Ice agent shoots a woman in the face part 3

[Moontan]

Donald Trump has now said its okay to murder a woman. Because they are doing it for people's 'safety'

It is interesting how far humans will let themselves be abused by bad people.

I was watching a documentary about jonestown the cult.

Some people left the cult

They said that the leader beat people, raped people, starved people. He made them do physical labour for many hours a day. He demanded that they give him all of their money.

And yet still hundreds of people followed him.

People seem to keep supporting a person and staying there. Rather than saying "maybe i was wrong and this guy is actually a bad person"

Mm. There are 84,000 male prisoners incarcerated in the UK, and only 3,600 females, but noooo, men totally aren't more dangerous 🙄

And I don't know of a single matriarchy oppressing men, while there are plenty of patriarchal cultures oppressing women globally. But men totally aren't more dangerous 😒

Spot on.

These protesters block ICE vehicles. That’s why she’s occupying the road in the first place.

'Shooting a civilian because you were angry is, at the very least'

Which didn't happen. He reacted to a perceived threat as they are trained to do.

I think it's because some posters believe she is a victim of a misogynistic fascist state run by an authoritarian Nazi dictator that practices apartheid and genocide on innocent peaceful protesters through state sanctioned war crimes such as carpet bombing whilst forcing them to live in the Minnesota concentration camp.

Oh so law enforcement is trained to shoot until the threat is neutralised?

I'm sorry but a woman in a car isn't the Taliban in Afghanistan.

He pulled his gun before the car went forward, he put himself to one side of the vehicle and leaned fwd to shoot her, he put himself in the path of the vehicle, he orchestrated this whole situation.

Its very odd, as you re not an American, you think his response is normal/rational.

Men are more dangerous and inherently more prone to violence. I don't think anyone has denied that. That doesn't negate that excluding 50% of the population from a profession because they might commit a crime is discriminatory, and also counterproductive.

Women can and do abuse children. In fact, several women have been arrested in the last few years for abusing children in an educational setting. Yes, it happens on a lesser scale than it does with men, but it still happens. Banning men on the basis that they are men creates a false sense of security.

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of making care roles a woman's sole responsibility. We have a hard enough time competing with men as it is in higher-paid roles without making care giving 100% our responsibility.

As to which dog I would have around my children in your scenario, it would be the one who had been assessed as suitable by a qualified professional and whose history was known, and it would be one that was properly supervised and given sufficient ongoing training and assessments. Given there is a chance I could end up with one of the retrievers who are aggressive, I wouldn't base my choice on breed. The same would apply to which childcare provider I would choose.

This!
Yes there is a lot of paranoia and made up drama isn't there.

No one has said anything of the sort, complete over exaggeration, though not a surprise.

"Authoritarian" does sum up Trump.

Or are you against Putin/Ukraine but for Trump and Greenland?

'Oh so law enforcement is trained to shoot until the threat is neutralised?'

Correct.

There certainly is, mostly from you and other people who condone murder of protestors "she deserved it" as one poster put it earlier.

She was shot because a pissed off man who had been told to be rough by the president, decided to pull his gun and fire at point blank range into her head. He felt there would be no consequences for his actions and she had pissed him off.

He made the decision to carry out a state sponsored execution without trial against someone exercising their right to protest.

The agents were out of control, they didn't even need to stop. They chose that, not Renee.

No they are not, at least not in the UK, Police are trained to use minimum force, fire arms as a last resort.
Hence the men who attacked Police in an airport recently, were not killed, they were arrested and charged.

But for you, protesters are a threat, to be killed, thats your view isn't it.

They then denied this woman any aid and even in death handled her like a lump of meat.
People with similar views have now used Grok to make an image of her dead in a bikini.... doubtless you think thats all ok too.

There is something bitterly ironic in the fact that US citizens could legitimately seek political asylum in other countries now, for fear persecution (murder) for their political beliefs.

To the few nay sayers who continue to argue that such an extraordinarily (illegal) use of excsessive force was justified, I think it's worth highlighting this sentence from Renee Good's statement:

"We had whistles. They had guns."

There never was a credible threat, except the one posed by ICE, but for argument's sake, let's pretend there was. It was neutralised when all of the agents were on the side of the vehicle. SUVs are not particularly agile vehicles. They cannot move sideways, and U-turns take several steps and more than a few seconds. It cannot logically be argued that Renee was still a threat once the agents were no longer anywhere near the front of the car and she was already injured.

That happened before the second and third shots were fired into the side of her car.

Many Americans on SM are advising people not to go there, its too dangerous & to boycott US goods.

Fwiw i wouldn't have anything to do the place, even China doesn't behave as the US does now.

If we followed the rationale of your first few paragraphs, we'd abolish single sex facilities and services, including single sex prisons, and have men performing mammograms.

We'd also stop bothering with workplace health and safety, stop wearing seatbelts, stop requiring children to use car seats and so on, as if risk can't be eliminated entirely then apparently we shouldn't try to lower it significantly, or it might create a 'false sense of security'.

Or perhaps we could eliminate the single greatest and most prominent risk (men), and then use careful safeguarding to try to bring the remaining risk (women) closer to zero. There's an idea! But I guess that would make too many men sad, and we don't want that. Better to have much higher rates of sexually abused children, and happier men (especially the paedophiles), right?

Because placing men's feelings over real children's actual safety is the most important thing, apparently. Although with that being your position, I'd think you'd be more sympathetic to this ICE agent. He is a man, after all!

(Personally, I'd have a Golden Retriever who was carefully assessed etc. That seems the safest course of action.)

At least we have the two ends of the spectrum:

A) The officer was angry, lost his temper and shot her because she attempted to drive off, or
B) The officer is his opinion thought that the vehicle coming towards him and was a threat to his and his colleagues lives and shot her to stop this happening.

Posters will trend to either of these two views and nothing that anyone posts will convince them otherwise.

Sadly in a few weeks she will be forgotten but three children will go through life without a mother after a pointless death.

If any good is to come out of this then maybe it's a lesson not to fuck around with armed officers. Refusing to get out of a vehicle when instructed to by armed officers doesn't make you a civil rights heroine, it just makes for a pointless death.

I ve asked that question a few times, no one will answer...... very telling.

They know this was state sponsored murder, even if you believe he acted properly, in a democracy, that should be proven in an independent investigation but they don't want that either and neither does the USA.

He has been given immunity....

Your mistaking the UK police who don't have to worry that everyone they interact with has legal access to assault rifles. Madly in the USA the right to bare arms means that criminals can get their hands on assault rifles legally.
Therefore police officers in the us are much more likely to shoot and given they don't get the specialist training UK cops do, you are more likely to be shot should you do something that a police officer considers a life threatening risk.

I've said from the first moment I saw this he should not have shot her, but the latest video explains why he thought he should:
She ignored requests to get out of the vehicle
She reversed (I am not sure why as the original video shows there was ample space to drive off)
She accelerates at speed towards him.
People have initially said she panicked, the exchange shows that is not the case

That said he should not have shot as he only received a glancing blow if any. He should have arrested her later.

🤣My inability to reason when you come up with an argument imagining that there are only 2 breeds of dog in the world and think that’s a good analogy? Also, you claim studies show that, eg, female surgeons are better than men whilst ignoring the fact that only around 20% of surgeons are women and that if 50% were women, the statistics would no doubt be different, because to enable an increase that big in the representation of women would undoubtedly lower the overall standard of female candidates getting through, because clearly at an only 20% representation rate, the women that do make it are going to be particularly impressive. The same applies for your link to women in leadership roles. It’s funny how percentages of men and women only bother you when it suits you to be bothered by them.

If i saw anything that indicates he was in danger, that he could not avoid, i would change my view.
I'm not blind to new evidence.

I disagree these were armed officers, they are armed soldiers, trained to fight wars and total unsuitable for civil law enforcement.

The good to come out of this would be for armed officers to behave in a way that de-escalates situations, perhaps they could show their faces, carry id, behave in an appropriate manner for the job that they are doing.

Protesters protest, I'm guessing you never have because the interaction between them was actually quite mild compared to what goes down in Britain (yet I've never seen anyone shot dead) at a protest. Ice escalated this, and if lessons are to be learned it's that they behave more like a law enforcement agency in a democratic country, and less like the fucking gestapo.

Sewing fear of violent repurcussions from authority to quell potential political dissent is not something anyone from democratice nations should be promoting.

I think the resounding lessons that should (but won't) be learnt is that state agents are not above the law; there is an immediate need for proper firearms training for all armed agents; and all agents should go through a more thorough background check and regular psychological evaluations to determine whether they are fit for duty and to carry a weapon.

I see you also don't understand analogies, in addition to trying to insist that...despite the statistics we do have that show the opposite, you believe that women aren't as good as men in the workplace, so we must let men continue to have access to vulnerable children to abuse, else women will all end up trapped in childcare?

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me as an argument.

Regardless, we've very much gone off topic now, so I'll leave it there. We'll just have to agree to disagree.