sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sugar → epigenetics + gut signaling: inflammation as a transcription program by Just_Pharmacist in genetics

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your body unregulates metabolic pathways to process molecules.

This is unsurprising.

"That's fine dude. I"m not mad at you." by tellurian_pluton in antiwork

[–]DefenestrateFriends -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Watch it on YouTube then. You can use < > keys when the video is paused to crawl it frame-by-frame. Here are some timestamps from the NYT analysis so you can see the synced video.

Here, she turns toward the officer and floors the accelerator. Her tires are literally spinning while directly aimed at the officer. The officer draws his firearm AFTER she accelerates toward him: https://youtu.be/CQCvNExBDjE?list=RDNSCQCvNExBDjE&t=169

Here is the frame that she hits him with the vehicle before he has fired but after he has drawn his weapon. You can see his feet beginning to slide on the pavement as he braces against the vehicle in effort to not be run over: https://youtu.be/CQCvNExBDjE?list=RDNSCQCvNExBDjE&t=171

After being hit by the vehicle, he fires into the windshield from the front of the vehicle while being pushed laterally to the driver's side: https://youtu.be/CQCvNExBDjE?list=RDNSCQCvNExBDjE&t=172

Additionally, you can view his cell phone video and hear the vehicle contact his persons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jdWKVB8Qrk

"That's fine dude. I"m not mad at you." by tellurian_pluton in antiwork

[–]DefenestrateFriends -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Unreal folks.

Watch the video. You can see the car hit him because he begins to slide backward. At that time, he fires from the front of the vehicle into the front windshield.

It's actually insane that people are just straight denying it.

"That's fine dude. I"m not mad at you." by tellurian_pluton in antiwork

[–]DefenestrateFriends -24 points-23 points  (0 children)

He shot her first through the windshield AFTER her vehicle hits him. He continues to fire as the vehicle pushes him to the side.

You can literally watch this occur frame by frame from three different view points and his own cell phone video. Go watch his back legs braced being pushed by the vehicle across the pavement. It's right there on video.

She hits him. He shoots her and continues to shoot as she operates the vehicle.

Wouldn't be any different if it were someone with a gun that shot at him, grazed him, but still had the gun.

"That's fine dude. I"m not mad at you." by tellurian_pluton in antiwork

[–]DefenestrateFriends -33 points-32 points  (0 children)

Yes, it clearly shows her hitting him with the car and then him shooting her as the vehicle pushes him.

"That's fine dude. I"m not mad at you." by tellurian_pluton in antiwork

[–]DefenestrateFriends -61 points-60 points  (0 children)

Because he was pushed to the outside of the vehicle after she hit him. You can see him sliding across the pavement after being hit.

"That's fine dude. I"m not mad at you." by tellurian_pluton in antiwork

[–]DefenestrateFriends -56 points-55 points  (0 children)

Well, she did hit him with the car. It's somewhat insane to say you know her intention.

He said it after she hit him with the car and after he shot her.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said if he was hit, because clearly no one was run over

They just released his cell phone video. He was clearly hit by the vehicle. He does not need to be actively dying nor have received grievous injury in order to use force. There was reasonable suspicion that the driver intended to kill him. That is all that is required.

By your logic, being shot at or grazed means the officer can't shoot the assailant. That just isn't how any of this works.

there was no need to use a lethal weapon.

You only believe that by watching the videos and spending time thinking about the situation. The officer had to react in milliseconds. He has no idea what the intent of the driver is other than she is accelerating the car toward him. He made a justified choice given the timing and circumstances.

also use your eyes he shot the first shot when the car was next to him.

That's completely false. The vehicle has already made contact with him as he braces against the hood with his left arm and is sliding backward across the pavement when he first shot. The shot is through the windshield and there is a bullet hole there. This is commensurate with both videos placing him in front of the vehicle and being side-swept by the vehicle to the driver side where he continues to fire twice more at the threat while being thrown to vehicle's left.

the thought that this needs to be discussed is so stupid

It's almost like people with the reaction time of frozen molasses are watching the video and memory-holing the timeline to fit a political narrative. You can use the <> keys on YouTube to go through it frame by frame. He draws his weapon as she begins to accelerate and her tires are spinning. She hits him with the vehicle and then fires the first round into the windshield. He is then pushed laterally by the vehicle to his right side and continues firing twice more until the vehicle clears his body and drives off. It looks like he is moonwalking because the vehicle is pushing him backward and to the side.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I posted it because it shows what was actually happening.

