Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On January 10 2026 01:48 Legan wrote: I wonder if conservatives could be confused if protestors also wore the same kind of gear. Could not tell the sides just by their clothing, but would have to consider their actions too.
Nah, they have much easier ways of deciding who is right. Some guy on their team on TV or Twitter tells them.
On January 10 2026 01:42 LightSpectra wrote: There will rarely be a circumstance where the police murder someone and conservatives won't rush to their defense (maybe if the officer was trans or something, I guess; rare exceptions like that). We saw George Floyd murdered on live camera and conservatives defended that, so why would they change now? They want to live in North Korea and everything in their bag of justifications that can be pulled out for that end, will be pulled out for that end.
We could live in a country where there's like 1 person killed by the police every year, but conservatives will never vote for that, because extrajudicial murder is their foremost faux-Christian value.
Police killed 1300 people in the US last year, we only had 6 days without a police killing.
He could have shot the tires? Shooting someone in the face at 3m distance or less seems quite excessive. Dude probably had a ptsd flare up after his accident. Unfortunate. Should not have happened. ICE is not showing to be very beneficial for the country.
Also, Trump said his powers are limited by his own morality? He's the beginning of a new era: The dimmening and he's its first despot. Scary. WW3 is inching closer.
On January 10 2026 01:42 LightSpectra wrote: There will rarely be a circumstance where the police murder someone and conservatives won't rush to their defense (maybe if the officer was trans or something, I guess; rare exceptions like that). We saw George Floyd murdered on live camera and conservatives defended that, so why would they change now? They want to live in North Korea and everything in their bag of justifications that can be pulled out for that end, will be pulled out for that end.
We could live in a country where there's like 1 person killed by the police every year, but conservatives will never vote for that, because extrajudicial murder is their foremost faux-Christian value.
At this point the progressive states should just secede and make their own country. Let those christofascist morons turn their country into another Iran or Afghanistan.
This I think is a very good summary of the events that also reflects my feelings on it. Brandon got so frustrated there that he actually started crying.
A lot of dear Brandon's points don't make sense.
Like referencing "don't approach a car from the front." The officer didn't approach from the front, he went around from the back and as a group they controlled all sides of the car. Normal nonpropagandized people at that point park it, give them the keys, and get out. And those guidelines are about tactics. It's not like there's a manual saying "Don't approach a car from the front because if you do, malicious civilians are still allowed to plow into you with impunity with this one weird trick." Or more clearly, if the implication is LEO aren't supposed to approach cars from the front because it prevents people from driving away, which they are supposed to be always allowed to do, without hitting the officer, that is mistaken, because the fact of being in a car doesn't confer you an inherent legal right to drive away either.
Weirdly he sees the tires clearly spin with the vehicle pointed at the agent at point blank distance and doesn't mention anything around 2:24.
We do have about 4 angles so far, which is not all the angles as I'm sure the agent, who had been dragged in a previous incident as well, had a bodycam vid. Here's a synced version which is of some utility for seeing the whole picture.
I'm sure the bodycam footage would completely exhonorate the officer, which is why he didn't flee the scene and then ICE immediately complied with investigation requests and provided that as evidence, right? ... RIGHT???
Another weird thing about Brandon is he hysterically shouts "masked men with guns," when we know the driver knew who they were, saw their POLICE ICE uniforms, knew they were federal agents, and was engaged in organized disruption, meaning had been there to fuck with them, with or at the urging of her partner. Lesson: Don't put yourself in a situation where you floor a thousands of pounds car with a federal law enforcement agent right in front of you. Whether you're trying to kill him or not. Whether you're trying to pancake him or swerve away. Don't put either of you in that situation. Here's why. Here's an example of a bodycam showing how fast you can go from alive to doomed when someone changes their vehicle into a deadly weapon.
He's not going to judge the angle of the tires, that he can't see from right in front of an SUV, on the ice, that he's slipping on, and Zach Galifianakis calculate all the physics of whether he's about to get killed or will only get clipped after mind-reading the driver. He's going to defend himself with lethal force. And you can't say you're defending yourself against him equally using equal force, because he's a federal law enforcement officer and you aren't, and whether on purpose or not, the driver is the one who rolled the dice of stupid decisions when they chose to floor it at a federal law enforcement officer.
This is why officers are trained not to stand in front of vehicles. It's also DOJ policy not to shoot vehicles that a) you can get away from or b) that are driving away from you. He clearly violated both of those as he was able to get out of the way continue shooting at the car from the side and behind. Extremely cut and dry failure on his part not to control the situation or his reaction to it, as a highly experienced federal law officer in high pressure situations he is expected to be the gold standard of behavior. We hold 18 year old kids in the military in actual war zones to higher standards when interacting with foreign civilians for fucks sake.
