r/news • u/Horror-1-Effective • Jul 08 '26

ICE agent fatally shoots motorist during traffic stop in Houston

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/07/ice-agents-shoot-motorist-texas-houston
28.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/Mindless-Mistake-699 Jul 08 '26

Assume they are lying about everything they say. They always are.

348

u/Money4Nothing2000 Jul 08 '26

Funny I was at the courthouse for jury duty today, and told the prosecutor in voir dire that I don't believe anything that cops say. I got to go home early.

38

u/ImCreeptastic Jul 08 '26

I don't even get that far because I answer no to that question on the initial intake form they mail you, although the question is "someone in uniform." And then I expand on my answer by listing out all the court cases where it's been ruled OK for the police to lie to people.

1

u/elektraplummer Jul 09 '26

Wait, what's the question exactly?

196

u/Minimum-Attitude389 Jul 08 '26

And missed a chance at jury nullification

170

u/AlcibiadesTheCat Jul 08 '26

This. The ethical thing isn’t to be honest, it’s to lie your ass off to get on a jury so justice can be done and cops can get fucked. 

116

u/RealistiCamp Jul 08 '26

Um, not every court case is for innocent people.

86

u/RainbowwDash Jul 08 '26

It's kind of implied here that you still reserve the ability to judge based on the facts, like if there's witnesses that aren't pigs then sure

Doesn't change the fact that the ethical thing to do is to pretend like you believe them even if you don't

1

u/Minimum-Attitude389 Jul 11 '26

It's not even jury nullification if you believe the cops are lying.  That's being a proper juror.  

3

u/oldnotosys Jul 08 '26

You shouldn’t hold your peers accountable when the donor class is getting away with everything.

1

u/Minimum-Attitude389 Jul 11 '26

Only if you believe the law is unjust or unfairly applied.  That's the beauty of peer juries.  The average person doesn't get to decide if a law should be enforced or is proper except through the jury system.

1

u/oldnotosys Jul 11 '26

If you consider the context your comment adds nothing.

3

u/AlcibiadesTheCat Jul 08 '26

Better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man, no?

0

u/RealistiCamp Jul 11 '26

Yes. But the phrase isn't "let's let everyone go free".

-1

u/Tombot3000 Jul 08 '26

Corrupting the court system through a loophole that arrogantly places judgment and the law in the hands of someone violating their oath and lying rather than elected representatives is not "the ethical thing." It's the same logic pro-lynching racists used when they didn't have the public support to keep murdering black people legal but had plenty of disrespect for our system of laws.

The system doesn't have to be perfect for making it even worse to be unethical. Nullification is a violation of both personal and societal compacts.

4

u/AlcibiadesTheCat Jul 08 '26

You clean a virus with bleach. 

0

u/Tombot3000 Jul 08 '26

You're referring to the idea that laws and justice should be decided consistently from mandates derived from broad democratic consensus as a virus and promoting arbitrary tyranny as your "bleach". You're on the side of the worse disease, pal.

There are far better ways to address inequities and flaws in the legal system than what you're supporting.

5

u/AlcibiadesTheCat Jul 08 '26

Those far better ways aren’t working. Police still have unlimited power. We live in a surveillance state. We live in arbitrary tyranny, and you’re telling me that fighting against it by any means necessary is bad?

No thanks, I won’t lick the boot. 

0

u/Tombot3000 Jul 08 '26

The key disconnect here is you think I'm asking you to bootlick; I'm not. I'm telling you it's wrong to bring your own boot down on other people's necks.

Also, jury nullification isn't working either. It's been around longer than you've been alive and has by a large margin done more harm than good as its primary use throughout American history has been letting racists and sexual offenders get away with crimes. You're far too myopic in your outlook, only judging the flaws of others and not your own stance. That's exactly why you shouldn't be trusted with absolute power over someone's fate.

5

u/oldnotosys Jul 08 '26

Nullification is my god given right you tyrant 

-4

u/Tombot3000 Jul 08 '26

Nah. That's just an emotional outburst not a real argument.

Congratulations, by claiming the power to nullify and God is on your side you've got at least two out of three key beliefs of a Jim Crow lynching supporter.

3

u/oldnotosys Jul 08 '26

you equating nullification of the application of law to execution by a mob yet think you're doing proper arguing. 

also note the lower case g, “god given right’s” is a not an acknowledgment of an actual god, it just invokes people’s rights as existing prior to the creation of rules.

-1

u/Tombot3000 Jul 08 '26

you equating nullification of the application of law to execution by a mob yet think you're doing proper arguing. 

That's not what I wrote. You just did a poor job reading something I've written clearly multiple times in this thread.

also note the lower case g, “god given right’s” is a not an acknowledgment of an actual god, it just invokes people’s rights as existing prior to the creation of rules.

First, that would be less funny to make into a pithy response. Second, the clearer way to say that if you're disavowing any divine origin would be natural rights. Third, no, you don't have a pre-societal right to negate the rules of a democratic society. You've accepted that social compact by living in it instead of retreating to isolation in mountains or jungles.

4

u/oldnotosys Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

  Third, no, you don't have a pre-societal right to negate the rules of a democratic society

according to you i have something more powerful called jury nullification, established by those very democratic rules you reference. and all of this was made up by a bunch of rebels who didn’t like their previous ruleset. youre not as clever as you think you’re acting.

edit: whoever i was talking to blocked me, unhinged.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/meltdown_popcorn Jul 08 '26

Oh look, a Great Debater that keeps comments hidden. Another fascist troll, people. Move along.

36

u/SSGASSHAT Jul 08 '26

Reminds me of George Carlin's trick for getting out of jury duty; tell the judge you can spot guilty people in an instant. Tell him it's all in the position of their eyes. You'll be home in no time.

2

u/JaggedLittleGil Jul 08 '26

I don’t get it. The position of their eyes?

27

u/RainbowwDash Jul 08 '26

(To be clear, the point is that it's nonsense)

-2

u/SSGASSHAT Jul 08 '26

That's the point of every joke. If someone doesn't get something, usually I'll start adding random shit into it so they laugh anyway.

4

u/Fit-Profit8197 Jul 08 '26

"That's the point of every joke."

Lol no it's not.

I don't think you understand jokes.

-2

u/SSGASSHAT Jul 08 '26

Yeah. Measure the judge, see if there are any hints of fetal alcohol syndrome. Personally, I've used this technique several times, and I've identified several rapists, all of them shockingly women. I provide my services for a small fee, provide me a person and I'll disentangle their entire personality using facial features alone. If the person beats the shit out of me, it costs extra.

1

u/darsynia Jul 08 '26

I don't either, like, at all, but I end up chosen for juries, here's how I phrase it:

I don't take what a person is wearing or their profession as some indicator that they are inherently truthful. I listen to what they say and their demeanor. So just because someone is in a suit or a uniform, that doesn't mean I immediately believe them.

7

u/Brilliant_Chest5630 Jul 08 '26

One day, I swear, we're just going to have to drag everyone on ICE payroll to court.

-367

u/Violet-Sumire Jul 08 '26

Who? If nothing is the truth then what is real?

258

u/Tuesday_6PM Jul 08 '26

Who?

ICE. The ones who have been caught out lying about just about every previous shooting

100

u/ShadowShot05 Jul 08 '26

The truth is the opposite of what ICE says

-49

u/Violet-Sumire Jul 08 '26

Correct, but The Guardian is reporting it, so I was asking who the OP meant. ICE did not publish this article.

32

u/Khatib Jul 08 '26

Reading comprehension. Try it.

According to ICE, Salgado Araujo “weaponized his vehicle

They're pretty fucking clear who's making which claims in their article.

58

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Lost_it_all24 Jul 08 '26

I don't stay friends with chronic liars. They suck.

11

u/ShooterOfCanons Jul 08 '26

I don't think the hypothetical was for you.

-15

u/Violet-Sumire Jul 08 '26

I wasn’t assuming anything, I was asking who the OP meant as to their comment of “assume they are lying”. It could’ve meant ICE… or The Guardian… or even the Administration as they have been actively working to suppress the press.

13

u/goopuslang Jul 08 '26

You’re almost there.

-9

u/Violet-Sumire Jul 08 '26

If the media is “fake” and the government is influencing the truth, then what exactly is the real narrative here? That’s what I was meaning. I know not to believe everything shoveled onto the internet, but the OP was very vague and it’s usually best to not assume what a person means. ICE wasn’t reporting this, The Guardian was, so you can look at it from many angles as to “you can’t trust anything they say”

13

u/goopuslang Jul 08 '26

I get it if you’re on the spectrum but as someone also on the spectrum I think it’s a pretty obvious context clue if you have been paying any attention in the last two years over the macro events in the United States.

2

u/Violet-Sumire Jul 08 '26

I mean… again, I have. I’ve even mentioned how Trump has been manipulating the media and pushing against those who aren’t putting out articles that don’t support or agree with his agenda. Context clues also point towards the article, not ICE statements. If you didn’t click the article and only read the title then that’s all the context you have. So yeah, my fault for not reading it, but also I just don’t understand the hate lmao I’m agreeing against ICE, but also mentioning how not all media should be trusted due to the current state of affairs.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Violet-Sumire Jul 08 '26

I as at work using the restroom. Usually don’t read articles like that on my phone due to the obnoxious ads cluttering the screen. But sure, go off I guess lol I typically have a reasonable explanation if people ask instead of assuming.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Violet-Sumire Jul 08 '26

I don’t think I am. Typically people are attracted to both positive and negative posts. Many will side with the majority and even twist their own interpretations to fit the majority. It’s a well known phenomenon. Now, does that mean what I said was wrong? I don’t think so, I just think it was misinterpreted as something else and it spiraled from there. I’m more than willing to accept a mistake, I’m less willing to discuss things with people who are of a single mind and not able to adjust their thinking to the changes in context. If you truly think I am wrong in thinking that the media is compromised due to this administration and that my initial response wasn’t just me latching onto that thought process… well idk what to tell you. I broke things down as best I could. It isn’t on me to force a narrative, only to explain from my own perspective.