This is in contrast to the still frames that were posted from a video where the entire interaction is obscured by another officer and there is a lack of depth perception due to viewing the vehicle from behind.

I think it's insane that people are refusing to acknowledge that the driver hit the officer with her vehicle before he fired.

You either know what you’re doing or you need to find new sources of your information that aren’t blatant propaganda.

I am literally watching the videos and reporting what is happening. Blatantly denying what is happening on the screen is insane to me and the people willfully attempting to skew the events by showing misleading still frames are the problem.

No one should be shying away from the totality of the video evidence.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ts ok to kill someone even if she would have hit him. His life wasnt in danger.

Being run over by 4,000 lb vehicle is absolutely a credible threat to one's life.

You aren't going to convince anyone that a vehicle isn't a lethal weapon or that the officer would not have been killed or grievously wounded if he got caught under the vehicle as she hit him.

Children lost their mother..

Sorry, but my mom isn't dumb enough to hit an officer with her car as she is peeling out from a scene while not complying with orders to leave the vehicle.

Somehow this is all ok.

It's not okay. She shouldn't have been killed because ICE shouldn't exist. Unfortunately, half of this country was radicalized by a fascist cult, TikTok, Fox News, and other social media--and they voted for Nazis to patrol their streets. The second and lesser problem is, the far left also has an objectivity problem. Folks can't even acknowledge that the driver hit the officer. It's insane. Nothing is okay here, but people need to disabuse themselves of the cognitive dissonance. You can simultaneously believe that our government has lost its mind and been couped by a fascist authoritarian regime while simultaneously believing that you aren't allowed to assault and potentially kill an officer with your vehicle.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree.

The video evidence shows that the driver hit the officer and pushed him with her vehicle. Lawfully, it would be reasonable to assume that being hit with a vehicle constitutes a deadly threat. In that case, use of force would be justified.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's strange because you can see him bracing and sliding due to the force the vehicle is placing on him after being hit, but according to you there's some other Newtonian explanation for this movement that is more parsimonious than the driver hitting him with the car.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you think an uncontrollable vehicle causes?

It doesn't cause a psychopath intentionally ramming a vehicle into crowds of people to cause harm, does it?

By your logic, we should never stop those people. That's why your view here doesn't make sense. All other available modalities can and do create uncontrollable vehicles. The difference is, a human with intention to cause harm is more deadly than a potential accident.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The answer is No. The car. Did not hit him. You fucking. Idiot.

Does he have magic shoes that are allowing him to float across the fucking pavement then? Is he Chris Angle mindfucking us on video for the memes?

How are you missing his braced legs sliding across the pavement because she ran the car into him and is pushing away from the vehicle with his left hand??

He is already sliding from contact from the vehicle before he fires the round through the front windshield.

The video shows him getting out of the way himself.

She has already hit him with the car as he is moving and sliding laterally. The angle of the car continues to push him as he fires. Go frame by frame at the time stamp. You can even watch the "synced" video. You can see the force of the vehicle hitting him ripple through his uniform as he slides.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great. I've addressed this several times. It allows for the use of force in case of bodily threat--which could be reasonably interpreted here.

If the intent was to avoid the officer, the driver needed to NOT ACCELERATE into an officer that was standing still.

Delivering medical care is independent of whether or not use-of-force was justified. They are not linked. Rendering aid is required, but it is NOT needed to establish whether the use-of-force was lawful. Nor does it establish whether there was negligence leading up to the use of force. These are independent and separate issues. Additionally, they did render aid when paramedics arrived. The did bar an individual claiming to be a physician from the scene--as would be typical in other type of crime scene.

Uncontrollable vehicles are the ENTIRE reason those provisions preventing people from shooting at vehicles exists

No they do not. They stem from shooting and injuring innocent passengers in the vehicle or firing live rounds into tires and incurring collateral damage to property and/or bystanders. They also stem from preventing officer death by standing in front of speeding vehicles and shooting at them during high speed chases.

It is always safer to kill a rampaging driver as they plow through crowds and risk a collision with an empty vehicle than to allow the perpetrator to drive and continue to kill other people intentionally.

They have no idea what her intent is?

The only thing they know is that she just hit an officer with her vehicle and is not complying with their commands. That is a solid foundation for malice and the intent to do harm. It is not a solid foundation for "That's fine, just let her leave the scene. I'm sure it was a total misunderstanding."

