Renee Nicole Good/ Alex Pretti/ Minneapolis

tbergs · January 10

As a resident of Minnesota and someone who works by downtown Saint Paul, I can tell you the metro area is chaos this last week. ICE is all over the fucking place every day. Every school is having to post staff outside, plan for the worst if they come to their parking lots and try to manage staff who are fearful of both going to work and navigating to their homes. It's completely insane and seems clear to me that the goal is to destroy Minnesota and break the liberal metro area. This is a Trump revenge tour style attack against a governor and state that he lost 3 times, but still has the nerve to say he actually won. Frey may have been harsh with his language, but for anyone living and working in the Twin Cities area, the intent of ICE is very clear, create fear and suppress the liberal leaning cities population. They would love nothing more than to declare Martial Law and send in the military. Why this doesn't scare every American is beyond me. The script is flipped and the Don't Tread on Me crowd has become the tread heavily apologists. I don't think the George Floyd riots even come close to being as scary as what federal agents are doing in Minnesota right now. It is like living in a war zone and yet we're all supposed to continue with our normal lives somehow. The collective trauma is immense and beyond comprehension.

If I could easily leave this country, I would in a heartbeat. It's disgusting right now.

brianlux · January 10

tbergs said:

As a resident of Minnesota and someone who works by downtown Saint Paul, I can tell you the metro area is chaos this last week. ICE is all over the fucking place every day. Every school is having to post staff outside, plan for the worst if they come to their parking lots and try to manage staff who are fearful of both going to work and navigating to their homes. It's completely insane and seems clear to me that the goal is to destroy Minnesota and break the liberal metro area. This is a Trump revenge tour style attack against a governor and state that he lost 3 times, but still has the nerve to say he actually won. Frey may have been harsh with his language, but for anyone living and working in the Twin Cities area, the intent of ICE is very clear, create fear and suppress the liberal leaning cities population. They would love nothing more than to declare Martial Law and send in the military. Why this doesn't scare every American is beyond me. The script is flipped and the Don't Tread on Me crowd has become the tread heavily apologists. I don't think the George Floyd riots even come close to being as scary as what federal agents are doing in Minnesota right now. It is like living in a war zone and yet we're all supposed to continue with our normal lives somehow. The collective trauma is immense and beyond comprehension.

If I could easily leave this country, I would in a heartbeat. It's disgusting right now.

Thank you for sharing this hard reality, T. I am both angry and on the verge of tears reading this. I've only been to the Twin Cities area once, but it's a part of our country, it your home, it's home to some of my favorite bands, it's a part of who we all are. I'm terribly sorry you have to live with this on a daily basis.

Halifax2TheMax · January 10

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

g under p said:

This video to me is the essence of what ICE has been put in power to do. To straight up inflict FEAR to ALL Americans. Give it to a look as to what happened to a paster moments after Renee Good was killed.

https://youtu.be/PyncB-hBhMo?si=tB-2v0hEWPKGRlGR

Her famous last words: I'm NOT MAD AT YOU.
I hope we never forget those words.

✌️

Wake the fuck up America. Only the very wealthiest or someone who is one of the hired thugs, are likely to be immune to this kind of treatment. The rest of us (people of color, of course, more so) are at risk of intimidation, harm, or even death.
Tell me this is doom saying. Tell my this is hyperbole. Tell me I'm exaggerating. I don't care. I know that's not true and I know everyone knows it too.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
There really needs to be a nationwide strike. Like millions of ‘Muricans walking off the job, at once, in all sectors of business, public/private, government/education/healthcare, and refuse to return to work until ICE is withdrawn and Congress puts some checks on this constitution ignoring government. The only way this is gonna change is if the 1% feels it in the wallet.
Planned weekend protests are nice to see and encouraging but they don’t lead to required, necessary change. The 1% laughs at that. We need our own BDS and Wall Street, tech bros and the 1% need to feel it in their wallets.
One can dream because we’re living the nightmare and it may already be too late. Waaaaaaaay too late.

I'd like to go back to what you said that I put in bold for a minute. I think that's a very good point. I've done several of the protests (but not today due to health issues), and they are encouraging, but I think you are right-- I don't think they've moved the needle anywhere nearly enough. And I wonder at what point do they/will they become highly dangerous? A general strike sounds a lot more effective. But how likely is it that enough people would participate? I'm not even sure what the predicted percentage of participation for it to be effective is. Any idea?

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

I think I read something somewhere around the No Kings protests written by a researcher of social protests/movements who stated that they drew 1-2% of the population and as great as that was and looked, inspirational, etc., successful social movements require 7-9% of the total population to be out in the streets.

3.4M to 6.8M versus 23.8M to 30.6M. We haven’t seen numbers anywhere near that. However, a well planned, national strike that targets the 1%’ers wealth generation and subsequent impacts on those not participating, could reach those numbers and have an impact. Those in charge and who benefit the most from the status quo won’t change until it impacts them financially. Safety in numbers.

It’s a long shot because the US doesn’t have a history of nationwide strikes, but it’s possible and what might be needed to really shake things up. It’s not just about the folks out on strike but the range of folks ultimately impacted who put pressure on their elected representatives and POTUS to do something. There’s more of “us”, bottom 90%, than “them”, top 10%. Would the US military fire on or detain 23M peaceful citizens protesting? Remains to be seen. Again, safety in numbers.

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that the gun nutters aren’t already taking on the government. And I know it wasn’t really about 2A and tyranny to begin with. I’m not stupid. Well, maybe.

