By now, I presume most of us have seen the various angles in the latest ICE related shooting in Minneapolis. A male emergency room nurse was shot by ICE agents while apparently unarmed, although he was armed when entering the protest zone.
From all the video I've seen so far, it appears that the deceased was disarmed by an ICE agent a split second before the shots rang out which ended his life. This is, of course a tragedy, but one that was supremely avoidable, which makes it all the worse.
The US government higher-ups are scrambling now to cover their asses by making statements that seem to me to be ludicrous - they should have at least the same information I have, and probably more, to base their statements upon, yet they insist on going off on tangents in the mad scramble to CYA. The latest such statement is to paint an assumption of guilt because the deceased "had two loaded magazines". None of them have specified if those two magazines were in addition to the one in the firearm, or if the two magazines included the one in the firearm (i.e. a single additional magazine), but that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Two additional magazines are pretty much standard. My current every day carry shoulder rig came with two spare magazine pouches as standard. They ride under my right arm, and balance out the weight of the firearm riding under my left arm pretty well, whether they are ever needed or not... and in a gunfight, too many bullets are always preferable to too few bullets.
When I carried a gun for a living, two spare magazines were also the standard. Nearly all of the magazine pouches sold for my duty belt held two spares as standard. Some guys carried two of those pouches for a total of 4 spares, but I only ever carried one two magazine pouch, leaving space on the duty belt for other things I felt necessary. It was rare to find anyone with just one spare magazine. So, two is the standard.
Therefore, there is nothing unusual about carrying two spares plus the one in the gun. The government should know better than to insinuate otherwise. I would be willing to bet that every single one of those ICE agents had, at the very least, two spare magazines. Using the government's logic, that would mean they are going in there with the intent to massacre people rather than just do their jobs and go home... which is a conclusion that is ridiculous on the face of it. So, if it's ridiculous the make that assumption on the part of the ICE agents, it's equally ridiculous to apply that assumption to a civilian. Foolish assumptions are foolish assumptions, regardless of the direction they are flying in.
Another argument the government is putting forth is the ludicrous notion that one is not allowed to be armed at protests. That is a ridiculous notion - both are rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. In no other cases are the assertion made that any Right in the Bill of Rights cancels out any other right enshrined therein. For example, you do not give up your 4th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure when you exercise your 1st Amendment Right to speak out. You do not give up your 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination when you exercise your 1st Amendment Right to attend a church service. So, the government, of all people, should be extremely aware that exercising one Right does not cancel any other right.
What appears to me to have happened in this case was at the very least a lapse in judgement that tragically cost a man his life. Probably several lapses in judgement on both sides.
To me, it makes no sense to interfere with law enforcement engaged in their sworn lawful duties, which is what these Minnesota "protests" have devolved into on a mass scale. And that makes no sense to me regardless of whether one is armed or unarmed. That was the first lapse in judgement. It's smarter to avoid these protests altogether, knowing that they are all devolving into violent action, but if you simply must go, then you should go armed, also because they always devolve into violence. Better to stay away from insurrections unless your purpose is to engage in insurrection.
Now in the Renee Good case, I believe that was a clearly righteous shooting. From the video evidence, they were certainly interfering in ICE operations they had no business interfering in, and Ms. Good's actions of trying to mow down an ICE officer - while her "wife" cheered her on chanting "drive, baby, drive!" was pretty clearly an act of insurrection. In this recent case, the waters are quite a bit murkier.
All of the video I've seen so far starts with the action of an ICE officer knocking the deceased on his ass. There has been no footage presented so far that shows what preceded that - nothing that shows WHY the ICE officer knocked him on his ass, or even if there was any justification for that action at all. That may be by design - propaganda of omission is every bit as powerful as propaganda of commission. What really started this ball rolling downhill? Anything?
Then, after the deceased is knocked on his ass, Feds dogpile on him, and the actions become murky. We can see what appears to be an ICE agent reaching into the dogp[ile and drawing his hand back out with a pistol from the area of the deceased's waist band... which, if that is the case, would tend to indicate that the deceased had not drawn his weapon at all, and that it was still holstered, meaning there was no imminent threat.
