You know what people have forgotten about? Tibet. When I was in college everyone had a Free Tibet patch on their backpack. There were aid concerts. There were at least two major Hollywood movies. What happened?
Kmele, I am on board with Ashley Babbit being in the wrong entirely and this Minneapolis lady.
“Driving down a public street”…. I agree it’s not as clear cut as maga is saying. But “driving down a public street”?? Really? She was parked perpendicular across a street blocking federal agents from doing their job. The federal agents part is meaningless to me. 1. You can’t park perpendicular across a street blocking traffic. Just plainly illegal. 2. You can’t block any law enforcement from local police to a fire truck and/or anything else from doing their duty. That is also plainly illegal.
Now, I don’t think Babbit or the Minneapolis lady should have been shot or killed. I think in both cases it was wrong. But also, in both cases it was justified. Something can be justifiable and wrong at the same time. The Minneapolis lady also less should have been shot than Babbit. But dear fucking Christ was that lady a god damn idiot and made a series of mind numbingly stupid decisions that had a great chance of ending with this result.
Block law enforcement with your vehicle. Continue to block them until they exit their car and surround yours asking you to get out because what you’re doing is transparently illegal and you’re now in trouble. Realize oh shit, I’m in actual trouble, after law enforcement has surrounded your vehicle, panicked and speed through a cop standing on the ground to get away. No I don’t think she was trying to run him over, I think she was trying to get away, doesn’t change that she literally drove through and partially knocked a cop standing on the ground with her car, and it was intentional. Driving your car intentionally at a person has been deemed to be “assault with a deadly weapon” ten thousand different times now. You do not even have to hit the person and it has been ruled that. As long as the driver is in control of the vehicle and it is deemed they intentionally drove the vehicle at the person. There is not a question in the world that is what occurred, again, fully believing she did not intend to run the cop over, she did intend to accelerate her vehicle at the cop.
Just like Babbit (but agreed, to a lesser degree) this is a textbook example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I know that is crass and harsh. I am aware. People go “imagine if that was you or someone you knew”, well no one I know is in the habit of being remotely confrontational with cops, let alone blocking them from performing their job. Further, no one I know would flee from the cops. We did that when we were in high school. We are now in our 30s. We’ve grown up. Lastly, no one I know would punch a cop, let alone drive their car through a cop, to get away. The series of absolutely abysmally stupid choices all strung in a row here is hard to comprehend.
Meanwhile, I think both sides (politically) are absolutely ecstatic this happened and that makes my stomach turn.
Trump has 100% been pushing gears with ICE, but he has been toeing a line of legality while driving everyone insane. I do not think there was a 1% chance the admin wanted to push over that line and kill someone. They’re already doing what they want to do. Going out there and just killing someone can only turn people (their own side) against them. Meanwhile, this shooting to me, looks justifiable. Again, wrong, but justifiable. So now I think Trump is ecstatic. He’s going to wait for the left to get 100 miles ahead of their own skis like they do every time. Going to wait for riots and he’s going to go “look at this! All in regards to a justifiable shooting”. And he’s going to ratchet up again. His base will follow him again. Because they’re going to go, the lady was a dipshit that drove her car through police and got shot; sure, seems like a stupid mistake and I feel bad, but also my neighborhood is in disarray again like what happens every time the left gets in a tizzy and I’m fucking furious about it”, and that is enough to get them to follow Trump on one more ratchet up.
Meanwhile, the left is absolutely loving it. You can see them getting out their posters and highlighters. On my commute home from work yesterday already hundred+ people at each highway overpass with signs. Guys, we are in Chicago. Like 80% of this city agrees with you. Just put the damn signs away and find something else to do with your night. Jacob Frey (mayor) is shaking with excitement. About to go right back into theater mode and wash feet again or some shit. “Legal Observer” is already plastered around the internet from every talking head and politician with a social media account. Probably listen to 2hrs of political content a day for the last 10 years and read another 1hr…. Never heard the term “legal observer” in my life. But, it has “legal” right in the name of the term. Wonder how many focus groups they ran that through in the 4hrs before they all got in agreement that was the term they were going to roll out with.
The bigger picture here is that the ubiquitous presence footage invited all of us (me included) to draw conclusions. Clearly you did.
Kristi Noem did
Trump did
The mayor did
Walz did
The problem is that any one of us sees a fragment and doesn't have the whole picture and doesn't let an at least somewhat object review of what happened.
At best this is an ambiguous situation that allows each of us to use confirmation bias.
As always two things can be true at once
She might have been stupid and panicked
He might have shot multiple times into a windows both before and after
He might be not guilty because he feared for his life legitimately because he placed himself in front of the vehicle
Or he might be guilty because he continued to shoot two additional shots through an open window even after the vehicle completely cleared him
ok that is more than 2.
Only an investigation will tell until then people can argue and then 50 percent will be pissed with the outcome
I agree with your overall sentiment. I agree the situation is ambiguous and people can draw their own conclusions. I also agree many things can be true at once, I believe highlighted that quite clearly in my post.
However, I didn’t just watch the video and draw a conclusion. I consulted multiple lawyers who handle cases such as these as well. They have all been incredibly successful with long careers. The reason I feel confident in my opinion is because there wasn’t any hesitation in any response I received, they were all unquestionably aligned and the conditions they mentioned that were met are not at all impacted by the points you are mentioning, on a legal basis. Lastly, and most importantly to my confidence in my opinion, again I live in Chicago, my friends are quite liberal, they hate ICE, one actively engages in democratic protests. There opinions on the legality of this case were directly opposed to their personal beliefs of the situation. In the same breath that one said the shooting was unquestionably justifiable he also said it’s still ICE’s fault for being there, the woman should still be alive, and he doesn’t believe that she ever tried to harm the officer. It’s just none of that matters in deciding the legality of this specific case.
For instance, her intention is completely immaterial. Like, if god came down and said with undeniable certainty “she did not mean to hit the officer” that as a legal matter wouldn’t change anything a single iota.
For the firing two shots, that was also brought up. And was answered as the entire interaction basically happens within a second. If lethal force is deemed as justifiable then that period of time is not substantial enough to even register new information, process it and change action. Another way to say that, if at any point from the vehicle moving to the shots being fired, the shooting is deemed justifiable then the entirety of the shooting is justifiable. It happened too quickly.
As I also mentioned above, they were all unwavering in their belief that based on the letter of the law the shooting was justifiable; however, they were also very clear that if the officer is charged and this goes to a trial by jury, they have no idea how the case would be decided.
As a separate matter that I find interesting. They disagree on legal matters 9 times out of 10. That is not to highlight this being anomaly, it is to highlight something else. It is very interesting how often they are in alignment, all three agreeing on the letter of the law, and the case still goes the other way. To clarify, much of the time they will prior to a verdict all correctly guess how a case will be decided; however, how they guessed the case will be decided is the opposite of what they believe the letter of the law entails. This all in reference to trials by jury. I posted somewhere else that law is much more an art than a science. The way they talk about juries is like talking someone running for class president in high school. The judge keeps boundaries that you have to stay between, but otherwise it’s basically as much a popularity contest and a persuasive performance as much as a legal proceeding. It’s basically if a lawyer has a 10/10 legal case and a 1/10 presentation they will lose every time to a person with a 6/10 legal case and a 10/10 presentation. Like, you still need to absolutely have some legal case. But, it’s not like the letter of the law and who is more correct per the black and white text is going to win the day.
What type of hourly rate (range is fine) do you pay these multiple lawyers to weigh in on an incident like this and share their legal opinion with you?
Hahaha I was college roommates with them. Roommates with one for 4 years after college. Talk to them all, text or otherwise literally at a minimum every other hour of every day. And hang out with them basically every Friday Saturday and Sunday. And usually Wednesday too if we go to trivia night, which has been lacking lately.
Shorter version. They’re my very close friends for 14 years.
I gotta agree. I see no reason to even really look into ice or its training or the temperament of its members. I think everyone’s just being too hard on poor ICE. They got a tough job out there. Ya k lnow? They have to protect us from ______ and set examples for the kids watching.
So yeah I agree. ICE is fine and if you get in their way yeah of course they can respond with deadly force. I don’t even see a reason to look into it!
1. You’re immediately giving away your insanity. My comment was nothing to do with ICE per se. It is entirely about how the politicians are utilizing the event. You just came out of left field with a sarcastic statement that had nothing to do with my post.
2. I would have 99% the same sentiment if it was Joe Schmo involved. Legally, if you have the right to be in front of the car (which they did), let’s say for a normal person standing in a crosswalk, and a car accelerates there car through where you are standing, the excuse “cmon man, I wasn’t even trying to hit them! Look they stepped to the side and I avoided them when I could have hit them if I wanted to, I just was late to an appointment!” is not an excuse at all, you’re going to get potentially charged with assault with a deadly weapon. If Joe Schmo shot the person, I would have the same sentiment of “wow, that was extreme, probably shouldn’t have done that”, but as I put in a separate post, the laws PRIORITY is not to judge morality, it is to have a functional society. That being the case, the law is set up to adjudicate what at its base is functional. Being able to drive a 2-ton vehicle intentionally at people on the street is not a functional premise to base a society around, so it is very very very illegal and the potential victims of such an event are allowed to react in quite a broad manner. That being said, that does not mean it always accounts for what is “good”. I watch the video, and I see a lady that is panicking and made a series of the stupidest decisions I have seen a human being make in a row, but ultimately I do not see a lady that is trying to run over an officer to kill him, I see someone trying to flee from federal agents (which in itself is beyond idiotic, but a person with that alone I do not believe should be shot). However, she chose to flee by purposefully taking a 2-ton vehicle and driving it through a human being that was standing on the street. I am 100% aware the person was just grazed, I am 100% aware they are ok, I just stated that I do not think that the intent was to run the person over, I get all of that. It’s just that none of that changes the fact pattern that unquestionably exists, the lady took her car, and by all accounts accelerated her car through a person that was standing on the street in front of her. You and I and 95% of people looking at the video can say “cmon, she barely touched him!!” But again, that does nothing to change what literally occurred. All the person standing in front of the car has to say is, I was in front of the car, the lady knew I was in front of the car, and she chose to accelerate her car into me, and in that instant I thought there was a chance she was going to run me over. From the other side (hypothetically if you were able to) you’d ask the lady, were you in control of your car? By all accounts yes. Did you see there was a person standing in front of your car? By all accounts yes. Was what you were engaging in illegal? Unquestionably yes, she was parked perpendicular in a street blocking law enforcement and traffic with her vehicle, knew there were agents telling her to stop and get out of her car, and she chose to flee. Those things are all illegal. Did you intentionally accelerate your vehicle into the direction of the person? Not, were you trying to hit. It does not even matter if the person was hit or not at all. Literally just matters if she intentionally accelerated her vehicle into their direction knowingly. And that is unquestionably yes as well. Every single necessary quality I can see is unquestionably checked on both sides LEGALLY for the officer to be in the right and the lady to be in the wrong. BUT I am still with you, that the outcome still feels entirely wrong. That is why I started where I started. The priority of the law is a functional society, it does not prioritize morality and right and wrong. Once someone while committing a crime drives their 2-ton vehicle at someone, suddenly the potential consequences go through the roof because society cannot function with people driving vehicles at others while committing crimes. That doesn’t mean it feels good and seems right in every instance. It doesn’t and it’s not going to. The law is a broad set of foundational rules. It isn’t a precise specific mechanism that takes into account the infinite amount of variables in an infinite amount of specific equations. A law that did that in itself would be completely dysfunctional even if it was hypothetically possible.
3. Yes ICE can use additional training and oversight. I’d even be willing to say ICE in particular needs additional training and oversight. But overall, every government body from police to teachers to firemen to politicians need additional training and oversight. Government is a necessary cancer that is terrible at pretty much absolutely everything it does. Our (Chicago) kids are learning at rates worse than 20 years in the past. 80% of grade schoolers are not competent and grade-level math and 70% are not at grade-level reading. If teaching was anything outside of government it would be bankrupt and a new better model would have taken its place decades ago. Our current system is an absolute clusterfuck of a failure. Government overall is fucking abysmal. ICE I’ll grant you is particularly abysmal. Yes, they could use more training and oversight. That is not at all what I am responding to, I am responding to a specific situation where a specific thing happened. Your response reminds me of just the gun debate typical response. I’m not picking a side at all, all I am saying is some tragedy happens and a group instantaneously says “we need stricter gun laws!!”, then you look at the sack of shit perpetrator and they’re from like Chicago with already strict gun laws, they got their gun legally, they had no record, and there is no immediate indication that stricter gun laws would have done anything. Yes, I could be on your side that stricter gun laws are necessary, but what the fuck does that have to do with the specific situation we are talking about that is right in front of our face.
So, with extreme brevity I will ask what I pointed to that you didn’t respond to at all, do you disagree that both political teams are currently filled with excitement that they can use this current event for their own purposes? If you do disagree and do not see both teams ready and rearing to go, can I ask why?
In the end she should not have been killed and her death is a tragedy, the person who killed her should probably be let go and, after a legitimate investigation, charged (probably for some sort of recklessness, not murder).
But additionally, anti-ICE activists (which the victim was, or at least her wife) need to understand that there is a difference between having a march and actively, physically trying to thwart the application of federal law, and doing the latter means assuming grave risks. I recently read The War Before the War which delved into anti-slavery activism from about 1830 to 1860. The parallels between those trying to stop enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act and today are uncanny. The same legislative, judicial, constitutional, tactical, and strategic issues and moral righteousness. If people genuinely think that immigration law is equivalent to the Fugitive Slave Act, then they should fight like hell and expect violence. If they don't, then they should simmer down a few notches.
I was literally just talking yesterday about the internet hate boner for HOAs (how dare they tell me how high my grass should be) vs condo boards (obviously I should be fined for late night parties on a weekday). Something about a house which is not fully yours just strikes people as weird, whether it’s owned by a corporation or whether technically owned by you but it certain ways managed by a collective structure. It's a very real feeling that both the left and, apparently, Trump, are tapping into. I think in the case of condos or townhouses it's just understood as a technical necessity (common roofs) or vaguely seen as “not real housing” anyway.
There was just absolutely no excuse for responding with such lethal force. She was protesting yes and getting in the way, but she was clearly frightened, trying to turn her car around and leave as they unnecessarily escalated the situation approaching her with guns raised. She was not trying to kill and ram into anyone. Then stepping up towards her and shooting her multiple times in the head? It's bizarre how ICE overreacted. Law enforcement is meant to protect and de-escalate situations. Watching this from another western country is bonkers
The discourse is just whataboutism all the way down now.
Each side can always point out the other's inconsistencies and hypocritical beliefs. All criticisms are therefore valid which means no one has any incentive to change ("Why should I back down when they won't?")
This will continue until somebody actually takes the moral high ground and says "More than one thing can be bad" and then doesn't back down.
I've been a fan of Josh's centrist opinions for decades. He's the antidote to the anger and outrage that's the bread-and-butter of so many other media personalities. Thanks for having him on.
China is just too globally and internally powerful to keep sustained meaningful pressure on (see Tiananmen, Tibet, Uyghurs, belt & road fubars, etc). They are just immune to pressure historically and presently
I know a small part of the episode. But in regards to the Minneapolis shooting, I think both sides (politically) are absolutely ecstatic this happened and that makes my stomach turn.
Trump has 100% been pushing gears with ICE, but he has been toeing a line of legality while driving everyone insane. I do not think there was a 1% chance the admin wanted to push over that line and just blatantly kill someone. They’re already doing exactly what they want to do, both in actions, and in making democrats furious. Going out there and just killing someone can only turn people (their own side) against them. Meanwhile, this shooting to me, looks justifiable. Wrong, but justifiable (yes that’s possible). So now I think Trump is ecstatic. He’s going to wait for the left to get 100 miles ahead of their own skis like they do every time. Going to wait for riots and he’s going to go “look at this! All in regards to a justifiable shooting”. And he’s going to ratchet up again. His base will follow him again. Because they’re going to go, the lady was a dipshit that drove her car through police and got shot; sure, seems like a stupid mistake and I feel bad, but also my neighborhood is in disarray again like what happens every time the left gets in a tizzy and I’m fucking furious about it”, and that is enough to get them to follow Trump on one more ratchet up.
Meanwhile, the left is absolutely loving it. You can see them getting out their posters and highlighters. On my commute home from work yesterday already hundred+ people at each highway overpass with signs. Guys, we are in Chicago. Like 80% of this city agrees with you. Just put the damn signs away and find something else to do with your night. You’re not protesting to make a change, you’re protesting to be seen protesting and feel good about yourself. It’s like if a group decided to protest Biden at a Trump rally… crowds like “yeah, we’re all already with you guys, calm the hell down”. Jacob Frey (mayor) is shaking with excitement. About to go right back into theater kid mode and wash feet again or some shit. “Legal Observer” is already plastered around the internet from every talking head and politician with a social media account. Probably listen to 2hrs of political content a day for the last 10 years and read another 1hr a day…. Never heard the term “legal observer” in my life. But, it has “legal” right in the name of the term. Wonder how many focus groups they ran that through in the 4hrs before they all got in agreement that was the term they were going to roll out with. First person to hear it suggested did the Mr. Deeds “Genius! Genius! Genius!”. Legal right in the name, see if anyone can say what she was doing was illegal when she was a legal observer.
The tactics from both sides are so unbelievably transparent it is sickening.
I still have the sneaking suspicion that the Democrats are totally-beholden to the radicals, and OrangeManBad will take all the blame when things collapse hard.
I mean. Orangeman has really done a lot personally to set himself up to deflect some of that by being very careful about how he speaks and not acting rash… hahahahaha I’m sorry I can’t even finish that thought.
Of course he will. And even if the collapse isn’t his fault it’s his fault he let himself be to vulnerable the blame sticks to him because he’s a deeply stupid person.
My God, the other day this white woman I used to work with posted something akin to "we could have had a highly qualified President but ya'all voted for this" and I was just like....I need to stop reading these
The Fifth Column silence around the John Fugelsang episode has been deafening. Not sure what he made you sign but it’s like people showing up to work at the World Trade Center the week after 9/11 as if nothing happened.
Well, in fairness, it would’ve been a little hard to work in two chasms of perilous debris; some of it the ashes of the thousands murdered, that you’re breathing in. But, otherwise, spot on metaphor.
I'm assuming that Barro neglected to mention the Serious Trouble because he's aware that while that podcast might provide someone illuminating legal information that otherwise Ken White is a lunatic who is rightly despised by online libertarians and the type of listener that the Fifth Column attracts.
Geez. You guys live in a bubble sometimes. The accusation of counting illegal votes in Atlanta has been admitted to by Fulton County. It's not even debatable at this point.
I was just responding to this one. I haven’t listened much. Trying to become a fan… the struggle is real. Because In this instance, which is all I know, you sounded uninformed.
Just a fact. Glad you got it right in the past. It would be better to get it right consistently. Don’t you think?
These guys have been having a running conversation since before 2016, expecting them to consistently run through, or qualify their views on long running issues on every episode is unrealistic. As a long time follower of these guys, (back to the Independents) when comparing them to the media at large their analysis and ability to “get it right” is head and shoulders above the vast majority.
Truth is IAM a fan already. I’ve seen you guys crush it on Megyn Kelly, Kmele on CNN, you on Bill Maher and Michael in his own podcast. Just subscribed here and getting reacquainted… and I stand by my comment… your guest said false things and misinformed your audience and you failed to correct the record. I’ll listen… but for edgy commentators you had a thin skinned response to a factual observation.
You know what people have forgotten about? Tibet. When I was in college everyone had a Free Tibet patch on their backpack. There were aid concerts. There were at least two major Hollywood movies. What happened?
Hollywood wanted Chinese money so it stopped mattering to them. Pretty much sums up their “ideals” entirely.
It literally ended Richard Gere’s big studio career as big studios couldn’t hire him for fear of displeasing China.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/04/richard-gere-hollywood-china?srsltid=AfmBOornTL6SemEtxGqBqvoSzZC8ML2f5r7u7RbxkI3-e9d4ceTFdSxu
Kmele, I am on board with Ashley Babbit being in the wrong entirely and this Minneapolis lady.
“Driving down a public street”…. I agree it’s not as clear cut as maga is saying. But “driving down a public street”?? Really? She was parked perpendicular across a street blocking federal agents from doing their job. The federal agents part is meaningless to me. 1. You can’t park perpendicular across a street blocking traffic. Just plainly illegal. 2. You can’t block any law enforcement from local police to a fire truck and/or anything else from doing their duty. That is also plainly illegal.
Now, I don’t think Babbit or the Minneapolis lady should have been shot or killed. I think in both cases it was wrong. But also, in both cases it was justified. Something can be justifiable and wrong at the same time. The Minneapolis lady also less should have been shot than Babbit. But dear fucking Christ was that lady a god damn idiot and made a series of mind numbingly stupid decisions that had a great chance of ending with this result.
Block law enforcement with your vehicle. Continue to block them until they exit their car and surround yours asking you to get out because what you’re doing is transparently illegal and you’re now in trouble. Realize oh shit, I’m in actual trouble, after law enforcement has surrounded your vehicle, panicked and speed through a cop standing on the ground to get away. No I don’t think she was trying to run him over, I think she was trying to get away, doesn’t change that she literally drove through and partially knocked a cop standing on the ground with her car, and it was intentional. Driving your car intentionally at a person has been deemed to be “assault with a deadly weapon” ten thousand different times now. You do not even have to hit the person and it has been ruled that. As long as the driver is in control of the vehicle and it is deemed they intentionally drove the vehicle at the person. There is not a question in the world that is what occurred, again, fully believing she did not intend to run the cop over, she did intend to accelerate her vehicle at the cop.
Just like Babbit (but agreed, to a lesser degree) this is a textbook example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I know that is crass and harsh. I am aware. People go “imagine if that was you or someone you knew”, well no one I know is in the habit of being remotely confrontational with cops, let alone blocking them from performing their job. Further, no one I know would flee from the cops. We did that when we were in high school. We are now in our 30s. We’ve grown up. Lastly, no one I know would punch a cop, let alone drive their car through a cop, to get away. The series of absolutely abysmally stupid choices all strung in a row here is hard to comprehend.
vehicle at the cop.
Meanwhile, I think both sides (politically) are absolutely ecstatic this happened and that makes my stomach turn.
Trump has 100% been pushing gears with ICE, but he has been toeing a line of legality while driving everyone insane. I do not think there was a 1% chance the admin wanted to push over that line and kill someone. They’re already doing what they want to do. Going out there and just killing someone can only turn people (their own side) against them. Meanwhile, this shooting to me, looks justifiable. Again, wrong, but justifiable. So now I think Trump is ecstatic. He’s going to wait for the left to get 100 miles ahead of their own skis like they do every time. Going to wait for riots and he’s going to go “look at this! All in regards to a justifiable shooting”. And he’s going to ratchet up again. His base will follow him again. Because they’re going to go, the lady was a dipshit that drove her car through police and got shot; sure, seems like a stupid mistake and I feel bad, but also my neighborhood is in disarray again like what happens every time the left gets in a tizzy and I’m fucking furious about it”, and that is enough to get them to follow Trump on one more ratchet up.
Meanwhile, the left is absolutely loving it. You can see them getting out their posters and highlighters. On my commute home from work yesterday already hundred+ people at each highway overpass with signs. Guys, we are in Chicago. Like 80% of this city agrees with you. Just put the damn signs away and find something else to do with your night. Jacob Frey (mayor) is shaking with excitement. About to go right back into theater mode and wash feet again or some shit. “Legal Observer” is already plastered around the internet from every talking head and politician with a social media account. Probably listen to 2hrs of political content a day for the last 10 years and read another 1hr…. Never heard the term “legal observer” in my life. But, it has “legal” right in the name of the term. Wonder how many focus groups they ran that through in the 4hrs before they all got in agreement that was the term they were going to roll out with.
The entire thing is disgusting.
And “Constitutional Observer” is a new activist term for me, being used in regard to the Minneapolis shooting.
The bigger picture here is that the ubiquitous presence footage invited all of us (me included) to draw conclusions. Clearly you did.
Kristi Noem did
Trump did
The mayor did
Walz did
The problem is that any one of us sees a fragment and doesn't have the whole picture and doesn't let an at least somewhat object review of what happened.
At best this is an ambiguous situation that allows each of us to use confirmation bias.
As always two things can be true at once
She might have been stupid and panicked
He might have shot multiple times into a windows both before and after
He might be not guilty because he feared for his life legitimately because he placed himself in front of the vehicle
Or he might be guilty because he continued to shoot two additional shots through an open window even after the vehicle completely cleared him
ok that is more than 2.
Only an investigation will tell until then people can argue and then 50 percent will be pissed with the outcome
I agree with your overall sentiment. I agree the situation is ambiguous and people can draw their own conclusions. I also agree many things can be true at once, I believe highlighted that quite clearly in my post.
However, I didn’t just watch the video and draw a conclusion. I consulted multiple lawyers who handle cases such as these as well. They have all been incredibly successful with long careers. The reason I feel confident in my opinion is because there wasn’t any hesitation in any response I received, they were all unquestionably aligned and the conditions they mentioned that were met are not at all impacted by the points you are mentioning, on a legal basis. Lastly, and most importantly to my confidence in my opinion, again I live in Chicago, my friends are quite liberal, they hate ICE, one actively engages in democratic protests. There opinions on the legality of this case were directly opposed to their personal beliefs of the situation. In the same breath that one said the shooting was unquestionably justifiable he also said it’s still ICE’s fault for being there, the woman should still be alive, and he doesn’t believe that she ever tried to harm the officer. It’s just none of that matters in deciding the legality of this specific case.
For instance, her intention is completely immaterial. Like, if god came down and said with undeniable certainty “she did not mean to hit the officer” that as a legal matter wouldn’t change anything a single iota.
For the firing two shots, that was also brought up. And was answered as the entire interaction basically happens within a second. If lethal force is deemed as justifiable then that period of time is not substantial enough to even register new information, process it and change action. Another way to say that, if at any point from the vehicle moving to the shots being fired, the shooting is deemed justifiable then the entirety of the shooting is justifiable. It happened too quickly.
As I also mentioned above, they were all unwavering in their belief that based on the letter of the law the shooting was justifiable; however, they were also very clear that if the officer is charged and this goes to a trial by jury, they have no idea how the case would be decided.
As a separate matter that I find interesting. They disagree on legal matters 9 times out of 10. That is not to highlight this being anomaly, it is to highlight something else. It is very interesting how often they are in alignment, all three agreeing on the letter of the law, and the case still goes the other way. To clarify, much of the time they will prior to a verdict all correctly guess how a case will be decided; however, how they guessed the case will be decided is the opposite of what they believe the letter of the law entails. This all in reference to trials by jury. I posted somewhere else that law is much more an art than a science. The way they talk about juries is like talking someone running for class president in high school. The judge keeps boundaries that you have to stay between, but otherwise it’s basically as much a popularity contest and a persuasive performance as much as a legal proceeding. It’s basically if a lawyer has a 10/10 legal case and a 1/10 presentation they will lose every time to a person with a 6/10 legal case and a 10/10 presentation. Like, you still need to absolutely have some legal case. But, it’s not like the letter of the law and who is more correct per the black and white text is going to win the day.
What type of hourly rate (range is fine) do you pay these multiple lawyers to weigh in on an incident like this and share their legal opinion with you?
Hahaha I was college roommates with them. Roommates with one for 4 years after college. Talk to them all, text or otherwise literally at a minimum every other hour of every day. And hang out with them basically every Friday Saturday and Sunday. And usually Wednesday too if we go to trivia night, which has been lacking lately.
Shorter version. They’re my very close friends for 14 years.
Last night from 6:30 to 10:30 we sat at a bar and watched the Ole Miss v Miami game. So I guess some Thursdays too
I gotta agree. I see no reason to even really look into ice or its training or the temperament of its members. I think everyone’s just being too hard on poor ICE. They got a tough job out there. Ya k lnow? They have to protect us from ______ and set examples for the kids watching.
So yeah I agree. ICE is fine and if you get in their way yeah of course they can respond with deadly force. I don’t even see a reason to look into it!
1. You’re immediately giving away your insanity. My comment was nothing to do with ICE per se. It is entirely about how the politicians are utilizing the event. You just came out of left field with a sarcastic statement that had nothing to do with my post.
2. I would have 99% the same sentiment if it was Joe Schmo involved. Legally, if you have the right to be in front of the car (which they did), let’s say for a normal person standing in a crosswalk, and a car accelerates there car through where you are standing, the excuse “cmon man, I wasn’t even trying to hit them! Look they stepped to the side and I avoided them when I could have hit them if I wanted to, I just was late to an appointment!” is not an excuse at all, you’re going to get potentially charged with assault with a deadly weapon. If Joe Schmo shot the person, I would have the same sentiment of “wow, that was extreme, probably shouldn’t have done that”, but as I put in a separate post, the laws PRIORITY is not to judge morality, it is to have a functional society. That being the case, the law is set up to adjudicate what at its base is functional. Being able to drive a 2-ton vehicle intentionally at people on the street is not a functional premise to base a society around, so it is very very very illegal and the potential victims of such an event are allowed to react in quite a broad manner. That being said, that does not mean it always accounts for what is “good”. I watch the video, and I see a lady that is panicking and made a series of the stupidest decisions I have seen a human being make in a row, but ultimately I do not see a lady that is trying to run over an officer to kill him, I see someone trying to flee from federal agents (which in itself is beyond idiotic, but a person with that alone I do not believe should be shot). However, she chose to flee by purposefully taking a 2-ton vehicle and driving it through a human being that was standing on the street. I am 100% aware the person was just grazed, I am 100% aware they are ok, I just stated that I do not think that the intent was to run the person over, I get all of that. It’s just that none of that changes the fact pattern that unquestionably exists, the lady took her car, and by all accounts accelerated her car through a person that was standing on the street in front of her. You and I and 95% of people looking at the video can say “cmon, she barely touched him!!” But again, that does nothing to change what literally occurred. All the person standing in front of the car has to say is, I was in front of the car, the lady knew I was in front of the car, and she chose to accelerate her car into me, and in that instant I thought there was a chance she was going to run me over. From the other side (hypothetically if you were able to) you’d ask the lady, were you in control of your car? By all accounts yes. Did you see there was a person standing in front of your car? By all accounts yes. Was what you were engaging in illegal? Unquestionably yes, she was parked perpendicular in a street blocking law enforcement and traffic with her vehicle, knew there were agents telling her to stop and get out of her car, and she chose to flee. Those things are all illegal. Did you intentionally accelerate your vehicle into the direction of the person? Not, were you trying to hit. It does not even matter if the person was hit or not at all. Literally just matters if she intentionally accelerated her vehicle into their direction knowingly. And that is unquestionably yes as well. Every single necessary quality I can see is unquestionably checked on both sides LEGALLY for the officer to be in the right and the lady to be in the wrong. BUT I am still with you, that the outcome still feels entirely wrong. That is why I started where I started. The priority of the law is a functional society, it does not prioritize morality and right and wrong. Once someone while committing a crime drives their 2-ton vehicle at someone, suddenly the potential consequences go through the roof because society cannot function with people driving vehicles at others while committing crimes. That doesn’t mean it feels good and seems right in every instance. It doesn’t and it’s not going to. The law is a broad set of foundational rules. It isn’t a precise specific mechanism that takes into account the infinite amount of variables in an infinite amount of specific equations. A law that did that in itself would be completely dysfunctional even if it was hypothetically possible.
3. Yes ICE can use additional training and oversight. I’d even be willing to say ICE in particular needs additional training and oversight. But overall, every government body from police to teachers to firemen to politicians need additional training and oversight. Government is a necessary cancer that is terrible at pretty much absolutely everything it does. Our (Chicago) kids are learning at rates worse than 20 years in the past. 80% of grade schoolers are not competent and grade-level math and 70% are not at grade-level reading. If teaching was anything outside of government it would be bankrupt and a new better model would have taken its place decades ago. Our current system is an absolute clusterfuck of a failure. Government overall is fucking abysmal. ICE I’ll grant you is particularly abysmal. Yes, they could use more training and oversight. That is not at all what I am responding to, I am responding to a specific situation where a specific thing happened. Your response reminds me of just the gun debate typical response. I’m not picking a side at all, all I am saying is some tragedy happens and a group instantaneously says “we need stricter gun laws!!”, then you look at the sack of shit perpetrator and they’re from like Chicago with already strict gun laws, they got their gun legally, they had no record, and there is no immediate indication that stricter gun laws would have done anything. Yes, I could be on your side that stricter gun laws are necessary, but what the fuck does that have to do with the specific situation we are talking about that is right in front of our face.
So, with extreme brevity I will ask what I pointed to that you didn’t respond to at all, do you disagree that both political teams are currently filled with excitement that they can use this current event for their own purposes? If you do disagree and do not see both teams ready and rearing to go, can I ask why?
In the end she should not have been killed and her death is a tragedy, the person who killed her should probably be let go and, after a legitimate investigation, charged (probably for some sort of recklessness, not murder).
But additionally, anti-ICE activists (which the victim was, or at least her wife) need to understand that there is a difference between having a march and actively, physically trying to thwart the application of federal law, and doing the latter means assuming grave risks. I recently read The War Before the War which delved into anti-slavery activism from about 1830 to 1860. The parallels between those trying to stop enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act and today are uncanny. The same legislative, judicial, constitutional, tactical, and strategic issues and moral righteousness. If people genuinely think that immigration law is equivalent to the Fugitive Slave Act, then they should fight like hell and expect violence. If they don't, then they should simmer down a few notches.
I was literally just talking yesterday about the internet hate boner for HOAs (how dare they tell me how high my grass should be) vs condo boards (obviously I should be fined for late night parties on a weekday). Something about a house which is not fully yours just strikes people as weird, whether it’s owned by a corporation or whether technically owned by you but it certain ways managed by a collective structure. It's a very real feeling that both the left and, apparently, Trump, are tapping into. I think in the case of condos or townhouses it's just understood as a technical necessity (common roofs) or vaguely seen as “not real housing” anyway.
There was just absolutely no excuse for responding with such lethal force. She was protesting yes and getting in the way, but she was clearly frightened, trying to turn her car around and leave as they unnecessarily escalated the situation approaching her with guns raised. She was not trying to kill and ram into anyone. Then stepping up towards her and shooting her multiple times in the head? It's bizarre how ICE overreacted. Law enforcement is meant to protect and de-escalate situations. Watching this from another western country is bonkers
The discourse is just whataboutism all the way down now.
Each side can always point out the other's inconsistencies and hypocritical beliefs. All criticisms are therefore valid which means no one has any incentive to change ("Why should I back down when they won't?")
This will continue until somebody actually takes the moral high ground and says "More than one thing can be bad" and then doesn't back down.
Josh Barro: Evidence-Based Politics™
I've been a fan of Josh's centrist opinions for decades. He's the antidote to the anger and outrage that's the bread-and-butter of so many other media personalities. Thanks for having him on.
He’s one of the last great centrists.
You know it wasn’t that long ago that people were raising awareness about the Uighrs in China. I assume that must have been taken care of.
China is just too globally and internally powerful to keep sustained meaningful pressure on (see Tiananmen, Tibet, Uyghurs, belt & road fubars, etc). They are just immune to pressure historically and presently
I know a small part of the episode. But in regards to the Minneapolis shooting, I think both sides (politically) are absolutely ecstatic this happened and that makes my stomach turn.
Trump has 100% been pushing gears with ICE, but he has been toeing a line of legality while driving everyone insane. I do not think there was a 1% chance the admin wanted to push over that line and just blatantly kill someone. They’re already doing exactly what they want to do, both in actions, and in making democrats furious. Going out there and just killing someone can only turn people (their own side) against them. Meanwhile, this shooting to me, looks justifiable. Wrong, but justifiable (yes that’s possible). So now I think Trump is ecstatic. He’s going to wait for the left to get 100 miles ahead of their own skis like they do every time. Going to wait for riots and he’s going to go “look at this! All in regards to a justifiable shooting”. And he’s going to ratchet up again. His base will follow him again. Because they’re going to go, the lady was a dipshit that drove her car through police and got shot; sure, seems like a stupid mistake and I feel bad, but also my neighborhood is in disarray again like what happens every time the left gets in a tizzy and I’m fucking furious about it”, and that is enough to get them to follow Trump on one more ratchet up.
Meanwhile, the left is absolutely loving it. You can see them getting out their posters and highlighters. On my commute home from work yesterday already hundred+ people at each highway overpass with signs. Guys, we are in Chicago. Like 80% of this city agrees with you. Just put the damn signs away and find something else to do with your night. You’re not protesting to make a change, you’re protesting to be seen protesting and feel good about yourself. It’s like if a group decided to protest Biden at a Trump rally… crowds like “yeah, we’re all already with you guys, calm the hell down”. Jacob Frey (mayor) is shaking with excitement. About to go right back into theater kid mode and wash feet again or some shit. “Legal Observer” is already plastered around the internet from every talking head and politician with a social media account. Probably listen to 2hrs of political content a day for the last 10 years and read another 1hr a day…. Never heard the term “legal observer” in my life. But, it has “legal” right in the name of the term. Wonder how many focus groups they ran that through in the 4hrs before they all got in agreement that was the term they were going to roll out with. First person to hear it suggested did the Mr. Deeds “Genius! Genius! Genius!”. Legal right in the name, see if anyone can say what she was doing was illegal when she was a legal observer.
The tactics from both sides are so unbelievably transparent it is sickening.
100%
I still have the sneaking suspicion that the Democrats are totally-beholden to the radicals, and OrangeManBad will take all the blame when things collapse hard.
I mean. Orangeman has really done a lot personally to set himself up to deflect some of that by being very careful about how he speaks and not acting rash… hahahahaha I’m sorry I can’t even finish that thought.
Of course he will. And even if the collapse isn’t his fault it’s his fault he let himself be to vulnerable the blame sticks to him because he’s a deeply stupid person.
And this is why I was okay voting FOR Biden. (Just as I did in the 2020 presidential primary….)
But I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Officer Harris.
My God, the other day this white woman I used to work with posted something akin to "we could have had a highly qualified President but ya'all voted for this" and I was just like....I need to stop reading these
The Fifth Column silence around the John Fugelsang episode has been deafening. Not sure what he made you sign but it’s like people showing up to work at the World Trade Center the week after 9/11 as if nothing happened.
Well, in fairness, it would’ve been a little hard to work in two chasms of perilous debris; some of it the ashes of the thousands murdered, that you’re breathing in. But, otherwise, spot on metaphor.
Love Josh Barro!
I about fell out of my chair hearing that Jan 6th had been "memory holed". Thanks to Kmele for attempting to put that one in context.
[hopes they bring up Ken White]
I'm assuming that Barro neglected to mention the Serious Trouble because he's aware that while that podcast might provide someone illuminating legal information that otherwise Ken White is a lunatic who is rightly despised by online libertarians and the type of listener that the Fifth Column attracts.
Popehat? I feel like it's been known he's lost his marbles a half decade ago--what'd he do now?
The Fifth's episode with him is apparently only available to a class of subscribers that, if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it.
Mr. Barro, of course, had a pretty good lawyerly podcast series with Senor Popehat not too long ago.
Me in 2020: Josh Barro’s gay?
Me after Josh Barro grew a mustache: Josh Barro is clearly gay
re: Abby Phillips on the J6 website. One of the guests being willfully obtuse was surprisingly Lydia Moynihan, previous guest on the podcast.
Geez. You guys live in a bubble sometimes. The accusation of counting illegal votes in Atlanta has been admitted to by Fulton County. It's not even debatable at this point.
https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2025/12/23/fulton-county-admits-verifying-315000-votes-2020-without-poll-worker-signatures/
Some MIGHT have been overcharged? You guys never heard about Fischer v. United States (June 28, 2024)?
Roughly 250 convictions against J6ers were thrown out by the SCOTUS because they were DEFINITELY overcharged.
We criticized the overcharging in too many episodes to count.
I was just responding to this one. I haven’t listened much. Trying to become a fan… the struggle is real. Because In this instance, which is all I know, you sounded uninformed.
Just a fact. Glad you got it right in the past. It would be better to get it right consistently. Don’t you think?
These guys have been having a running conversation since before 2016, expecting them to consistently run through, or qualify their views on long running issues on every episode is unrealistic. As a long time follower of these guys, (back to the Independents) when comparing them to the media at large their analysis and ability to “get it right” is head and shoulders above the vast majority.
One vote for be misleading sometimes. Got it.
One vote for annoying little brother energy, got it.
Guilty. True. I kind of sound like the hosts.
Truth is IAM a fan already. I’ve seen you guys crush it on Megyn Kelly, Kmele on CNN, you on Bill Maher and Michael in his own podcast. Just subscribed here and getting reacquainted… and I stand by my comment… your guest said false things and misinformed your audience and you failed to correct the record. I’ll listen… but for edgy commentators you had a thin skinned response to a factual observation.
I know someone who went on a fact finding mission to Nicaragua with Jackson Browne and Steven Van Zandt. Ortega rolled out the red carpet
In a modern-day analog, I know someone who went on Hasan Piker’s propaganda trip to China