I'm not sure this will play well for them politically. A fair bit of what got Trump elected was saying they'd protect ordinary Americans from immigrant criminals. Now they have footage of a white middle class mum in an suv, pretty much their median voter, being shot dead by their thugs and saying don't believe you eyes and clear video evidence, she tried to run an officer over when she obviously didn't.

You may be correct (and I hope you are), but speaking anecdotely, I have several friends & acquaintances on the right who justify pretty much any actions taken by the admnistration (including this one). Many of the supporters of this administration are religious zealots who see left wing thinking and people as just about the most evil thing out there. To them, the end (fewer “radical” left wing thinkers) justifies the means.

For the next elections, we need to convince swing voters and inconsistent voters to turn out for Democrats next election. Not reprogram the terminally MAGA.

The next onion layer will be credulous Fox viewers. But I’m even less clear on how we do that.

Can you link to the clear video evidence? In the one I've seen the interaction between ICE and driver are blocked by the body of the car.

UPD. Found the one from the article https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9CJY5p0xz4

I'm not sure of the outcome of the case. The vehicle did start driving toward the person with the gun before the shot was fired. 0:14.5 vs 0:16

After watching the full video it is clear ramming wasn't the intent, but in the moment I can see how that would be questionable. Especially considering "The agent who shot a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday was pulled about 100 yards by a car last year while firing a stun gun at the driver."

I've lost the link to the main one I was thinking of but there are some pictures here https://x.com/GregTSargent/status/2009319825554985218

It's not quite as clear cut as I thought as the car maybe nudged the shooter but the driver had definitely turned the steering away from him and was trying to miss him and get away. Also the car's direction didn't change after the shots were fired and it didn't come close to running over the shooter.

The WaPo article seems quite good https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/01/08/vid...

There's a frame in the YouTube video I linked where the officer is right in front of the car, the car wheel is still turned toward the driver window (so if no steering is done it would run over the officer, moreover it is directed to where the officer ends up in the end), and the front wheels with a skid starts pulling the car forward in that direction. In fact, the car goes toward the officer for about 15 frames of the video and only visibly changes direction for 1 or 2 frames just before the shot (mind you that's less than 100ms at 30fps), after the gun is pulled out and pointed straight at the window.

I would refrain from making any judgment on that because I don't know the intricacies of the law, but it is certainly not "clear" as a lot of people here seem to claim. I suspect most never watched the video in detail or interpreted it with hindsight.

There is now footage from the shooter’s cellphone you can watch, in which you can see the driver hand-over-hand turning away from the shooter while the car is still reversing, before it even starts moving forward. The tires were pointed towards the shooter while it was reversing, which is a movement that moves the front end of the car away from them.

There’s no universe in which she was trying to run him over or would have even come close to touching him if he had taken a step to the right instead of leaning in for a better shot.

Lets assume you are right. How do you justify the 2nd and 3rd shot from the side window? Very curious how your mind works.

I haven't seen 2nd and 3rd shots from the side window. What video and what time code?

You claim to have no information about the shots fired yet you assert "I suspect most never watched the video in detail or interpreted it with hindsight."

This kind of asymmetric warfare soliciting unequal effort from others during a discussion is a pattern of troll bots or their human equivalent. I am not willing to engage further if you are unwilling to do a web search.

You made a claim about where the 2nd and 3rd shots were fired from. The onus of proof is on you. If you check my other comments you can see I link to the timecodes in specific videos. FFS I did it two comments up in this thread. You're the one waging "asymmetric warfare".

Officers are trained to never approach from the front. Shooting a driver in a vehicle headed towards you does not stop the vehicle. This officer ignored all of his training because he wanted to kill someone. It's unconscionable to defend it.

> Officers are trained to never approach from the front.

False. Officers are trained to avoid approaching from the front.

> Shooting a driver in a vehicle headed towards you does not stop the vehicle.

False, especially when the vehicle has little momentum like in this case.

> This officer ignored all of his training

That is to be discovered

> because he wanted to kill someone

Baseless accusation.

> It's unconscionable to defend it.

Looks like what you are doing is unconscionable. I am OK thank you.

>False, especially when the vehicle has little momentum like in this case.

no it was very true, when the driver was shot the vehicle sped up and crashed. this means that the gunshot did not stop the vehicle, but the gunshot did eliminate the driver from the "driver + accelerating car" combination.

Its not hard to find defenders of the shooter as usual, but at least to me this is one of the most callous actions I have ever seen, the guy seemed so casual about it, like the woman was dead already and he was just making sure or something, but I understand to some his actions will be considered "based" and "trad-pilled".

The footage from the killer is now available.

Her last words were "we are not mad at you." His first words after she died were "fucking bitch."

thats the worst part, this guy behaved like he was ENTITLED to terminate her existence. not to mention the vitrol from higher ups that seem to concur. very sad to see all around.

Her wife's words were "drive drive" as she floored it with a human standing in front of her vehicle.

I hope you never get a chance to kill me.

An aggressive human apparently Hell-bent on killing her.

Imagine this scenario: You're stopped at a light in a seedy neighborhood at night. A car pulls up behind you. Someone bursts out of the shadows and runs up to your quarter panel, yelling and raising what appears to be a gun at you. Are you just going to sit there waiting to see what happens next? Or are you going to floor it to get out of there, and worry about minimizing collateral damage second?

The agent's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nWgcYx95Tc

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command" - 1984

I've found the reaction from most people in the US horrifying since the "grab em by the pussy" days...

I personally think that the more appropriate quote from 1984 is this one, because the cruelty is the whole point :

“The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men.” He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: “How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?”

Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.

“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?[...]”"

1984.

ALL humans are animals.

And most animals typically act much less indiscriminately violent than we do.

Man is the only animal to claim a God, and the only animal to behave as if there is no God.

That relies on absolving other animals of responsibility for their behaviors because they don't have higher order thought, no? Animals can be pretty violent to even their own species.

edit: Chewing on this a little more, this viewpoint almost feels like the dual of a common justification that people drunk on religion use to justify the killing of other human beings - "animals kill each other so it's natural behavior, and God sorts us all out in the afterlife"

The whole “was it justified or not” is a huge distraction from the principles of the matter, which ironically is a huge benefit to those with fascist ambitions. Classic America getting caught up in reviewing the tapes like it’s Monday morning after a controversial NFL Sunday.

The principle of the matter is that the fascist apparatus of the US government has made it clear that should you have a grievance against them, you have no recourse, even if your grievance is legitimate. Their immediate response to deny wrongdoing and establish immunity is de facto fascism, which should be no surprise to those who have read Carl Schmitt and Decisionism, and paid attention when Miller slipped up about “plenary authority”.

Spade is a spade at this point.

Yep. Bad use of force by police is tragic, but it’s happened before and will happen again. This is federal support for murdering liberals.

JD Vance, man. What a mendacious piece of shit.