I feel like if someone dressed up as ice and joined in a raid only to cause internal chaos could deeply hinder the operations of ICE as they all become suspicious of each other and lose trust in their team.

The homeowner told police the two men said they were police and claimed they were at the home to serve a warrant.

[The homeowner] became suspicious, because, you know, they have a ring camera too, and the suspects were saying they had a warrant, but it was just two people and they're masked up and no police cars, no lights or anything like that," said Lt. Khan with HPD.

At some point, police said the men shot at the homeowner through the door, prompting the homeowner to return fire.

The homeowner was not hurt in the gunfire, but the two men were both hit and pronounced dead at the scene.

I feel the headline should have noted that he shot in response to them shooting through his goddamn door first.

I think you can get a III-a vest for about $500. That's not terribly expensive, but a criminal planning something like this may have been a little rushed and strapped for cash. It's been a few years since I cared to even look, so prices may have gotten higher.

Transparency?

I dont think it matters. The title conveys the idea that they weren't police. I think you could claim self defense just by that. No one that wants you to open the door falsely claiming to be policie is NOT going to hurt you

What? If anything they're stamped aluminum.

"Stringer noted that real officers do not wear ski masks."

It's going to be very, very interesting to see how this one turns out!

Always a good idea to be aware of lethal force rules where you live:

In this case, Houston, Texas:

https://www.houstoncriminallaw.com/blog/self-defense-or-assault-when-using-force-is-justified-under-texas-law/

"The Role of the Castle Doctrine in Texas

The Castle Doctrine is a key element of Texas self-defense laws. This principle allows individuals to use force, including deadly force, to protect themselves in their homes, vehicles, or workplaces without a duty to retreat. Under Texas law, your “castle” is considered a place where you have a legal right to be, and force may be justified when:

Someone unlawfully enters or attempts to enter your home.

The intruder is committing or attempting to commit a violent act, such as robbery or assault.

You reasonably believe force is necessary to protect yourself or others.

There are some limitations to this principle. For example, the use of force is typically not justified if the intruder is retreating or if you initiated the altercation."

So, assuming the story is accurate, and remember, initial reports are almost always INACCURATE...

"At some point, police said the men shot at the homeowner through the door, prompting the homeowner to return fire."

So, yeah, as soon as they shot through the door, Castle Doctrine is in play.

I'm from the area. It all depends on how white and Republican you are. They stack the Grand Juries with "respectable members" of the community (white, male business owners typically) who no-bill white folk for killing minorities.

In a very public case, a white small business owner/homeowner shot 2 unarmed minorities in the back, killing both as they fled a neighbor's house. They never stepped on the killer's property and never threatened anyone. The homeowner called 911 and said he was going to kill them and get away with it. The operator said not to shoot and to go inside because police were just seconds away, and he killed them anyway.

The grand jury refused to let the prosecutor take the case to trial because killing black people is a public benefit in their eyes.

So the families of the victims sued the killer, and the state responded by outlawwing civil suits over any case involving a firearm that didn't first include a felony conviction.

I'm from the area. It all depends on how white and Republican you are. They stack the Grand Juries with "respectable members" of the community (white, male business owners typically) who no-bill white folk for killing minorities.

In a very public case, a white small business owner/homeowner shot 2 unarmed minorities in the back, killing both as they fled a neighbor's house. They never stepped on the killer's property and never threatened anyone. The homeowner called 911 and said he was going to kill them and get away with it. The operator said not to shoot and to go inside because police were just seconds away, and he killed them anyway.

The grand jury refused to let the prosecutor take the case to trial because killing black people is a public benefit in their eyes.

So the families of the victims sued the killer, and the state responded by outlawwing civil suits over any case involving a firearm that didn't first include a felony conviction.

I'm from the area. It all depends on how white and Republican you are. They stack the Grand Juries with "respectable members" of the community (white, male business owners typically) who no-bill white folk for killing minorities.

In a very public case, a white small business owner/homeowner shot 2 unarmed minorities in the back, killing both as they fled a neighbor's house. They never stepped on the killer's property and never threatened anyone. The homeowner called 911 and said he was going to kill them and get away with it. The operator said not to shoot and to go inside because police were just seconds away, and he killed them anyway.

The grand jury refused to let the prosecutor take the case to trial because killing black people is a public benefit in their eyes.

So the families of the victims sued the killer, and the state responded by outlawwing civil suits over any case involving a firearm that didn't first include a felony conviction.

So I looked up the case for anyone's edification what happened is 2 pieces of human garbage were robbing his neighbor and running away with bags of their valuables. Aside from being robbers they had criminal convictions in Columbia for drug trafficking.

When confronted by the shotgun wielding neighbor the dangerous drug trafficking robbers refused his order for them to stop and one ran onto the neighbor's yard TOWARDS the shotgun wielding neighbor and the other ran away. He shot both.

Quoth the shooter

Horn, to dispatcher: "I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice."

Because of this the rest of the neighborhood wasn't victimized by drug dealing robbers breaking into their houses. Nobody ultimately had a run in with scumbags because someone was home when the robbers thought the place was empty. Nobodies family members got murdered to avoid leaving witnesses. Nobodies sanctity got violated.

But don't worry the New Black Panthers protested the scumbags deaths and threatened the fellow making their entire side look deranged and unreasonable when there are plenty of bad shoots by trigger happy cops perpetrated against actually innocent victims they could have been focusing on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

It's so badly organised and chaotic anyway they wouldn't even notice

lots of us said that this would be exactly what would be happening

And this is also what they wanted, they WANT people to start firing on cops in masks, this is the escalation they need to make the excuse for turning the US into a massive locked-down corporate prison.

"What's that? People are shooting at our precious law enforcement heroes?? Let loose the Palantir Drones! FLY MY PRETTIES!"

You cant be a cop if your IQ is too high.

This is why is a good idea to have an armed citizenry and well-regulated militias operating with transparency.

They don't need the excuse, just look at D.C. in the past week. And escalation will only make things worse for them. They're looking at an armed insurgency situation akin to the "War on Terror," which proved that an entrenched group amongst the populace is impossible to oust because anybody could be an insurgent, and taking one out will create more people willing to take revenge. There used to be an excellent Flash game about this very point where you shot cruise missiles at terrorists walking across the screen. And every time that a missile would explode, it would inevitably hit civilians in the area, and those nearby would turn into more terrorists. You'd just continue to fill the screen with more and more terrorists than there were originally until eventually you gave up.

Somebody a few weeks ago said in a thread on a similar subject that the military's conclusion was that you need about 3 soldiers for every insurgent in a population. There's no way that they can draft as much as theoretically 75% of the population.

It's a whole lot of bluster, and if we could get organized we could topple the whole thing. ICE has homes they go back to at the end of the day. They don't have army bases to hide in.

Detective Stringer makes a well calculated statement about his stance on ICE.

Probably realised they weren't real police because they knocked rather than just kicked his door in and shot his dog.

I have a prediction: the more professional and organized members of ICE would actually be foreign agents, causing problems at key points. Say, for example, "vanishing" unfriendly politicians. ICE is the perfect cover: Low recruitment standards, no regulation, bounties for those times you need to get money, and no one able to ask questions.

It would be the chaotic and unprofessional members of ICE that are native to the USA. Those would be just into ICE for the money and racism, not patriotism to their nation. This will become a "Lions Led by Donkeys" episode in a decade or two.