—> ICE / Immigration / Video from ICE shooter POV released, firestorm ensues

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 142K
  • Politics 
gtyellowjacket said:
Similar protestors have been charged, and in some cases convicted, of conspiracy to impede or injure an officer. I've linked some news stories above.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. All of those cases involved protesters using force, which is the key to section 111 jurisdiction.

It's mind boggling that you're sitting here as an uneducated layman speaking authoritatively about law, about which you know nothing.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Its looking like the narrative today on the Sunday shows is to blame the victim. Thus its her fault for protesting and getting in their way. Perhaps a crime, but its not like she rioted, and broke into the Capitol or something and deserved a pardon for being a "warrior". I guess protesting in your own vehicle is much more serious then being a "Capitol Hill Warrior".
Click to expand...
By this point the video evidence seems clear that she wasn't actually a threat to the ICE officers, wasn't trying to run over them as initially claimed, hadn't completely blocked the street as claimed (videos clearly show cars passing hers on the street), and if she did hit him it was barely a graze, certainly not deadly. So MAGAs are now going with the only thing they have left - that somehow she "deserved it" by daring, god forbid, to simply be there and protest and not strictly obey the instructions of the officers, which were contradictory anyway. Basically they can't use any video to justify the shooting, so as you said they're down to blaming the victim for just showing up and protesting without ever really threatening the officers, so she "had it coming." It's just disgusting, but that is how most MAGAs really feel about liberals - they've all got it coming somehow.
 
wmheel1287 said:
She committed no federal crime. There is no suspicion or hint of her committing a federal crime. Disrupting ICE feom driving down a residential street when they are not at all in the process of apprehending or interrogating someone suspected of a immigration offense is not a federal crime.
Click to expand...
This is correct, with a footnote/caveat that the analysis is different if there is physical contact.

The leading case in the Ninth Circuit about this involved a protester who was blocking something. The officer hit him. The man said "hit me again." The officer didn't, and instead arrested him for impeding. The Ninth Circuit dismissed all charges, noting that the man had not acted forcibly in any way. I posted the key passage from that opinion earlier.

However, if that protester had pushed the officer way, his case would have become thornier. It would depend on a self-defense analysis.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Thank you. Well if conspiracy is the crime, then in less then a year the punishment has moved from being charged with it to being executed on the spot without trial.
Click to expand...
You're thanking him for misleading you? Those cases are not on point. I've explained the law. Listening to a data scientist who doesn't understand data as he pulls random shit off Reddit is a poor choice, in my opinion.
 
ZenMode said:
She moved her vehicle, about 1/3 of the way through the video, to maximize her blocking. Her intent, even if unsuccessful, was to slow or stop ICE from doing their job and, as the video also showed, people were apparently reversing down the street to avoid going near her.

I don't support shooting her, but I fully support available law enforcement getting her to move. "We" aren't obligated to accommodate her 'crazy', aka illegal, dangerous behavior.
Click to expand...
Available law enforcement in this case would be local PD, not ICE which lacks jurisdiction.

This is one reason why ICE has never operated with random patrols on the streets. If they have a specific arrest warrant and are serving it, they have much more power to prevent hindrance than if they are free-floating. A free floating ICE agent quite simply has no power to arrest for an offense like this.
 
StrangePackage said:
Non-violent exercise of your first amendment rights to petition the government for redress should not come with any risk of death or serious injury, you hard of thinking Muppet.
Click to expand...
I've heard this often growing up in small-town, rural NC, and I've heard it many times since - if you're around a cop you need to be on your very best behavior and do whatever they say, or else bad things might happen. I certainly get not threatening them in some physical way or making any moves to attack them, but there is simply no excuse for any law enforcement person to shoot someone who is doing what Renee Good did. It's clearly excessive and beyond the pale, and a violation of her first amendment rights.
 
superrific said:
Available law enforcement in this case would be local PD, not ICE which lacks jurisdiction.

This is one reason why ICE has never operated with random patrols on the streets. If they have a specific arrest warrant and are serving it, they have much more power to prevent hindrance than if they are free-floating. A free floating ICE agent quite simply has no power to arrest for an offense like this.
Click to expand...
It's seems to be pretty well established that ICE is legally permitted to address attempts to interfere in its operations.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I've heard this often growing up in small-town, rural NC, and I've heard it many times since - if you're around a cop you need to be on your very best behavior and do whatever they say, or else bad things might happen. I certainly get not threatening them in some physical way or making any moves to attack them, but there is simply no excuse for any law enforcement person to shoot someone who is doing what Renee Good did. It's clearly excessive and beyond the pale, and a violation of her first amendment rights.
Click to expand...
I mean, there are two issues: law, versus real life experience. Zen isn't completely wrong about that second one. It's like taunting a bully in high school. It's completely permitted, and the bully is wrong to assault you for it -- but you're also inviting the possibility of being stuffed in a trash can or something like that. If your only priority is to avoid being stuffed in a trash can, then leave the bully alone.

What Zen completely fails to understand is that there are other values besides self-preservation. He posts as he does because he literally cannot fathom a value system that doesn't put himself directly in the center. He cannot fathom a reason why someone might put themselves in harm's way for the purpose of justice. I feel comfortable saying that he would not have been marching with Dr. King in the 1960s. He would not even have been one of the moderate clergy to whom the Letter from Birmingham Jail was addressed. He would have been sitting on the sidelines protecting his own ass.
 
ZenMode said:
It's seems to be pretty well established that ICE is legally permitted to address attempts to interfere in its operations.
Click to expand...
According to what? I've posted the statute AND the leading cases. What do you have on your side? Nada. You apparently do not even understand the legal issue. If you did, you'd be able to identify the underlying federal offense that you claim ICE could be addressing. You can't even do that.
 
I woke this morning to see several new pages on this thread. I wondered what new developments had occurred and were being discussed. I should have known that Zen had begun to add his bullfuckery.
 
ZenMode said:
Unless she's been living under a news/informational rock, the minute you do anything that can be perceived as a threat on the life of law enforcement, you are putting yourself in danger. Instinctively reaching to pull your parts up, reaching for your wallet, resisting arrest, driving your vehicle toward law enforcement, etc Cops are almost always given the benefit of the doubt and police forces/lawyers are experts in painting a "life at risk" picture.

This is far from the first "life at risk" claim I've seen end badly for the driver and I don't expect this to end in charges for the cop, either.
Click to expand...
I absolutely hope none of your lived ones ever find themselves in such a situation because this kind of excuse making is EXACTLY why these situations happen.
 
ZenMode said:
When you have put yourself in a situation where you have to drive your vehicle around and through armed state local or federal agents, there are risks. It's no different than resisting arrest. Resisting arrest should not be punishable by death and is not, in itself, a threat to the life of an officer. However, you have to have situational awareness as a person and especially as a parent of young children.
Click to expand...
Again, you are not grappling with the real issue here, which is that putting yourself in a place where you are proximately close to federal law enforcement issues should not put you at risk of severe injury or death. It is bizarre that someone could simply accept that reality in our country rather than focusing on how terrible it is that ordinary citizens should be at risk of severe injury or death just by being in close proximity to federal agents. Simply being close to a federal officer performing their duties is not "a threat to the life of an officer" and it's obviously ridiculous to say so.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
It's seems to be pretty well established that ICE is legally permitted to address attempts to interfere in its operations.
Click to expand...
You seem to thing that something happening establishes the legal framework that it is permitted.

That is not how anything works. If it did, police would be daily creating legislation based on their actions. There is ZERO statutory authority for what ICE is doing in these patrols.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top