Halifax2TheMax · January 10

tbergs said:

As a resident of Minnesota and someone who works by downtown Saint Paul, I can tell you the metro area is chaos this last week. ICE is all over the fucking place every day. Every school is having to post staff outside, plan for the worst if they come to their parking lots and try to manage staff who are fearful of both going to work and navigating to their homes. It's completely insane and seems clear to me that the goal is to destroy Minnesota and break the liberal metro area. This is a Trump revenge tour style attack against a governor and state that he lost 3 times, but still has the nerve to say he actually won. Frey may have been harsh with his language, but for anyone living and working in the Twin Cities area, the intent of ICE is very clear, create fear and suppress the liberal leaning cities population. They would love nothing more than to declare Martial Law and send in the military. Why this doesn't scare every American is beyond me. The script is flipped and the Don't Tread on Me crowd has become the tread heavily apologists. I don't think the George Floyd riots even come close to being as scary as what federal agents are doing in Minnesota right now. It is like living in a war zone and yet we're all supposed to continue with our normal lives somehow. The collective trauma is immense and beyond comprehension.

If I could easily leave this country, I would in a heartbeat. It's disgusting right now.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

If it helps, I’m as angry as you are, if not more so, and I don’t even live anywhere near Minneapolis. My time there when I saw pearl jam was great and I loved the city, particularly the art museum and sculpture garden. What struck me the most was how chill everyone was. I don’t think I could handle the winter though. Stay safe.

mickeyrat · January 11

gemini ai answer on use of force policies

The Department of Justice (DOJ) significantly updated its use-of-force policy in May 2022, marking the first major overhaul in nearly 20 years. These guidelines apply to all federal law enforcement agencies under the DOJ, including the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals.
As of 2026, the core principles of the policy remain centered on de-escalation, the sanctity of human life, and the "objectively reasonable" standard established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor.
Core Principles of the Policy
* Objectively Reasonable Force: Officers may use only the force that is necessary to gain control of an incident while protecting the safety of the officer and others.
* De-escalation First: Officers are required to use de-escalation tactics to gain voluntary compliance before resorting to force, provided it is "objectively feasible" and does not increase the danger.
* Affirmative Duty to Intervene: Officers have a mandatory duty to step in and stop any fellow officer from using excessive force.
* Duty to Render Medical Aid: There is an explicit requirement for officers to provide or request medical assistance immediately for any person injured during a use-of-force incident.
Key Restrictions & Prohibitions
| Tactic | Current DOJ Policy/Status |
|---|---|
| Chokeholds | Prohibited unless deadly force is authorized (i.e., imminent danger of death or serious injury). |
| No-Knock Warrants | Strictly Limited. Federal agents must "knock and announce" unless they have reasonable grounds to believe it would create an imminent threat of violence. |
| Moving Vehicles | Prohibited to fire at a moving vehicle solely to disable it or if the vehicle is the only threat (unless the vehicle is being used as a weapon to cause death/injury). |
| Fleeing Suspects | Prohibited to use deadly force solely to prevent escape; there must be an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others. |
Use of Deadly Force Standard
The DOJ defines the use of deadly force as a last resort. It is authorized only when the officer has a "reasonable belief" that the subject poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.
* Self-Harm: Deadly force should not be used against individuals who are a threat solely to themselves or to property.
* Verbal Warnings: If feasible, a verbal warning must be given before deadly force is applied.
* Warning Shots: These are strictly prohibited.
Training Requirements
To ensure these standards are met, all DOJ officers must undergo annual training that includes:
* Simulated shooting situations.
* De-escalation techniques.
* Judgment-based training for less-than-lethal and deadly force scenarios.
Would you like more specific information on how these policies differ for a particular agency like the FBI or the U.S. Marshals?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) use-of-force policy is closely aligned with the DOJ’s standards, following a major update in February 2023. These rules apply to over 80,000 law enforcement officers across agencies like CBP (Customs and Border Protection), ICE, the Secret Service, and TSA.
As of 2026, the policy emphasizes that the authority to use force is a serious responsibility that must be exercised with respect for the "sanctity of every human life."
Core Standards
* Objectively Reasonable: Force must be "objectively reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances. This is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 hindsight.
* De-escalation Requirement: Officers must use de-escalation techniques (such as verbal persuasion, tactical repositioning, or creating distance) to reduce the need for force, provided it is "objectively feasible."
* Proportionality: The level of force used must be proportional to the seriousness of the threat or the resistance encountered.
Key Restrictions & Requirements
| Tactic/Duty | Policy Status |
|---|---|
| Chokeholds | Prohibited (including carotid restraints) unless deadly force is authorized (imminent threat of death or serious injury). |
| No-Knock Warrants | Strictly Limited. Agents must "knock and announce" unless they have reasonable grounds to believe it would create an imminent threat of violence. |
| Moving Vehicles | Highly Restricted. Shooting at a moving vehicle is prohibited unless a person in the vehicle is using deadly force (other than the vehicle itself) or the vehicle is being used as a weapon and no other safe option exists. |
| Fleeing Suspects | Prohibited to use deadly force solely to prevent escape. It is only authorized if the escapee poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury. |
| Duty to Intervene | Mandatory. All DHS personnel have an affirmative duty to step in to stop excessive force and must report it to their chain of command. |
Recent Developments (2025–2026)
* Medical Aid: There is a reinforced requirement to render or request medical assistance immediately following any use-of-force incident once the scene is safe.
* USCIS Special Agents: In late 2025, DHS authorized a new class of USCIS Special Agents with the power to carry firearms and use force, bringing them under these same departmental standards for the first time.
* Body-Worn Cameras: DHS has continued to expand the mandate for body-worn cameras during "pre-planned" law enforcement operations to increase transparency in force incidents.
Agency-Specific Nuances
While the DHS overarching policy sets the "floor," specific components often have additional guidelines:
* CBP/Border Patrol: Focuses heavily on "kinetic impact" tools and maritime-specific force rules.
* Secret Service: Includes specific provisions for protective missions where the immediate safety of a protectee may alter the "imminent threat" calculus.
Would you like to see the specific de-escalation tactics listed in the 2023/2024 DHS manuals, or are you interested in a specific agency like Border Patrol?