A split second after the deceased appears to have been disarmed, the fatal shots ring out, and it sounds like they came from at least two different guns. If we are to give the benefit of doubt, as in "innocent until proven guilty", we would have to presume that the first officer to shoot saw an empty holster without knowing that another agent was in control of the gun due to the dogpiling, and assumed the deceased had drawn his weapon himself, and in a split second decision fired to protect himself and other officers from what he perceived to be an imminent threat. The second officer shooting probably then would have engaged in what is known as "sympathetic fire" - that is where one person hears the shots ring out, immediately assumes that the shooter saw a threat to fire upon, and starts shooting in a support role thinking the first shooter must have been justified.
That would, at the very least,be a case of manslaughter vs. murder. You have to be sure that your target is an actual threat, rather than assuming so... but Monday morning quarterbacking is easy when you're not having to make a split second decision in the middle of the deep shit.
But we don't really know what the initial interaction was that led up to the shooting. That will unfold n the course of the investigation, and government officials should not be trying to cover their own asses with hearsay and made-up bullshit. That makes them look like they are grasping at straws, and nonexistent straws to boot. That's a bad look.
The bottom line, really, is that it was poor judgement to engage in a protest that a reasonable person would know is going to turn violent, as these Minneapolis [protests almost always do... and poor judgement has killed many a person. Reality does not care what your intent was, it only cares whether there are consequences for your actions or not. It is often impartial in levying those consequences.
It's also poor judgement to interfere with armed men doing their jobs.. but we do not yet know if any such interference on the part of the deceased actually occurred, or if he was simply knocked on his ass and dogpiled for being in the wrong place at the wrong time... which again argues for not being there and continuing to breathe freely after you were not there.
If it happened, it's also poor judgement to randomly knock onlookers on their ass, and it's poor judgement to dogpile that onlooker simply for observing. It is poor judgement to shoot a target that you don't absolutely know is a threat.
So the entire thing MAY have been a series of faulty judgements that led to a man losing his life. Poor judgements on both side of the equation...
BUT, what government officials are claiming in spite of the evidence to the contrary is a poor judgement compounding all of the other poor judgements possibly made. we'll have to wait to see what the incident investigation reveals.
And the government should have waited, too, before yapping out bullshit.
This gent is a former law enforcement officer giving his opinion on the government ass-covering claims:
.
From all the video I've seen so far, it appears that the deceased was disarmed by an ICE agent a split second before the shots rang out which ended his life. This is, of course a tragedy, but one that was supremely avoidable, which makes it all the worse.
The US government higher-ups are scrambling now to cover their asses by making statements that seem to me to be ludicrous - they should have at least the same information I have, and probably more, to base their statements upon, yet they insist on going off on tangents in the mad scramble to CYA. The latest such statement is to paint an assumption of guilt because the deceased "had two loaded magazines". None of them have specified if those two magazines were in addition to the one in the firearm, or if the two magazines included the one in the firearm (i.e. a single additional magazine), but that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Two additional magazines are pretty much standard. My current every day carry shoulder rig came with two spare magazine pouches as standard. They ride under my right arm, and balance out the weight of the firearm riding under my left arm pretty well, whether they are ever needed or not... and in a gunfight, too many bullets are always preferable to too few bullets.
When I carried a gun for a living, two spare magazines were also the standard. Nearly all of the magazine pouches sold for my duty belt held two spares as standard. Some guys carried two of those pouches for a total of 4 spares, but I only ever carried one two magazine pouch, leaving space on the duty belt for other things I felt necessary. It was rare to find anyone with just one spare magazine. So, two is the standard.
Therefore, there is nothing unusual about carrying two spares plus the one in the gun. The government should know better than to insinuate otherwise. I would be willing to bet that every single one of those ICE agents had, at the very least, two spare magazines. Using the government's logic, that would mean they are going in there with the intent to massacre people rather than just do their jobs and go home... which is a conclusion that is ridiculous on the face of it. So, if it's ridiculous the make that assumption on the part of the ICE agents, it's equally ridiculous to apply that assumption to a civilian. Foolish assumptions are foolish assumptions, regardless of the direction they are flying in.
