By Matt Underwood US agents involved in the latest Minneapolis shooting are reportedly on leave, a situation that immediately sparks a wave of reactions, ranging from outrage to calls for justice. The news itself, that agents involved in a shooting are placed on leave, sets the stage for a discussion about accountability and the handling of such incidents. The fact that the agents are on paid leave, as the reports indicate, likely fuels much of the immediate anger. The natural reaction is: Is this a punishment or a reward?
Speaking of punishment, the Canadian experience with border services provides a stark contrast. The Canadian Border Services Agency, or CBSA, rarely fires their service pistols. Instances of discharging firearms are significantly less frequent and are usually tied to accidental discharges or dealing with aggressive animals. The rarity of such incidents in Canada highlights a different approach to the use of force, which naturally invites comparison and further raises questions about the American response to the Minneapolis shooting.
The sentiment that permeates the discussions is one of deep dissatisfaction. There is a strong feeling that simply placing agents on leave is inadequate. The phrase “move em around and hope everybody forgets” encapsulates the fear that this is a way to sweep the incident under the rug. The call for arrest, indictment, conviction, and imprisonment reflects the belief that the alleged actions warrant more severe consequences than a temporary leave. It’s not just about the shooters either. The focus widens to include all agents present during the incident.
The response to this kind of incident evokes powerful emotions. The descriptions of the actions taken by the agents, such as shooting an unarmed person, are met with harsh condemnation. The act of clapping while the shooting is happening is also met with the same kind of condemnation. The reactions here underscore the perception of a pattern of behavior that is not only wrong, but is indicative of abuse of power. The use of terms like “Gestapo pussies” reveals the depth of the distrust and resentment that is felt.
The reactions become more urgent, a call to action. The need to speak out about the situation is emphasized. The future of all generations is affected by what happens next. The perceived injustice is not only about the events themselves, but about the implications for the future. The conversation turns to accessory charges, emphasizing that the focus should not only be on the shooters, but everyone involved.
The demand for more than just putting agents on leave amplifies. The headline “US Agents Involved in Latest Minneapolis Shooting Arrested Before Trial” is offered as the ideal outcome. The anger intensifies with the statement that they will still get a pension and health benefits. This perceived leniency adds fuel to the fire, with the phrase “Fuck all that” underscoring the outrage.
There’s the desire for harsher consequences, even the death penalty. It’s an extreme reaction, even expressed by someone not normally in favor of such penalties. The contrast is made between the agents’ treatment and the perceived lack of concern for citizens. The idea that agents get a paid vacation for potentially lethal actions and it’s simply “the American way” is seen as a betrayal of justice. The discussion also expands to the suggestion of using perks for some agents while ignoring the victims and also the suggestion of awarding perks to those who don’t even belong there.
The call for accountability is not limited to the immediate incident. There’s a broader concern about the entire system. It is pointed out that it will take a massive effort to have the agents charged for abuse of authority and murder. The conversation also shifts towards potential measures, such as requiring police officers to self-insure, as some licensed professionals do. The intent is to hold officers personally responsible for their actions.
The conversation goes on and gets even more specific, noting that the identities of the agents involved are often concealed. The use of masks during operations makes it difficult to hold them accountable. The lack of transparency leads to mistrust, further eroding the public’s faith in the system. The phrase “I don’t believe anything coming out of their mouths” reflects the deep-seated skepticism that is being expressed.
As the conversation progresses, it becomes clear that there is also a general concern regarding the lack of accountability. The system itself is seen as an obstacle to justice. The comparison made to a scenario where ordinary people would be charged with murder for the same actions exposes the perceived double standard. The phrase “Cool, so I can just go murder someone and my punishment is having to job hunt” expresses a sarcastic take on the perception of the consequences.
It is noted that a lot of people would simply let the situation pass. There is a sense of resignation, and a feeling that this will continue, due to the system in place. The argument is that this system protects its own, and does not hold its own accountable. The suggestion is that there is a trend towards fascism and the role of the police is to protect the government.
The discussion then turns to a call for transparency. The public has a right to hold public employees accountable. This is also a call for the release of their names, as is done in places where there is proper justice, as an example. The sentiment is that this is not doxing, but rather the pursuit of justice.
The conversation concludes with an emphasis on identifying and charging all those involved. The idea of the clapping agent also being charged is an example. The comparison to Canada’s approach to immigration shows how it can be done. It is emphasized that the CBSA is not like ICE and, therefore, does not send military forces to deal with the general public.