Why shoot her?
To kill her
Because he’s a power-tripping Fascist. That’s it. He thinks he can kill people and get away with it, and so far, he’s right.
The argument used by law enforcement in these situations is that a car is a deadly weapon, and so it’s justified to kill the driver if you fear they may use the car to kill others. So, the cop just says they feared that and they’re allowed to use lethal force.
Because she wasn’t angry or scared. She was chill and was getting out of their way. He got angry the she wasn’t given him the satisfaction of acting angry or scared, like he wasn’t a threat to be feared. So the fixed that, he showed us who he really is.
This is not his first video recorded kill. He killed Silvero Villegas-Gonzales in September.
The fact we don’t know who did that murder is wild. We deputized a bunch of murderers and we’re telling them they have absolute immunity.
Further pushing away tourists of any kind, the trump admin sure hates the hospitality industry…
Rage, a lack of morals, a lack of training, and a lack of consequences.
Tell any asshole “Here’s a gun, you can do whatever you want, they all hate you. Again, you can do anything.” Surround that asshole with other assholes that are told the exact same thing. See what happens.
Because the goal was always to kill her.
A report by experts studied incidents from Jan 2010 to Oct 2012 and found US Border Patrol agents stepped in front of vehicles 67 times to justify shooting drivers. Results were 19 deaths.
Jonathan Ross worked for US Border Patrol from 2005 until 2015.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-killings-20140227-story.html
How stupid must one be to stand in front of a stopped car? Don’t they teach them anything before they let them out on the street?
They teach them to be paranoid and shoot first and ask questions later.
Don’t they teach them anything before they let them out on the street.
Possibly not. If feel like that’s been brought up in the news before.
Or maybe it’s just a one time class or a video, and people do get complacent. Or maybe he’s just a fucking dumbass and a bully. There’s a clear pattern of highschool bully-style confrontation and escalation in many of the videos we’re seeing, and standing there is as good a way as any to do just that.
These goons want people to be afraid of them, and act as if they believe that intimidation is a forcefield of some sort, like if they’re enough of a threatening asshole that it’ll mean they never get hurt.
The whole “act like a scary hardass and people will comply” strategy relies on shock and the tendency for people to freeze up and get rattled when suddenly confronted with a threat from authority or power. They want people to go all deer in the headlights when they get in their face and comply without a fight, or if you fight you’re off guard and rattled and there’s less of risk to them so they just get to wait on you for a while. It’s gratifying for bullies when things are one-sided like that, it makes them feel powerful and righteous. In terms of getting what you want from people, it works well… up to the point that it doesn’t.
After that point it’s one type of catastrophe or another.
ICE admitted that an alarming number of their recruits barely know how to read and write, and you expect this guy to remember the Deadly Force Triangle?
He shot her because he’s an untrained fascist thug who joined the modern Gestapo to put his boot on the necks of his fellow Americans. He shot her because he wanted to.
He shot her because he’s an untrained fascist thug…
This isn’t even true, he fought in the Iraq war and has been in ICE for nearly 20 years. He is trained and experienced and he knew exactly what he was doing.
…who joined the modern Gestapo to put his boot on the necks of his fellow Americans. He shot her because he wanted to.
Bingo.
He shot her because he’s an untrained fascist thug…
This isn’t even true[:] he fought in the Iraq war
I think we’re learning why selection criteria for infantry and for police-wannabe organizations is different.
You’re right. The criteria for law enforcement is lower. They take the military rejects.
ICE are a domestic terrorist organization. A modern gestapo, meaning they’re a secret police force with full reign and absolute immunity to do whatever they need to do for the bidding of their Fuhrer, Pedolf Diddler.
Fuhrer, Pedolf Diddler
I’m stealing that.
Because he’s an ICE agent, which is to say, a poorly-trained, violent moron.
They’re brownshirts. Nazis. Outlaws in every meaningful sense. Their agenda is death. Yours, unless you join them. And maybe even then.
That’s just the facts. What you do about it is up to you.
Right and wrong doesn’t exist anymore.
It’s now right and left. When someone on your team is killed, it’s a tragedy, when someone on the other team is killed, it’s to be celebrated.
No morals, just agendas.
Fucking sick.
This post reads like you’re trying to “both sides” a cold blooded murder comitted by a member of a fascist goon squad.
It was actually inspired by reading the online comments of people defending her killer.
Cool. You still both-sides a cold blooded murder
Oh, I get it now. You’re triggered because you’re exactly who I was talking about. You don’t give a fuck about cold blooded murder. Your goal is to villainize people.
I don’t need to prove my devotion to the cause to earn your approval. Go ahead and cause more violence and claim it’s different when you do it, or sit in the safety of your home and complain that nobody else is doing what you’re afraid to do yourself. Depending on which version of agitator you are.
Uhh… What
Do we have to villainize someone that purposely murdered a woman? Isn’t that already self-evident?
It certainly should be.
Maybe word your comments a little better next time then.
One side is really trying to start a civil war, you have to add.
To be honest, WE probably want a civil war more than they do right now.
I think very few people ACTUALLY want a civil war, Trump included. It’d be a whole lot easier for him if everyone just complied and let him do what he wants. He’s more than willing to deal with a civil war, but if it happens, it will be because he’s gone too far (as if he hasn’t already) and the first “act of war” is going to be from the left in retaliation.
Again, not saying it wouldn’t be justified, but the White House would rather ease us into compliance than fight a war.
I suspect civil trouble was their agenda to get more boots on the ground to start with (whilst they can keep fiddling around, as Rome burns).
It also takes eyes off the Epstein files.
In Washington state we have strong laws against hot pursuits for example to prevent police murders.
