Ещё к вопросу об идиотах
Jan. 13th, 2026 11:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
realwiredПросто чтобы было:
Quote start:
1. Some argue that ICE agents are not “police” and therefore lack the
authority to stop, detain, or command civilians. That argument is
legally incorrect. ICE agents are sworn federal law enforcement
officers under the Department of Homeland Security. Congress
explicitly granted immigration officers arrest and detention authority
under 8 U.S.C. § 1357, including the authority to carry firearms and
make warrantless arrests when offenses are committed in their presence
or when they have reasonable grounds to believe a felony is being
committed. Their authority derives from federal statute, not from
state or municipal police powers. Federal law enforcement does not
become optional simply because the officer is not wearing a city or
county badge.
2. Second, she refused to comply with a lawful order. Once she failed to
exit the vehicle, the encounter escalated from investigation to
resistance. You do not get to debate lawful commands roadside. The
Supreme Court has consistently held that evasive behavior and refusal
to comply with lawful authority contribute to reasonable suspicion and
justify escalation. Illinois v. Wardlow makes that clear. Any
challenge to the legality of the order belongs in court, not in the
moment.
3. Third, and decisively, she accelerated her vehicle while a federal
agent was positioned in front of it. At that moment, intent stopped
mattering. A motor vehicle becomes a deadly weapon when used in a
manner capable of causing serious bodily harm or death. Supreme Court
precedent is explicit on this point. Tennessee v. Garner allows deadly
force when an officer has probable cause to believe a suspect poses a
significant threat of death or serious physical injury. Scott v.
Harris, Brosseau v. Haugen, and Plumhoff v. Rickard all recognize that
a vehicle used during resistance or flight constitutes a lethal threat
justifying deadly force.
4.There will be endless arguments about tactics and whether the officer
4.There will be endless arguments about tactics and whether the officer
should have placed himself in that position. Legally, those arguments
are void once an officer is in immediate danger. The law does not
require officers to absorb deadly force because someone else made a
reckless decision. The moment her foot hit the accelerator with an
officer in front of the vehicle, the threat became immediate and
lethal under settled law.
5. These three actions obstructing the roadway, refusing a lawful order,
and accelerating a vehicle toward a federal agent form a textbook
use-of-force analysis under Supreme Court precedent. I hate that it
happened. But the law is unforgiving in situations like this. Pride
will sometimes send people charging into storms they didn’t pack for.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-13 02:13 pm (UTC)reckless decision.
How is "to absorb deadly force" relevant to the situation when Jonathan Ross could have just steped out from the path of Renee Good's vehicle?
no subject
Date: 2026-01-13 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-13 09:11 pm (UTC)Do you mean the first _sentence_?
"There will be endless arguments about tactics and whether the officer
should have placed himself in that position."
Even if the officer put himself into that position - he could have easily step out of this position (away from the vehicle path.
Which would be much easier and safer [vs shooting] for everyone: Renee Good, people around her and for Johnathan Ross himself.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 07:57 am (UTC)Моя позиция: когда (если) будете в его позиции - сможете демонстрировать СВОИ ловкость и прыгучесть, сняв видосик и всем показывая.
Пока вы - "голос с дивана", это void&null.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 09:34 am (UTC)Я предпочитаю избегать навязывание моих услуг тем людям, которые не хотят моих услуг.
Johnathan Ross забыл, что его работа в Миннеаполисе делается для людей, живущих в Миннеаполисе.
А если люди в Миннеаполисе эту работу не ценят, то надо действовать аккуратнее и не напирать слишком сильно.
И уж, тем более, не расстреливать их.
> Пока вы - "голос с дивана", это void&null.
I will participate with my vote in November 2026 Congress elections.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 09:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 09:43 am (UTC)А если люди в Миннеаполисе эту работу не ценят, то надо действовать аккуратнее
Я вспоминаю рассовые волнения в связи с отменой сегрегации...
Местные тоже не оценили. И что? Надо было "действовать аккуратнее"?
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 09:56 am (UTC)> Местные тоже не оценили.
Большинство населения не оценило?
Или меньшинство?
> И что? Надо было "действовать аккуратнее"?
Если большинство населения не поддерживает работу полиции, то, скорее всего, полиция действует неверно.
Соответственно, надо действовать аккуратнее.
В 1861 году навязывание воли одних штатов другим - закончилось кровавой гражданской войной.
Хотя можно было спокойно подождать ещё лет двадцать, и Южные штаты бы сами дозрели до правильного решения.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 10:09 am (UTC)Источники говорят о сотнях тысяч и даже миллионах, которые пришлось усмирять вводом войск.
--- Южные штаты бы сами дозрели
Сто лет прошло (начало 1960х) и нихуя не дозрели
В общем, на этом я заканчиваю с вашей endless argumentation without arguments
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 10:16 am (UTC)Вокруг меня (в нашей деревне) - нет никаких волнений.
В городе в 20 милях от меня - бывают небольшие волнения раз в, примерно, двадцать лет.
В таких случаях, я поддерживаю работу полиции.
> Источники говорят о сотнях тысяч и даже миллионах, которые пришлось усмирять вводом войск.
В США живёт 330 миллионов.
Если бунтуют 1% населения, то это меньшинство.
ICE из Миннеаполиса хотят выгнать большинство избирателей.
> Сто лет прошло (начало 1960х) и нихуя не дозрели
В Южных штатах нет рабства и возвращать рабство почти никто не хочет.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 08:01 am (UTC)I strongly believe what it was much easier and safe for Renee Good and people around her to mind ther own business. No single one would be there.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 09:29 am (UTC)I agree: Renee Good and her wife messed up. However they did not kill anyone.
But Johnathan Ross messed up big time by killing Renee Good.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 09:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 10:00 am (UTC)There were no signs that Renee Good's car was used by the terrorists.
There were signs that indicated that Renee Good is not a terrorist.
More importantly: I do not want to have law enforcement officers that start shooting at the cars too easily.
Because it is not safe for me and for people around me.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 10:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 10:12 am (UTC)Of course I try not to attack law enforcement officers (and consider Rebecca & Renee Good's behavior a [deadly] mistake).
Nonetheless, I do not want to get automatically shot simply because I made a similar mistake [for whatever reason].
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 10:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 10:28 am (UTC)Why would I have such a dream?
I prefer to learn from other mistakes.
> and will get killed - I don't care :)
If you attempt to gain some tiktok glory by attacking the law enforcement officers or activists -- I do care to know about it -- whether you will get killed in the attempt or not.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 10:29 am (UTC)Are you implying that we live in a simulation?
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 10:55 am (UTC)What are you talking about??
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 10:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-13 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 06:18 am (UTC)Law enforcement ДОЛЖЕН был стать перед перед машиной, препятствуя возможности ехать (вперёд).
Это стандартная практика, так учат полицию.
Но он НЕ ДОЛЖЕН был отпрыгивать. Полицейский который комментировал ситуацию сказал, что ОН ЛИЧНО скорее всего отпрыгнул бы а сторону, и тут же подчеркнул, что это ЕГО ЛИЧНОЕ решение тут и сейчас (на диване), а как бы оно было там, на месте - ХЗ.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-14 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-15 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-15 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-16 04:09 am (UTC)