The officer involved had been dragged and injured by a vehicle being driven by an undocumented immigrant a year earlier. He was paranoid and suffering from PTSD and shouldn't have been retained in ICE. The other officers probably were aware of this fact.
By Rebecca Cohen, Matt Lavietes and Julia Ainsley
The ICE officer who fatally shot a Minnesota woman Wednesday was previously dragged by a car during an immigration enforcement operation in June, DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said.
During the June incident, ICE officers in Minneapolis attempted to arrest Roberto Carlos Muñoz-Guatemala during a traffic stop. He was in the country illegally, DHS said in a news release, and was previously “arrested for domestic assault and convicted of sex crimes against an underage teenager.”
When the man refused to comply, the officer broke his car window and reached inside, getting his arm stuck, according to court documents. When the man attempted to drive away, he dragged the officer, which was captured on video.
The officer suffered multiple lacerations and needed 33 stitches to close his wounds, according to court documents from the June incident, which identified the agent as Jonathan Ross. NBC News reached out to DHS requesting comment from Ross.
That video doesn't seem to load. Does it work for anyone? I've tried in multiple browsers.
There is a "410 Gone" status on the .m3u8.
When discussing events like these I would like to point out one of the few rules on the site that differ from some others which is enforced rather strictly. It's worthwhile to read through the tos. I don't expect people to read that when they sign up because that is unrealistic, but now is a good time.
The audio loads. The video doesn't load now, it did when I posted it, it might have been removed.
What site rules are being violated? No one seems to be inciting violence, as far as I can tell. It's more the definition of violence that seems at issue. Are the police being violent, or are they engaging in "law enforcement", or, is there a difference, really?
Basically we have the world strictest no depictions of violence rule. It's basically the only strict rule here. Ironically because the video was broken it meant there wasn't a rule violation. And it looks like they have replaced the video with a live feed of a press conference.
We can always talk about the news. But people's deaths are not our content. Maybe I'm a little overly reverent about that. It's basically the one free speech exception on the site. I say every site gets to have one. Some say you can't have certain opinions. On Saidit you basically couldn't have nudity. I say let's not turn people getting killed into entertainment and then host an irreverent social gathering over the body. I'd rather be reverent over violence than nudity. The news media is the exact opposite. You can make entertainment out of people getting killed, but boobs are dangerous.
Anyways I'm also strict about it because I don't want to deal with folks backseating me over ambiguities. Reddit has selective enforcement of rules. I have nearly no rules and apply them perfectly and univerally with no favoritism.
Actually, the video, as I recall, just showed people looking reverent and concerned while congregating around a memorial for the woman who was killed. This wasn't a depiction of the shooting, I don't think that's been released. It was a depiction of some demonstrators. There would have been no rule violation, there is no irony here.
Does this mean we can't post any videos of military action of any type, ever? It sounds like it, actually. That might limit communication a bit, sometimes, on a wide variety of public interest stories.
Actually, the reason they might have replaced the video with an audio report, is that the video was rather boring, and uninformative.
Actually, some other posts, by other people, on your site do have photographs depicting the car with the woman's body in it. Are you not concerned about them, for some reason?
Cool. I hadn't seen the video and that's why I was trying to see what the content was. Other people have posted stuff and I have removed it. But I didn't have to inquire in those cases because I could see what it was. I don't think I have anything missing currently but maybe I'm wrong.
Also my comment wasn't intended to single you out. It was also to post a reminder to everyone, most of whom probably haven't seen the tos that it is good to read at some point. Yours is the one content that didn't get removed. And I was trying to figure out what the video was so I wouldn't be in trouble for giving you preference.
Since you are saying I missed something I'm going to take another look.
On the subject of military conflict, news papers covered military conflict for a long time without video. If it is hard to find sources without the video attached then become the journalist. The news isn't showing that for any meaningful commentary on current events. They just want an excuse to be liveleak for a day to get shock traffic. Just because people in suits who parade themselves as respectable content outlets find an excuse to be liveleak for a day doesn't mean I want to be. Maybe I'm obvious that I have the lowest amount of respect possible for people in the media, in general. I'm not basing my standards on what they do.
I can't over-emphisize how much I am not trying to single you out. You are actually the last person I should be singling out, for sure. You just happened to have the first content on the site where the topic needed to be raised for the sake of the subject.
OK. I'll bear that in mind. I won't post any URL's containing pictures of violence of any type, whether it's military action, police action, criminal action, or whatever. Fair enough, no problem, I can always describe it, if it's relevant to some issue or discussion.
Log in
I'm surprised the other officers didn't instantly draw their firearms when they heard the first shot.
Given the circumstances, the officers appeared to be dubiously casual about the situation.
And the video was careful to record the partially covered of the officer involved. Deliberately.
Something seems off.