mickeyrat · January 11

mickeyrat said:

gemini ai answer on use of force policies

The Department of Justice (DOJ) significantly updated its use-of-force policy in May 2022, marking the first major overhaul in nearly 20 years. These guidelines apply to all federal law enforcement agencies under the DOJ, including the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals.
As of 2026, the core principles of the policy remain centered on de-escalation, the sanctity of human life, and the "objectively reasonable" standard established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor.
Core Principles of the Policy
* Objectively Reasonable Force: Officers may use only the force that is necessary to gain control of an incident while protecting the safety of the officer and others.
* De-escalation First: Officers are required to use de-escalation tactics to gain voluntary compliance before resorting to force, provided it is "objectively feasible" and does not increase the danger.
* Affirmative Duty to Intervene: Officers have a mandatory duty to step in and stop any fellow officer from using excessive force.
* Duty to Render Medical Aid: There is an explicit requirement for officers to provide or request medical assistance immediately for any person injured during a use-of-force incident.
Key Restrictions & Prohibitions
| Tactic | Current DOJ Policy/Status |
|---|---|
| Chokeholds | Prohibited unless deadly force is authorized (i.e., imminent danger of death or serious injury). |
| No-Knock Warrants | Strictly Limited. Federal agents must "knock and announce" unless they have reasonable grounds to believe it would create an imminent threat of violence. |
| Moving Vehicles | Prohibited to fire at a moving vehicle solely to disable it or if the vehicle is the only threat (unless the vehicle is being used as a weapon to cause death/injury). |
| Fleeing Suspects | Prohibited to use deadly force solely to prevent escape; there must be an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others. |
Use of Deadly Force Standard
The DOJ defines the use of deadly force as a last resort. It is authorized only when the officer has a "reasonable belief" that the subject poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.
* Self-Harm: Deadly force should not be used against individuals who are a threat solely to themselves or to property.
* Verbal Warnings: If feasible, a verbal warning must be given before deadly force is applied.
* Warning Shots: These are strictly prohibited.
Training Requirements
To ensure these standards are met, all DOJ officers must undergo annual training that includes:
* Simulated shooting situations.
* De-escalation techniques.
* Judgment-based training for less-than-lethal and deadly force scenarios.
Would you like more specific information on how these policies differ for a particular agency like the FBI or the U.S. Marshals?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) use-of-force policy is closely aligned with the DOJ’s standards, following a major update in February 2023. These rules apply to over 80,000 law enforcement officers across agencies like CBP (Customs and Border Protection), ICE, the Secret Service, and TSA.
As of 2026, the policy emphasizes that the authority to use force is a serious responsibility that must be exercised with respect for the "sanctity of every human life."
Core Standards
* Objectively Reasonable: Force must be "objectively reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances. This is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 hindsight.
* De-escalation Requirement: Officers must use de-escalation techniques (such as verbal persuasion, tactical repositioning, or creating distance) to reduce the need for force, provided it is "objectively feasible."
* Proportionality: The level of force used must be proportional to the seriousness of the threat or the resistance encountered.
Key Restrictions & Requirements
| Tactic/Duty | Policy Status |
|---|---|
| Chokeholds | Prohibited (including carotid restraints) unless deadly force is authorized (imminent threat of death or serious injury). |
| No-Knock Warrants | Strictly Limited. Agents must "knock and announce" unless they have reasonable grounds to believe it would create an imminent threat of violence. |
| Moving Vehicles | Highly Restricted. Shooting at a moving vehicle is prohibited unless a person in the vehicle is using deadly force (other than the vehicle itself) or the vehicle is being used as a weapon and no other safe option exists. |
| Fleeing Suspects | Prohibited to use deadly force solely to prevent escape. It is only authorized if the escapee poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury. |
| Duty to Intervene | Mandatory. All DHS personnel have an affirmative duty to step in to stop excessive force and must report it to their chain of command. |
Recent Developments (2025–2026)
* Medical Aid: There is a reinforced requirement to render or request medical assistance immediately following any use-of-force incident once the scene is safe.
* USCIS Special Agents: In late 2025, DHS authorized a new class of USCIS Special Agents with the power to carry firearms and use force, bringing them under these same departmental standards for the first time.
* Body-Worn Cameras: DHS has continued to expand the mandate for body-worn cameras during "pre-planned" law enforcement operations to increase transparency in force incidents.
Agency-Specific Nuances
While the DHS overarching policy sets the "floor," specific components often have additional guidelines:
* CBP/Border Patrol: Focuses heavily on "kinetic impact" tools and maritime-specific force rules.
* Secret Service: Includes specific provisions for protective missions where the immediate safety of a protectee may alter the "imminent threat" calculus.
Would you like to see the specific de-escalation tactics listed in the 2023/2024 DHS manuals, or are you interested in a specific agency like Border Patrol?

