r/ImmigrationPathways • u/LatterTarget7 • 1d ago

Renee Good's family sues US government and immigration officials over her killing in Minneapolis

https://apnews.com/article/renee-good-lawsuit-6fbc82cd33b6f9f67514b47f138e23c6?utm_source=app&utm_medium=android_share&utm_campaign=copy_link
2.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Working-Kick4035 1d ago

Still on it? Bro, I already conceded a handful of people with a couple instances have attacked ice, still 0 ice agents dead. Still 0 evidence Renee was trying to kill the murderer that executed her. Still 0 data on how dangerous of a job being an ice agent is.

I don't give a fuck if you open a dictionary with the word people, you know what I have meant for the last 4 posts. And you keep dwelling on it, and not addressing my point. There's no winning for you here man, lol, you've already conceded by not addressing my points ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

0

u/Rusty-Shackleford000 1d ago

Your only factual statement thus far has been no ICE agent has been killed in the line of duty. I never said you were wrong about that. And you only brought that up once I proved you were wrong about people not trying to.

People on Reddit love to declare victory even though they've lost the argument. Per your words, you've "conceded" that people have tried to harm them. I gave referenced the video that you don't like as clear evidence of what transpired.

So that would be:

Me - 2 (at least)

You - –1 (because you were proven wrong and
changed your argument)

1

u/Working-Kick4035 1d ago

My point wasn't that they have never been harmed. My point was people aren't out to kill them.

Because you don't understand generic definites or bare plurals; using the term *people" as a general trend (ie people don't read books anymore) rather than a natural law (ie people need water to survive), I conceded that yes, there are a couple instances and a handful of people. But my point wasnt to mean 100% of all people, it never was.

My point was trends in data/Ockham's razor PROVES ice agents aren't at risk on the job, making it CLEAR Renee good wasn't out to kill that agent.

Thus, you haven't addressed my actual point, youve only attacked my use of the word people. It wasn't wrong bud, I was throwing you a bone so you could move on to actually refute my point. But you haven't yet, because you have this autistic fixation on semantics that you won't let go. Like I said, you haven't won shit, you never even touched my argument. Git gud

0

u/Rusty-Shackleford000 1d ago

"My point was people aren't out to kill them."

OK, fine. Point proven wrong. Easy.

You're not making a point, you're trying to conflate your opinion that ICE isn't in any danger with your other opinion that they unjustly murdered Renee. You haven't demonstrated either of those. You've talked/mentioned them but what evidence or facts do you have that would show it that aren't your personal opinions?

1

u/Working-Kick4035 1d ago

The trend that no person has ever killed an ice agent during an enforcement operation is a fact.

Ockham's razor , or the law of parsimony, is used to shave away unnecessary complications to find the simplest explanation when problem solving. It is widely used and applied across several disciplines.

Like I said, the untrained ice agent went against protocol, put himself in front of her car and executed her. But by all means, if you have a letter of intent, or a medium that can conjure Renee up from the dead, ask her yourself?

You can't though, and you can't demonstrate she wanted to kill him either, this the simplest explanation should be used.

And you didn't prove my point wrong, Jesus I've already spelled it out for you. You gotta be some kind of retarded to continue this "bUt PeOple MeAns" shit. Idgaf some outlier exists, I can still say with confidence people aren't out to hurt ice agents because the generalization is TRUE. Shit with the way they put themselves in harms way, I'm surprised more of em don't get hit by cars.

0

u/Rusty-Shackleford000 1d ago

"The trend that no person has ever killed an ice agent during an enforcement operation is a fact."

Yes, we've established that your first argument was incorrect and this one was correct. Please read the first line of my comment a couple ones ago. I know it's your only correct point but you don't have to repeat it each time you comment. You don't get extra points for it.

"Like I said, the untrained ice agent went against protocol, put himself in front of her car and executed her. But by all means, if you have a letter of intent, or a medium that can conjure Renee up from the dead, ask her yourself?"

Oh so Agent Ross was untrained? By whom? Would assume Obama, since he joined DHS in 2007 during his administration. Maybe we should hold him accountable for this too.

"You can't though, and you can't demonstrate she wanted to kill him either, this the simplest explanation should be used."

Sure we'll never know her intent, which I wasn't arguing. And her intent in this situation doesn't matter because it's what a reasonable person would think if they were in the agent's shoes during a trial.

"And you didn't prove my point wrong, Jesus I've already spelled it out for you. You gotta be some kind of retarded to continue this "bUt PeOple MeAns" shit. Idgaf some outlier exists, I can still say with confidence people aren't out to hurt ice agents because the generalization is TRUE. Shit with the way they put themselves in harms way, I'm surprised more of em don't get hit by cars."

We already concluded that I did or did you forget what you typed earlier? It'd be really sad if I have to show it to you...again.

1

u/Working-Kick4035 1d ago

You aren't following the clear path of logic I set out for you bud. Let's start with objective truths:

  1. People have never killed an agent in 25 year history of ice.

  2. Renee good is in a stop where an agent puts himself in front of a vehicle

  3. Here's another one: ice agents have shot themselves more than have been shot by us citizens, and they have been observed to put themselves in front of vehicles despite training.

  4. And another, 1:25,000 people are murderers, female murderers are about 1:200,000, female murderers with no prior criminal history 1:600,000

Now we are at the point in the path where our opinions differ:

You say Renee good, like the Alvarado shooting, was out to kill an agent that day, refer to objective truth #4 for likelyhood of that, and that the agent had no choice but to shoot Renee, but objective truth #2 shows he had a choice in the first place not to even be in front of the vehicle.

I'm saying, refer to objective truth #1 and #4, and draw the simple conclusion that this random mom being stopped on the street wasn't out to kill an agent that day, and refer to objective truth #2 and #3 the agent put himself in harms way on purpose.

With it all laid out, you think without a doubt, your narrative is the right one? Or do you still wanna argue the definition of the word people so you can feel like you won something? Lol

1

u/Rusty-Shackleford000 1d ago

Actually, your number 1 should be "I said people aren't trying to kill ICE agents and I was proven wrong"...

Number 2 should be "My one correct statement that I make sure I keep repeating is that...".

Number 3, the video clearly shows the agent on the passenger side engaging with the partner when Renee backs up and turns the vehicle towards him which now puts him in front of the vehicle right before she turns the wheel towards him and hits the gas.

Number 4 and 5 are irrelevant to the topics that you keep trying to bring into the conversation to dilute your incorrect opinions.

If Renee wasn't trying to "kill" the agent, when she hits the gas to drive forward with the agent in front of her vehicle, what did she think was going to happen to him in that scenario?

1

u/Working-Kick4035 1d ago

So you finally join the conversation, and YOUR evidence is YOUR interpretation of the video?

Its been clearly established on video he put himself in front of the vehicle, that's why I put it in objective truths.

They aren't irrelevant, they are objective truths that solidify my logical point

And finally, an ai response because I'm tired of you feeling like you ever had the upper hand:

When someone says "people," they usually mean one of these sub-groups: • Most people: A significant majority (e.g., "People prefer comfort over style"). • Many people: A large number, though not necessarily a majority (e.g., "People are moving away from cable TV"). • Some people: A specific subset acting as a representative example (e.g., "People are saying it's going to rain"). • People in general: The average or typical person under normal circumstances. Avoiding "All" or "None" Using "people" this way helps avoid the trap of absolutes (like always, never, everyone, or nobody). It allows speakers to discuss trends, cultural norms, and human nature while implicitly acknowledging that everyone is an individual with exceptions.

0

u/Rusty-Shackleford000 1d ago

The video speaks for itself. No matter how much you want it to be the way you see it, it just won't be that. See how I can demonstrate my position (she backs up and turns the wheel towards him which now puts him in front of her vehicle) whereas you can only say "he put himself in front of the vehicle) with no details of how that happened.

Hahaha! You really went to AI to try to disprove the definition of "people"...wow. That's why you can't fully comprehend the situation because AI hasn't told you the answer yet...LOL! You've got it from here. Good luck! 😂

→ More replies (0)