> officials rushed to defend immigration officers without waiting for key facts to emerge – in what former immigration officials called a clear break with past practice for federal agencies
Without obscuring how bad is it, I don't believe there was ever a time when officials _didn't_ rush to defend federal officers without waiting for key facts to emerge. The us government has constantly loved to say that no one working for them has done anything wrong.
Calling American citizens domestic terrorists 30 mins after they were shot dead by agents of the President's shiny new initiative is a bit of an escalation on the generic government face-saving responses. The rhetoric is escalating and dangerous.
Is it? I really don't think so. You don't remember the whole "superpredator" thing? Ever time a black dude is shot, they'll start talking about how he must have been some kinda criminal. People of color have been suffering this shit forever. Sure, the Internet makes things faster, but the policies are the same.
While I do feel like it is bringing attention to some questionable behaviour of the DHS and trying to share nuanced information I also feel like at parts this article kind of side step that in order to slander ICE more, though this has been apparent with Reuters for a while as the Good shooting article contains information about the agent saying "fucking bitch" but not her wife telling her to "drive drive" when the officer is positioned in front of a car, where I've noticed more left wing sources do that when reporting on it while more right wing sources do the opposite and leave out the former while including the latter.
Arguably ICE does seem to overreact but I would still appreciate more nuanced articles that really try their best to be purely fact based and don't attempt to manipulate the wording to make ICE seem better or worse than it is.
> but not her wife telling her to "drive drive" when the officer is positioned in front of a car
where was everyone standing when she said to drive? could she see the ICE agent in front of the car? also, you can tell someone to "drive drive", but that does not meant to mean "drive over whoever is in front of you". reads to me like you are as guilty of reading more into it as you claim they are for not quoting 'drive drive'.
>to "drive drive" when the officer is positioned in front of a car
when you're in front of of the car at some distance like the shooting ICE in the video and car is making a turn in front of you, you clearly see that the car is moving away from you to the side, not moving toward you.
I disagree with ICE executing people but how can anyone not agree with this:
" Release criminals from jail directly to ICE (used to be the norm) instead of releasing them to the streets"
This used to be the norm under Clinton and Obama, too. Even with Tom Homan under Obama (and Obama gave Tom Homan a medal for doing that).
Why are such comment downvoted?
Don't people at the left realize how polarizing it is to defend criminals and to have states where criminals who happen to be illegals are released into the streets?
And why is there concern about people shot by ICE but never any concern for the victims of the crimes committed by illegals?
fish rots from the head. Violence, lies and grift. The very head is convicted grifter who is openly using his position for personal enrichment. Right next - Noem - trigger happy dog shooter, and why suddenly so many DHS ads with her ? :
"Firm Tied to Kristi Noem Secretly Got Money From $220 Million DHS Ad Contracts
The company is run by the husband of Noem’s chief DHS spokesperson and has personal and business ties to Noem and her aides. DHS invoked the “emergency” at the border to skirt competitive bidding rules for the taxpayer-funded campaign."
and that cherry on top:
"DHS, White House shared white nationalist song in ICE recruitment posts"
It’s hilarious seeing the kind of narratives the right is coming up with to avoid admitting the obvious truth which is on video from multiple angles. I’m now seeing people say things like “you can’t carry a gun at protests” (even though there are numerous photos of people openly carrying guns at right wing protests), or “here’s a different video showing Pretty was an agitator” (as if that excuses the execution), or “wait for bodycam footage” (even though there is a video of them removing his gun and later putting him on his knees).
I will say though that I am also a bit scared. When government officials push a blatantly false narrative, that they know is a lie, and their supporting voters completely accept that version of reality over what they can see with their eyes, it suggests that those same voters would be okay with ANYTHING the administration does.
> officials rushed to defend immigration officers without waiting for key facts to emerge – in what former immigration officials called a clear break with past practice for federal agencies
Without obscuring how bad is it, I don't believe there was ever a time when officials _didn't_ rush to defend federal officers without waiting for key facts to emerge. The us government has constantly loved to say that no one working for them has done anything wrong.
Calling American citizens domestic terrorists 30 mins after they were shot dead by agents of the President's shiny new initiative is a bit of an escalation on the generic government face-saving responses. The rhetoric is escalating and dangerous.
