Minnesota ICE Watch teaches members to 'resist' agents
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 10 months ago • 32 commentsBy: Natalie O'Neill (New York Post)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
ICE Watch — the leftist activist group that slain Minneapolis mom Renee Nicole Good was part of — is dedicated to tracking and "resisting" immigration enforcement operations through apps and a rapid response hotline.
The local branch in which Good, 37, was involved, Minnesota ICE Watch, bills itself as "an autonomous collective documenting, archiving, and resisting against ICE, Police, and all Colonial Militarized Regimes," according to its Instagram page.
It encourages activists to report "tips and sightings" of ICE agents 24 hours a day, seven days a week, according to the Instagram account, MN ICE Watch.
Group organizers instruct people to report sightings with details about "how many agents are present" and if "they are detaining/ kidnapping someone" along with where, according to the Instagram page.
They also ask activists to describe "what weapons" agents are carrying along with "what vehicles are they present with."
A recent re-post also promotes training on "how to stand with…neighbors and assert their rights against these illegal injustices across MN and the rest of the Midwest!"
The group — which has chapters across the country, including in New York City — appears to stop short of directly instructing activists to interfere with arrests.
The Minnesota branch, however, reportedly promoted a post on Instagram that described how to "de-arrest" a person.
The post, which appeared to have been removed Friday, advised "physically removing an arrestee from a law enforcement officer's grips, opening the door of a car or pressuring law enforcement officers to release an arrestee," according to the conservative magazine National Review.
Other posts include video footage described as an ICE "kidnapping" at 3:20 p.m. on Jan. 2 in Fridley, Minn.
"ICE/Fed agents appear to pull up to the citizens driveway blocking his exit. The ICE/Fed agents open his door detaining and remove him from the truck," the post declares. "Appears to be 3-4 vehicles, and 6 ICE/fed agents."
Good, who was described as an ICE Watch "warrior" by a friend, was fatally shot by an ICE agent after her SUV clipped him Wednesday.
Tags
Who is online
58 visitors
The facts are beginning to come out.
Renee was not quite the way her mommy claimed.
So now you are trying your best to demonize this woman.
This ICE agent killed this woman. Do you not even care? Where is the sense of human decency?
The agent was clearly not in fear of imminent death, and that is the only exception to the rule of ' do not fire on a moving vehicle '. If he thought so, he could have simply stepped further away from the vehicle.
Instead, he used his time to pull his firearm, ready his position, fire into the corner of the windshield, reposition and then fire into the driver's window.
I suspect that in a court of law, the attorney representing Good will illustrate the time it takes to merely step aside and ensure one is out of the path of a car that is just starting to move and compare this to the time it takes for an agent, while holding his cell phone in his left hand, to draw his weapon, ready his aim, fire, position to the driver's window and then shoot point blank at the driver.
He chose to kill this woman rather than follow protocol and step aside. He was not in imminent danger of death as evidenced by the indisputable fact that he had time to kill this woman and that afterwards, he walked down to inspect his kill and then walk back. Obviously unharmed.
If you believe a car that is just starting to move might clip you, do you take a step to ensure you are clear of the path, or do you take more time and kill the driver?
No TiG, I'm just chronicling the facts as there roll in. As I said I'm waiting for the investigation to be completed. You are the one drawing conclusions.
There is also the film from the ICE Agent's cell phone which Megyn Kelly pointed out. It has recently been released by Alpha News:
Alpha News obtains new footage of ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis | Alpha News MN
Then why are you ignoring the most obvious facts?
Megyn Kelly's representation defied reality. It was spin trying to bolster the lies from the Trump administration.
Since you cannot or will not recognize that, your claim of 'just the facts' is demonstrable bullshit.
Of course they don't.
Asking for human decency from Trump supporters is like asking a blind person from birth to tell you what color something is. They don't even know how to comprehend what human decency is let alone express some.
SO much for the "wrong place, wrong time" lies being pushed by professional liars like Adam Schiff.
Imagine if our source of what happened was old media. Independent media and twitter have exposed so many b.s. narratives the last few years...
My one and only thought about this seed is "so what?".
Good could be hiding 20 illegal immigrants in her basement and it wouldnt matter. This incident is about this incident, not what group she did or did not belong to.
The incident includes everything that led up to it.
No, it does not matter what the agent experienced in his past. What matters is that he is NOT supposed to fire on a vehicle except under threat of imminent death. That if he truly thought that this woman who had just started to move her vehicle, with tires pointed to the road, was going to try to kill him, then he should have taken his time to simply step aside to whatever he considered a safe distance. Instead, he chose to pull his weapon, ready his aim, fire through the corner of the windshield, all while holding his cell phone. Then he fired again point-blank into the driver's window.
All this time to kill this woman in a slow moving vehicle turning onto the road could have been used to simply step aside ... and that is protocol.
see @1.1
If you believe a car that is just starting to move might clip you, do you take a step to ensure you are clear of the path, or do you take more time and kill the driver?
