They do not carry Sig Sauer Emperor Scorpions, not sure where you got that information. They especially don't carry Sig Sauer Emperor Scorpions which are riced out with attachments. [1]
Yeah, ICE and CBP officers do not carry optics on pistols. Feel free to show me the ICE or CBP purchase order for Sig Sauer Emperor Scorpions, it's all public so it shouldn't take long!
That's if you can get around the Minneapolis Police Chief confirming it was his gun, which might be a steep hill!
Looks to me from two video angles like ICE initiated pushing and pepper spraying of peaceful protestors, then after they have wrestled the guy to the ground and one of them was hitting him in the head, they shoot him. I don't see where the dude pulled a gun on them. At any rate, this is 100% ICE initiated conflict.
Those same economists warning about tariffs also warned it would lead to runaway skyrocketing inflation and quote "the mother of all recessions" [1] [2] [3], which objectively did not happen. The same economists were nowhere to be seen when prices doubled 2020-24 and the official inflation numbers were 13%.
Once again proving that economists are engaged in mere astrology.
You also frame the argument that the last administration was tariff opposed, after they issued a 10% blanket tariff on the US' largest trading partner and tariffed Canadian wood products, directly causing house prices to skyrocket during the pandemic. You will never consider those impacts, because you're engaged in a fundamentally political argument, not an economic one.
The US has 4% GDP growth and a 2.7% inflation run rate. Wage growth is exceeding inflation again. Data doesn't lie, but economists do. Routinely.
There’s a difference between predicting the degree of inflation (an output metric of the entire complex system) and predicting that the country imposing a tariff pays most of the tariff (almost the definition of the word tariff). And if you can’t see that obvious distinction, who’s the one engaged in a fundamentally political argument?
The titles have rolled. The prediction in Q1 last year was specifically that by this time, the US would be in a deep recession due to tariffs.
I can understand that most people do not actually stay with these forecasts. The story hits NBC, you are completely outraged about this forecast made by these economists, the thing never happens, NBC has moved onto next disaster coming round the corner, next outrage.
If you work in markets, you are confronted with the relentless inability of talking head economists to just say mildly rational things. It is constant, almost every year now we have this latest economic disaster by economists in the periphery of political parties...no-one pays attention to these people, they have tenure, they make money from cashing in their political contacts not through actual correct forecasts (and yes, they always say that the thing they predicted will definitely happen next year now).
Stopped clock is eventually right. But there was literally zero information in the insane claims made in Q1. If you did not see this immediately, don't pay attention to these forecasts.
That's a really nice comment but does not bear in any way on what I wrote. The Trump administration has now completed its first year. There are three to go.
Yes, i am saying very directly that the prediction made was made by many (which is the comment you replied to) that tariffs WOULD HAVE ALREADY caused the economy to fall into a deep recession. These predictions were wrong, they were obviously wrong at the time they were made but that didn't stop the breathless coverage about a coming Great Depression.
Whatever happens next is irrelevant, it won't make that prediction correct.
I'm not unconvinced by the idea that businesses in the US dulled inflation by pulling forward stock purchases and stockpiling goods. But 9 months worth of goods? SMBs can't afford to do that. Large enterprises don't have the warehousing capacity to do that.
Could you imagine Amazon increasing their stock on hand by 30%? Maybe. Could you imagine them quadrupling their stock on hand? Seems unlikely.
Impacts should've shown up by now, most of the stockpiled goods would've been sold down.
I don't know, it seems like there has been a fair amount of reporting about closing or struggling SMBs and farms, and there's also the economy changing to make more and more of the spending come from upper income, which will be less price sensitive and the question of whether various things could have gone down in price otherwise.
The popular zeitgeist seems to reject the inflation numbers because of perceiving it to be higher, too.
I do agree it's probably not inventory, but the frequent changes to the policies may also be part of it too.