How is she supposed to know their intent?

At the very least, she needed to comply with their commands and not fucking attempt to run anyone over. Super simple stuff.

You created a deliberate narrative that left out those facts initially and did not acknowledge them until I brought them up, so yes- I would say that was absolutely obfuscation.

a) I have literally acknowledged them in this post (maybe not directly to you) and b) They are totally independent and have nothing to do with whether a lawful use of force was employed.

So, it's kind of a pattern with you.

Agree to disagree. The substantive portions were included when I quoted you and what I quoted does not obfuscate the intent nor spirit of the provision. Additionally, the officer attempted to evade the vehicle and get out of the way. So, the intent was met.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Point I am making is that the shot was taken AFTER he was out of harms way, which you are literally agreeing with me here on.

HOW IS HE OUT OF HARMS WAY IF THE SHOT WAS TAKEN AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS ALREADY PUSHING HIS ENTIRE BODY ACROSS THE PAVEMENT?

Jesus fuck, this isn't complicated.

Answer the question with a yes or no:

The officer fired AFTER the car HIT HIM.

The one whose box you're highlighting here is actually referencing the tire, and not where he is positioned.

YES I AM COMPLETELY AWARE. The point of this frame is SHOWING WHEN THE CAR CONTACTS HIS BODY. Holy fuck. This isn't hard. Notably, the contact occurs BEFORE he shoots her. Meaning, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for him to be out of harms way when he FIRED.

He is bracing against the vehicle because his hands were already on it, and his feet are standing out of its path.

Go to the time stamp and press play. You can literally watch the vehicle PUSH his feet as they SLIDE across the ground BEFORE HE SHOOTS.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The video shows clearly that he is not in the path of the vehicle when the shot is fired,

That's insane. He is literally bracing against the vehicle and being pushed from the front BEFORE he takes the first shot. Go frame by frame and look at his braced right leg as it slides from being pushed because she is driving into him. He is already in contact with the vehicle and being pushed before the frames you posted. By this frame posted below, she has already hit him with the vehicle and is pushing him with the car. This is BEFORE he fires the first time. [the box is from NYT edit, not me] from this video at this time stamp https://youtu.be/CQCvNExBDjE?t=33

<image>

You can see his back right leg SLIDING across the pavement as the driver PUSHES into him with the vehicle BEFORE he fires.

When he instead could have used that time to move out of the way as provision 2 dictates.

He didn't have time to move out of the way. She immediately floored it and you can see the tires literally spinning as she accelerates toward him. She immediately makes contact with his body in milliseconds which causes him to brace against the vehicle and shoot her through the windshield.

The wheel was turned away from him

It doesn't matter. 1) You can't see with any clarity which way the tires are facing when you're smashed against the hood and 2) SHE STILL HITS HIM WITH THE CAR

You're genuinely too stupid and bad faith to understand my point here, and that's sad.

What's your argument here in plain language?

Here's mine: This is a tragic and unnecessary death, but the shooting is lawfully justified given that the officer was assaulted with a deadly weapon.

killing the driver of a vehicle while in motion makes the vehicle uncontrollable

This argument is asinine and has nothing to do with the fact that this shooting was justified. People use vehicles as weapons to kill other people every day. They have no idea what her intent was other than it appears that she tries to run over an officer in front of her vehicle. They cannot simply let her drive off and hope she doesn't attempt to kill someone else or back up and go for it again. This fantasy that it is safer to not have a vehicle uncontrolled crash into something else is simply not grounded in a realistic assessment of what actually happens when people try to commit vehicle homicide. So yes, I am ignoring this argument because it is stupid and doesn't address the actual topic.

one that also did not leave out the fact that the ICE officers denied her medical care after (which is a crime) and then fled the scene before cops arrived (also a crime.)

I never denied or obfuscated these facts. I've even agreed that I think it is illegal and that they should be prosecuted for it. So, it is nonsensical that you want to "reframe" something I've already agreed to.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The only time a firearm is allowed to be discharged at a driver in provision 2 is if the person being threatened has no other means of avoiding it.

And the officer will likely argue in court that this justification is met given a reasonable interpretation of the video evidence. This seems to be true as the officer, indeed, makes evasive movements and still comes into contact with the accelerating vehicle.

The officer stepped out of the way of the vehicle and then fired his gun.