The Department of Justice (DOJ) significantly updated its use-of-force policy in May 2022, marking the first major overhaul in nearly 20 years. These guidelines apply to all federal law enforcement agencies under the DOJ, including the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals.
As of 2026, the core principles of the policy remain centered on de-escalation, the sanctity of human life, and the "objectively reasonable" standard established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor.
Core Principles of the Policy
* Objectively Reasonable Force: Officers may use only the force that is necessary to gain control of an incident while protecting the safety of the officer and others.
* De-escalation First: Officers are required to use de-escalation tactics to gain voluntary compliance before resorting to force, provided it is "objectively feasible" and does not increase the danger.
* Affirmative Duty to Intervene: Officers have a mandatory duty to step in and stop any fellow officer from using excessive force.
* Duty to Render Medical Aid: There is an explicit requirement for officers to provide or request medical assistance immediately for any person injured during a use-of-force incident.
Key Restrictions & Prohibitions
| Tactic | Current DOJ Policy/Status |
|---|---|
| Chokeholds | Prohibited unless deadly force is authorized (i.e., imminent danger of death or serious injury). |
| No-Knock Warrants | Strictly Limited. Federal agents must "knock and announce" unless they have reasonable grounds to believe it would create an imminent threat of violence. |
| Moving Vehicles | Prohibited to fire at a moving vehicle solely to disable it or if the vehicle is the only threat (unless the vehicle is being used as a weapon to cause death/injury). |
| Fleeing Suspects | Prohibited to use deadly force solely to prevent escape; there must be an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others. |
Use of Deadly Force Standard
The DOJ defines the use of deadly force as a last resort. It is authorized only when the officer has a "reasonable belief" that the subject poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.
* Self-Harm: Deadly force should not be used against individuals who are a threat solely to themselves or to property.
* Verbal Warnings: If feasible, a verbal warning must be given before deadly force is applied.
* Warning Shots: These are strictly prohibited.
Training Requirements
To ensure these standards are met, all DOJ officers must undergo annual training that includes:
* Simulated shooting situations.
* De-escalation techniques.
* Judgment-based training for less-than-lethal and deadly force scenarios.
Would you like more specific information on how these policies differ for a particular agency like the FBI or the U.S. Marshals?

The DHS de-escalation framework is built on "Slowing the Situation Down" to reduce the immediacy of a threat. While specific tactical manuals are often restricted to law enforcement, the 2023 DHS Use of Force Policy and the 2025 CISA De-escalation Action Guide outline the specific techniques federal agents are trained to use.
Specific De-escalation Tactics
DHS agents are trained to utilize four primary categories of de-escalation during an encounter:
* Tactical Repositioning: Creating physical distance or "shielding" (using cover/concealment) to buy time for communication, rather than rushing to make an arrest.
* Verbal De-escalation (The "Four Pillars"):
* Tone & Volume: Keeping a low, steady voice to avoid matching the subject’s agitation.
* Rate of Speech: Speaking slower to allow the subject time to process information.
* Inflection: Using a neutral or empathetic inflection rather than a commanding/aggressive one.
* Active Listening: Acknowledging the subject's grievances or status (e.g., "I understand you're frustrated, help me understand why") to build rapport.
* Non-Verbal Communication:
* Relaxed Stance: Maintaining an alert but "off-set" stance (not standing directly in front of someone) to appear less confrontational.
* Visible Hands: Keeping hands open and visible to signal that the agent is not preparing to strike or draw a weapon.
* Deliberate Movement: Avoiding sudden or jerky motions that could be interpreted as a threat.
* Environment Management: "Changing the Setting" by removing onlookers or moving the subject to a quieter area to reduce the "performance" element of a confrontation.
Agency-Specific Applications (2025–2026)
CBP & Border Patrol
In the field, Border Patrol agents are now trained in "Calculated Use of Force," which is preferred over "Immediate Use of Force."
* The "Wait and See" Approach: If a subject is barricaded or in a position where they cannot immediately harm anyone, agents are instructed to wait for specialized units (like BORTAC) or negotiators rather than forcing an entry.
* Kinetic Impact Tools: Use of "Less-Lethal" launchers (pepper balls, bean bags) is considered a de-escalation tool in some contexts because it allows agents to resolve a threat from a distance without resorting to firearms.
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)
Following high-profile incidents in late 2025, ICE training has shifted focus toward pre-operational planning as a form of de-escalation.
* Scenario-Based Training: Agents use VR and live-action simulations to practice "backing off" when a situation (like a traffic stop) becomes too volatile, prioritizing public safety over immediate apprehension.
The "Duty to Intervene"
A critical "human" element of the new policy is that a second agent is now legally and policy-bound to verbally or physically intervene if they see a colleague failing to use these de-escalation tactics.
Would you like me to look up the specific training hour requirements for these de-escalation modules in the 2026 DHS budget or training mandates?