This I think is a very good summary of the events that also reflects my feelings on it. Brandon got so frustrated there that he actually started crying.
A lot of dear Brandon's points don't make sense.
Like referencing "don't approach a car from the front." The officer didn't approach from the front, he went around from the back and as a group they controlled all sides of the car. Normal nonpropagandized people at that point park it, give them the keys, and get out. And those guidelines are about tactics. It's not like there's a manual saying "Don't approach a car from the front because if you do, malicious civilians are still allowed to plow into you with impunity with this one weird trick." Or more clearly, if the implication is LEO aren't supposed to approach cars from the front because it prevents people from driving away, which they are supposed to be always allowed to do, without hitting the officer, that is mistaken, because the fact of being in a car doesn't confer you an inherent legal right to drive away either.
Weirdly he sees the tires clearly spin with the vehicle pointed at the agent at point blank distance and doesn't mention anything around 2:24.
We do have about 4 angles so far, which is not all the angles as I'm sure the agent, who had been dragged in a previous incident as well, had a bodycam vid. Here's a synced version which is of some utility for seeing the whole picture.
Another weird thing about Brandon is he hysterically shouts "masked men with guns," when we know the driver knew who they were, saw their POLICE ICE uniforms, knew they were federal agents, and was engaged in organized disruption, meaning had been there to fuck with them, with or at the urging of her partner. Lesson: Don't put yourself in a situation where you floor a thousands of pounds car with a federal law enforcement agent right in front of you. Whether you're trying to kill him or not. Whether you're trying to pancake him or swerve away. Don't put either of you in that situation. Here's why. Here's an example of a bodycam showing how fast you can go from alive to doomed when someone changes their vehicle into a deadly weapon.
He's not going to judge the angle of the tires, that he can't see from right in front of an SUV, on the ice, that he's slipping on, and Zach Galifianakis calculate all the physics of whether he's about to get killed or will only get clipped after mind-reading the driver. He's going to defend himself with lethal force. And you can't say you're defending yourself against him equally using equal force, because he's a federal law enforcement officer and you aren't, and whether on purpose or not, the driver is the one who rolled the dice of stupid decisions when they chose to floor it at a federal law enforcement officer.
It's all very sad. People especially in these blue states and cities have worked themselves into a frenzy. You are right that the correct assessment is that civilians should not, ans have no right to, put themselves in the way of federal officers carrying out federal law. Only a matter of time before something like this happened (ignoring the assassination attempts on ICE officers last year). Apparently someone said this woman "took a course" into how to "safely" interfere with ICE (don’t recall exact wording). There is no such thing, especially when dealing with armed agents. From what I can tell she didn't mean to run him over, but she put the car in drive hit him with it and he made a split second decision. And now there are irresponsible politicians who are just going to use this to continue their crusade against immigration enforcement. I guess just another we never should have stopped enforcing the law to begin with.
I don't take the Walsh view and I think administration officials calling this "domestic terrorism" are way out over their skis. But for some reason people have it their head that they are heroes and good people and that in the movies the good guys win! If I obstruct ICE, that's good and I'm probably safe because I "took a course." Very unfortunate all the way around.
If I'm understanding you correctly it's that people shouldn't feel safe around the secret police. I think that's a very reasonable take tbh. You probably shouldn't approach them in daylight when they're expecting it and are surrounded with their buddies. If citizens have concerns about the conduct of the secret police then the first amendment isn't the one to use.
I guess people are missing the point here. The question isn't if the woman shouldn't be arrested or if she did things wrong. The question here is why ICE officers violated their own protocol and killed an innocent woman in broad daylight, in a street with multiple bystanders?
Dude went around the vehicle and got in front of it himself (protocol violation).
Same dude started shooting when the vehicle was moving away from him (protocol violation).
Why instead of "Stop! You're under arrest!" or some such and keeping their distance were they shouting "Get the fuck out of the vehicle!" and forcefully tugging on the door handle? Wouldn't experienced law enforcement officers know this could make the person behind the wheel panic?
From the video this looks like they shot a panicked woman because she wasn't a great driver... She did let the vehicle through, then started reversing to get the clearing she needed for a turn while shouting "I'm clearing out" - surely a vicious and malicious behavior...
IMO there is no way you can defend this and the shooter should be persecuted because he violated protocol and killed an innocent woman (was she charged with anything? were they there to arrest her?).
