You are not telling the truth.
Per reports, agents gave contradictory commands. Some told her to leave. Others demanded she exit the vehicle.
As per the actual events, documented in multiple videos from multiple angles, Good was not given contradictory commands. She was instructed to “Get out of the (fucking) car” three times in a row.
That doesn’t mean that ICE is right. That doesn’t mean the shooting was acceptable. It means that what you said was untrue.
Were there “reports” of the incorrect narrative you describe? Yes. Does that matter, now that we know that’s not true? No.
Saying “per reports” doesn’t absolve you from a responsibility to accurately report what actually happened, and suggests you’re trying to lean on that ambiguity deliberately.
Yes, it would change my view; it’s an important point, though not the sole one.
25Hour’s description of the incident with Good is strategically misleading in multiple ways. I picked this specific point because it was the most unambiguously false. In the counterfactual world where it was true, it wouldn’t fix the other points, but it would (and should) shift how I think about the incident.
I think this is a bit too charitable. First, we have multiple videos, and the audio from Ross’s video is pretty comprehensive and clear.
Second, if we’re speculating, isn’t it possible that Good herself said “I’m going to deliberately run you over and kill you”, and it just wasn’t caught on the audio? (Obviously she didn’t; that’s my point.) Like, if we can invent possible dialogue options in the face of actual video/audio, then it’s hard to see what evidence could ever be convincing.
Again, just to be clear: none of this means anyone has to conclude “ICE is good/bad!; I’m purely arguing about false factual claims in the article. If 25Hour’s thesis is “ICE is manufacturing chaotic situations as an excuse”, and then supporting that with events that literally did not happen, then that’s not a good thesis and needs to be identified as such.