Is it? I really don't think so. You don't remember the whole "superpredator" thing? Ever time a black dude is shot, they'll start talking about how he must have been some kinda criminal. People of color have been suffering this shit forever. Sure, the Internet makes things faster, but the policies are the same.
Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces.
They should augment deployed enforcement with those who have such expertise.
Who? They are complaining that sanctuary cities' local police are not cooperating. Who else are you suggesting has the necessary expertise?
Perhaps if they cannot carry out their goals without hurting people, the answer is "take a step back" and not "hurt people."
That's the what the state police is for... the one that Minnesota refused to deploy to help ICE when the Good and Pretti situations happened.
The state police are not "for" non-violent enforcement.
While I do feel like it is bringing attention to some questionable behaviour of the DHS and trying to share nuanced information I also feel like at parts this article kind of side step that in order to slander ICE more, though this has been apparent with Reuters for a while as the Good shooting article contains information about the agent saying "fucking bitch" but not her wife telling her to "drive drive" when the officer is positioned in front of a car, where I've noticed more left wing sources do that when reporting on it while more right wing sources do the opposite and leave out the former while including the latter.
Arguably ICE does seem to overreact but I would still appreciate more nuanced articles that really try their best to be purely fact based and don't attempt to manipulate the wording to make ICE seem better or worse than it is.
> but not her wife telling her to "drive drive" when the officer is positioned in front of a car
where was everyone standing when she said to drive? could she see the ICE agent in front of the car? also, you can tell someone to "drive drive", but that does not meant to mean "drive over whoever is in front of you". reads to me like you are as guilty of reading more into it as you claim they are for not quoting 'drive drive'.
>to "drive drive" when the officer is positioned in front of a car
when you're in front of of the car at some distance like the shooting ICE in the video and car is making a turn in front of you, you clearly see that the car is moving away from you to the side, not moving toward you.
I disagree with ICE executing people but how can anyone not agree with this:
" Release criminals from jail directly to ICE (used to be the norm) instead of releasing them to the streets"
This used to be the norm under Clinton and Obama, too. Even with Tom Homan under Obama (and Obama gave Tom Homan a medal for doing that).
Why are such comment downvoted?
Don't people at the left realize how polarizing it is to defend criminals and to have states where criminals who happen to be illegals are released into the streets?
And why is there concern about people shot by ICE but never any concern for the victims of the crimes committed by illegals?
Something is deeply flawed.
If that’s your rationale for soft pedaling shock troops attacking American citizens, yes deeply flawed.
The person who murdered Laken Riley was not acting on behalf of the government. That is the difference. Do you see the difference?
> Why are such comment downvoted?
Why are you inferring that that comment was downvoted for the 13% of it that you quoted rather than something in the other 87%?
fish rots from the head. Violence, lies and grift. The very head is convicted grifter who is openly using his position for personal enrichment. Right next - Noem - trigger happy dog shooter, and why suddenly so many DHS ads with her ? :
https://www.propublica.org/article/kristi-noem-dhs-ad-campai...
"Firm Tied to Kristi Noem Secretly Got Money From $220 Million DHS Ad Contracts The company is run by the husband of Noem’s chief DHS spokesperson and has personal and business ties to Noem and her aides. DHS invoked the “emergency” at the border to skirt competitive bidding rules for the taxpayer-funded campaign."
and that cherry on top:
"DHS, White House shared white nationalist song in ICE recruitment posts"
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/white-national...
It’s hilarious seeing the kind of narratives the right is coming up with to avoid admitting the obvious truth which is on video from multiple angles. I’m now seeing people say things like “you can’t carry a gun at protests” (even though there are numerous photos of people openly carrying guns at right wing protests), or “here’s a different video showing Pretty was an agitator” (as if that excuses the execution), or “wait for bodycam footage” (even though there is a video of them removing his gun and later putting him on his knees).
I will say though that I am also a bit scared. When government officials push a blatantly false narrative, that they know is a lie, and their supporting voters completely accept that version of reality over what they can see with their eyes, it suggests that those same voters would be okay with ANYTHING the administration does.