As of January 2026, the DHS has significantly ramped up the specific training hours and budget allocations for de-escalation, moving it from a "secondary" skill to a core pillar of law enforcement certification.
2026 Training Hour Requirements
Under the current FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers) and DHS departmental mandates, officers are required to complete the following:
* Initial Training (Basic): New recruits at FLETC now undergo a two-week intensive Use of Force Training Program (UOFTP). This includes dedicated blocks on "Environmental Influence of De-escalation and Decision-Making."
* Annual In-Service (Current Officers): For 2026, the DHS has aligned with modern standards (like the OPOTC model) requiring a minimum of 24 hours of Continuing Professional Training (CPT) annually.
* 8 Hours: Mandatory core topics, including de-escalation and "Duty to Intervene" ethics.
* 16 Hours: Agency-specific tactical training, which must include at least 4–8 hours of Virtual Reality (VR) simulator training focused on split-second decision-making.
2026 Budgetary Focus
The FY 2026 DHS Budget Request includes several major line items specifically for force-related training:
* $397.5 Million for FLETC: This is a $20.3 million increase over 2025. A significant portion of this "Operations and Support" funding is earmarked for 1,130 instructor positions and "Basic Training" tuition ($75.6M).
* VR Expansion: The 2026 plan highlights the expansion of the Virtual Reality Training Bank. By mid-2026, the DHS will have over 27 hours of specialized VR scenarios available for agents, specifically designed to test whether an officer can resolve a threat without discharging a weapon.
* Safer Outcomes Grants: DHS is continuing to fund the "Safer Outcomes" program ($500k+ per grant) to develop "De-Escalation Integration Curriculums" that are being rolled out to specialized units like BORTAC and ICE ERO.
Key 2026 Training Themes
The DHS training philosophy for 2026 has shifted from "Checklist Compliance" to Judgment-Based Training.
| Training Shift | Old Model (Pre-2023) | New 2026 Model |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Procedural checklists (did you follow the steps?) | Behavioral Science (did you read the subject's baseline?) |
| Simulations | Static targets and shooting drills. | Adaptive VR (subject's reaction changes based on agent's tone). |
| Medical | Basic first aid at the end of training. | Integrated Tactical Medical (rendering aid is part of the force scenario). |
| Mental Health | Limited to one specific module. | Differentiated Response (tailored tactics for autism, PTSD, or crisis). |
Specialized Training Week
The DHS Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) is hosting a Law Enforcement National Security Week in March 2026. This event is specifically designed for officers in jurisdictions hosting major 2026 events (like the FIFA World Cup and America250 celebrations) and focuses on "civil disturbance mitigation" with minimal use of force.
Would you like to see the specific 2026 curriculum for a particular DHS sub-agency, such as the Secret Service or CBP?

brianlux · January 11

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

g under p said:

This video to me is the essence of what ICE has been put in power to do. To straight up inflict FEAR to ALL Americans. Give it to a look as to what happened to a paster moments after Renee Good was killed.

https://youtu.be/PyncB-hBhMo?si=tB-2v0hEWPKGRlGR

Her famous last words: I'm NOT MAD AT YOU.
I hope we never forget those words.

✌️

Wake the fuck up America. Only the very wealthiest or someone who is one of the hired thugs, are likely to be immune to this kind of treatment. The rest of us (people of color, of course, more so) are at risk of intimidation, harm, or even death.
Tell me this is doom saying. Tell my this is hyperbole. Tell me I'm exaggerating. I don't care. I know that's not true and I know everyone knows it too.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
There really needs to be a nationwide strike. Like millions of ‘Muricans walking off the job, at once, in all sectors of business, public/private, government/education/healthcare, and refuse to return to work until ICE is withdrawn and Congress puts some checks on this constitution ignoring government. The only way this is gonna change is if the 1% feels it in the wallet.
Planned weekend protests are nice to see and encouraging but they don’t lead to required, necessary change. The 1% laughs at that. We need our own BDS and Wall Street, tech bros and the 1% need to feel it in their wallets.
One can dream because we’re living the nightmare and it may already be too late. Waaaaaaaay too late.

I'd like to go back to what you said that I put in bold for a minute. I think that's a very good point. I've done several of the protests (but not today due to health issues), and they are encouraging, but I think you are right-- I don't think they've moved the needle anywhere nearly enough. And I wonder at what point do they/will they become highly dangerous? A general strike sounds a lot more effective. But how likely is it that enough people would participate? I'm not even sure what the predicted percentage of participation for it to be effective is. Any idea?

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
I think I read something somewhere around the No Kings protests written by a researcher of social protests/movements who stated that they drew 1-2% of the population and as great as that was and looked, inspirational, etc., successful social movements require 7-9% of the total population to be out in the streets.
3.4M to 6.8M versus 23.8M to 30.6M. We haven’t seen numbers anywhere near that. However, a well planned, national strike that targets the 1%’ers wealth generation and subsequent impacts on those not participating, could reach those numbers and have an impact. Those in charge and who benefit the most from the status quo won’t change until it impacts them financially. Safety in numbers.
It’s a long shot because the US doesn’t have a history of nationwide strikes, but it’s possible and what might be needed to really shake things up. It’s not just about the folks out on strike but the range of folks ultimately impacted who put pressure on their elected representatives and POTUS to do something. There’s more of “us”, bottom 90%, than “them”, top 10%. Would the US military fire on or detain 23M peaceful citizens protesting? Remains to be seen. Again, safety in numbers.
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that the gun nutters aren’t already taking on the government. And I know it wasn’t really about 2A and tyranny to begin with. I’m not stupid. Well, maybe.

A general strike seems like the best option. I did a little research and see that several countries have engaged in general strikes, a number of which achieved or at least partially achieved their goals.

No, you are not stupid!

D-Day · January 11

Tim Simmons said:

what says it all about the American divide on this is her last words of "I'm not mad at you" and his first words after killing her "fucking bitch".

I had to check what’s listed after first degree murder in detail and found something suitable

I wonder how to devalue the available video+audio footage without talking nonsense to defend the shooter/killer in this case.