If she did in fact block their way on purpose they should arrest her or write down her license plate and charge her with obstruction of justice later. Hardly something that warrant killing on the spot with no warning given.
Oh yeah, very logical take, the irresponsible ones are the people who have a problem with masked thugs murdering and kidnapping people, not the ones who lie their asses off (see Trump saying the piece of shit was severely injured and recovering in the hospital) or the ones who call the 37 year old soccer moms domestic terrorists, lesbian agitators etc.
Very "unfortunate" and not at all the result of extreme and completely unnecessary escalation from the side of Federal law enforcement.
In his first 4 years, Obama averaged 1,088 deportations per day, Trump averaged 810 per day in 2025. I don't remember mass protests or ICE murdering people because this has nothing to do with immigration policy and everything to do with intimidation and fascism.
Of course the usual suspects came to explain otherwise.
On January 10 2026 01:42 LightSpectra wrote: There will rarely be a circumstance where the police murder someone and conservatives won't rush to their defense (maybe if the officer was trans or something, I guess; rare exceptions like that). We saw George Floyd murdered on live camera and conservatives defended that, so why would they change now? They want to live in North Korea and everything in their bag of justifications that can be pulled out for that end, will be pulled out for that end.
We could live in a country where there's like 1 person killed by the police every year, but conservatives will never vote for that, because extrajudicial murder is their foremost faux-Christian value.
I visit conservative spaces frequently to see what's up and I saw a lot content on the 6th on how Ashley Babbit was murdered and how that cop should be in jail. So it does happen.
The cop there was defending democracy, not engaging in wanton abuse, so that's why they made an exception.
On January 10 2026 01:42 LightSpectra wrote: There will rarely be a circumstance where the police murder someone and conservatives won't rush to their defense (maybe if the officer was trans or something, I guess; rare exceptions like that). We saw George Floyd murdered on live camera and conservatives defended that, so why would they change now? They want to live in North Korea and everything in their bag of justifications that can be pulled out for that end, will be pulled out for that end.
We could live in a country where there's like 1 person killed by the police every year, but conservatives will never vote for that, because extrajudicial murder is their foremost faux-Christian value.
At this point the progressive states should just secede and make their own country. Let those christofascist morons turn their country into another Iran or Afghanistan.
The billionaires running the country would never allow it. Their fortune is dependent upon being able to use voters from red/purple states to enact policies to extract wealth from the blue states that make it.
On January 10 2026 02:58 KwarK wrote: I watched a video from Iran yesterday of some secret police chasing protesters. Someone drove a car through the pack of police. Everyone cheered.
They don't have the 2nd amendment, so they have to make do.
Felony murder should probably be applied to government workers, too. I don't like the practice, but it seems like it could have potential to hold all involved responsible.
On January 10 2026 02:17 Uldridge wrote: He could have shot the tires? Shooting someone in the face at 3m distance or less seems quite excessive. Dude probably had a ptsd flare up after his accident. Unfortunate. Should not have happened. ICE is not showing to be very beneficial for the country.
Also, Trump said his powers are limited by his own morality? He's the beginning of a new era: The dimmening and he's its first despot. Scary. WW3 is inching closer.
There is no reason to do any shooting whatsoever, until the situation of him thinking the rapidly accelerating vehicle directly in front of him is going to unalive him, begins. (A policy of preemptively shoot the tires of anyone who might later drive away would, beyond certainly, be worse policing.) By the way, what's your way of shooting 4 tires of a car in 1 second from 3 meters in front of the driver?
This I think is a very good summary of the events that also reflects my feelings on it. Brandon got so frustrated there that he actually started crying.
A lot of dear Brandon's points don't make sense.
Like referencing "don't approach a car from the front." The officer didn't approach from the front, he went around from the back and as a group they controlled all sides of the car. Normal nonpropagandized people at that point park it, give them the keys, and get out. And those guidelines are about tactics. It's not like there's a manual saying "Don't approach a car from the front because if you do, malicious civilians are still allowed to plow into you with impunity with this one weird trick." Or more clearly, if the implication is LEO aren't supposed to approach cars from the front because it prevents people from driving away, which they are supposed to be always allowed to do, without hitting the officer, that is mistaken, because the fact of being in a car doesn't confer you an inherent legal right to drive away either.
Weirdly he sees the tires clearly spin with the vehicle pointed at the agent at point blank distance and doesn't mention anything around 2:24.
We do have about 4 angles so far, which is not all the angles as I'm sure the agent, who had been dragged in a previous incident as well, had a bodycam vid. Here's a synced version which is of some utility for seeing the whole picture.