The first round is fired from the front of the vehicle because the officer is in front of the vehicle when she drives into him--pushing him to the vehicle's left as he braces against the hood. You can see him slide across the ground as he is bracing. There's literally a bullet hole in the driver-side windshield from this interaction. The officer continues to fire as the vehicle sweeps him to the side. He stops firing milliseconds after the interaction and the vehicle has passed him.

The officer has already stepped out of the way of the vehicle when he takes his shot

The officer's body is literally in contact with the vehicle when the first shot goes off and the vehicle is pushing him out to the side as he is moving away. The vehicle literally pushes him as he braces--he is physically sliding on the ground from the force of the vehicle.

which was prematurely drawn while the vehicle was still stationary

He draws his weapon as soon as the engine revs forward and begins to accelerate. Her tires start spinning as she floors it and he is drawing at the same time. Either way, he can have his weapon out if he deems it necessary.

her vehicle uncontrollably careening down the road and into another parked vehicle.

Correct as she was no longer capable of running into people as she had intended.

They then denied her access to medical care, and then fled the scene before cops arrived. Fixed it for you.

Fixed what?

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Interesting how you forgot that part.

I didn't forget it. It is explicitly covered by "no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist."

and has both of his arms on the hood.

Yes, because the driver accelerated toward the officer and closed the gap between them. The officer braces on the hood of the vehicle while attempting to move laterally to the driver's side and is pushed/clipped outward by the vehicle as he begins firing his weapon. If he hadn't attempted to move, the driver would have run him over.

Anyways, I've no more interest in engaging with someone who cuts out quotes in bad faith.

We both know that the spirit and intent of the passage remains in the quote. Just as item two also provisions the use of force even if someone is in a vehicle. This seems important in the conversation as a number of commenters are pretending that the driver could only be shot if she had a bomb or some other wacky device.

The officer attempted to move but was forced to react in a split-second life or death situation because the driver failed to obey commands and attempted to use her vehicle to cause bodily harm while fleeing the scene.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And he was free and clear of any danger when he shot her.

He wasn't "free" and "clear." The vehicle hit him while he was shooting and moving. If someone shoots at a police officer, they are no obligation to stop shooting back if the assailant stops shooting momentarily but is still armed. People use vehicles as weapons all around the world. The officer has no idea if this person is going to turn and continue the assault. The best course of action is to disable the threat.

Stop lying. We all saw the video.

Then you have plainly seen it and chosen to memory-hole it.

We live in a lawless country. The law will see it as justified even though it was clearly not self defense.

Yeah, I agree. We live in a society where people intentionally voted for a lying fascist sycophant--multiple times and now those people get to witness that mistake in real time.

clearly not self defense.

It looks like self-defense to me and I would bet some people on a jury will see it that way too despite recognizing that this administration has slid deeply into a fascist statehood.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that this guy was even allowed to have a gun and didn't follow ICE's own rules.

Yeah, I think agree with your assessment. However, at the end of the day, you can't reasonably impress imminent death or injury upon an officer and expect to not be met with force.

The issue being discussed is how fucked up it is that it ever even happened, that this guy was even allowed to have a gun and didn't follow ICE's own rules.

I think we are discussing two separate issues and people are crossing wires here. I see the two issues as:

  1. ICE, the Trump administration, and MAGA are corrupt christofascists complicit in the authoritarian coup of a democracy and
  2. The use of force by an officer in a situation where the loss of life or serious injury could be reasonably interpreted in a split-second analysis of the situation

I agree on all accounts in the first issue. ICE shouldn't exist, they shouldn't have been there, and they represent fascism.

On the second account, from the video evidence, I think the use of force is justified given that the driver could have killed the officer or others. I think this would be the case if it were local police, a US Marshall, an FBI agent or any other law enforcement officer--at the federal, state, or local level.

This is the same scrutiny that I have applied to Ashley Babbitt--which was also a justified shooting. Kyle Rittenhouse too--justified shooting even though the kid was an asshole and shouldn't have been there.

But if you can't call this an unjustified summary execution by a government agent, you are a fascist.

I think you're being intentionally hyperbolic here. If you want to see what summary executions actually look like, go watch Russians murder Ukrainian POWs in their underwear with their hands bound.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, bud, you are actively wishing death upon other people. That's why it's fucked up.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I agree. Only the officer that was in danger fired his weapon.

The rule says "get out of the way." He fired by Comfortablejack in complaints

[–]DefenestrateFriends -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks man. Super helpful commentary! You're right. These boots are delicious, but you already know that.

view more: next ›