HughFreakingDillon · January 11

tbergs said:

As a resident of Minnesota and someone who works by downtown Saint Paul, I can tell you the metro area is chaos this last week. ICE is all over the fucking place every day. Every school is having to post staff outside, plan for the worst if they come to their parking lots and try to manage staff who are fearful of both going to work and navigating to their homes. It's completely insane and seems clear to me that the goal is to destroy Minnesota and break the liberal metro area. This is a Trump revenge tour style attack against a governor and state that he lost 3 times, but still has the nerve to say he actually won. Frey may have been harsh with his language, but for anyone living and working in the Twin Cities area, the intent of ICE is very clear, create fear and suppress the liberal leaning cities population. They would love nothing more than to declare Martial Law and send in the military. Why this doesn't scare every American is beyond me. The script is flipped and the Don't Tread on Me crowd has become the tread heavily apologists. I don't think the George Floyd riots even come close to being as scary as what federal agents are doing in Minnesota right now. It is like living in a war zone and yet we're all supposed to continue with our normal lives somehow. The collective trauma is immense and beyond comprehension.

If I could easily leave this country, I would in a heartbeat. It's disgusting right now.

sorry to hear that, and thanks for the perspective. That sounds nuts.

mickeyrat · January 11

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

As a resident of Minnesota and someone who works by downtown Saint Paul, I can tell you the metro area is chaos this last week. ICE is all over the fucking place every day. Every school is having to post staff outside, plan for the worst if they come to their parking lots and try to manage staff who are fearful of both going to work and navigating to their homes. It's completely insane and seems clear to me that the goal is to destroy Minnesota and break the liberal metro area. This is a Trump revenge tour style attack against a governor and state that he lost 3 times, but still has the nerve to say he actually won. Frey may have been harsh with his language, but for anyone living and working in the Twin Cities area, the intent of ICE is very clear, create fear and suppress the liberal leaning cities population. They would love nothing more than to declare Martial Law and send in the military. Why this doesn't scare every American is beyond me. The script is flipped and the Don't Tread on Me crowd has become the tread heavily apologists. I don't think the George Floyd riots even come close to being as scary as what federal agents are doing in Minnesota right now. It is like living in a war zone and yet we're all supposed to continue with our normal lives somehow. The collective trauma is immense and beyond comprehension.

If I could easily leave this country, I would in a heartbeat. It's disgusting right now.

sorry to hear that, and thanks for the perspective. That sounds nuts.

The Bulwark podcast had the mayor on yesterday and said theres like 2200 ice agents in the area. they outnumber the police. and he said there had been significant drops in crime as a result of the changes after george floyd was murdered.and that is a far better relaitionship between local law enforcement and the community at large these days.

HughFreakingDillon · January 11

Rachel Hurley ·Follow

pStosdornef5t64hhm583m632c0gf0a4141418cuuuli9u0h731c96337c0u ·

Okay - listen up you MAGA brain buffering morons - cause I am sick of your shit.

You don’t know fuck all about the law if you think Renee Good is the one that broke it. And things are looking worse by the hour for your boy, Jonathan Ross.

Let’s start at the beginning.

In 2013, the federal government commissioned an independent review of its own border agents. The Police Executive Research Forum examined 67 use-of-force incidents that resulted in 19 deaths. What they found was that agents were deliberately stepping in front of moving vehicles to manufacture justification for shooting the drivers.

Read that again.

Federal law enforcement officers were intentionally creating the conditions that would allow them to kill people.

The PERF report didn’t mince words. It noted agents “intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby exposing themselves to additional risk and creating justification for the use of deadly force.”

In plain English: they’d stand where the car was going, then claim self-defense when they pulled the trigger.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection tried to bury it. When Congress asked for the report, they got a summary with the vehicle-positioning findings conveniently omitted. It took a leak to the Los Angeles Times and an ACLU lawsuit to pry the full document loose. By May 2014, under enormous pressure, CBP finally released it publicly.

The agency also issued new guidelines. Agents should not use their body to block a vehicle’s path. They should not shoot at fleeing vehicles unless occupants pose an imminent lethal threat other than the vehicle itself. The policy was explicit: move out of the fucking way.

Now - pay attention to this part.

The Department of Homeland Security has had an official use-of-force policy on the books since 2018. Policy Statement 044-05, signed by the Acting Deputy Secretary, establishes department-wide standards.

It requires force to be “objectively reasonable based on the facts and circumstances.” It cites the Supreme Court cases that set the legal standard. It looks professional and thorough on paper.

But I guess paper doesn’t change institutional culture. Training manuals don’t override what agents learned on the job a decade ago. And the people who were active agents during the period when stepping-in-front-of-vehicles was standard practice didn’t just disappear. They got promoted. They became instructors. They trained the next generation.

How long has Jonathan Ross - the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good - been working for Border Patrol and ICE?

Since 2007.

Oh. And the Department of Justice policy is even clearer.

Firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless no other objectively reasonable means of defense exists - “which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.” That’s the actual language.

Moving out of the way is supposed to be the first option, not the last.

So when a federal agent positions himself in front of a car, pulls out his phone to record with one hand, draws his weapon with the other, and then fires - the question isn’t just whether he feared for his life. The question is why he was standing there in the first place.

Former ICE officials have been refreshingly honest in background quotes to reporters this week. “Why did you put yourself in front of the car? You’re staging the scene.” “At a certain point, you need to understand not to put yourself in these positions.” One veteran agent told CBS News he’d been conducting stops for 25 years and never, ever wanted to be intentionally in front of the vehicle.

Because that’s not tactics. That’s manufacturing a pretext.

The PERF report was supposed to fix this. The policy updates were supposed to change behavior. But here we are, twelve years later, watching video that looks exactly like what the independent reviewers described: an agent positioning himself to create the justification, then using it.