I'm sure the bodycam footage would completely exhonorate the officer, which is why he didn't flee the scene and then ICE immediately complied with investigation requests and provided that as evidence, right? ... RIGHT???
States do not investigate federal agents doing federal business, it's the supremacy clause.
Another weird thing about Brandon is he hysterically shouts "masked men with guns," when we know the driver knew who they were, saw their POLICE ICE uniforms, knew they were federal agents, and was engaged in organized disruption, meaning had been there to fuck with them, with or at the urging of her partner. Lesson: Don't put yourself in a situation where you floor a thousands of pounds car with a federal law enforcement agent right in front of you. Whether you're trying to kill him or not. Whether you're trying to pancake him or swerve away. Don't put either of you in that situation. Here's why. Here's an example of a bodycam showing how fast you can go from alive to doomed when someone changes their vehicle into a deadly weapon.
He's not going to judge the angle of the tires, that he can't see from right in front of an SUV, on the ice, that he's slipping on, and Zach Galifianakis calculate all the physics of whether he's about to get killed or will only get clipped after mind-reading the driver. He's going to defend himself with lethal force. And you can't say you're defending yourself against him equally using equal force, because he's a federal law enforcement officer and you aren't, and whether on purpose or not, the driver is the one who rolled the dice of stupid decisions when they chose to floor it at a federal law enforcement officer.
This is why officers are trained not to stand in front of vehicles. It's also DOJ policy not to shoot vehicles that a) you can get away from or b) that are driving away from you. He clearly violated both of those as he was able to get out of the way continue shooting at the car from the side and behind. Extremely cut and dry failure on his part not to control the situation or his reaction to it, as a highly experienced federal law officer in high pressure situations he is expected to be the gold standard of behavior. We hold 18 year old kids in the military in actual war zones to higher standards when interacting with foreign civilians for fucks sake.
From the side maybe, but not behind, the 3 shots were over in literally a second. I think you saw him holding his gun but there was no more firing.
Certainly hamstringing of the military abroad is a broad issue but I don't think for example an Afghani driver would get away with slamming the gas with a US soldier in front of the car either.
It's Minnesota law that a vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon regardless of the driver's intent.
Why did this guy wait until the point of maximum danger to himself to shoot, and why is he the only one who shot, seeing as how these people are allegedly so murderous?
Either this Machiavellian genius wanted to murder the woman so much that he walked around the back of the car and then to the front, knowing she would try to drive away, to create his bloodlust situation knowing that he could get away on some technicality based on his clairvoyance plus encyclopedic law knowledge, OR he shot her and would have shot her with no immediate thought to what state law is or policy is simply because he thought he was being killed in the very near future, regardless of his job or pension or criminal or civil cases.
Why are there organized groups of people blocking federal officers in vehicles? Smashing officers and officers' vehicles, with their vehicles? There is some weird thing going on where these insane people think what they're doing is directionally nonviolent because they're doing it with fleets of vehicles instead of guns, so it doesn't "count." It counts and even if she was the sweetest most innocent soul in the world, which I say with utter humility she personally could have been, and if she had survived and proven she had no intent to harm anyone, and we could say she were innocent of any assault or attempted murder - even if all that is true and she didn't intend to do anything wrong, it can be true at the same time he did nothing wrong.
If you recreate and replay this exact situation, some of the times the officer is dying, and dying if they don't shoot. I believe my other bodycam demonstrates that.
Don't create an environment like this, and then the dice rolls might lean more towards officers giving more benefit of the doubt. Create an environment with a bunch of hysterical people driving around thinking this and that felony behavior is harmless protesting, do not be surprised when otherwise avoidable tragedies happen.
On January 10 2026 02:41 KwarK wrote: If I'm understanding you correctly it's that people shouldn't feel safe around the secret police. I think that's a very reasonable take tbh. You probably shouldn't approach them in daylight when they're expecting it and are surrounded with their buddies. If citizens have concerns about the conduct of the secret police then the first amendment isn't the one to use.
On January 10 2026 02:41 KwarK wrote: If I'm understanding you correctly it's that people shouldn't feel safe around the secret police. I think that's a very reasonable take tbh. You probably shouldn't approach them in daylight when they're expecting it and are surrounded with their buddies. If citizens have concerns about the conduct of the secret police then the first amendment isn't the one to use.
On January 10 2026 02:17 Uldridge wrote: He could have shot the tires? Shooting someone in the face at 3m distance or less seems quite excessive. Dude probably had a ptsd flare up after his accident. Unfortunate. Should not have happened. ICE is not showing to be very beneficial for the country.
