What if that "anti american sentiment" is just a more sceptical mindset and there is actually alot to critize about trump/usa.
Want to play a game? I give you quotes/actions from trump and you have to reason why he still is eligible for office. Gosh, i'd wish this was a game show. The longer you make it, the more price money is to win. 'Grab'em by the facts!' and the top price is your very own 747 plane.
You are making a quantitative argument with "X too many", not a qualitative one like "too severe crime". This reveals a certain thing about you. I guess you would make it far in that game show.
Then lets call this special license something like:
No-you-still-dont-have-to-pay-but-any-AI-use-is-restricted-license.
1
This way, everyone knows, its not as free as the MIT license and has absolutely no relation to it. /s
Ofcourse you can specialize existing licenses with limited paragraphs and reflect that in their names...
I think you're missing the point of the MIT License and its history. If you want a proprietary license, "specializing" the MIT License for that is silly. My grandmother could specialize as a bicycle if I added wheels to her.
Yes, the MIT ought to be as broad, free and compatible as possible and is imo targeted to counter copy left licenses but this permissiveness can be also a problem, so specializing it into something like a tagged creative commons license can be a reasonable effort. It depends on the problem/topic of restriction and how narrow or well defined they are.
It gets quite clear, when you change the setup a little bit.
1) Make the PO a regular human without a gun and you can imagine, that any normal person would have made just a quick sidestep to avoid collision, like most of us have experienced in person too. Use of force was totally unjustified, esp. when you combine it with:
2) Change the intetion of the driver to really want to harm the person ~2m in front of the car. Cop get trained, that you should not use your gun on close encounters with knives, bc the short distance <5m will give you not enogh time to stop a knive attacker reliably. If you stand that close infront of a car, a short but strong tab of the pedal would have been enough to get you, no matter how fast you draw your gun or how good your aim is. To me, it is clear that she never ment to hit anybody, the acceleration does not indicate it.
It is _very_ obvious. 2/3 shots hit the side of the car and the front wheel _never_ pointed at the PO.
Focusing on the minutiae of how the victim reacted when she was already well into fight-or-flight mode is a red herring.
Real police officers [0] are trained to deescalate situations. Because needlessly turning up the heat results in very bad outcomes for everyone involved.
Meanwhile, these ICE "officers" aggressively created and violently escalated a situation arising from a traffic infraction at best [1]. They didn't even follow their own procedures, crafted not out of any type of restraint with concern for the public, but merely pragmatism whereby shooting someone does not stop a moving vehicle.
Thus, responsibility for how the victim reacted in her moments of panicked terror rests completely on them - and it's perfectly understandable that when a bunch of masked armed thugs are trying to carjack you, the natural response is trying to get out of there as quick as possible regardless of if that means hitting any of the attackers.
[0] as much as they themselves are statistically quite trigger-happy and are often criticized by actual soldiers who are used to stricter rules of engagement,
[1] ignoring the equity of a citizen exercising her natural right to observe and document the activities of her government, and the fact that ICE has no mandate to police traffic infractions
I would agree with this more if Renee was just a random person that ICE decided to give a hard time. But in this case, it was her decision to become involved and attempt to obstruct the officers from doing the job they explicitly have the authority to do [1]. Also in this case Renee is the one who made the first life threatening action. The fight-or-flight situation is her own doing.
People should protest but there are clearly very stupid ways of going about it.
[1] the streets are not the place to decide whether that authority is legitimate, ethical, moral, etc.
Can you elaborate on specifically what she did to "attempt to obstruct the officers", ideally with a source that isn't just hearsay or seemingly outright fabrication (eg the administration) ? 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 because frankly I've got more pressing things I need to get done rather than frying my nerves for several hours from watching someone get assaulted and murdered. I'm open to the idea that the media hides inconvenient details, but it's an awfully large distance to clear to go from something that sounds like civil Constitutionally-protected observation and criticism of government agents, to she was actively physically obstructing them. So I'm skeptical of such claims, especially given this administration's tendency to disingenuously characterize things like mere filming as a type of obstruction.
(also please elaborate on what you mean by "the first life threatening action". 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?)
Not sure if there anything definitive. I got the impression that Renee and her wife were positioning their car specifically to impede ICE, going off of what I saw from the interaction in the second video I linked in my original post. Does not look like any normal traffic interaction to me, but I could be wrong. This seems like a detail that will be easy to definitively verify or disprove once more information comes out.
So to be clear, you haven't actually seen any definitive evidence that her goal was to physically impede ICE, yet you're jumping to that strong conclusion based on how she stopped the car? Why wouldn't you assume she was merely turning her car for a better filming/viewing angle, sparing us all from having to view one more video with an A-pillar smack in the middle?
> Renee and her wife were positioning their car
What do you mean they both were? Was it a drivers' ed car with pedals and steering wheel on both sides? Is co-driving some kind of lesbian thing I don't know about?
Listen, I assumed good faith here. I use some pretty strong language to condemn this regime and its cheerleaders, but I personally had been steelmanning Trump up through June of 2020 (when it had fully set in for me that he was dividing rather than leading us through Covid). I really want to be mistaken here - it would be fantastic to find out that my country actually isn't being taken over by fascists, right? I welcome anybody that convinces me this isn't the case!
But trying to discuss these events in an intellectual manner, it seems I always end up seeing these telltale signs of motivated reasoning - in this case casually mentioning a detail ("her wife") that has seemingly zero bearing on the situation, yet what it does do is emphasize her identity as part of an outgroup. Now like everything, I could be misjudging here. Perhaps I've jumped the gun and you've got some very valid reason why that little detail, and only that little detail, is relevant. Please do enlighten me.
Sorry, had a sentence mangled due to some editing, should have read “due to Renee’s positioning of the car, and her wife’s interaction with the officers”.
As for my biases: I don’t care for Trump, I like some things he does, I hate others, but I do think illegal immigrants are a problem.
Did her wife leave the car at any time? Or are you talking about verbal interaction, which is most likely Constitutionally-protected criticism of government agents? (such verbal interaction would also indicate a clear reason for the positioning of the car)
Or is there something specific in the verbal interaction that establishes a mens rea to physically impede? If so, please quote it. (not that her wife's words establish a mens rea for Renee, but it might be a stepping stone)
FWIW I'm ambivalent on illegal immigration itself. But I will say that people who think they are finally getting somewhere on illegal immigration are being taken for a ride, just as they have been for the past few decades.
Specifically in the officer POV video (2nd link in my original post), with how the car was positioned, and that Renee’s partner was walking around outside and was not in the car, and the style of the back and forth dialog between, Renee, her partner, and the officers, all served to give me the impression Renee and her partner were there for a while, and weren’t just “passing through”. Again, I am willing to admit I might be wrong, it’s possible they were in the middle of an awkward, u-turn. I think we will know the clear truth of at least this aspect of the situation sometime soon, seems like a thing that would be easy to verify or disprove with how many videos must have been recorded.
We had been talking about whether they were physically impeding ICE agents, but now you're framing things as if being "there for a while" would be a problem in and of itself. Meanwhile in America it is every citizen's right, and perhaps even duty, to observe and criticize government agents. To be very clear: stayed stopped on the street [0], observing, filming, and heckling government agents is all Constitutionally-protected activity.
Moving the goalposts to unsupportable standards ("middle of an awkward u-turn" ?!?) makes it hard to assume good faith.
And furthermore, ICE has body cameras. Surely if there was footage of ICE agents actually being impeded, it would have been widely publicized by now. Instead, we've only heard wild assertions claiming they were. And with the reputation of this administration, it's only reasonable to assume those are bald-faced lies.
[0] when done in furtherance of other Constitutionally-protected activity and not being policed in line with normal traffic enforcement
I never said the U-turn was the only acceptable reason that they could be there, I only mentioned it because it was the most innocent possible reason for Renee to be there that I can think of.
In these cases, isn’t it usual for evidence to be kept out of the public eye until after all relevant court trials are done?
Also, just to be very clear, I am not saying ICE shot Renee because she was being a nuisance. I am saying she got shot because she made an intentional and almost lethal maneuver at the ICE agent with her car.
Sorry, I shouldn't have referenced the u-turn as the changed goalpost when my real qualm was the other end of characterizing "being there for a while" as a problem.
> In these cases, isn’t it usual for evidence to be kept out of the public eye until after all relevant court trials are done?
Do you actually think that is what is being done here in any sense, what with the release of the body cam footage and the immediate assertive statements by the government?
> Also, just to be very clear, I am not saying ICE shot Renee because she was being a nuisance. I am saying she got shot because she made an intentional and almost lethal maneuver at the ICE agent with her car.
This is just restating where we started our argument. There are many instances of because here, so the only way to sort through them is to make a clear distinction between what is and what ought:
If we're talking about what is, then yes I think we can all agree that Renee would have been better off if she had not tried to drive away. Renee would have also been better off if she had remained quiet, passively observed, not mouthed off to violent men with guns, and if she still somehow ended up drawing aggro, the moment that started happening she should have driven off before she was anywhere close to boxed in. Even if you are right, you can still be dead.
But if we're talking about what ought, as in, what should a citizen in a free society based around individual liberty and limited government ought to have the right to do, without suffering repercussions (especially high-stakes escalation summary judgement repercussions) from the government? I would say that's a pretty high bar centered on physical aggression. No amount of exercising your first amendment right to criticize the government by heckling its individual agents, nor just generally being a verbal nuisance, justifies a high-stakes escalation by "public servants" (being surrounded and assaulted) whereby one imprudent move results in death.
And as far as our argument here, you haven't really presented anything showing that her actions were in the aggressively violent camp, as opposed to the Constitutionally-protected nuisance camp. I'm open to evidence of violent aggression, but all I have generally seen about this situation consists of naked assertions and innuendo.
I have nothing specific to add, but just wanted to thank both of you for trying hard to have a productive conversation about a contentious topic despite disagreeing. It's nice to see people leading by providing positive examples rather than screaming at each other.
My whole point is that this isn’t true. Look at the first video I linked, in the first couple of seconds, the cop is in front of the bumper, the cars wheels are still pointing slightly to the left, on their way to center, as she guns the engine. The loss of traction on the icy road is the only reason the PO had a chance to jump out of the way (but apparently by the NYT analysis, he might have been still hit). And at this point he is correct to think the driver is dangerous and might harm somebody.
ICE has routinely done this to protestors, on film. Are you saying those occurrences were attempted murder and ICE should be prosecuted?
If it's an offense worthy of a mother being murdered and a child orphaned, extrajudicially on the street, then surely the much lighter sentence of imprisonment for attempted murder by ICE officers would be called for, all things being the same, correct? At the least they should be tried and taken to court, wouldn't you agree?
There was another incident last month in Minneapolis where ICE ran down a citizen with their car [1]. Do you agree that the appropriate response in that situation would be to respond with lethal force in accordance with your previous stances here?
Now, why do you think ICE agents are not being taken to trial? Why do you think the federal government is doing all that they can to protect them? And why are you, specifically, working overtime to give them the benefit of the doubt?
And my point is, apply regular human behavior to the scene. Drivers know the ground they are on and the acceleration curves of their cars. Arguing over split seconds to derive a malicious intention of the driver is cherry picking. We all know those near collisions we dodged closely from own experiences, thats why its so easy for us to imagine such an outcome in that video, which was prob her expectation too.
Alright, at the very least, can we admit that there is an argument to be made here? The innocence or guilt of the officer does seem to hinge on some fine details, I’m just surprised that anybody is already claiming with certainty that this is or isn’t murder.
Its messy for sure. POs are allowed to use force to stop violent/aggressive suspects in cars, so he might get cleared of the coming murder charge. We will see.
The bigger picture isnt messy at all though. Deescalation is usually the way to go with protestors because they usually dont have harmful intent. This intention seems to be completely missing, from the exexutive layer down to officers in the streets.
It is incomprehensible to me how the 2nd and 3rd shot from side window would not count as murder. A neighborhood isn't war zone where a sign of disobedience is a fair kill. Blasphemy of 1st amendment.
At that point, its not libertarian anymore, its identitarian. The victim was from an outgroup so anything goes, including your values around liberty out the window.
Identity politics is at the core of conservativism and what ever is good for, or part of your group or yourself is just by nature and good for society. This tribalistic bias skews your reasoning, because we apes have evolved to sustain our own group or ourself. As social animals, we have externalized our self-preservative drive onto the tribe we live in and this bias drives libertarians to these comments and why there is such a significant overlap between religion, racists (group oriented) but also libertarians (individual oriented), etc. The big political divide is between people who are more vulnerable to such identity based biases and people who are lesser so.
The best argument for democracies, are their possibility of peaceful revolutios and this problem might become very relevant for china too.
You can compare the early US with present china. Both countries had/have great potential for economic growth, and everything went well for its citizens as long as the pie got bigger. The interests of the elites and the working class were aligned by that. Once the interests of these two groups diverge, democracies become relevant again. That's why the tech oligarchs are so afraid and politically engaged, to distract us with the have-nots below us.
Today, china just has the better aligning plan, while the west is struggling to keep it's democracies. IMO any reasonable trajectory for sustainability and social stability is a contradiction to western elites, who cannot think outside their status quo, while china just builds it. I really wish china well and that they dont develop such an arrogant international stance like the west.
Ask Alex Jones about his free speech on Sandy Hook to understand how bad (EU) censorship really is!
Jokes aside. Restriction of freedoms, including speech, is not bad by definition, it's the scale and intention behind it that matters but this aspect is always missing, kind of censored, in public debate. You may downvote me now :-)
Edit: In the same sense, Alon does not cry about specific and obviously unjustified cases of EU censorship on X.
... and the reason why the US doesnt pass strong federal privacy laws is, the tech oligarchy has stronger lobbies or political ties in the US. It could be the other way around, if the US had a weaker tech sector and was leaking wealth/data to the EU, they could be protectionist. This is the common denominator. I disagree with your angle, that the EU is more corpo-sceptical, they are the same, just different lobbies.
Want to play a game? I give you quotes/actions from trump and you have to reason why he still is eligible for office. Gosh, i'd wish this was a game show. The longer you make it, the more price money is to win. 'Grab'em by the facts!' and the top price is your very own 747 plane.
reply