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.
I can't posts like this seriously when 2020-2024 were just erased out of existence.
HN isn't a forum to dump your activism.
"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.
It's been so extreme lately.
I've seen multiple videos. It's very clear that:
* The officer was unambiguously struck, and unambiguously in front of the vehicle when struck (as evidenced by the bullet hole through the front windshield). This can be discerned even from the footage where that officer is hidden behind the other one trying to speak through the driver's side window.
* It is the car that aligns so that the officer is in its path, not the officer that takes any extraordinary action at that point. But it seems that the woman is being arrested anyway.
* The shooting victim was being encouraged to "drive, baby, drive" (audio that I'm told has been ducked or skipped over in some mainstream media coverage) by her partner who was also acting belligerently with officers; while it appears that her intent was to flee the scene, she did so in a manner that clearly endangered the officer's life. She was not free to go and she accelerated into the officer.
* There is no plausible way that she or her partner could have mistaken the fact that they were dealing with legitimate LEOs.
* They came to protest not just from out of state, but from the far side of Iowa.
While hindsight might suggest that shooting the driver of a vehicle won't stop you from getting hit, the relevant objective legal standards aren't concerned with hindsight. When someone presents a serious threat to the life of an LEO, it is expected that the LEO responds with lethal force. That is precisely why they are armed.
(It's very nice of whoever to downvote this without comment. Everything I said is objectively verifiable and in accordance with black-letter law.)
No matter how many times you repeat this, it is not true. Everyone else has also watched the video, and lying harder is not going to change it.
At 6:55 (in slow motion) we see the officer in front of the car, recording with his own phone.
7:01, the car moves forward and the wheel can clearly be seen to spin as the car struggles to gain traction. There is a clear attempt to accelerate sharply.
7:23, some explanation: "As you can see, the officer has his gun out, the tires are still pointed directly at the officer, and the car is moving forward.... the officer is struck by the vehicle, which you cannot see from this angle." (But if you take the full speed video frame by frame, around 6:38 you can clearly see for multiple frames that the officer is taken off balance and takes a while to recover.
Then there's more footage from in front of the car. At 7:53 you can see the impact plain as day. That's a CNN analyst saying: "Well, the slowed-down version is showing me that when the SUV pulls forward, they make contact with the agent in the street, and then immediately following that contact, you hear three gunshots follow." (Sound sync is an issue with video like this and it makes far more sense to me that the shots are concurrent with, or immediately before impact. They cannot feasibly be any kind of revenge for being hit because it would be utterly impossible to aim.) "Contact" is an understatement given the video; you can clearly see that the officer is leaning considerably forward over the hood of the SUV as a direct consequence of the impact.
All of this is also corroborated by the officer's own cell phone footage, wherein he completely loses control of the camera as a consequence.
> What do green usernames mean?
Green indicates a new account.
Orphaning and making new HN accounts every year to ensure anonymity is not against the rules.
No great loss if I get kicked off the site, but for what it’s worth, my karma is net positive so far. I guess there are still enough others here who are apoplectically furious at our rapidly degenerating society.
And lest we forget: hacking is intrinsically a political act, anti-authoritarian by nature, though I understand that there are scant few actual hackers here these days.
I searched for 30 mins today and was unable to find a completely unedited video of the shooting of that woman. Major news networks were playing an edited version that cuts out her partner telling her to drive right before supposedly hitting the agent with her car. None of them show the actual shooting.
Reality no longer exists, most Americans exist in one of two divergent fictions. And I’m tired of the harassment of those who want to opt out of this rigged crap. We don’t need 3 ICE articles on Hacker News.