this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2025
144 points (99.3% liked)

News

36018 readers
2480 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Videos from the scene and its aftermath call into question two aspects of the D.H.S. description of events: Mr. Villegas-Gonzalez is not shown hitting either officer with his car; and, in the aftermath, one of the officers says his own injuries are “nothing major.”

all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 54 points 5 months ago

Seriously. He could not have disengaged more gently. This is the straight up murder I mention every so often.

[–] Tuuktuuk@piefed.ee 38 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So, they shot because they were fearing for their safety?

And they shot from behind the car, through the back window, while the car was driving away from both of them.
Okay.

What was the threat they were trying to stay from?

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago

What was the threat they were trying to stay from?

  • Hurt feelings from not having their authority respected.
  • Being reprimanded for not meeting their monthly arrest quota.
  • The idea that they might eventually be the minorities.

Take your pick.

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Right after the article mentions their rules of engagement in that situation being that they should have backed away from the moving car, it then states that the action would likely be considered justified due to the officer being in danger.... from choosing to hold on to the moving car? Like his injuries are clearly because he didn't let go of the car until it was going fast enough that he fell off and skidded... that seems like his choice and not something the driver did.

They are not authorised or recommended to use force to prevent a "suspect" from fleeing.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 8 points 5 months ago

Police in the US are almost always deemed justified because the standard is basically thst they felt afraid, so it was OK to kill

[–] desmosthenes@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago (1 children)

where’s all these second amendment defenders to save the day?

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Oh, more USA gov agencies now on at-will public executions.

They are trying to kill/privatise the Post Office bcs they don't wanna do that prob.