No, the comment is using a term that describes people who legally are not entitled to be in the country, to refer to people who legally are not entitled to be in the country.
Changing labels doesn't change reality. The complaint revolves around groups that are supporting people who are not attempting to go through legal immigration channels.
> The first time we see the Pilot it is blocking both travel lanes
And it stays in this position for a considerable period of time, while Good's partner is walking around outside the vehicle and behaving belligerently.
The fact that she waves some cars past certainly doesn't negate the apparent intent to obstruct the ICE vehicle.
> Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it?
The vehicle is perpendicular to the road and has remained in that position for a considerable period of time as Good circles around and then the other officer approaches the driver's side window. There is no "that vehicle" that she could plausibly have been "trying to get around". Every video makes this clear, including the officer's.
All of this happens in a split second. It's simply not possible, in the evidenced time frame, to fire one shot in self defense and then realign and fire two more with murderous intent. It is also not at all plausible that the position of the two individuals could have changed that much in between the shots. It's also very clear in other video that the officer has been struck and his balance severely disturbed; it takes considerable time for him to recover and he has very clearly fired all three shots before he has properly stood up.
In short, other video evidence clearly rules out any possibility that "he had stepped aside". And we can see the relative timing of when the SUV's wheels start to spin, too, even in the video from behind the SUV where Good is obscured from view by the other officer.
> He's engaged in a petty argument with the driver
No; the argument occurs outside the vehicle, and is with the driver's partner. And it is not so much of an "argument" as him being repeatedly provoked with statements such as "You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead."
> tries to block her car with his body
No, he does not. He happened to move around the front of the car, which is consistent with circling the car to get video footage of it from all angles which would be part of expected evidence-gathering protocol. The car can be seen (including in other video) to move back and realign as he is walking in front.
> then says "fuckin' bitch!" after he's killed her.
Even left-wing sources like the CBC concede that "It is unclear who said those words."
> Can you elaborate on specifically what she did to "attempt to obstruct the officers"... ? Everything I've seen starts off with a description of her "blocking" one lane of a two lane street, which is a perfectly normal activity in city traffic for a multitude of purposes. And those purposes would certainly include filming or observing the activities of government agents.
> I've avoided watching the videos
Watching any of the videos makes it immediately and abundantly clear that she is deliberately obstructing the officers, by positioning her car more or less perpendicular to the road (and selectively waving past non-ICE traffic). She's driving an SUV, which naturally is going to obstruct more than one lane in this position. Filming and observing activities did not require having a car on the road at all.
> Did she do something violent before the masked, armed, and aggressive gang (with no lawful jurisdiction over US citizens) surrounded her and attacked her car?
First, if you "have avoided watching the videos", then how can you suppose to know such things about what happened? (In point of fact, the videos make it abundantly clear that the officers took no "life threatening action" before she accelerated the vehicle forward.)
Second, you are simply incorrect in supposing that ICE agents "have no lawful jurisdiction over US citizens". It has repeatedly been established that, as federal LEO, they may generally enforce federal law against US citizens. For example, from the SF Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/ice-arrests-cit...) (which can't reasonably be dismissed as any sort of right-wing propaganda):
> Protesters can be arrested for violence against government officers, destruction of property or acts of obstruction, such as blocking the path of an officer’s vehicle.
> ... But [according to a law professor] “if a citizen interferes with ICE work, then the citizen needs to follow orders to get out of the way” to avoid being charged with obstructing law enforcement.
It's easy to find many other sources that confirm that LEO can tell you to get out of the car at a lawful traffic stop, even if you are not under arrest, and you are legally required to comply. And federal ICE agents are clearly LEO.
I am reposting this comment because it was flagged — in spite of being net upvoted, clearly not in violation of posting guidelines, and clearly evidenced — and because it is necessary in order to refute a bald assertion that contradicts the evidence.
----
TFA includes multiple clips of video from separate angles that all corroborate the claim, with detailed analysis, and even including a CNN analyst conceding that the vehicle strikes the officer. There is no question, based on the vehicle's path, that it is moved forward, towards the officer, intentionally.
It swerves away at the last moment, and there is no clear intent (I agree there is likely not intent) to strike the officer; but the movement of the vehicle is clearly without heed for the officer's safety.
The law is clear (TFA cites it extensively) that a deliberate attempt on the officer's life is not required, legally speaking, to justify the shoot. It is also clear that hindsight (e.g. "he could have moved out of the way instead") is not a legal factor.
All of this happened in a split second. As explained in TFA, the relevant legal standards do not require the application of hindsight or sober second thought. They are only concerned with what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, with the information available in the moment. Training does not and cannot possibly prevent instinctive actions that appear irrational or ineffective after the fact.
reply