Comment by ceejayoz

Comment by ceejayoz 5 days ago

> He's already been stuck and dragged by a vehicle in a previous incident, so he's well aware it's a weapon, and he has good reason to fear it.

That's one take. Another is that he needs serious remedial training as he's put himself in a stupidly risky spot in direct violation of ICE policies at least twice now.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20260108/118805/HMKP...

"ICE officers are trained to never approach a vehicle from the front and instead to approach in a “tactical L” 90-degree angle to prevent injury or cross-fire, a senior Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News."

sejje 5 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View 4 replies

ceejayoz 5 days ago

Your take: "He's trained to do exactly what he did."
Facts: He's actually trained not to do what he did (twice).

Reply View | 3 replies
- sejje 5 days ago
  
  That's not what you quoted when you called it my take.
  Now that you've got an actual take, I can respond:
  He was trained to respond to deadly force with deadly force. That's what I'm talking about, the shooting. It was by the book.
  Where he positions himself is about his own safety, nothing to do with whether he should pull the trigger or not.
  He won't be found liable or guilty of anything.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  ceejayoz 5 days ago
  
  > He was trained to respond to deadly force with deadly force.
  We have plenty of footage of the Good shooting, including clear footage showing the tires pointed away from him.
  > Where he positions himself is about his own safety…
  He placed himself in a dangerous position, in direct contravention of ICE policy on the matter. At least twice!
  > He won't be found liable or guilty of anything.
  Sure, but that's not because he shouldn't be.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  sejje 4 days ago
  
  The clear footage we have is of the car hitting the agent. The car starts moving, when previously stopped, in violation of a lawful command, and travels directly into an agent. He can't see the tires from his viewpoint, so that doesn't influence his actions. He was hit by a car and returned fire.
  You want him to be found guilty of a policy violation? Do you think there's real consequences for that?
  He's not guilty of a crime. Look at some legal analysis or something, it's not hard to find.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies