This is the best post on the forum in weeks. Watch the 11-minute video linked by @Lars74. When you browse social media on various platforms, especially X, you see this phenomenon in full force. Rage baiting is running rampant, and it’s hard not to “like” posts that fit your own narrative. And most of the posters are ones you have never seen before.
Additionally, the same phrases are repeated word-for-word in several posts, which you notice when you spend time researching a trending topic. Authentic people don’t post identical phrases. Bots, however, do.
Trump was asked at the event why the United States must gain control of Greenland instead of the country increasing its military presence on the island.
– You defend what you own, not what you rent, Trump replied.
Prepare to join the United States if the hope is that the U.S. under Trump’s leadership will actually commit to any actions in accordance with NATO Article 5.
According to Pekka Toveri, this is not the case. He posted a comment about it on X, which also included a link to the federal Department of Justice’s practices.
The U.S. Department of Justice and FBI training doctrine states: A moving vehicle alone is not considered a deadly threat. Officers must attempt to move out of the vehicle’s path rather than fire.
Deadly force is not justified if: The officer voluntarily placed themselves in front of the vehicle. The vehicle is attempting to flee. There are other avenues of escape
This is exactly how they acted in that situation. The ICE agent had no reason to go in front of the car. The license plate had already been filmed from the rear of the car. Nothing indicates that Good was trying to harm the ICE guy, but rather specifically to flee the scene.
At least for Visa and Mastercard, this is irrelevant, as they only provide payment processing. Interest is paid to the bank providing the credit. Therefore, in principle, it would be a problem for the banks if it materializes, rather than for Visa/Mastercard.
Amex differs from the aforementioned in that it finances its customers’ credit card debts itself, so it would face consequences in terms of lost income, unlike Visa and Mastercard.
Trump has shifted into a new gear regarding ICE. A funding increase nearly the size of Finland’s annual budget, but at the same time, the length of training has been shortened and entry requirements have been cut. The marketing is clearly targeted at the MAGA crowd. So, weapons and badges are being handed out left and right.
This is anything but a good thing, and to my eye, it looks like Trump is gathering his own private army. The target might be the midterms, and if the result there isn’t favorable for Trump, then the storming of the Capitol will be light compared to what is coming.
I’ve been thinking pretty much the same thing all year. In the midterms, it remains to be seen whether ICE agents will, for example, station themselves near key Democratic-majority polling places to harass voters or something else. Little by little, ICE has been doing more and more outrageous things, and ICE’s terror has become normalized. I don’t believe they’ll hit a wall—at least not soon enough. It brings to mind Milton Mayer’s book “They Thought They Were Free,” which describes the thoughts of ordinary Germans during the Nazi era. Here is an excerpt from the work.. One passage is particularly memorable and, in my opinion, describes the American reaction to the dismantling of democracy during Trump’s reign:
Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow.
It is indeed somewhat grim that while Charles Manson brainwashed teenagers and mostly raved and fantasized about Helter Skelter, we have now found a president who both preps the sentiment and gathers the budget for the event. Hopefully, however, everything is being built in accordance with campaign promises for the best of ordinary Americans and just for draining the swamp and nurturing the standard of living of ever-more-winning citizens. The discussion around individual escalations doesn’t always look very good. The souring of society happens, however, outside the details of individual video evidence.
On the other hand, the way out might be a Trumpian antithesis in line with the dialectical nature of history, which might not necessarily be the best for everyone either. But perhaps one would rather hope the madness ends through that eventually. The Roaring 20s has been quite heavy despite the market rallies.
I personally wonder how the next elections will go. I wonder if the transfer of power will happen like the last one? Last time, Trump incited the Proud Boys & co to storm the Capitol, but now the entire ICE might be involved in the takeover. Are the cards currently being dealt for a future civil war, ensuring that one’s own side has the necessary resources for the seizure? Or could Trump and company actually be mature enough to give up power without a big fuss in the event of a potential defeat? Right now, that scenario looks more like fiction than a civil war in the States…
In this shorter post, I want to link the 3-minute video from BlueSky below. The person describes 10 things that happened in Germany in the 30s. Reflect for yourselves whether the same signs are visible in today’s United States.
I predict that the following things will happen in the United States over the next 12 months:
Trump’s popularity will continue to decline. The domestic and foreign policy crises caused by Trump will continue and grow.
Attempts will be made to make mail-in voting illegal. In some states, this may succeed.
Democratic candidates and their loved ones will receive constant threats against their lives and property.
Some Democratic candidates may be murdered.
ICE will increasingly become a paramilitary force, with its power and responsibilities growing. It will soon not just be an “organization that apprehends illegal immigrants.” It will become the United States’ own Rosgvardiya.
Before the elections, attempts will be made to declare a national state of emergency, under the guise of which elections could be postponed or canceled altogether.
During the elections, ICE will form patrols near polling stations, checking everyone’s identity and detaining people without verifying citizenship or residency status. This will happen particularly in Democratic-majority precincts.
Several people will disappear into ICE detention centers for an indefinite period.
During the counting of the November elections, attempts will be made to stop the count in places where Republicans are leading.
After the elections, attempts will be made to nullify election results in places where the Republican candidate lost.
Attempts will be made to get states to override election results unfavorable to Trump and choose a Republican candidate to be sent to Congress instead of the election result. This will be attempted especially in Republican-governed states.
Pressure will be put on the Speaker of the House not to accept Democratic candidates, seeking to prevent them from being sworn in.
ICE will kill several people before the end of the year.
The new composition of Congress after the elections will take office on January 3, 2027. Then we will know which of my predictions hit the mark and which did not. We’ll return to this post by then at the latest.
Yesterday, a relative in the US commented directly that a lot of new people from new demographic groups have joined the protests. Peaceful opposition to the administration is growing all the time.
It says something about the flaws in the system and the attitudes of the authorities when they even begin to defend an official who has committed excessive use of force and, on their own initiative, shot a civilian. If the leadership believes the training and actions in this case were correct, then the system is broken.
As a Finn, one can’t help but think that, fortunately, our police don’t go shooting a fleeing moped rider in the head.
I would imagine that even in the U.S., police training for self-preservation in such a situation would prioritize not getting in front of the car in the first place, and if you do, dodging the car the moment it moves instead of focusing on shooting—since the car won’t necessarily stop even if you fire, which seems to be what happened here.
It is completely incomprehensible that the US administration provides just a few weeks of training to groups of people who, wearing masks, can apparently stop citizens. And if they don’t obey, they can shoot them three times in the head.
And these bandits are sent to places where Trump’s party is losing elections.
I’m not really interested in analyzing which way the tires were pointing or whether the car was a “weapon.” Such situations should not occur in a civilized Western country.
Maybe the United States isn’t one. I wonder if it ever was. Hopefully, there will be something left of it after Trump.
Well said. In the US, it seems like there is hardly any requirement for proportionality in the use of firearms by the police and other authorities regarding what level of force is acceptable.
Apparently, this victim was interfering with the authorities’ operations, which is, of course, the wrong way to influence things. When the agents turned on their sirens and began approaching this road blocker, their obvious intention was presumably to get them to move out of the roadway. Instead, these hotheads “kindly” ask the victim to get out of the car (get out of the fucking car) while trying to open the vehicle door. A perhaps foolish, but in this situation somewhat understandable, “fight or flight” response from the victim is to drive away.
Was the ICE agent’s use of a weapon understandable? In my opinion, absolutely not. Since the obvious goal was to get the victim to stop blocking the roadway, it is probably not the wisest move to start by provoking them and trying to pull them out of the car by force. This is where I call for that sense of proportionality and the acceptability of using a weapon. Admittedly, the victim speeds away in such a manner that the agent could have been hit, but wouldn’t it have been wiser for the agent to just immediately dodge the car, let the victim go, and not shoot them in the head? If failing to follow an agent’s command is a legal basis for using a weapon and even taking a person’s life, there must be something wrong with the system.
If there is any authority in Finland that performs its duties properly on average despite the general criticism of authorities, the police are likely one. In a civilized country, that woman would have been allowed to drive off, and the incident would have been investigated later as disobedience or whatever the appropriate criminal charge might be. Such actions by authorities certainly don’t build trust; on the contrary, they incite more protesters and agitators to show up. The “trigger discipline” of US police and other agents is likely also influenced by the fact that weapons are so prevalent in that country, but this victim could hardly be profiled as a likely weapon user.
E: So I watched this New York Times video of the situation, which featured footage from multiple angles.
The guidance for ICE and border patrol is that a moving vehicle is not to be shot at. But this trigger-happy Nazi decided to step in front of the car and intentionally sought out a situation just so he could open fire.
The aforementioned intentional act of stepping in front of a vehicle and the use of a firearm is a recognized and well-known problem, and it is now being investigated whether this Nazi who opened fire has been in a similar situation before.
Could you tell me how you identified this official as a Nazi? I don’t see swastikas anywhere. In my opinion, using such rhetoric is foolish at best, and although there is indeed left-leaning media and frothing fanatics in the States who are happy to brandish this label because it conveniently demonizes people they dislike, there is no Nazi party in the US and there are no Nazis there—neither regular ones nor moon Nazis.
Where did you dig up the information that this official intentionally sought a situation to shoot? Generally speaking, police and other authorities want to avoid using their weapons. Based on the video, the ICE agent was focused on filming the person being stopped, and since the car had been blocking traffic for several minutes, he didn’t necessarily assume right away that it would start driving—especially toward people. Hindsight about how he maybe shouldn’t have walked in front of the car is exactly that—hindsight.
Unless you have better information regarding Nazi connections and secret desires to shoot people, what is known about this person is that he is an ICE agent with 10 years of experience who was performing his duties, during which he participated in stopping a person disrupting ICE operations. The person being stopped (the victim) decided to ignore the authorities’ orders and ended up in a situation where he threatened the life of this ICE agent with his vehicle. With only a few seconds’ notice, there was no time to consider the matter—there was no slow-motion video from three angles to see which way the wheels were pointing or how to successfully step aside on a slippery, icy street—and the ICE agent did as he was trained and defended himself in a manner that is apparently permitted according to their rules of engagement. The outcome is unfortunate, but if blame is to be assigned, it primarily lies with the person in the car.
Regarding the guidance you mentioned, you left out the part stating that shooting—including at a moving car—is acceptable if the life of an official or a bystander is threatened. The court will eventually decide if this was such a situation. The ICE agent apparently deemed that it was—though there wasn’t much time for deliberation.
Could we stick to the facts on this forum and leave out the foolish Nazi-labeling unless we are talking about World War II matters?
Even if the first shot could be interpreted as self-defense, shots 2 and 3 cannot be considered such by anyone, when fired from the side of the car at close range (into the head). Even the defenders of the act could admit this, as denying it seems quite dishonest in every way.
This is still only an isolated incident, so it is hard to understand how it cannot be admitted from any ivory tower. The state leadership is not guilty of the actions of an individual agent. It also seems dishonest, above all, that no one even questions the justice of it.