The agency’s own policy says force must be objectively reasonable. The DOJ policy says moving out of the way should be the first option. The 2014 guidelines explicitly told agents not to block vehicles with their bodies.

None of that matters if the people enforcing the policy are the same people who learned the old playbook.

The infrastructure for accountability doesn’t work when the FBI takes sole control of investigations and excludes state authorities. It doesn’t work when federal immunity shields agents from local prosecution. It doesn’t work when the same agency investigates itself.

What we’re watching isn’t a rogue agent or a tragic split-second decision. What we’re watching is a system designed to produce exactly this outcome - and documented evidence that the government knew about the problem over a decade ago.

They commissioned a report. They buried the report. They got caught. They changed the policy on paper. And twelve years later, the playbook is still running.

So, stop posting about laws that you don’t understand in my comments - you clueless walking Dunning-Kruger exhibits.

Here are all of the likely laws Jonathan Ross broke:

Most likely chargeable offenses:

1. Third-Degree Murder (Minn. Stat. § 609.195)

2. Second-Degree Manslaughter (Minn. Stat. § 609.205)

3. Failure to Render Aid to Shooting Victim (Minn. Stat. § 609.662)

4. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242)

Additional potential charges depending on investigation:

5. First-Degree Manslaughter (Minn. Stat. § 609.20)

6. Evidence tampering (leaving scene with weapon)

7. Obstruction charges if coordination to block investigation is proven

HughFreakingDillon · January 11

a cop who has experience being run over by a suspect chimes in.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17fx92ACFo/

g under p · January 11

HughFreakingDillon said:

a cop who has experience being run over by a suspect chimes in.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17fx92ACFo/

Now this officer showed some TREMENDOUS restraint in using deadly force. Here in is the problem with ICE and their tactics. It's like VP Vance daid they appear to be given ALSOLUTE IMMUNITY. They know there will be no consequences for their actions. So therefore they shoot first and never ask any questions later. This could've been your sister or mine. It's a guarantee this will happen again.

Those who rule through fear and intimidation WILL eventually fail. It's just a matter of time.

✌️

brianlux · January 11

g under p said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

a cop who has experience being run over by a suspect chimes in.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17fx92ACFo/

Now this officer showed some TREMENDOUS restraint in using deadly force. Here in is the problem with ICE and their tactics. It's like VP Vance daid they appear to be given ALSOLUTE IMMUNITY. They know there will be no consequences for their actions. So therefore they shoot first and never ask any questions later. This could've been your sister or mine. It's a guarantee this will happen again.

Those who rule through fear and intimidation WILL eventually fail. It's just a matter of time.

✌️

"Those who rule through fear and intimidation WILL eventually fail. It's just a matter of time."

Worth remembering! Only, of course, "The waiting is the hardest part."

Tim Simmons · January 11

.

HughFreakingDillon · January 11

this is it. this is the take.

Ben Leeds Carson ·

Have you seen the way Renee Nicole Good and her wife Rebecca were speaking to the ICE agents before Renee was shot? How calm and confident they were? They were ridiculing the agents. The New York Post—clickbaiting the right-wing, has the most interesting take on this. "Jawboning" "Menacing"... Yeah, that's right! That's what they were doing! They were definitely pushing buttons. Not in an aggravated way. But wow. “Go on your lunch break, big boy.” “We don’t change our license plates every morning, so you can find us whenever you want.” “Oh I’m not angry at you, dude. Did you think I was angry at you?” Brilliant and mean. In a delicious way.

Saying, in other words... “I'm not afraid of you, and actually me being afraid of you - as much as you wish I were - that's not how this is supposed to work." Yes, these were dangerous women all right. I agree with you on that point, New York Post.

They didn't confront the agents with a car. They used the car to block an ICE vehicle, these women. And they were not inclined to drive away. That was the issue. Then they were inclined to drive away when one of these idiots attempted—incompetently and i would argue unlawfully—to enter her car.

Fox News: "Don't confront ICE agents with your car." What a silly, soft-chinned point. On some viral podcast asking “Who is Renee Nicole Good?”, featuring a Whitehouse staffer - the big line, the big whippersnapper zinger - it was actually their *first* line - "she is a woman who claims to be ... a poet." Poor choices, they are trying to say.

So you think it would be better if she didn’t park her car in the road to obstruct ICE. I bet you have one of those really poofy couches. I bet you got tired of popcorn years ago and now you eat little microwaved "pizza bites" on it. I bet you have a chin as soft as an ICE agent's. One with those little bumps on it, because when your face is so jiggly, shaving sometimes gives you a rash.

They think we are arguing that Renee deserved to live because she was making the right choices. That is what actually damns this all to hell, damns this country to permanent division: the question, for half of America, has become "what were her choices." Life is not a privilege, it is being said, and ICE agents - who by the way are almost guaranteed to be idiots, just by virtue of how they are recruited and (not) trained under Trump - oh ... it would be best, yes, if they did not shoot at you for being nasty or unruly. But... they do get to shoot at you. It all depends on your choices. That's the new constitution. And that's why we can't live together any more.

He had been unlawfully trying to get into her vehicle when her wife said "drive baby drive." And then he shot her in the face three times - twice through the passenger window. I don't care about the New York Times' special analysis of six camera angles. What matters is that once wasn't enough. Through the windshield as she drove away unobstructed ... wasn't enough. He wanted two more shots through the open window. Then he called her a fucking bitch. After the bloody, skull-crushing third shot.

Look at her in this photo. Look how indifferent she is to his power. Look at the day she's having. I'm tired of the other liberal talking points. About the stuffed animals on the dashboard and how dare you shoot that particular kind of person. She's a widow. Of a veteran. You might as well say she was white. You're missing the point.

