Comment by CMay

Comment by CMay 5 days ago

14 replies

View on Hacker News

Being on the ground doesn't remove any potential that he could be dangerous.

I don't know why he was being beaten on the ground, that seemed a little excessive. Not sure how many times he was shot, but generally if law enforcement ever makes the determination to shoot they do it to shoot to kill.

They knew he had 1 gun, so he could have 2 guns. The officers don't see the angle most of the camera angles see. They see the perspective they see, from themselves. That is the perspective that will matter by law. What situation were they in and what did they see when they made their decision?

You have the luxury of seeing a perspective the officer did not see, and the officer has the luxury of seeing a perspective you did not see.

People who are in favor of throwing the officer's life away without knowing all of the details are doing basically doing exactly what they're accusing the officer of in suggesting that he threw away this person's life without knowing all the information.

I don't know what Kristi Noem is on about, but she's a political appointee and not an investigator.

spacechild1 4 days ago

> Being on the ground doesn't remove any potential that he could be dangerous.

When the shots were fired, he was restrained by several agents and did not pose any immediate threat.

> Not sure how many times he was shot

It was ten shots, fired by two agents. That is a lot of shots.

Yes, the shooting itself was very likely an accident by grossly incompetent agents. (You can hear an agent shout the word "gun", which probably triggered the other agents to immediately start firing.)

However, it was the ICE agents who started the very situation that led to this tragedy: One agent violently pushed a women from behind. Why? Alex tried to help her and he immediately got peppersprayed in the face. Why? Then he was wrestled to the ground. Why? Then he was beaten to the head. Why?

All these actions are already outrageous in themselves. It is worrying how police brutality has been normalized in the US.

It is pretty rich to blame Alex when it was really the ICE agents who started this whole mess!

In fact, the videos are so damning that even Stephen Miller had to backpedal and admit that these agents "may not have been following proper protocol".

> I don't know what Kristi Noem is on about, but she's a political appointee and not an investigator.

What confidence do you have in DHS to lead an independent investigation of their own people?

Reply View 13 replies
  • CMay 4 days ago

    It's not clear from any of the videos that he did not pose any immediate threat, even though people keep saying that. Saying it doesn't make it true. Even if your honest perspective is that this is the case from the camera angles you've seen, that isn't necessarily what the officers see. What the officers see matters in cases like this. They can only make decisions based on the information they have.

    It may very well be an accident, miscommunication, or people even misinterpreting some of the things shown in the video. We'll find out eventually.

    It could be argued that both the activists and the officers contributed to the situation getting to where it was. The activists shouldn't be following them around and harassing them, even if it is legal to do so up to a limit. The officers should have kept their cool, even with the whistles. The activists shouldn't have broken the law, whether the officers broke their protocol first or not.

    Do not harass anyone who has a gun if you aren't willing to accept the risk that it could escalate into you losing your life. If he went in knowing that risk and accepted it, then he went out doing what he believed in. If he was misinformed that he was entering a safe situation where his life wasn't at risk, then he was lied to.

    It's not rich to blame Alex at all. That doesn't mean it's entirely his fault or that his own mistakes justify his death, only that if you're going to make a string of mistakes don't choose that moment to be when you are harassing people who have guns. If anything good comes from this being so public, it'll be that if people do choose to harass law enforcement at least they can learn to be safer about it.

    These officers know that the second they kill someone they will be unmasked. They don't get to kill people and remain anonymous. Each officer has a gun assigned to them and they know which bullets came from what gun. Generally, if an officer kills someone, it's because they felt justified in making the decision. They'll have to sort out what that justification was, even if it involved a chain of mistakes by the officer or other officers that created a cascade.

    > What confidence do you have in DHS to lead an independent investigation of their own people?

    I do not have any particular positive or negative opinion about DHS or their capacity to investigate. It has to be better than the local justice system there.

    What I do know based on past performance is that Minneapolis courts have severely underserved justice. I think JD Vance referred to them as kangaroo courts. Not sure if that's precise or accurate by whatever definition, but I would never trust their court system.

    Reply View 12 replies
    • spacechild1 4 days ago

      > It's not clear from any of the videos that he did not pose any immediate threat, even though people keep saying that.

      So where do you see the potential threatening behavior? When the agent shoots Alex in the back, he is kneeling on the ground and being restrained by several agents. He has not acted in a threatening manner before the shooting nor did he physically attack the agents. The DHS report does not mention any threat either and they have already reviewed bodycam footage.

      > Do not harass anyone who has a gun if you aren't willing to accept the risk that it could escalate into you losing your life.

      As long as you're not attacking an officer/agent with a weapon, that risk should be very close to zero. Otherwise you're sending a very chill message to the general public.

      > I do not have any particular positive or negative opinion about DHS

      So you have no issues with the initial statements by Kristi Noem, Greg Bovino and Stephen Miller?

      Reply View 11 replies
      • CMay 3 days ago

        > So where do you see the potential threatening behavior?

        If you are laying hands on officers, leaning your weight against them, not obeying their commands, asking them to assault you (verbally, potentially), resisting arrest and struggling on the ground, that string of behavior should concern anyone. Imagine you AREN'T a police officer and someone is behaving that way to you. Of course you'll be on guard more than if it was just someone walking down the sidewalk with their bag of groceries.

        Being on the ground does not mean you can't be a threat. As far as an officer might know, he could have a second gun holstered under his jacket that he could reach for. When someone is that uncooperative, it is very reasonable to throw away assumptions that they aren't a threat to you.

        Whether what the officers experienced justifies escalating to lethal force I don't know, but that is what they'll have to find out.

        > As long as you're not attacking an officer/agent with a weapon, that risk should be very close to zero. Otherwise you're sending a very chill message to the general public.

        So, if an officer hasn't been shot in the head first, they shouldn't react? Guns can come out quick and kill a person almost instantly. There's very little time to react. That is why officers request people to listen to what they say and respond reasonably so you don't put them in a situation where they miscalculate your threat level. This is true even if you're not dealing with an officer. Someone doesn't have to be a threat and they don't even have to have a weapon, but if you have sufficiently justifiable reason to believe based on their behavior and actions that they are posing an imminent threat to you or others, you can often justify shooting them. You don't have to like that, but if you ever do need to defend yourself, you would be glad the laws are like that. Otherwise people who defend themselves end up becoming a victim twice where they survive an attack and then end up in prison just for legitimately defending themselves.

        > So you have no issues with the initial statements by Kristi Noem, Greg Bovino and Stephen Miller?

        I don't really know what any of those people were saying, but whether they are right or wrong doesn't justify everyone else being wrong by making false claims. If you want to be better, then don't try to be better by becoming the very people you disagree with.

        Reply View 10 replies