We all watched ICE walk up to her window, pulled out his gun and shot her point blank in the face
6 months ago by ByteOnBikes to c/whitepeopletwitter
I understand that people are being told different stories, the created issue is that those stories aren't questioned with even the slightest scrutiny. for this situation, the only evidence that the officer was going to be hit by the vehicle is from a video that's 500 feet away with 15 pixels for the car and officer.
no one wants to find clarity if it already fits their narrative
There are two other videos, one fairly close and on the left side of the vehicle showing she tried to avoid hitting the officer while fleeing from masked gestapo wannabes threatening her life.
He is for the first shot, you just can't see him because another terrorist is blocking him; you can see his legs between the legs of the other guy.
But he intentionally positioned himself that way because he wanted an excuse to murder.
What Null said. https://files.xvertigox.com/...
Slowed down clip showing him very clearly leaning over the hood, just to the side of the car (he's on a patch of ice and his weight leaning on the car causes him to slide), reaching over for the first shot directly through the front windshield, then being able to step back and firing directly into her open windows and eventually shooting into the car that's already in front of him.
He may have been technically in front, but he wasn’t in the path of the vehicle or she would have flattened him when her head injury apparently caused her to floor it into the parked car and telephone pole down the street.
Edited spelling.
I think you hit on an important point. People, especially conservatives imo, are super willing to not question something if they want to believe it. The confirmation bias is so strong it trumps morality most of the time. I think confirmation bias has gotten worse specifically because of the Internet. Algorithms feeding you constant validation has led to self righteousness levels that are off the chart.
Having said all this, I am baffled that anyone can see something like this and not even question it. I think it is remotely possible the cop feared he could be hit for a brief moment, but that doesn't justify murdering a person obviously. I think he fired at least a couple seconds after that moment.
But here we are. The Shitter thread I saw where the close-up video was posted was absolutely loaded with morons commenting with certainty that the murderer did the right thing. The absolute strongest position anyone should have in favor of the fascist should be "I think it was justified". But no, they're 100% certain after 5 seconds of viewing the post. Society is sick, and the disease is mostly conservative politics.
I would agree, but I don't see how Christianity itself is to blame exactly, since if they followed the teachings of Jesus in any way, they'd be overcome with empathy for a murder victim. Bastardized interpretations of religions are the excuse to be shitty, not the cause to be shitty, imo. When it is an excuse, you get to pick and choose which thing is supposedly a Christian value that excuses your behavior. In this case they'd have trouble even doing that though. It would have to be something like "well this woman is a part of the RADICAL left and all they want is for Christians and anything decent to be destroyed!"
Notice how none of that remotely reflects anything Jesus said. If Jesus were alive today, they would 100% kill him for being a RADICAL leftist
she tried to run over the cop and/or thats what he thought when he fired, anyway
Even if this was true, it's honestly irrelevant. You're not supposed to fire upon the driver of a running/moving vehicle period, lest the vehicle become an 'unguided missile' (via dead weight pressing on the accelerator) that can cause who knows how much more damage.
ICE's own rules explicitly prohibit it, I saw someone citing them earlier.
Here are 3 frames, one for each shot... absolutely not in the path danger. And let's just say he was, there's clear case law in that:
A law enforcement officer may not deliberately or recklessly place themselves in a position of danger and then justify deadly force as self-defense when that danger was foreseeable and avoidable.
-Kirby vs. Duva court ruling
They're using the South Park, "They were coming right for us" defense. This is supposed to be a joke, not an actual defense.
And the joke is how obvious of a lie it is.
They'll claim self defense like Shittenhouse but few people realize rule 1 of self defense. Don't put yourself in harm's way.
Even if he was in harm's way, he put himself there.
The full video shows her try to wave them past while she's trying to pull out into the lane and then they get out of their unmarked vehicle, with guns and masks, and one immediately approaches her vehicle and reaches inside to unlock and open the door.
That's a carjacking or a kidnapping and anyone in their right mind would try to pull away.
There's an undeniable racial component, yeah, but there's also the very real fact that those suffering past abuses were broadly in a different category from the majority of ordinary (white and white passing) American citizens, creating the illusion that they themselves were safe, or could choose to be safe by keeping their heads down.
As soon as the victim is in a position that you yourself could easily find yourself in (like dropping your kid off at school in a residential area), and you can imagine that you might make the same choices (like trying to leave a dangerous situation safely), your own safety is under direct threat.
A lot of people were sad, angry and outraged before, but now they're scared.
Yeah, acknowledging the racial component is fine, but the OP frames it in a much more productive way than @RedSnt@feddit.dk.
I have personally given the speech about how your white skin won't save you from the ICE thugs. They're not checking documentation. There's no judge. And if they don't care about proof of citizenship, why do you think they'd give a fuck about the color of your skin? That's not much of a shield.
But this one is different, and it's not just race. "Could easily find yourself in" hits the nail on the head. It's not just that she's white; it's that you can tell what she was doing. She was turning around to leave, allowed traffic to go in front of her first, and then allowed the truck to pass before she went, not knowing the unmarked truck was ICE.
She wasn't on the front line of a protest. She wasn't living in a barely habitable apartment complex struggling to scrape by. We should, and often do empathize with those people as well, but they're not as relatable.
Race might be a good chunk of why it's so easy to empathize, but it's not the only reason. Renee Good's crime was turning down the wrong street.
Why would there be? Conservatives get shot by the police all the time and we just laugh at them. People say you'll care when it's in your neighborhood. Well they're in the suburbs now and we still have plenty of people claiming that anyone attacked by federal agents is an agitator.
The last big white riot we had was Jan. 6 so I wouldn't really be banking massive social position change on conservatives getting upset at other conservatives.
The outcry is still limited because the woman shot appears to be in a gay relationship (a lady declaring herself as her wife was on scene at the murder).
So most conservatives are still unable to empathize nor see this as 'one of their clan' at risk, even though it was a white person.
It'll take a MAGA-hat-wearing white guy being shot by ICE before they start to worry about the new SS.
For real, if this happened to me, I would hunt and kill ICE agents for the rest of my days. Which probably wouldn't be long
The only, only reason that the civil rights movement worked was because they had black panthers backing them up. Without threat of violence peaceful protests dont work.
Google "radical flank effect"
Edit: to clarify this is in support of ops comment. What they're talking about is called the radical flank effect.
For those of us that are lazy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_flank_effect "The radical flank effect refers to the positive or negative effects that radical activists for a cause have on more moderate activists for the same cause." "Greater differentiation between moderates and radicals in the presence of a weak government.[2][13][14]: 411 As Charles Dobson puts it: "To secure their place, the new moderates have to denounce the actions of their extremist counterparts as irresponsible, immoral, and counterproductive. The most astute will quietly encourage 'responsible extremism' at the same time." "
Or just use any other better search like Bing or duckduckgo. googol sucks and was never any good; quit pushing garbage.
Going to take me a lonnnng time to retrain my brain to not use "google" as a verb. I need to swap to the generic "search" or something
Edit: I didn't realize, but am not at all surprised, that "google" is officially a verb in the Merriam Webster dictionary
Or we make Google the generic term for searching something online and they lose the trademark.
They might be, depending on their region.
I only know what a q-tip is because I've seen americans say it online.
And while Kleenex is a brand over here, you'd get a slightly funny look if you asked for 'a kleenex' rather than 'a tissue'.
Velcro is definitely used here though, and so is googling, but variants of 'look it up' are more commonly used because it's more generic.
I use google as a generic verb to search for something on the internet
Kinda crazy that in a space where we are concerned about a armed and masked gunman murders a woman in cold blood, as we wonder how to best cope and move forward - people will still argue about search engine choices.
This is bullshit. The Civil Rights Movement worked because people couldn't argue in favor of the relentless violence inflicted on non-violent protesters.
This entirely modern bullshit is propaganda designed to incite violence today.
For the past two hours, you've been arguing against gun rights. Which is okay - you do you. Not everyone should own a gun. We all see the stats.
But you do realize the white woman who got executed didn't incite violence?
And you do realize that at the height of police brutality during BLM violence - armed BLM protesters stood peacefully to protect the disenfranchised, protesters like yourself - the normally aggressive police behaved?
We get it. YOU don't like guns. But when they're shooting unarmed white women who don't incite violence, a lot of people would prefer to keep their guns with them right now.
When will it be enough that people actively start opening fire on ICE the second they pull out to their street? This is getting ridiculous. Not even white women are safe.
The problem is that's when he "gets" to declare Marshall Law and take over the government and the military.
So far, judges have denied him access to military even though he keeps screaming about terrorists and buildings burning, when really there are people in frog costumes and people with whistles.
Hitler took control of German government and military the second a building caught fire. This is likely what he's trying to make happen.
Elections happen this year that could generate some congressional power challenges against his orders with more urgency. How much hope do I have that elections even happen? Will several red states change last minute election rules and post office cancel ballot deliveries or straight up replace federal electors again? Will he make up a fake excuse to end elections or arrest opponents? Who knows. Once he steals power instead of having it with legitimacy is when gloves have to come off. In the meantime it has to stay peaceful. We dug this hole ourselves at this point.
At some point you have to say enough is enough instead of coming out with this stupid ass excuse.
"we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” - Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts
I don't think people calling for restraint understand what we're up against.
It's pretty stunning how they talk like terrorists and abusers and people just go with it.
But I guess I know from experience that conservative culture has a lot of "shut up and deal with it" conditioning. And not like "practicing stoicism is good for you" dealing with it. It's more like "know your place, respect your betters, and shut your mouth."
Trump can declare war without even telling congress about it. What makes you think he needs something real in order to "declare martial law"? At what point are you going to decide that NOT FIGHTING BACK is actually helping these people trample you?
He's already stolen power. He's admitted multiple times that they rigged the election.
Trump said, on camera, "I was president, then I wasn't. Then they rigged the election and now I'm president again." That's slightly paraphrased because I don't care to listen to him talk again if I can avoid it, but the wording wasn't ambiguous.
He admitted to it a few more times, but that was the most blatant one.
*Martial Law
Trump is going to declare Marshall Law anyway. Fighting back will only accelerate it. Regardless, Marshall Law isn't a real thing in the United States. Although that won't stop the president in the high castle.
He is allowed to take over state militaries in emergency situations. I also agree that I think he's going to make up an excuse and do it anyway at some point before elections.
A lot of what he is getting away with is stuff that Congress could block. It's their appropriate money he's using, but they're all his tools right now so they don't fight back and just let him do it.
He's gonna do that anyway come midterms, no?
I wouldn't hold out hope for the vote saving us. https://youtube.com/shorts/Y7b4r1FIG-A
Man known for lying. Says a possible lie. More at 11
Do you really think this is as bad as it can get?
Bro fix your spelling. Your point is good and Marshall is HEAVILY undermining your content.
Hopefully soon
Here's the video. NSFW.
Yeah.... That's entirely fucked.
Guy wearing tac gear with a police branding on him, no badge in sight and covering their face like a common thug. Shoots unarmed woman in vehicle while she was trying to exit the situation in any way possible.
The only part of this that I'm thankful for is that her death was probably quick and relatively painless. Everything else about this screams hostile takeover.
I mean, that's not new, we've been seeing similar bullshit forever, brought to the spotlight previously by the BLM movement. They're just not discriminating against only POC. Now it's anyone who isn't them.
I know this is just emphasizing it but I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything other than anti-black rhetoric.
Like, I can believe that a genuinely ignorant but well-intentioned liberal thought “all lives matter” was valid because they were more concerned with being nice than real justice, but “white lives matter” could never be anything other than racist.
All Lives Matter is a perfectly fine position to have, just like thinking that all genders should be treated equally.
The problem is when you try to use that position to say that people aren't allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.
"all lives matter" is a reaction from misinterpreting "black lives matter" as "only black lives matter", rather than its real declaration of "black lives matter too".
that's why "all lives matter", well-intentioned as it may be, is an issue.
It would be lovely if everyone took the time to explain that as nicely as you. Thanks!
It's not nearly as present in discourse as it used to be, but it wasn't too long ago that it felt like so many people had internalized the idea that saying "all lives matter" was 100%, no room for nuance, a dogwhistle for racist people who somehow really meant "white lives are the only lives that matter". Maybe it was for some racist assholes.
I just felt like focusing on any one skin color was limiting. I wasn't against BLM, I wanted even more!
I'd argue the "issue"/fault for the misinterpretation lies squarely in the poor wording of "black lives matter". You can't blame people for misunderstanding what is, objectively, a very vague message.
Not only is "black lives matter" vague, but its whole impetus, police brutality, isn't even present in that phrase. You're supposed to just magically know it's about police treatment of black people.
Or you could, you know, ask people what they mean when they say it...
