So, what really happened in the recent ICE shooting? Because all I'm hearing is that from the left side, ICE is horrifically corrupt and incompetent, and that they need to be abolished now (at least get heavily reorganized into an Immigration, Customs and Naturalization Services like the predecessors). And what I'm hearing from the right side is that Alex Pretti should never have engaged with the ICE agents (according to Wikipedia, they were Border Patrol), and that we need ICE now more than ever. All I'm getting here is a typical he-said, she-said situation, or in this case, a left-said, right-said situation.
see that's the thing. what you are hearing from the left is what happened, and what you are hearing from the right is what kind of person was he.
alex pretti was a leftist agitator in a signal chat for leftist agitators who love agitating leftistly, who showed up to interfere with ice and be a bad person. none of which has bearing on the situation
because what happened was that alex pretti was disarmed and pinned on the ground under four or five people, and then an agent mag-dumped into him. ten shots. into a guy who was helpless on the ground and pinned under a bunch of other agents.
it does not matter what kind of person he was. it does not matter if he should or should not have tangled with ice. it doesn't matter if he was an avowed communist revolutionary. he was not a threat to anyone, he was disarmed, he was pinned down by a bunch of guys, and then while he did not pose a threat to anyone, an agent shot him ten fucking times.
you know how mad I was at argumate for calling every death an "execution?"
that was because this was actually an execution. this actually really was for real in the real world an execution: killing a person who was completely immobilized and helpless, while knowing that they were completely immobilized and helpless. it does not matter what kind of person they are, or what their politics are, or what they showed up for, when we have the video.
talking about what kind of person he is is just prioritizing the inference over reality again, a thing there needs to be a better word for. if there was not a video, if the stories from the different sides did not match, you could use all that to infer "oh, he was there to cause problems for the Cause Problems Club, I can infer that his death was most likely in the process of causing problems for armed officers." And this would be a completely valid inference to make! If we didn't have the video. But we do. So we don't need to make the inference. We can look at it.
prguitarman
jacobvanloon
discoholicmusic
kianamaiart
2087
