the path of vehicles to fraudulently justify use of force in shooting the drivers out of “frustration.” It was such an issue that DHS had to issue an entirely new handbook and guidance explicitly training their agents not to stand in front of cars on purpose. They have tons of instances of their officers intentionally blocking a vehicle for the sole purpose of then firing at it - and their policy is officially that their agents should never do that.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...s-new-use-of-force-guidelines-critical-report

Borrowed from law sub.
“”I'm not sure why sources or outlets are saying he was following training because here's direct quotes from the training manual:

Edit: ICE'S OWN HANDBOOK
"It should be recognized that a 1/2 ounce (200 grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000 pound moving vehicle, and if the driver of the approaching vehicle is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat. Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents."

"There is little doubt that the safest course for an agent faced with an oncoming vehicle is to get out of the way of the vehicle."
Page 12 includes the following:

4) Deadly force is not authorized solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect. Deadly force against a fleeing subject is only authorized if there is probable cause to believe that the escape of the suspect would pose an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.

There actually is law + binding policy on this, and it’s not something I invented.
  1. ⁠⁠Fourth Amendment baseline ⁠• ⁠Use of force by any government officer is judged under the 4th Amendment “objective reasonableness” standard (Graham v. Connor; Tennessee v. Garner). Deadly force is only justified where a reasonable officer would believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and where safer alternatives aren’t reasonably available. ⁠• ⁠The Supreme Court just reiterated in Barnes v. Felix (2025) that you don’t freeze-frame only “the moment of the threat.” Courts have to look at the totality of the circumstances, including the officer’s own decisions that created the danger (like stepping onto the sill of a moving car).
  2. ⁠⁠DOJ’s own written policy on moving vehicles ⁠• ⁠DOJ’s 2022 Department-wide Use of Force Policy (which other federal agencies like DHS/ICE are required to meet or exceed) expressly says: • officers may not fire solely to disable a moving vehicle, and • they may only shoot at a moving vehicle when it’s being used in a way that threatens death/serious injury and “no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.” ⁠• ⁠That last clause matters. DOJ is literally telling its officers: if you have the option of stepping out of the way instead of shooting, you’re expected to move, not stand in front of the car and then use your own positioning to justify deadly force.
  3. ⁠⁠National “standard protocol” is not “stand in front of the car” ⁠• ⁠The National Consensus Policy on Use of Force (11 major law-enforcement orgs, including IACP and PERF) recommends that officers avoid placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle and move out of the way instead of shooting except in rare, truly unavoidable situations. ⁠• ⁠Many big-city policies literally spell this out in plain language: officers “shall not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle” and “shall move out of its path if possible rather than discharge a firearm.” That’s because shooting at drivers tends to be ineffective as “self-defense” and hugely dangerous to everyone else.
  4. ⁠⁠How that applies here ⁠• ⁠In the Minneapolis videos, the agent has cover and distance available and chooses to move into the vehicle’s path. That is the definition of “officer-created jeopardy.” Under DOJ’s own policy, the question isn’t just “was he scared in that split second,” it’s “did he have a reasonable alternative, like not standing directly in front of a moving SUV.” ⁠• ⁠If a jury or judge finds he could have stepped aside, then by DOJ’s standard there were “other objectively reasonable means of defense” available, which means the shooting violates policy and is strong evidence of an unreasonable seizure under the 4th Amendment.
  5. ⁠⁠“Surround the car to prevent it from getting away” ⁠• ⁠Boxing a car in with government vehicles is not some neutral “protocol”; it’s a seizure under the 4th Amendment. To lawfully do that you need reasonable suspicion / probable cause tied to that driver, or some specific legal authority. ⁠• ⁠From everything publicly reported so far, she was not the target of the ICE raid and was not blocking them from doing their job. If agents had no articulable basis to trap her car in traffic, that’s a separate constitutional problem before we even get to the shooting.“
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/gvwnbd87Hv
Click to expand...
 
cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,671
15,973
136
There is a secondary pattern here.
Remember the string pullers fully believe their own cool aid, that AI will take all the jobs come the next few years.

So they really dont need you anymore, thus, not democracy.

Recall this piece ?

"Peter Thiel Is Taking a Break From Democracy"

www.theatlantic.com

Peter Thiel Is Taking a Break From Democracy

It’s one of his many, many disappointments.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

"I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"

So the fuckers are planning on toppling US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski, Fenixgoon and ch33zw1z
Pens1566

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,959
11,659
136
nickqt said:
Unless Democrats have 70 Senators I don't imagine it would be possible to convict Trump, and there are enough Democrats In Name Only who would definitely be A-OK with a President Vance.
Click to expand...

Agree, although I think it's much more likely that he keels over of natural causes before the end of this term. Which still puts Vance in the oval. Which still has the same "interesting" result that I was referring to with a D speaker of the house.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,488
47,962
136
HomerJS said:
If Dems takeover in 2026/28 we might as well have a Constitutional convention. Republicans don’t follow the current Constitution and laws anyway and Trump has exposed all the flaws of the current version so maybe time for a redo?
Click to expand...

We actually can solve a lot of problems by just sending John Roberts a dozen new friends. Since it is the court that is largely responsible for our current situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HomerJS, feralkid, Muse and 1 other person
cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,671
15,973
136
As long as you dont root out the 5th column activities you'll be right back here again in no time.

Fox news++
Billionaires in politics.
Billionaire media landscape
 
KMFJD

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
33,497
53,593
136
good ol' nyp , not even worth linning a birds cage with

https://bsky.app/profile/gregk.co.uk%2Fpost%2F3mbyijlw4ls2l



‪@gregk.co.uk‬
There are no rules, they don’t actually care about respect, decorum, bipartisanship or debate, and only pretend to do so to browbeat you into submission. Nothing is going to change until more people realise that and respond accordingly; including to the media and politicians who have failed them.
1767967915703.png1767967927344.png
 
Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
41,180
10,377
136
Minneapolis' Mayor Frey writes opinion piece at The New York Times.

Link to current article at The New York Times is PAYWALL PENETRATING for 14 days, i.e. until 01/23/2026:

I’m the Mayor of Minneapolis. Trump Is Lying to You.​

Jan. 8, 2026


A cool comment there:

joshbarnes

joshbarnes
Honolulu, Hawaii8h ago
Trump is lying as usual, but Noem really takes the cake. She shot her dog for disobedience, and apparently she thinks the same is appropriate for a fellow human being.

1121 Recommended
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HomerJS
B

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,185
31,183
136
Jaskalas said:
Some worthy comments from Reddit.
Supposedly the ICE handbook. You know, the "training and guidelines".
Sounds like stepping in front of a vehicle for a premeditated murder is so common, DHS had to issue new handbooks to explicitly forbid it.
Not that MAGA Nazis give a rats ass about life, or laws protecting it.
Click to expand...

@Greenman some good info here about how out of line ICE was.
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,228
10,510
136
K1052 said:
Not likely to change any minds either way but the idea that Noem and company are trying to sell that this woman was a terrorist is absolutely preposterous beyond belief.
Click to expand...
They're not trying to sell it per say. In a world without Democracy, where human rights do not exist, they are simply delivering State Policy. That this was an approved killing. Their party members receive that instruction and proceed accordingly. The only "facts" they care about are the words and will of their master. You will find the United States is more closely operating the way Russia, China, and North Korea do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom