politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Again, you're completely incorrect as shown literally over and over again:
1/2 hour analysis jumped to the relevant bit:
https://youtu.be/7AQbhes-Ntw#t=5m2s
He was not in danger, he was not hit by the car, he drew his gun before it was moving forward, the first shot was off to the side and the other shots went through the open window as it was turning away from him.
The SUV’s motion, tire noise, and engine revving would understandably make an officer feel an imminent threat in a matter of seconds. Also, based on videos from different angles, the car did very likely indeed hit the ICE agent. Courts and use-of-force law judge self-defense on what a reasonable officer perceived at that split second, not hindsight, and self-defense very very likely stand based on the circumstances.
What an officer "feels" is (supposed to be) irrelevant. They aren't supposed to make fatal decisions on feelings.
And, again, you're misrepresenting the videos. None of them show contact with the agent. Common sense should tell you that he couldn't get 3 shots on target if he'd just been hit by a vehicle.
He fired the first shot, which hit the left hand edge of the windshield, and as the vehicle was turning away from him, more shots through the open drivers side window.
All the shots happened within split seconds, and courts do not judge self-defense in slow motion or frame by frame — they consider what a reasonable officer perceived at that exact moment. Video shows the ICE agent was directly in front of the SUV as it moved forward, with tires losing traction and engine/tire noise, making it reasonable for him to fear imminent harm. The law definitely doesn’t ignore perception — self-defense is judged on what a reasonable officer perceived in that split second, not on perfect hindsight.
The ICE agent PLACED HIMSELF THERE. You don't get to claim self defense when you create the danger.
The ICE agent wasn’t directly in front of the SUV at first. When the driver began to reverse, that motion put him directly in front of the SUV, and then when she shifted into drive and moved forward, that forward motion cause the car to hit him. As such, he didn't create the danger. The driver did.