Another argument the government is putting forth is the ludicrous notion that one is not allowed to be armed at protests. That is a ridiculous notion - both are rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. In no other cases are the assertion made that any Right in the Bill of Rights cancels out any other right enshrined therein. For example, you do not give up your 4th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure when you exercise your 1st Amendment Right to speak out. You do not give up your 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination when you exercise your 1st Amendment Right to attend a church service. So, the government, of all people, should be extremely aware that exercising one Right does not cancel any other right.
What appears to me to have happened in this case was at the very least a lapse in judgement that tragically cost a man his life. Probably several lapses in judgement on both sides.
To me, it makes no sense to interfere with law enforcement engaged in their sworn lawful duties, which is what these Minnesota "protests" have devolved into on a mass scale. And that makes no sense to me regardless of whether one is armed or unarmed. That was the first lapse in judgement. It's smarter to avoid these protests altogether, knowing that they are all devolving into violent action, but if you simply must go, then you should go armed, also because they always devolve into violence. Better to stay away from insurrections unless your purpose is to engage in insurrection.
Now in the Renee Good case, I believe that was a clearly righteous shooting. From the video evidence, they were certainly interfering in ICE operations they had no business interfering in, and Ms. Good's actions of trying to mow down an ICE officer - while her "wife" cheered her on chanting "drive, baby, drive!" was pretty clearly an act of insurrection. In this recent case, the waters are quite a bit murkier.
All of the video I've seen so far starts with the action of an ICE officer knocking the deceased on his ass. There has been no footage presented so far that shows what preceded that - nothing that shows WHY the ICE officer knocked him on his ass, or even if there was any justification for that action at all. That may be by design - propaganda of omission is every bit as powerful as propaganda of commission. What really started this ball rolling downhill? Anything?
Then, after the deceased is knocked on his ass, Feds dogpile on him, and the actions become murky. We can see what appears to be an ICE agent reaching into the dogp[ile and drawing his hand back out with a pistol from the area of the deceased's waist band... which, if that is the case, would tend to indicate that the deceased had not drawn his weapon at all, and that it was still holstered, meaning there was no imminent threat.
A split second after the deceased appears to have been disarmed, the fatal shots ring out, and it sounds like they came from at least two different guns. If we are to give the benefit of doubt, as in "innocent until proven guilty", we would have to presume that the first officer to shoot saw an empty holster without knowing that another agent was in control of the gun due to the dogpiling, and assumed the deceased had drawn his weapon himself, and in a split second decision fired to protect himself and other officers from what he perceived to be an imminent threat. The second officer shooting probably then would have engaged in what is known as "sympathetic fire" - that is where one person hears the shots ring out, immediately assumes that the shooter saw a threat to fire upon, and starts shooting in a support role thinking the first shooter must have been justified.
That would, at the very least,be a case of manslaughter vs. murder. You have to be sure that your target is an actual threat, rather than assuming so... but Monday morning quarterbacking is easy when you're not having to make a split second decision in the middle of the deep shit.
But we don't really know what the initial interaction was that led up to the shooting. That will unfold n the course of the investigation, and government officials should not be trying to cover their own asses with hearsay and made-up bullshit. That makes them look like they are grasping at straws, and nonexistent straws to boot. That's a bad look.
The bottom line, really, is that it was poor judgement to engage in a protest that a reasonable person would know is going to turn violent, as these Minneapolis [protests almost always do... and poor judgement has killed many a person. Reality does not care what your intent was, it only cares whether there are consequences for your actions or not. It is often impartial in levying those consequences.
It's also poor judgement to interfere with armed men doing their jobs.. but we do not yet know if any such interference on the part of the deceased actually occurred, or if he was simply knocked on his ass and dogpiled for being in the wrong place at the wrong time... which again argues for not being there and continuing to breathe freely after you were not there.
If it happened, it's also poor judgement to randomly knock onlookers on their ass, and it's poor judgement to dogpile that onlooker simply for observing. It is poor judgement to shoot a target that you don't absolutely know is a threat.
So the entire thing MAY have been a series of faulty judgements that led to a man losing his life. Poor judgements on both side of the equation...
BUT, what government officials are claiming in spite of the evidence to the contrary is a poor judgement compounding all of the other poor judgements possibly made. we'll have to wait to see what the incident investigation reveals.
And the government should have waited, too, before yapping out bullshit.
This gent is a former law enforcement officer giving his opinion on the government ass-covering claims:
.
“Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake
