I think it is likely that if they don't move to impeach Trump there may not be another election in his life time.
I'm saying "possibly" about just about everything these days rather than try to make predictions about what's likely because we have blown way past norms and precedents and so many things are in play. I keep thinking about the night in August 1789 when the French National Assembly started off voting for some things to pacify the revolting peasants and by morning had voted to abolish French feudalism, going much further than anyone had expected when they started. I don't know if we're at a point when something that extreme can happen, but again, I'm not predicting anything right now.
Heather Cox Richardson (a professor of 19th-century American history at Boston College who has been discussing current events in the US with a long-term historical perspective for some years now) put out a video yesterday in which she says she thinks things really changed on Thursday, citing these developments:
The House voted to extend for three years the ACA enhanced healthcare premium subsidies, with more than a dozen Republicans voting yes.
The House probably will vote to overturn two Trump vetoes
The relevant county AG in Minnesota wants to charge the ICE agent who shot Renee Good (she doesn't note that the FBI is completely stimying a local investigation, but I guess it's the AG's intent that's interesting to her).
Spotify's stock dropped 10% in a month following complaints about the ICE recruitment ads they were accepting, and now they've pulled the ICE ads.
The Senate has agreed to move forward with war powers resolution vote on Venezuela (she notes that the horse of out of that barn, but again, it indicates a willingness to put a check on Trump's goons).
The Senate voted to hang the plaque honoring the officers injured in defense of the Capitol on Jan 6.
The Senate has agreed to move forward with war powers resolution vote on Venezuela (she notes that the horse of out of that barn, but again, it indicates a willingness to put a check on Trump's goons).
If we're talking about the same resolution, it passed a day or two ago, with Republicans Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, Paul, and Young voting along with the Democrats.
From my knowledge, Paul was definitely to be expected, and probably Collins and Murkowski as well. Some Americans of my acquaintance were surprised that Hawley and Young voted yes.
Certainly those democratic governance structures which have the power to restrain the president need to start using it; otherwise, they are going to wake up one day soon and find they no longer have it.
The Senate has agreed to move forward with war powers resolution vote on Venezuela (she notes that the horse of out of that barn, but again, it indicates a willingness to put a check on Trump's goons).
If we're talking about the same resolution, it passed a day or two ago, with Republicans Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, Paul, and Young voting along with the Democrats.
They voted to advance a resolution, not on the resolution itself. There will be debate and another vote this next week. Two previous votes to advance a resolution have failed.
A perspective video of the shooting has been released. I assume they thought it would help them justify the situation, the woman in the car looks to be acting very calmly, and the ICE agent aggressively while using his phone to film.
Vance and Co have declared the video proof positive that the agent feared for his life. It led me to remember the time someone here was praising his book as an example of social realism and not - as I contended - that of an unscrupulous grifter.
The Senate has agreed to move forward with war powers resolution vote on Venezuela (she notes that the horse of out of that barn, but again, it indicates a willingness to put a check on Trump's goons).
If we're talking about the same resolution, it passed a day or two ago, with Republicans Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, Paul, and Young voting along with the Democrats.
They voted to advance a resolution, not on the resolution itself. There will be debate and another vote this next week. Two previous votes to advance a resolution have failed.
Vance and Co have declared the video proof positive that the agent feared for his life. It led me to remember the time someone here was praising his book as an example of social realism and not - as I contended - that of an unscrupulous grifter.
I'm speculating that was on the thread I had started a few years back, asking whether I should bother reading the copy I had purchased second-hand.
That thread actually dissuaded me from reading the book(which I subsequently lost), though not due to criticism of its veracity, but rather because the discussion of the book's style and content made it sound like slice-of-life writing(eg. Tropic Of Cancer), a genre I really don't care for.
Renee's last words to the ICE agent that was filming the confrontation was, "That's all right, Dude, I am not mad at you." It also shows her turning away from the agents before the shots were fired. I do not see her hitting anyone with her vehicle.
The most succinct and forthright commentary on this incident (and I saw @Ruth mentioned her) is by Heather Cox Richardson on Substack, Letters from an American. It seems that Renee Nicole Good was a legal observer: a volunteer trained to observe police conduct in case of future legal action. The irony...
On some angles it does look as if the vehicle did strike the agent and he did seem to limp a wee bit afterwards, perhaps because it struck his knee as the victim turned the wheel to drive away.
It also appears to show him drawing his pistol as Renee began to turn the wheel and before the vehicle picked up momentum.
It's known that the agent had been injured and hospitalised after being struck by a vehicle in a previous incident. So there are questions as to whether he should have been allowed back on duty so quickly.
All manner of questions suggest themselves. Why not fire a warning shot into the air? Why not shoot at the tyres?
Why shoot someone in the face?
I think I'm right in saying that there was one fatal shot and that two bullets went through or lodged in the vehicle.
But to shoot three times clearly suggests an intention to kill.
@MaryLouise - one wonders whether the training for such volunteers should include what to do when confronted with ill-disciplined and poorly trained paramilitary enforcement officers.
When I was a kid a friend got hold of a US police training manual which featured illustrations as to how to harm peacenik 'sit-down' protestors when lifting them off the ground in a way that could not be captured on film by journalists or photographers.
This was at the time of anti-Vietnam protests.
Clearly, Renee Good wasn't expecting to be shot in cold blood, otherwise she wouldn't have tried to drive away. I'd assumed she'd panicked but from what's now emerging that doesn't appear to be the case.
Observers are going to have to be extra vigilant when monitoring ICE agent activities. They've shown they are all too ready to use lethal force and that with the full backing of the President and Vice President, no questions asked.
'They are our guys. They can do no wrong.'
It comes to something when federal agents go about masked.
I can remember when the MAGA crowd were convinced Obama was going to send in federal agents to confiscate their guns.
I don't hear them bleating now those agents are shooting US citizens dead on the streets with the full support of the Whitehouse.
The footage I saw which looks like the agent may have been struck by the vehicle was taken from further down the street. It's difficult to tell but it does look as if the vehicle did make contact with the officer.
Which doesn't justify the use of lethal force. The vehicle had not gained sufficient momentum to inflict any serious damage, even if that was the driver's intention - which I very much doubt.
No, this is a case of Trump and the highly reprehensible Vance pre-emptively acting as judge and jury on an incident that ought to go to an independent enquiry but won't because neither of them want to accept the most likely findings of such an enquiry.
We all know Trump is a megalomaniac. Vance has no excuse for his behaviour beyond careerism and political ambition.
That old police manual story is very suspicious. For one, do you know how many different police forces there are in America? Nearly 18,000 law enforcement agencies by some estimates. No one police manual would represent all the different agency SOPs. Second, the manuals are subject to revision almost annually if not more often based on court decisions, changes in societal expectations, changes in proven police tactics and equipment, legal revisions.
There have been several law enforcement trainers who have been on TV interviews that have said current police procedures dictate when confronted with a moving car, move out of the car's path, and above all do not shoot into a moving vehicle, it can cause more serious damage. Get the license plate number and follow up later.
If I remember rightly it was some kind of federal document.
I dunno. The Nstional Guard?
Whoever it was who were tasked with removing Beatnik protestors.
It could have been some form of spoof 'black propaganda' from the left of course. But it looked pretty authentic, but then I was only a kid at the time.
I was struck by the illustrations. They showed clean-cut, chisel-drawed law enforcement officers confronted by hairy and lairy evil left-wing protestors.
There were graphic instructions on how to inflict pain on them without it attracting the attention of the wicked, evil liberal media.
The point is, whilst I don't doubt that State and municipal police officers and National Guardsmen and so on are generally highly professional and well trained, there was an element of 'let's dig those goddamn commie protestors in the ribs or jab a thumb up their goddamn pinko commie assholes in such a way that the goddamn pinko liberal press won't notice ...'
Or is that a stereotype?
The Apostle Paul warned that secular authorities 'didn't bear the sword for nothing.'
However we take that, it's reasonable to expect responsibility on the part of law enforcement officers.
We don't seem to be seeing that in the case of Trump's goons.
ICE agents may use firearms only when they reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and they are prohibited from firing at vehicles except under very narrow conditions. Their actions are governed by DHS-wide standards, ICE’s own Directive 19009.3, and the Firearms and Use of Force Handbook.
This rule exists because:
Bullets rarely stop a vehicle
Shooting a driver can cause the vehicle to become an uncontrolled weapon
Bystanders and officers are put at greater risk
There are only two reasons to fire into a moving vehicle. The first is someone inside is using a deadly weapon other than the vehicle, or
Second, the driver is purposely using the vehicle as a weapon.
On the other hand, there are also clear directives that say officers are not to stand in front of or behind a vehicle, but to the side. Obviously, Agent Ross ignored that directive.
Yes, it was an old example but it made the point that US law enforcement officers were trained how to harm protestors whilst appearing to gently escort them out of the way.
If it was a stereotype it's one they created themselves.
It was something of a tangent. The main points, of course, are the ones you've raised about ICE are not acting professionally nor adhering to accepted standards of law enforcement behaviour- to put it mildly.
Public Citizen reports that there were over 1,000 community ICE OUT NOW public protests today across the nation. There will likely be as more tomorrow.
There was one here in Pullman. I would say it was much larger than previous protests against the Trump Administration, though I am not good at estimating crowd size.
Comments
I'm saying "possibly" about just about everything these days rather than try to make predictions about what's likely because we have blown way past norms and precedents and so many things are in play. I keep thinking about the night in August 1789 when the French National Assembly started off voting for some things to pacify the revolting peasants and by morning had voted to abolish French feudalism, going much further than anyone had expected when they started. I don't know if we're at a point when something that extreme can happen, but again, I'm not predicting anything right now.
Heather Cox Richardson (a professor of 19th-century American history at Boston College who has been discussing current events in the US with a long-term historical perspective for some years now) put out a video yesterday in which she says she thinks things really changed on Thursday, citing these developments:
If we're talking about the same resolution, it passed a day or two ago, with Republicans Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, Paul, and Young voting along with the Democrats.
From my knowledge, Paul was definitely to be expected, and probably Collins and Murkowski as well. Some Americans of my acquaintance were surprised that Hawley and Young voted yes.
They voted to advance a resolution, not on the resolution itself. There will be debate and another vote this next week. Two previous votes to advance a resolution have failed.
Vance and Co have declared the video proof positive that the agent feared for his life. It led me to remember the time someone here was praising his book as an example of social realism and not - as I contended - that of an unscrupulous grifter.
Ah, thanks.
I'm speculating that was on the thread I had started a few years back, asking whether I should bother reading the copy I had purchased second-hand.
That thread actually dissuaded me from reading the book(which I subsequently lost), though not due to criticism of its veracity, but rather because the discussion of the book's style and content made it sound like slice-of-life writing(eg. Tropic Of Cancer), a genre I really don't care for.
It also appears to show him drawing his pistol as Renee began to turn the wheel and before the vehicle picked up momentum.
It's known that the agent had been injured and hospitalised after being struck by a vehicle in a previous incident. So there are questions as to whether he should have been allowed back on duty so quickly.
All manner of questions suggest themselves. Why not fire a warning shot into the air? Why not shoot at the tyres?
Why shoot someone in the face?
I think I'm right in saying that there was one fatal shot and that two bullets went through or lodged in the vehicle.
But to shoot three times clearly suggests an intention to kill.
When I was a kid a friend got hold of a US police training manual which featured illustrations as to how to harm peacenik 'sit-down' protestors when lifting them off the ground in a way that could not be captured on film by journalists or photographers.
This was at the time of anti-Vietnam protests.
Clearly, Renee Good wasn't expecting to be shot in cold blood, otherwise she wouldn't have tried to drive away. I'd assumed she'd panicked but from what's now emerging that doesn't appear to be the case.
Observers are going to have to be extra vigilant when monitoring ICE agent activities. They've shown they are all too ready to use lethal force and that with the full backing of the President and Vice President, no questions asked.
'They are our guys. They can do no wrong.'
It comes to something when federal agents go about masked.
I can remember when the MAGA crowd were convinced Obama was going to send in federal agents to confiscate their guns.
I don't hear them bleating now those agents are shooting US citizens dead on the streets with the full support of the Whitehouse.
Largely because he was holding his phone in his left hand and it’s being mistaken for a body cam.
At least one ICE officer was instructing them to drive away.
Which doesn't justify the use of lethal force. The vehicle had not gained sufficient momentum to inflict any serious damage, even if that was the driver's intention - which I very much doubt.
No, this is a case of Trump and the highly reprehensible Vance pre-emptively acting as judge and jury on an incident that ought to go to an independent enquiry but won't because neither of them want to accept the most likely findings of such an enquiry.
We all know Trump is a megalomaniac. Vance has no excuse for his behaviour beyond careerism and political ambition.
There have been several law enforcement trainers who have been on TV interviews that have said current police procedures dictate when confronted with a moving car, move out of the car's path, and above all do not shoot into a moving vehicle, it can cause more serious damage. Get the license plate number and follow up later.
I dunno. The Nstional Guard?
Whoever it was who were tasked with removing Beatnik protestors.
It could have been some form of spoof 'black propaganda' from the left of course. But it looked pretty authentic, but then I was only a kid at the time.
I was struck by the illustrations. They showed clean-cut, chisel-drawed law enforcement officers confronted by hairy and lairy evil left-wing protestors.
There were graphic instructions on how to inflict pain on them without it attracting the attention of the wicked, evil liberal media.
The point is, whilst I don't doubt that State and municipal police officers and National Guardsmen and so on are generally highly professional and well trained, there was an element of 'let's dig those goddamn commie protestors in the ribs or jab a thumb up their goddamn pinko commie assholes in such a way that the goddamn pinko liberal press won't notice ...'
Or is that a stereotype?
The Apostle Paul warned that secular authorities 'didn't bear the sword for nothing.'
However we take that, it's reasonable to expect responsibility on the part of law enforcement officers.
We don't seem to be seeing that in the case of Trump's goons.
Bottom line
ICE agents may use firearms only when they reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and they are prohibited from firing at vehicles except under very narrow conditions. Their actions are governed by DHS-wide standards, ICE’s own Directive 19009.3, and the Firearms and Use of Force Handbook.
This rule exists because:
Bullets rarely stop a vehicle
Shooting a driver can cause the vehicle to become an uncontrolled weapon
Bystanders and officers are put at greater risk
There are only two reasons to fire into a moving vehicle. The first is someone inside is using a deadly weapon other than the vehicle, or
Second, the driver is purposely using the vehicle as a weapon.
On the other hand, there are also clear directives that say officers are not to stand in front of or behind a vehicle, but to the side. Obviously, Agent Ross ignored that directive.
If it was a stereotype it's one they created themselves.
It was something of a tangent. The main points, of course, are the ones you've raised about ICE are not acting professionally nor adhering to accepted standards of law enforcement behaviour- to put it mildly.
There was one here in Pullman. I would say it was much larger than previous protests against the Trump Administration, though I am not good at estimating crowd size.