"All Lives Matter" is a dishonest racist dogwhistle every time it's used. The fact that all lives matter goes without saying -- literally, it doesn't need to be said. It is not a neutral/symmetrical response to "Black Lives Matter" because "black lives matter" actually does need to be said!
Not every time. I believe that all lives matter, and that the BLM movement is perfectly valid.
I believe that all genders should be treated equally and that the feminist movement is valid as well.
And there are absolutely people who believe that in order to achieve "equality" one group has to be drug down and treated the way the marginalized group was. There are people who honestly believe it's impossible to be racist against white people, or that men can't be victims of sexism.
As I said, the problem is when you use your broad belief to say that others can't focus on a more specific one.
Sure, you believe that all lives matter, so does blm, but are you going to put that on a sign in the United States? Because in the US that phrase is practically exclusively used in response to blm, to dismiss black discrimination. It's not a phrase that can honestly be taken at face value
Not every time. I believe that all lives matter, and that the BLM movement is perfectly valid.
Believing it is one thing. Using it as a retort to someone saying "black lives matter" is entirely another.
The fact that all lives matter goes without saying – literally, it doesn’t need to be said.
Neither does "black lives matter", to the vast majority of people. It makes perfect sense for the typical person hearing that phrase for the first time to react with confusion. If you explicitly say "black lives matter" to someone, you are, whether you realize it or not, implying to that person that they are racist enough that they don't believe the lives of black people have value.
If I made a point of telling you "you know, the earth is round", that implies that I believe that you don't already believe that (otherwise, why would I be saying it to you?). So a response fueled by confusion/indignance from you would make perfect sense.
people aren’t allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.
I honestly don't understand why there needs to be segregation (pardon the pun) of effort based on immutable characteristics of the victim. Police brutality, for example, is a problem regardless of the victim, and it takes equal effort to call out and protest etc. against it as a whole as to do so with only one demographic of victim in mind.
When it comes down to it, the action is really what matters, not the motive. Let's say a white guy is murdered by unjustified 'overzealous policing', and a black guy is murdered the same way, but only the latter was motivated by racism. Well, they're both dead for no good reason, and I don't see how one can objectively consider the former case as somehow less atrocious than the latter just because there wasn't racism involved.
The behavior is the true problem, and the only thing focusing on specific motivations for that behavior does, is divide people against each other, that should be in solidarity.
It's because the behavior disproportionately affects certain demographics, and it's more efficient to focus on one. Plus, depending on the demographic you might tailor your approach to the issue specifically to it.
It's kinda like saying, "Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?"
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
You wouldn't charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
it’s more efficient to focus on one [demographic].
No, it literally is not.
Explain how this supposed efficiency manifests, since you disagree. How does focusing on one race of victim reduce police brutality more than focusing on police brutality itself, which takes the exact same amount of effort?
It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”
This is a false analogy, because cancers are too different to be accurately described as having a single shared fundamental cause to 'attack' with research.
A better analogy would be if someone was arguing for gun control by focusing on only cases where the bullet hits a certain body part. In this analogy, I am the one saying "why aren't we just focusing on the guns themselves, who cares where people are getting shot, the important thing is that they're getting shot!"
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
But there is no conclusive evidence that a criminal charge being 'enhanced' as being a hate crime, versus a non hate crime, has had any measurable impact at all on the incidence of said crimes, it's basically just an ego stroke that doesn't actually accomplish anything.[^1]
[^1]: In fact, it arguably makes things worse, as it gives bigotry within the justice system a stealthy tool of discrimination. I did some cursory poking around that seems to show that black people charged with violent crimes are more likely to have 'hate crime enhancements' attached to their charges than white people are. All other factors being equal for the sake of argument, this leads to longer average sentences for black convicts than white, for the same crime.
What's the difference between a murder that's a 'hate crime' versus one that isn't, really? Is the latter victim any less deceased? Is the latter perpetrator any less deserving of punishment?
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
It should be a factor insofar as whether the crime is deliberate or happenstance, but not beyond that (i.e. whether there IS motivation, but when there is, not WHAT the motivation is). Hot Fuzz satirizes (maybe not deliberately, but coincidentally at least) this well, I think—the townspeople are murdered by the cult for absurdly trivial reasons, like having an annoying laugh. Should that triviality lessen the severity of the crimes?
You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
Right, hence my clarification that the existence of motive makes a difference, but within the umbrella of 'motivated crimes', what the motive is should make no difference. I say all 'motivated' murders are equally heinous, whether the victim was killed because the murderer is bigoted against their race, or because they hate how the victim laughs.
I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything
Deliberately out of context, not to misquote you but to say that but this part of the sentence rings true for me, lol. I have never seen "white lives matter" expressed in any significant capacity. Probably saw it written or heard it said less than 10 times since BLM started as a named thing.
Honestly would like to see a white lives matter movement come out of the ladies death. That’s the second time a white woman has been shot and killed by cops that I can recall in the past little while (I assume it happens way more often but that’s two pretty high profile cases).
The FULL UNEDITED VIDEO is undeniable.
She starts to pull out of her parking spot, sees the oncoming pickup truck and stops, then waves at it to pass, like we've all done a million times. Two MASKED MEN with FIREARMS get out of the UNMARKED PICKUP TRUCK and one immediately approaches her vehicle and reaches inside to forcibly unlock and open the door, and that's when she tries to pull away, which anyone in their right mind would do if two masked men get out of an unmarked vehicle with guns and try reaching into your vehicle.
Most sources are only showing the video starting as soon as she tries to pull away, leaving many Americans totally unaware that, for no reason, instead of passing her, they decide to get out of their vehicle and forcibly open her door to pull her out. Again. Masked, armed, and in an unmarked vehicle.
White supremisist kill white people who don’t tow the line and they always have. It’s nowhere near the level that black people face but it happens. In construction white people get blackballed for standing up to discrimination so i imagine that there’s economic consequences for this behavior elsewhere too. I think our entire system is set up to punish those who don’t uphold this system of oppression
To an extent, yes, but it has gotten much worse recently.
Fascism is colonialism turned inward.
For Good.
I don't understand, is there a video of this to watch? Because I'm not seeing it or a link to it.
Trump has already become Hitler no.2. Funny thing: German citizens were not innocent, they let Nazis do evil (assuming the holocaust actually happened). Hitler didn't kill (many) people, his army of regular people did, and bystanders would rather not risk their shitty life for a better one (stopping them).
Same thing here, history repeats. I wonder if this comment will survive. Trump is evil, can you not see it? Can you not stop it? It will be much worse if you don't, think about the future: yours, your children's.
Guns can be dangerous but I'd happily live with people and risk being shot than being enslaved and only a baseball bat or a shovel to protest with. They fuck with you even if you do a peaceful protest.
We are left no choice. We do not forgive. We do not forget... they should expect us, but they don't, and we fear the confidence they have. Prepare yourselves!
Victors write history. History is a bunch of stories, past is what actually happened
If I won a World War, I would be more than capable to make several made-up scenes.. the budget for that massive, of course.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm only saying that we can't know for sure. Lets say it didn't happen... what if Nazis' ideology was super successfull, but they lost the war?
Regimes and masters would naturally do their best to bury possible massive success, they want us to be their slaves in all ways possible, this is documented everywhere, you only need to spare a open eye and see it. I mean the rish and flourishment of the German Economy... some people consider it to be one of World Wonders... so yeah.
WHAT IF? What if the ideology was too successfull (German economy is one of proofs for that)? What if most of Nazi's evils didn't actually happen? Maybe I'm just having a creating theory buzz.. but what if?
They truth is that in order to perceive truth, we usually resort to vision and hearing. And it's not hard to do mass control on press, people, news, etc. if you're a fucking nation
Not sure which comment to go with here.
The "white lives matter" people are split because the cop is also white (and she almost ran him over).
Turns out you don't have to be black to get shot when running from (and nearly over) the cops. BLM supporters shocked.
BLM is shocked that white people don't support one of their own when they do something wrong just because they're white.
I could almost call you all morons for jumping to a very biased reading of the facts, though of course Trump went schizoposting on twitter to do the same thing.
a very biased reading of the facts
Go take a long fucking look in the nearest mirror.
WTF are you talking about?
Ashli babbitt got into a political protest about election fraud. She decided to climb over a barrier while a cop was pointing a gun at her and got shot.
This lady got into a confrontation with cops trying to make a tiktok video and shouting like a Karen. She decided to slam the gas on her car while an officer was in front pointing a gun at her and got shot.
yikes
@sh.itjust.works
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
go to feed...
@sh.itjust.works
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
go to feed...
save