The officer involved had been dragged and injured by a vehicle being driven by an undocumented immigrant a year earlier. He was paranoid and suffering from PTSD and shouldn't have been retained in ICE. The other officers probably were aware of this fact.
Was he? I wasn't sure he'd been publicly identifyed.
By Rebecca Cohen, Matt Lavietes and Julia Ainsley
The ICE officer who fatally shot a Minnesota woman Wednesday was previously dragged by a car during an immigration enforcement operation in June, DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said.
During the June incident, ICE officers in Minneapolis attempted to arrest Roberto Carlos Muñoz-Guatemala during a traffic stop. He was in the country illegally, DHS said in a news release, and was previously “arrested for domestic assault and convicted of sex crimes against an underage teenager.”
When the man refused to comply, the officer broke his car window and reached inside, getting his arm stuck, according to court documents. When the man attempted to drive away, he dragged the officer, which was captured on video.
The officer suffered multiple lacerations and needed 33 stitches to close his wounds, according to court documents from the June incident, which identified the agent as Jonathan Ross. NBC News reached out to DHS requesting comment from Ross.
On video so that's evidence
It's evidence of unprovoked 1st degree murder.
However, the evidence is against them. You feel otherwise? They shot into her car and killed her just for driving away.
True it looks unnecessary. But you can't just drive at a cop either.
Vehicular Assault.
https://img.gvid.tv/i/Eibw5bHA.png
Unbiased news by the liberal leaning The Hill?
That video doesn't seem to load. Does it work for anyone? I've tried in multiple browsers.
There is a "410 Gone" status on the .m3u8.
When discussing events like these I would like to point out one of the few rules on the site that differ from some others which is enforced rather strictly. It's worthwhile to read through the tos. I don't expect people to read that when they sign up because that is unrealistic, but now is a good time.
Here's a good analysis.
The audio loads. The video doesn't load now, it did when I posted it, it might have been removed.
What site rules are being violated? No one seems to be inciting violence, as far as I can tell. It's more the definition of violence that seems at issue. Are the police being violent, or are they engaging in "law enforcement", or, is there a difference, really?
Basically we have the world strictest no depictions of violence rule. It's basically the only strict rule here. Ironically because the video was broken it meant there wasn't a rule violation. And it looks like they have replaced the video with a live feed of a press conference.
We can always talk about the news. But people's deaths are not our content. Maybe I'm a little overly reverent about that. It's basically the one free speech exception on the site. I say every site gets to have one. Some say you can't have certain opinions. On Saidit you basically couldn't have nudity. I say let's not turn people getting killed into entertainment and then host an irreverent social gathering over the body. I'd rather be reverent over violence than nudity. The news media is the exact opposite. You can make entertainment out of people getting killed, but boobs are dangerous.
Anyways I'm also strict about it because I don't want to deal with folks backseating me over ambiguities. Reddit has selective enforcement of rules. I have nearly no rules and apply them perfectly and univerally with no favoritism.
Actually, the video, as I recall, just showed people looking reverent and concerned while congregating around a memorial for the woman who was killed. This wasn't a depiction of the shooting, I don't think that's been released. It was a depiction of some demonstrators. There would have been no rule violation, there is no irony here.
Does this mean we can't post any videos of military action of any type, ever? It sounds like it, actually. That might limit communication a bit, sometimes, on a wide variety of public interest stories.
Actually, the reason they might have replaced the video with an audio report, is that the video was rather boring, and uninformative.
Actually, some other posts, by other people, on your site do have photographs depicting the car with the woman's body in it. Are you not concerned about them, for some reason?
Cool. I hadn't seen the video and that's why I was trying to see what the content was. Other people have posted stuff and I have removed it. But I didn't have to inquire in those cases because I could see what it was. I don't think I have anything missing currently but maybe I'm wrong.
Also my comment wasn't intended to single you out. It was also to post a reminder to everyone, most of whom probably haven't seen the tos that it is good to read at some point. Yours is the one content that didn't get removed. And I was trying to figure out what the video was so I wouldn't be in trouble for giving you preference.
Since you are saying I missed something I'm going to take another look.
On the subject of military conflict, news papers covered military conflict for a long time without video. If it is hard to find sources without the video attached then become the journalist. The news isn't showing that for any meaningful commentary on current events. They just want an excuse to be liveleak for a day to get shock traffic. Just because people in suits who parade themselves as respectable content outlets find an excuse to be liveleak for a day doesn't mean I want to be. Maybe I'm obvious that I have the lowest amount of respect possible for people in the media, in general. I'm not basing my standards on what they do.
I can't over-emphisize how much I am not trying to single you out. You are actually the last person I should be singling out, for sure. You just happened to have the first content on the site where the topic needed to be raised for the sake of the subject.
OK. I'll bear that in mind. I won't post any URL's containing pictures of violence of any type, whether it's military action, police action, criminal action, or whatever. Fair enough, no problem, I can always describe it, if it's relevant to some issue or discussion.