Astrology is probably far more apt than you might think, because most don't know the history of astrology. For centuries it was taught as a scholarly proper and real 'science.' Think of something like e.g. modern psychology. Various fields like social psychology have something like a 20% replication rate among top journals which means the entire field is pretty dodgy, but plenty of people keep on repeating the latest headlines, which even end up shared on here fairly frequently, and treating it like any other science.
Astrology only really fell out of fashion due to a perfect storm of a bunch of different factors. The Church defacto banned aspects of it that implied external forces driving human behavior as that would contradict free will, and that happened just about the Renaissance was kicking off and all sorts of new astronomical discoveries led to no greater precision in astrological predictions, along with a more broadly skeptical shift in society, which gradually left it relegated to where it remains to this day.
"My evenings are taken up very largely with astrology. I make horoscopic calculations in order to find a clue to the core of psychological truth." - Carl Jung to Sigmund Freud, 1911
---
It's a great example of how what is deemed proper and scientific at one point in time is still heavily influenced by things that, in the future, will be considered 'obviously' nonsense. Even in far more modern times, it wasn't long ago that lobotomization was considered an appropriate psychological treatment. No less than JFK's sister [1] was lobotomized as a 'cure' for her irritability.
Right, but what people miss is that some people (usually not academic economists) are able to predict the economy with good levels of accuracy. It is not hard, there is a ton of data, the problem is that you have to drop your own personal interest in politics...for 99.99% of people feeling politically validated is more important than being right on the economy.
Isn't there reams of data on weather patterns too? I thought that like the weather, economic systems are fundamentally chaotic and thus demonstrably unpredictable. There's a whole field of math where we can create these mathematical models that simulate chaos and are fundamentally unpredictable. I was under the impression that Economics falls under the purview of this mathematical theory in terms of unpredictability.
If I may ask, who are the people that do these predictions? What is there methodology and how do you know it's not luck?
Look up Brosseau v. Haugen case law. There's extensive precedent for self defense for federal agents when people drive their car recklessly near them.
Note that in Brosseau v. Haugen, the court ruled explicitly that even a car driving AWAY from an agent can be considered an imminent deadly threat, and that firing multiple times can be justified.
In fact, that case was even murkier because the target was shot in the back (versus getting shot through the windscreen into the chest), and more bullets were discharged, and the car was further away!
Interesting way to pronounce "intentionally shot twice in the head through the side window" as "through the windscreen into the chest". Or maybe you just randomly forgot.
Jonathan Ross, who killed an unarmed observer trying to drive away from him, has allegedly completed advanced firearms training and maintained expert marksman qualifications according to DHS Assistant Secretary McLaughlin.
He shot to kill.
And then him and his pals barred a doctor from trying to help the victim.
There's so many videos from all angles it's really undisputable ("alternative facts" narrative non-withstanding).
Are you claiming he did not shoot her in the chest through the windscreen? Patently ridiculous claim, there's clear evidence showing that this was the case. Unambiguously, the first shot was fired through the windscreen. Later, in a medical release, we learned that 3 bullets hit her. Meaning, the first shot through the windscreen hit her in the chest. Pretty blatantly obvious.
>him and his pals barred a doctor from trying to help the victim
Do you think police should allow a random guy claiming to be a doctor into an active crime scene to tamper with evidence? Or wait for an actual paramedic to show up? Not that it means absolutely anything at all, because given she was shot three times, twice in the chest, she was absolutely dead and there was no saving her, especially not by a random physician.
>There's so many videos from all angles it's really undisputable
You'll dispute the fact she hit him, though. Despite the evidence.
"Johnson said his biggest takeaway from the video was a crunching sound he heard immediately before the gunshots, which he believes is the sound of the SUV hitting the ICE agent."
"That data point for me shows that there was contact made with the agent, who is now in reasonable fear, who could clearly articulate being hit with an SUV as reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. And then the shots were fired," said Johnson.
The ruling itself even says that every case has to be taken in context, and that particular one was a known felon who has been accused of a crime fleeing in a vehicle. As a matter of fact, if you look at the decision [1] you won't find the word "defense" once, only "fleeing".
