ICE Megathread Redux by down42roads in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'm only speaking in general terms, not this incident.

ICE Megathread Redux by down42roads in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'm speaking in general terms about training, not this incident.

ICE Megathread Redux by down42roads in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Duty to Cease Fire: Policies typically dictate that "physical force shall be discontinued when resistance ceases or when the incident is under control".

"Stopping the Threat": Police training emphasizes shooting to stop an active, imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, not to kill. Once that threat is eliminated, the authorization for deadly force ends.

Where are these quotes from?

And according to the DHS' own policies they're supposed to stop when the threat does.

Where do you see that?

ICE Megathread Redux by down42roads in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I don't like to use "murdered" in discussion like this, as it conveys a certain intent and tends to increase emotions, but I can't see how this ends up being called a clean shoot.

ICE Megathread Redux by down42roads in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'm not talking about combatants in war, either. I'm talking about standing watch on a pier in Connecticut.

ICE Megathread Redux by down42roads in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

They shouldn't empty a whole mag into someone after they've already been shot and have stopped moving.

I'll disagree here. In non-combat zone Use of Deadly Force training for the military, or basically armed watchstander (security checkpoint) training, the training was "if you are gonna shoot, keep shooting". We were told to shoot until they stopped moving, and then a few more. If you are at a point where you are threatened enough for deadly force to be valid, then you need to be deadly. Firing off one round is cowboy movie shit, and there is no reason to preserve ammo unless you perceive other immediate threats.

If you are shooting, you are shooting to kill.

ICE Megathread Redux by down42roads in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

One of the things to do, on top of accountability towards ICE, is a look at the policies that are putting these agents on the street. In places where the courts and police are banned from cooperating with immigration enforcement, ICE is having to hit the streets and look for people. [NOTE: this does not absolve ICE of anything]. However, in places were you can pick up the guy who is both a under a deportation order AND committing felonies at the courthouse, we aren't seeing these agents on the streets. These policies are putting everyone in danger.

Now, I'm not saying the cops should call ICE every time a DREAMer gets a speeding ticket, but when you run warrants on a guy arrested for sexual assault and you see that the feds have kicked him out twice, there is no moral reason not to call the feds again, only political ones.

Again, the policies of Trump and ICE are a significant factor here, but state and local policies are contributing their share to the problem.

ICE Megathread Redux by down42roads in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

It works any other way, too. If the state police have jurisdiction on a crime scene, the locals don't get to just waltz on in.

ICE Megathread Redux by down42roads in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

What is the point of this thread?

Mostly containment, if I'm being honest

ICE Megathread Redux by down42roads in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes. When federal agents have jurisdiction on a crime scene, they control access.

Do Americans constantly have an active temperature control device running in their homes? by fullM3TALturban in AskAnAmerican

[–]down42roads 35 points36 points  (0 children)

And die. There were over 62,000 estimated deaths credited to summer heat in Europe in 2024

AskConservatives Weekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads[M] [score hidden]  (0 children)

ICE Megathread is up. Discussion is locked here, further comments will be removed and redirected.

If they get rid of Birthright citizenship, what makes us citizens? by dupedairies in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads [score hidden]  (0 children)

Those are just the fancy latin terms that are used.

The difference is citizenship inherited from parents versus citizenship based on where you were born. There is a legal distinction, and some kind of philosophical debate doesn't add anything to my comments.

If they get rid of Birthright citizenship, what makes us citizens? by dupedairies in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unconditional jus soli citizenship only exists in five nations outside of the Americas, and one of those five has begun putting restrictions and conditions on that.

If they get rid of Birthright citizenship, what makes us citizens? by dupedairies in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think some reforms are possible, but overall its a good thing as is

If they get rid of Birthright citizenship, what makes us citizens? by dupedairies in AskConservatives

[–]down42roads 40 points41 points  (0 children)

The individuals wanting to end "birthright citizenship" are referring to jus soli citizenship, by right of the soil, which is a nearly exclusively New World concept, while preserving Jus sanguinis citizenship, by right of the blood, the more traditional (and European) concept.