—> ICE / Immigration / Video from ICE shooter POV released, firestorm ensues
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 4K
- Views: 141K
- Politics
- Messages
- 2,647
From that very link...This is the link:
8 CFR § 287.8 - Standards for enforcement activities.
www.law.cornell.edu
Provided in this article:
Can ICE agents detain U.S. citizens? What powers do they have to arrest people? Your most common questions answered.
The agency has spearheaded President Trump's immigration crackdown and been at the center of some of its most controversial incidents.www.yahoo.com
Can ICE agents detain U.S. citizens?
Legally, no. By the letter of the law, ICE only has the authority to detain, arrest or deport people who are believed to be in the country illegally.
gtyellowjacket
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,813
I think you are right about the first part and fear you are right about the second part.
I think when the failure to acknowledge those facts is problematic and feeds into the position from the right that ICE was justified.
gtyellowjacket
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,813
I think the writer was sloppy and referring only to detaining US citizens for immigration violations. The very next paragraph is this one:
"ICE can detain citizens if they allegedly commit a crime, such as interfering with an immigration operation or assaulting officers. ProPublica’s list includes 130 people who were held for alleged infractions, though those cases “often wilted under scrutiny” and very few resulted in convictions."
They care nothing of the retort to their justification. The justifications are open and naked lies. You are engaging a propaganda machine on their terms. They are joyed that you willingly engage with those details because doing that obscures the topline takeaway that it was murder.
gtyellowjacket
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,813
That's not correct. ICE has authority to arrest anyone if a crime was committed against the United States in their presence. In practice, that means assault of an officer like you mentioned but also obstruction of their immigration enforcement activities. The last news report I saw something ice had arrested about 50 people on similar offenses around the country but I suspect the number has gone up. Many charges are dismissed but not too many are arguing they can't make the arrests.
In practice, they would rather the local police deal with it but they certainly would have arrest powers in her case. And the lady would have argued in court that she wasn't really obstructing and was just trying to turn around or whatever but likely would have spent some time in the back of a squad car and maybe in a jail cell.
§1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
...
(4) to make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, if he has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the person arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest available officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States; and
(5) to make arrests-
(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or
(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony,
if the officer or employee is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest
- Messages
- 2,647
I read both. Zenmode had already quoted that portion several times and ignored the portion I posted. The reality is that ICE has ZERO statutory authority to arrest American citizens who are not directly obstructing their actions with regard to immigration enforcement. She blocked traffic. Those officers were not engaged with any suspected immigrants. They, therefore, have no authority to enforce basic traffic law. They have to call the police.
Blocking traffic is not an offense against the united states. Even if the traffic contains federal officers.
- Messages
- 2,346
Look what she was wearing
- Messages
- 876
Some on this thread are seriously going out of their way to put the fault on Good. Just f’ing disgusting.
gtyellowjacket
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,813
???She blocked traffic to obstruct their actions with regard to immigration enforcement. Unless folks are claiming it was just a weird coincidence. It strains credulity.
I still don't think she should have been shot and I don't think ICE should have been there in force in the first place.
Hopefully, I've got all of them on Super Ignore.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 11,459
Why do you think the cases wilted under scrutiny? I posted a statute on another thread. If you want to discuss it, go there. Maybe you can learn something.From what I've read, ice is able to detain US citizens if they are interfering with operations.
ICE can detain citizens if they allegedly commit a crime, such as interfering with an immigration operation or assaulting officers. ProPublica’s list includes 130 people who were held for alleged infractions, though those cases “often wilted under scrutiny” and very few resulted in convictions.
Can ICE agents detain U.S. citizens? What powers do they have to arrest people? Your most common questions answered.
The agency has spearheaded President Trump's immigration crackdown and been at the center of some of its most controversial incidents.
You are correct that ICE can detain people who forcibly resist their lawful orders. Forcibly. They can be detained if they are actively hiding a person known to them to be in the country lawfully.
They do not have a freestanding power to arrest people for any infraction.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 11,459
Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you tell us what "felony" or "offense" was being committed? Keep in mind that statutes are to be interpreted in context. If a statute bars people from possessing "knives, stilettos, dirks, daggers or other dangerous weapons," you might be able to say that a gun counts but you definitely cannot say a lead pipe counts, even though the pipe could be used as a dangerous weapon. That's first year statutory interpretation. Very basic principle.
When you go to find the statute you seek, you will probably happen upon section 111. That statute requires the person to act *forcibly*.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 11,459
Here is a note from the DOJ itself:
Section 111 of Title 18 punishes anyone who "forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with any person designated in 18 U.S.C. § 1114 or who formerly served as a person designated in § 1114, while engaged in or on account of the performance of his/her official duties." Force is an essential element of the crime. Long v. United States, 199 F.2d 717 (4th Cir. 1952). Whether the element of force, as required by the statute, is present in a particular case is a question of fact to be determined from all of the circumstances. The Long case indicates that a threat of force will satisfy the statute. Such a threat which reasonably causes a Federal officer to anticipate bodily harm while in the performance of his/her duties constitutes a "forcible assault" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 111. See also United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983, 987 (2d Cir. 1987); Gornick v. United States, 320 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1963). Thus, a threat uttered with the apparent present ability to execute it, or with menacing gestures, or in hostile company or threatening surroundings, may, in the proper case, be considered sufficient force for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. These judicial decisions suggest a similar construction of the statutory words "resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with."
At no point is there any suggestion that merely blocking traffic is forcible.
Section 111 of Title 18 punishes anyone who "forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with any person designated in 18 U.S.C. § 1114 or who formerly served as a person designated in § 1114, while engaged in or on account of the performance of his/her official duties." Force is an essential element of the crime. Long v. United States, 199 F.2d 717 (4th Cir. 1952). Whether the element of force, as required by the statute, is present in a particular case is a question of fact to be determined from all of the circumstances. The Long case indicates that a threat of force will satisfy the statute. Such a threat which reasonably causes a Federal officer to anticipate bodily harm while in the performance of his/her duties constitutes a "forcible assault" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 111. See also United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983, 987 (2d Cir. 1987); Gornick v. United States, 320 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1963). Thus, a threat uttered with the apparent present ability to execute it, or with menacing gestures, or in hostile company or threatening surroundings, may, in the proper case, be considered sufficient force for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. These judicial decisions suggest a similar construction of the statutory words "resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with."
At no point is there any suggestion that merely blocking traffic is forcible.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 11,459
You obtained your law degree from where?
Bigs23
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,554
Can't kill people for that.
CarolinaFever
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,040
I can't believe there are enough people so horrible that can actually stomach to work with this administration.
- Messages
- 4,631
the people with the guns say otherwise