Last I checked, no one is a felon until so adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Parent comment appears to have in mind either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a felony was committed. So not identical at all — nor clear.
Also questionable whether any commands were lawful.
No it's not. See the most recent NY Times article where they analyze the shooting from every available angle, and it's clear Agent Ross was not in danger, and was not hit by Good's vehicle. His phone he was recording with hit the front of the car as he was preparing to fire his weapon.
Terrible ruling then and polls show majority of Americans agree shooting Renee Good was not justifiable, nor are the current ICE tactics of dragging people fron their cars, breaking down their doors. And throwing pepper spray under the cars of families trying to leave.
All the claims that the car did not hit the agent rely upon the first video, with the worst angle of all of the videos, and does not take into account the first person view.
The video shot by the agent in question is the most indicative of the car hitting the agent, as CBS found:
>Johnson said his biggest takeaway from the video was a crunching sound he heard immediately before the gunshots, which he believes is the sound of the SUV hitting the ICE agent.
>"That data point for me shows that there was contact made with the agent, who is now in reasonable fear, who could clearly articulate being hit with an SUV as reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. And then the shots were fired," said Johnson.
If someone comes at me with a knife or a gun and I shoot them in the head, the knife or gun would no longer be a threatening instrument (at least in the immediate future).
If a car is driving toward me (essentially the only way it could cause me harm) and I shoot the driver in the head, then the car keeps driving toward me and, lacking a driver, threatens not only me but also others in the immediate vicinity because it will keep moving. (Witness how the car in this instance keeps going and crashes.)
Another scenario. It's illegal (at least in Florida) to make a left or right turn while pedestrians are in any part of the crosswalk. Suppose I'm crossing the road, duly within the crosswalk and with a valid "walk" signal, and someone makes a turn while I'm in the crosswalk and is headed right toward me. The car being a lethal weapon, am I justified in drawing my firearm and shooting the driver in the head in self defense?
>The car being a lethal weapon, am I justified in drawing my firearm and shooting the driver in the head in self defense?
Not in Minneapolis because it is a duty to retreat state for regular citizens. Therefore your scenario really creates a false equivalence because the cops have special privileges to kill people in the case they use a 'deadly weapon' due to the 'fleeing violent felon' exceptions for cops that allows them to be a summary executioner in cases of clear flight.
To begin, I simply posed a hypothetical to explore the topic.
Still, whether this (or any) federal officer violates a person's Fourth Amendment rights (by way of exercising excessive force) is subject to a standard of objective reasonableness under the circumstances. E.g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). That applies regardless of state law (on account of the Supremacy Clause).
It only applies regardless of state law to the extent that the officer is both up to and at that point acting without malice in an objectively reasonable belief that that there actions are within their lawful federal duties (not merely the policy directives and goals of the federal superiors), because otherwise Supremacy Clause immunity does not apply, and state law controls fully.
Given ICE's very narrow jurisdiction (despite their current aggressive actions and the clear approval of their federal executive superiors for that aggression) this is a real concern about their content even before the shooting.
Graham isn't an immunity case and specifically takes subjective motivation (including malice) out of the analysis. The issue is one of reasonableness of the bodily seizure.
Was it objectively reasonable under the circumstances for the ICE officer to shoot the driver in the head? Not in my view — and apparently not in the views of the other officers on the scene — based on their actions, anyway. It seems to me that excessive force was used, violating the driver's constitutional right to be free of unreasonable bodily seizure, which resulted, tragically, in her death.
Of note, too, are today's resignations of several DOJ attorneys in the Minnesota office over the refusal to advance the investigation of the ICE officer and the push to instead investigate the victim's widow, of all people.
This is a purely political move to censor dissent by a government that polls like a minor party and is slated for electoral wipeout next election. If it were not, they'd issue the same threats to Gemini and ChatGPT.
reply