Also, Trump said his powers are limited by his own morality? He's the beginning of a new era: The dimmening and he's its first despot. Scary. WW3 is inching closer.
There is no reason to do any shooting whatsoever, until the situation of him thinking the rapidly accelerating vehicle directly in front of him is going to unalive him, begins. (A policy of preemptively shoot the tires of anyone who might later drive away would, beyond certainly, be worse policing.) By the way, what's your way of shooting 4 tires of a car in 1 second from 3 meters in front of the driver?
This I think is a very good summary of the events that also reflects my feelings on it. Brandon got so frustrated there that he actually started crying.
A lot of dear Brandon's points don't make sense.
Like referencing "don't approach a car from the front." The officer didn't approach from the front, he went around from the back and as a group they controlled all sides of the car. Normal nonpropagandized people at that point park it, give them the keys, and get out. And those guidelines are about tactics. It's not like there's a manual saying "Don't approach a car from the front because if you do, malicious civilians are still allowed to plow into you with impunity with this one weird trick." Or more clearly, if the implication is LEO aren't supposed to approach cars from the front because it prevents people from driving away, which they are supposed to be always allowed to do, without hitting the officer, that is mistaken, because the fact of being in a car doesn't confer you an inherent legal right to drive away either.
Weirdly he sees the tires clearly spin with the vehicle pointed at the agent at point blank distance and doesn't mention anything around 2:24.
We do have about 4 angles so far, which is not all the angles as I'm sure the agent, who had been dragged in a previous incident as well, had a bodycam vid. Here's a synced version which is of some utility for seeing the whole picture.
I'm sure the bodycam footage would completely exhonorate the officer, which is why he didn't flee the scene and then ICE immediately complied with investigation requests and provided that as evidence, right? ... RIGHT???
States do not investigate federal agents doing federal business, it's the supremacy clause.
A) My point is that if the evidence would settle any debate, then it would be in their best interest to provide it. Also State-Federal cooperation in investigations is normal means of business unrelated to supremacy clause.
B) However, since you brought it up - feds are not immune to state prosecution, but the case can be moved to a federal court where it can be decided that the federal agent line of duty required him to break state law giving him immunity
On January 10 2026 02:41 KwarK wrote: If I'm understanding you correctly it's that people shouldn't feel safe around the secret police. I think that's a very reasonable take tbh. You probably shouldn't approach them in daylight when they're expecting it and are surrounded with their buddies. If citizens have concerns about the conduct of the secret police then the first amendment isn't the one to use.
They're just the police, KwarK.
Police don't cover their face and wear badge numbers and name tags.
She was objectively not blocking them. There is video evidence of the car in front of the ICE car driving past her and her waving through the cops so that they can follow the car, but instead they jump out and ran at her yelling her to get out and yanking on her door.
ICE has also already established a precedent of breaking law by using violence (including shooting) against civilians that violates protocol and judicial mandates, having the audacity to charge those civilians, then being caught lying in court.
Do we really have to jump on the bitter partisanship that one side knows it was a murder, and are defending it because they support law enforcement murders.
From watching the clips, I saw a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. And it won’t do anybody any good to pretend that it’s clear-cut in the opposite direction.
She was more like Ashley Babbit than George Floyd. And it’s still a tragedy.
On January 10 2026 03:54 dyhb wrote: Do we really have to jump on the bitter partisanship that one side knows it was a murder, and are defending it because they support law enforcement murders.
From watching the clips, I saw a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. And it won’t do anybody any good to pretend that it’s clear-cut in the opposite direction.
She was more like Ashley Babbit than George Floyd. And it’s still a tragedy.
In danger of what? If he did literally nothing then nothing would have happened.
On January 10 2026 03:54 dyhb wrote: Do we really have to jump on the bitter partisanship that one side knows it was a murder, and are defending it because they support law enforcement murders.
From watching the clips, I saw a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. And it won’t do anybody any good to pretend that it’s clear-cut in the opposite direction.
She was more like Ashley Babbit than George Floyd. And it’s still a tragedy.
In danger of what? If he did literally nothing then nothing would have happened.
Seriously. Firing his weapon did nothing to make him safer, if anything it made it more dangerous by killing the driver causing her to floor the gas and crash the car. He didn't even get hit hard enough to get knocked down while having time to draw his weapon which means he could have gotten even more out of the way if he didn't do that. ICE routinely hits civilians harder with their cars driving through protests.
EPT