No.
The question is whether the agent felt his life was in danger. I'm sorry, but I can't get into his head.
No, it matters if the agent reasonably believes his life is in danger.
Reasonably is operative. It means that there must be good reasons in the specific circumstances for a rational person to believe they have an imminent threat of deadly force.
What are the rules for officers shooting at a moving vehicle?
Wow, now feelings are carte blanche excuses for murder. This will be bad when you consider the enormous percentage of snowflakes that make up this version of ICE.
It may come down to if the jury felt he reasonably felt his life (or others) was in danger. The fact we can't get into his head is probably the reason law enforcement is often given the benefit of the doubt.
Which is not a crime.
How about blocking traffic, resisting arrest or using a motor vehicle as a weapon?
See, right here, you are parroting the Trump administration's complete bullshit which is directly contradicted by reality.
No TiG, it is you who are saying that she didn't try to hit the Agent.
All I'm saying is that I'm waiting for the facts.
Blocking traffic - if such was happening here - would likely be an infraction under the local vehicle code, and beyond the jurisdiction of anyone working for the federal government.
Arrest for what? Blocking traffic? It is not the mission of ICE to arrest people for violating local traffic laws. And in any event, it’s generally the kind of thing which would only draw a ticket, not an arrest.
Furthermore, in most instances with which I am familiar, resisting - under the law - cannot be passive behavior as we saw here. It generally has to be some act to physically interfere with an officer doing his job or an officer’s attempt to arrest. Here, we see a woman just sitting in her car, actually conversing with an agent who is recording her on video. There is no arrest being attempted and no resisting happening.
That’s a stretch and requires ignoring everything else in context. The reporting I have seen is that she was sitting in that position for at least a few minutes with agents walking around. If she was trying to use her vehicle as a weapon, she wasn’t making much of an effort.
Only when she was suddenly attacked by another agent who was grabbing at her door, did she attempt to move the vehicle, and the first direction she went was in reverse. If she were trying to hit the agent in front of her car, why did she back up?
And then she turned the wheel to the right to go around him. Then he shot her.
You are not paying attention. You are ignoring what you do not want to hear.
I have stated that her car was moving slowly towards the road with her wheels proving this. I have then stated the obvious:
This ICE agent killed this woman.
The agent was clearly not in reasonable fear of imminent death, and that is the only exception to the rule of ' do not fire on a moving vehicle '. If he thought so, he could have simply stepped further away from the vehicle.
Instead, he used his time to pull his firearm, ready his position, fire into the corner of the windshield, reposition and then fire into the driver's window.
I suspect that in a court of law, the attorney representing Good will illustrate the time it takes to merely step aside and ensure one is out of the path of a car that is just starting to move and compare this to the time it takes for an agent, while holding his cell phone in his left hand, to draw his weapon, ready his aim, fire, position to the driver's window and then shoot point blank at the driver.
He chose to kill this woman rather than follow protocol and step aside. He was not in imminent danger of death as evidenced by the indisputable fact that he had time to kill this woman and that afterwards, he walked down to inspect his kill and then walk back. Obviously unharmed.
If you believe a car that is just starting to move might clip you, do you take a step to ensure you are clear of the path, or do you take more time and kill the driver?
Why on earth would we do that? S/
Ignoring facts is not the same as 'waiting for facts'. 'Waiting for facts' is a bullshit excuse because the facts as shown go against what one desires.
Ignoring conjecture and confirmation bias is not the same as ignoring facts.
My sincere hope is that those that already "know" the answer and feel no more investigation is necessary are not on the possible jury. Obviously their objectivity is non existent. That is not how our judicial system is supposed to work. I wonder why the hurry for some folks to draw a conclusion. Makes me question their motivation.
I desire a full investigation, a fair grand jury determination and a fair trial if it comes to that. What do you desire?
That’s not happening. DOJ is not investigating this at all, and they are not letting Minnesota authorities have access to evidence. After years of high and mighty talk from the Feds about cooperation to catch dangerous illegal aliens, there is zero cooperation when an American citizen is shot to death.
So what is plan B?
I do too. But the difference is that you are using this as an excuse because you clearly cannot put forth facts and reasoning that shows this agent was even remotely justified in using deadly force.
You can kick the rhetorical can down the road, but you are not fooling anyone.
Now you are just making stuff up because it seems I made you look bad
What evidence do you see, considering even just what has posted here on NT, that this woman deserved to be killed?
Sigh.
Seems you have gone from making stuff up to getting me to defend a position I never stated.
Have your last word, you are not fooling anyone and I a done
You of course deflect, as usual.
This does not state a position, it asks you to weigh in and establish a position:
You, of course, refuse to do so.
I'm beginning to realize why The Second Amerndment was and still is so important to the rights of Americans. Perhaps if the Jews in 1930s-1940s Germany had the right to own guns to resist the Gestapo, things might have been a little better for them.
I'm realizing it too every time I recall the Tiananmen Square protests.