Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson has a plan to use the Seattle police to fight ICE.

Seattle mayor announces plan to block ICE activity, use police to verify federal agent IDs

https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-mayor-announces-plan-to-block-ice-activity-use-police-to-verify-federal-agent-ids-immigration-enforcement-arrest-detention-protest-funding-taxpayer-defense-lawsuit-legal-illegal-safety-community-trump-katie-wilson-public-space-city-owned

But the police union says:

SEATTLE - The Seattle Police Officers Guild is refusing to cooperate with a recent directive from Mayor Katie Wilson ordering officers to investigate and document ICE activity in the city.

"Toothless virtue signaling rhetoric like this has already cost two people their lives," wrote Solan. "The concept of pitting two armed law enforcement agencies against each other is ludicrous, and will not happen. I will not allow SPOG members to be used as political pawns."

https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/seattle-mayor-police-guild-ice-directives

Note: I worked for the City of Seattle when they had the serial paedophile as mayor, who was only elected because the Seattle Times refused to print the allegations of a victim who had come forward to accuse Ed Murray when he was a state senator. It wasn't until the 7th victim came forward that the mayor finally resigned.

[AmosArch]

I agree that ICE should be have someway to be verified and should wear bodycams. Wouldn't want some random pretenders taking advantage of the situation. Other than that both ICE and local police should work in sync. The police don't have to actually assist ICE on their specific task of course but they have a fundamental duty to uphold law and order in their area including the ones ICE is operating in. Their failure to do so whether by incompetence or the malice of outside politicians is what lead to the deaths and chaos.

[Kazinski]

ICE should have identification numbers that can be used to report abuse, but the information should be closely held to prevent doxxing, including by federal judges.

in closely related news the Chief of LAPD says his department will not be enforcing Newsom's anti-masking law against ICE:

"From a practical standpoint, our role when we get to a scene is to de-escalate the situation, not to ramp it up," McDonnell said. "Trying to enforce a misdemeanor violation on another law enforcement agency, that's not going to end well. And that's not going to be good."

"From a public safety standpoint for anybody in that environment. Potentially you have a crowd that could be agitated and trying to get their point across," he added. "And then you have the ICE agents who are doing their job. And for us to come in then and try and create an enforcement action for wearing a mask, it's not a safe way to do business."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/lapd-chief-defies-newsoms-mask-ban-federal-immigration-agents-citing-safety-concerns

[Commenter_XY]

What happens when an urban police union decides to work 'hand in glove' with another urban Mayor on something like that Seattle EO? That is big trouble.

[AmosArch]

I'm noticing a couple of key narrative details people including even a few supposedly conservative leaning pundits are getting wrong about the Pretti shooting at this late point. Presumably because they are relying on almost criminally misleading MSM reports and edited video footage which far more available that more complete videos that are very hard to find in comparison. Sadly these lies are beginning to be solidified into an official historical narrative.

1. The protestor lady at the beginning is implied to be a complete innocent bystander since the MSM stories and reports skip her initial interference and almost universally just state that he was attempting to help her. Very few point out that she was blocking and blowing a rape whistle in the agents ears and possibly doing other things that weren't captured on camera.

2. Few MSM reports mention that Pretti entered the fight intentionally. Most imply that he was attacked by ICE, sometimes outright implying he was just on the sidelines observing. Even now most of the videos just start off at the struggle. When in reality he was blocking ICE in the middle of the road at the beginning and then actively approached and interfered with the ongoing fight.

3. Its implied by almost all the reports that it was self evident to everyone in the universe that he was just helping the lady protestor up, but actually might not have really been that obvious. Several commentators were actually confused looking at the video in isolation since it appeared he might be attacking or trying to use her as a human shield. Its only after you see the entire interaction unobstructed (which several agents might not have given all the people flailing around) that you might come to that conclusion and then again how can you really trust what is in the mind of an armed belligerent man flailing wildly or simply not instinctively respond to what looked like an attack?

4. Almost all leftwing, most 'centrist', and even some 'rightleaning' commentators imply that we should use the Computer Analyst POV standard for this incident and the Renee one : Where you can sit at your desk and flip through multiple angles, zoom in, playback, and AI enhance footage at your leisure before you determine what is wrong/right thing for an agent to do. When obviously its absurd to hold law enforcement on the streets to that sort of standard and its never been like that. It seems stupidly obvious and there are some bad faith actors but some people seem so genuinely dim they are just going along with it.

[bloocow2]

1 and 2 are irrelevant to what happened, 3 is speculation, and 4 is... you have actually watched the videos, right? He's on the ground, they take his gun off him, and *then* shoot him. You think it's absurd to hold law enforcement to the standard of "don't shoot a person lying prone after you have disarmed them"? Seems like a pretty low standard to me.

And it literally does not matter what his intentions were, unless he was waving his gun around (which he was not). It does not matter whether he was interfering or agitating or entering a fight intentionally, or what kind of person he was, or what you think about the kind of person he was. None of those crimes are punishable by death, and death is what he got.

Have you ever thought that it might be you who is getting things wrong? That the reason people are more united than usual on this incident isn't because they're acting in "bad faith", but because they accurately see what's in front of them and don't like it?

[AmosArch]

1 and 2 are irrelevant to what happened, 3 is speculation, and 4 is... you have actually watched the videos, right? He's on the ground, they take his gun off him, and *then* shoot him. You think it's absurd to hold law enforcement to the standard of "don't shoot a person lying prone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If by 'lying prone' you mean continuing to struggle against law enforcement and in a kneeling position poised to get back up. I guess you are the one who didn't watch the video. Even if he was lying prone which he wasn't he's still a threat until he stops struggling. A prone person can easily still pull a gun an agent thinks is there.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
after you have disarmed them"? Seems like a pretty low standard to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well the agent missed that. Sorry he doesn't have eyes on the side of his head to see everything or the ability to pause time and zoom around the scene. People actually present in the thick of a complex fight often miss things, even things that are easy for people in desks on a computer playing videos to spot. Thats why the legal precedence has never been what you can see and infer as a computer analyst with multiple angled videos and analysis tools. Its what you can reasonably be expected to see and infer as an officer on the scene. And multiple past cases like Alton Sterling and Philando Castile clearly absolve ICE. Sorry, most officers aren't robocop nor can they be expected to be. Luckily you don't have to hop into an ongoing fight with multiples of them armed at least in this case.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And it literally does not matter what his intentions were, unless he was waving his gun around (which he was not). It does not matter whether he was interfering or agitating or entering a fight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you enter into a hostile confrontation intentionally with multiple distracted armed officers busy with another struggling suspect, especially with a weapon even if holstered and tons of other distractions like rape whistles screaming simultaneously. Then you open yourself up to possible harm based on what the cops perceive as danger even though cops like all humans have very limited perception. Thats the way it is and has been for as long as there has been modern policing. There are no guarantees of 'fairness' for the suspect in the sense that a timeless supercomputer is watching to make sure an officer acts in the 'right way' as a timeless supercomputer can perceive it because thats logistically impossible.

Don't like it don't intentionally enter a hostile confrontation with multiple distracted armed officers busy with another struggling suspect, with a weapon even if holstered and tons of other distractions like rape whistles screaming simultaneously. Unlike the disarming this is something that was almost certainly seen.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out he had his hands up, was saying "Don't Shoot" and "I can't breathe"

[bloocow2]

Duplicate post