The point is they were calm when they weren't supposed to be calm, and unafraid when they were supposed to be afraid. They were indifferent to these men's self-perceptions. And their power. They were ... cocky, that's the point. He shot her three times in the face because the grown women — the actually very impressively scary grown women — were making the guys in kevlar feel like limp little boys. That’s why he shot her in the face through the windshield of the unthreatening car he wished he could control, and twice through the open passenger window, at point blank range, and then called her a fucking bitch, and recommended a 911 call about a minute and a half later. Until we fix this — and we won't fix it soon — that's your new U.S. constitution.

mookeywrench · January 11

Late to come to this and haven't read 12 pages in, but my two cents: saying, 'fucking bitch' is not what comes out of your mouth immediately when you're fighting for your life.

Usually when it's true self defense under escalated incidents, authorities are speechless in a state of panic/shock, first examining their body for injury and then immediately calling for medical backup to try and save the life of the attacker, no other words.

There can be 30 angles of footage, but that impulsive move was most telling to me.

brianlux · January 11

HughFreakingDillon said:

this is it. this is the take.

Ben Leeds Carson ·

Have you seen the way Renee Nicole Good and her wife Rebecca were speaking to the ICE agents before Renee was shot? How calm and confident they were? They were ridiculing the agents. The New York Post—clickbaiting the right-wing, has the most interesting take on this. "Jawboning" "Menacing"... Yeah, that's right! That's what they were doing! They were definitely pushing buttons. Not in an aggravated way. But wow. “Go on your lunch break, big boy.” “We don’t change our license plates every morning, so you can find us whenever you want.” “Oh I’m not angry at you, dude. Did you think I was angry at you?” Brilliant and mean. In a delicious way.
Saying, in other words... “I'm not afraid of you, and actually me being afraid of you - as much as you wish I were - that's not how this is supposed to work." Yes, these were dangerous women all right. I agree with you on that point, New York Post.
They didn't confront the agents with a car. They used the car to block an ICE vehicle, these women. And they were not inclined to drive away. That was the issue. Then they were inclined to drive away when one of these idiots attempted—incompetently and i would argue unlawfully—to enter her car.
Fox News: "Don't confront ICE agents with your car." What a silly, soft-chinned point. On some viral podcast asking “Who is Renee Nicole Good?”, featuring a Whitehouse staffer - the big line, the big whippersnapper zinger - it was actually their *first* line - "she is a woman who claims to be ... a poet." Poor choices, they are trying to say.
So you think it would be better if she didn’t park her car in the road to obstruct ICE. I bet you have one of those really poofy couches. I bet you got tired of popcorn years ago and now you eat little microwaved "pizza bites" on it. I bet you have a chin as soft as an ICE agent's. One with those little bumps on it, because when your face is so jiggly, shaving sometimes gives you a rash.
They think we are arguing that Renee deserved to live because she was making the right choices. That is what actually damns this all to hell, damns this country to permanent division: the question, for half of America, has become "what were her choices." Life is not a privilege, it is being said, and ICE agents - who by the way are almost guaranteed to be idiots, just by virtue of how they are recruited and (not) trained under Trump - oh ... it would be best, yes, if they did not shoot at you for being nasty or unruly. But... they do get to shoot at you. It all depends on your choices. That's the new constitution. And that's why we can't live together any more.
He had been unlawfully trying to get into her vehicle when her wife said "drive baby drive." And then he shot her in the face three times - twice through the passenger window. I don't care about the New York Times' special analysis of six camera angles. What matters is that once wasn't enough. Through the windshield as she drove away unobstructed ... wasn't enough. He wanted two more shots through the open window. Then he called her a fucking bitch. After the bloody, skull-crushing third shot.
Look at her in this photo. Look how indifferent she is to his power. Look at the day she's having. I'm tired of the other liberal talking points. About the stuffed animals on the dashboard and how dare you shoot that particular kind of person. She's a widow. Of a veteran. You might as well say she was white. You're missing the point.
The point is they were calm when they weren't supposed to be calm, and unafraid when they were supposed to be afraid. They were indifferent to these men's self-perceptions. And their power. They were ... cocky, that's the point. He shot her three times in the face because the grown women — the actually very impressively scary grown women — were making the guys in kevlar feel like limp little boys. That’s why he shot her in the face through the windshield of the unthreatening car he wished he could control, and twice through the open passenger window, at point blank range, and then called her a fucking bitch, and recommended a 911 call about a minute and a half later. Until we fix this — and we won't fix it soon — that's your new U.S. constitution.

Good take.

"the grown women — the actually very impressively scary grown women — were making the guys in kevlar feel like limp little boys". Yeah, untrained, trigger-happy, poorly educated. The typical ICE recruit.

mookeywrench said:

Late to come to this and haven't read 12 pages in, but my two cents: saying, 'fucking bitch' is not what comes out of your mouth immediately when you're fighting for your life.

Usually when it's true self defense under escalated incidents, authorities are speechless in a state of panic/shock, first examining their body for injury and then immediately calling for medical backup to try and save the life of the attacker, no other words.

There can be 30 angles of footage, but that impulsive move was most telling to me.

Excellent points, M.

mickeyrat · January 11

raskin diring a committee hearing....

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZTmWick58/

brianlux · January 11

mickeyrat said:

raskin diring a committee hearing....

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZTmWick58/

He makes sensible, good points.

Renee Nicole Good/ Alex Pretti/ Minneapolis

Comments

Rachel Hurley ·Follow

Categories