Not really. ICE breaks into your home — remember they don't need a warrant for this. Demands to see your phone. It's locked. Holds a gun to your head and demands you unlock it. You refuse. Pulls the trigger.

Does it really seem that far–fetched when compared to the other ICE murders?

▲

gruez 8 hours ago | parent [-]

>Does it really seem that far–fetched when compared to the other ICE murders?

No, not really, because in the two killings you can vaguely argue they felt threatened. Pointing a gun to someone's head and demanding the password isn't anywhere close to that. Don't get me wrong, the killings are an affront to civil liberties and should be condemned/prosecuted accordingly, but to think that ICE agents are going around and reenacting the opening scene from Inglorious Bastards shows that your worldview can't handle more nuance than "fascism? true/false".

▲

youarentrightjr 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> but to think that ICE agents are going around and reenacting the opening scene from Inglorious Bastards shows that your worldview can't handle more nuance than "fascism? true/false".

Precisely.

There's no question that ICE is daily trampling civil liberties (esp 4th amendment).

But in both killings there is a reasonable interpretation that they feared for their lives.

Now should they have is another question. With better training, a 6v1 < 5ft engagement can easily disarm anyone with anything less than a suicide vest.

But still, we aren't at the "run around and headshot dissenters" phase.

▲

direwolf20 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> there is a reasonable interpretation that they feared for their lives

... Did you watch the videos from multiple people filming?

▲

youarentrightjr 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> ... Did you watch the videos from multiple people filming?

Yeah, did you? Any more substantive discourse you'd like to add to the conversation?

To be clear about the word "reasonable" in my comment, it's similar to the usage of the very same word in the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt".

The agents involved in the shootings aren't claiming that:

- the driver telepathically communicated their ill intent

- they saw Pretti transform into a Satan spawn and knew they had to put him down

They claim (unsurprisingly, to protect themselves) that they feared for their life because either a car was driving at them or they thought Pretti had another firearm. These are reasonable fears, that a reasonable person has.

That doesn't mean the agents involved are without blame. In fact, especially in Pretti's case, they constructed a pretext to began engagement with him (given that he was simply exercising his 1st amendment right just prior).

But once in the situation, a reasonable person could have feared for their lives.

▲

defrost 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> once in the situation, a reasonable person could have feared for their lives.

Sure, all things being equal, a person on the Clapham omnibus, yada, yada.

However, specifically in this situation it is very frequently not "median people" in the mix, it is LEO-phillic wannabe (or ex) soldier types that are often exchanging encrypted chat messages about "owning the libs", "goddamn <insert ethic slur>'s" and exchange grooming notes on provoking "officer-induced jeopardy" .. how to escalate a situation into what passes for "justified homicide" or least a chance to put the boot in.

Those countries that investigate and prosecute shootings by LEO's often find such things at the root of wrongful deaths.

	▲	youarentrightjr 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

avcloudy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

worthless-trash 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The old 'shoot em in the leg' defense.