[flagged]
There are an estimated 100K illegal immigrants in Minnesota,[1] and about 2M in Texas.[2] With 900K in Florida, 350K in Georgia, 325K in North Carolina, etc. [3]
Why doesn't ICE concentrate on fishing where the fish are… but of course that would mean doing stuff in red states.
[1] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-...
[2] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-...
[3] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-unauthorized-immigra...
The visible disruptive protests against ICE activity are also the sort of thing that you'd expect the sorts of voters that make a blue state blue to do, so when ICE does arrest illegal immigrants in red states, there's much fewer people who are inclined to protest it and therefore less publicity in general.
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-houston-arrests-more-3...
Some of the George Floyd protests devolved into riots. That is not what is happening in MN, or TX, or anywhere. Police or federal officers using riot dispersal techniques against a protest does not suddenly make the protest a riot.
ICE and CBP do not have the remit to behave like they are doing in these situations either - they do not have the same powers as local law enforcement. Yet we see them issuing unlawful commands - like telling Good to get out of her vehicle. They explicitly are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car. Pretti was shot after the weapon he had never brandished or gone for was removed from his person while he has a multitude of CBP agents dogpiling him. (We could also talk how that shot was insanely dangerous and stupid for the CBP officer to begin with, even if there had been a threat - he very easily could have shot his fellow officers.)
It doesn't matter if MPD is there. If they're absent, this doesn't suddenly give ICE and CBP the authority to police in a way that they are explicitly not allowed to do. This doesn't give them the right to shoot people when they are not actually in danger.
Fundamentally, I do not understand why you think anything in your comment is a rebuttal to the point being made. I don't understand why you think it is even relevant to the discussion at all.
I agree. Assaulting police or federal officers, harassing citizens and blocking traffic does though, and the police acts on that, not just randomly gassing people because Trump.
>ICE and CBP do not have the remit to behave like they are doing in these situations either - they do not have the same powers as local law enforcement.
Yes, they have different powers yet they employ sworn officers and those can arrest people who they believe are committing crimes in front of them.
>They explicitly are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car.
Need a source for that, it's news to me.
>It doesn't matter if MPD is there.
It does though. Even in LA the mayor was not as dumb as to order LAPD to stand down and as the result zero people got shot by feds during more massive riots than in Minneapolis. Local police is more lenient and less likely to use deadly force even when met with violence, you'd imagine if mayor had any compassion for his constituents he'd sent the police to deal with them rather than leave it to feds.
The first of the things in this list has a very large gap with the rest. I have seen zero evidence there is any sort of widescale assault on police or federal officers with these protests. Some isolated incidents, yes, but isolated incidents are not riots.
Harassing citizens does not make something a riot. Blocking traffic does not make something a riot.
They might not be protected by the 1A (Well, depending on what you mean by 'harassing citizens' it very well might be, that's a very broad term) but that isn't the same thing as a riot.
> Yes, they have different powers yet they employ sworn officers and those can arrest people who they believe are committing crimes in front of them.
They can arrest people for committing federal crimes in front of them or with reasonable suspicion of a felony having occurred. This is different from what they are doing
> Need a source for that, it's news to me.
Some lawyers/law professors discussing this.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1196194852659037 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyoBDxPeMfg
> It does though. Even in LA the mayor was not as dumb as to order LAPD to stand down and as the result zero people got shot by feds during more massive riots than in Minneapolis. Local police is more lenient and less likely to use deadly force even when met with violence, you'd imagine if mayor had any compassion for his constituents he'd sent the police to deal with them rather than leave it to feds.
Your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that if cops aren't around then it's the fault of anyone but CBP/ICE when CBP/ICE fuck up. Which is a weird abdication of personal responsibility.
> Local police is more lenient and less likely to use deadly force even when met with violence,
In particular here, I'd say it's not a matter of leniency - local police undergo training at a policy academy and a supervised training period when they enter the job. In combination this can result in years of training. They also have background checks done. Most large departments also employ some form (or even multiple forms) of psychological screening. They have ongoing re-training and re-certification around all sorts of topics including de-escalation and dealing with the public.
And police still fuck it up fairly regularly. Meanwhile, ICE has 47 days of training (the number chosen, of course, because Trump is president #47...) and no-to-minimal background and psychological screening. Police are less likely to use violent force because we have attempted to select for people that will not use it unnecessarily and also provided extensive training to them on when and when not to use it.
For example, even if you believe lethal force is justified in a situation like Good's, the immediate consequences show that it was the incorrect choice for the stated claim - after she was shot in the head, the vehicle accelerated at a far greater speed and with no human control over it. Many departments now train their officers to not be in front of vehicles like this because they know that not only does it unnecessarily increase the risk to the officer, but that in a situation like this one they do not have recourse to stop it from happening - shooting the driver of a car that is right in front of you does not decrease your chances of getting run over even if they are intending to do so (and by no means do I think it is likely that Good ever intended to do so), and if they are not actively attempting to run you over, can even increase it.
It depends on your scale, in the both cases of shootings though the victims assaulted an officer before they had been shot. It's on video and in case you deny that - look up the definition of assault as a criminal act.
>Harassing citizens does not make something a riot. Blocking traffic does not make something a riot.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot
>Some lawyers/law professors discussing this.
Don't have Facebook but in the Youtube video some dude literally says "unless they have some type of a reason to detain you" at 0:50. You said "They explicitly are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car.", if it was so there had been some statue saying that they are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car, this is what explicitly means. Not some dude on youtbue saying they cannot arrest you unless they have a reason to arrest you, duh.
>Your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that if cops aren't around then it's the fault of anyone but CBP/ICE when CBP/ICE fuck up.
Nope. My entire argument is that if cops were around they would have prevented people from the law school of reddit and Youtube from committing crimes against armed officers and getting killed in the process.
Good never touches the officer with her car. This is clearly the case from the close up video, and every single claim I have seen otherwise relies on a heavily compressed low resolution video taken from significant distance away. His cell phone video does not provide any evidence of him being hit, and there has been no actual evidence or documentation provided that he received any medical treatment. Conversely, we do see him walking around without any obvious issue for some time after the shooting. The medical examiner also determined that it was the 2nd or 3rd shot that killed her - the shots that went through the driver window where he was indisputably no longer in the path of the vehicle when he fired. Lethal force is not allowed to be a punitive act of revenge, it is to protect the safety of the officer and others. We can't argue that it was for the safety of anyone else, because as we saw in the video, killing her sent the vehicle even more out of control.
For Pretti, it is not cut and dry as to whether there is anything worthy of assault. His actions all seem purely defensive and more about stabilizing himself, etc., to me than anything else, but we have seen cases where I do not understand how a jury of my peers could find the actions of the defendant to be assault, so I won't rule it out. But none of that changes the fact that the firearm that he was legally carrying and had never brandished nor made a move to handle during the event had already been removed from his person when he was shot and killed while having a multitude of CBP officers on top of him.
Either way, are you claiming that these occurrences were riots? Come on. It is incredibly clear from all of the videos in both cases that these conflicts were not riots by any stretch of the imagination. What are we even doing in this conversation?
> Don't have Facebook but in the Youtube video some dude literally says "unless they have some type of a reason to detain you" at 0:50. You said "They explicitly are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car.", if it was so there had been some statue saying that they are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car, this is what explicitly means. Not some dude on youtbue saying they cannot arrest you unless they have a reason to arrest you, duh.
The second link has a lawyer going into more detail about what those reasons are and the legal justifications around them. I will concede I could have worded my statement more explicitly, but my point is that there was no cause for them to ask Good to get out of her vehicle. Recording videos, protesting, etc., are not reasonable cause to start detaining people and pulling them out of their vehicles,
"Some dude on youtube" makes it sound like this is just a random video and not a clip of a news anchor interviewing a law professor. There's a reason people are saying you're arguing in bad faith.
> Nope. My entire argument is that if cops were around they would have prevented people from the law school of reddit and Youtube from committing crimes against armed officers and getting killed in the process.
Committing a crime is not immediate justification for being shot. We have due process and a multi-tiered legal system for a reason.
Why are you holding everyday people to higher standards than law enforcement? Arming them and giving them the legal right to use lethal force when necessary as part of their daily jobs comes with the expectation that they will do so with prudence. Even if Good and Pretti were not acting fully within the bounds of the law, that does not in and of itself justify or mitigate the actions of CBP and ICE here.
Okay, there is nothing left to discuss.
Whether or not her car made contact with her killer, no reasonable person would assume she had any desire to run him over. There's also no reason for anyone to believe that shooting her as she drove past prevented an imminent mass casualty attack.
So then your argument boils down to: if you brush against law enforcement with your car, even by accident, they should kill you on the spot in retaliation.
It's not a claim anyone in this thread has made though. The claim I find ridiculous is "Good never touches the officer with her car."
>Whether or not her car made contact with her killer, no reasonable person would assume she had any desire to run him over.
You are welcome not to discuss it then, I, however, see someone claiming there was no contact in face of the contact shown on video and deduct that the person is either delusional or hopes to gaslight me somehow.
That's really all that matters. We have a video that shows the distance between the two for all of the relevant points of the situation. What you might have guessed something would have been from a bad angle becomes an irrelevant metric when there is superior evidence available. I don't know why it looks like he is moving that way on a ultra compressed low resolution video shot from a distance. I don't really care, either, because I can look at the video that was shot from right at the scene, with higher resolution, less compression, and a much better angle.
You've also completely dodged the overwhelming majority of the comment where the meat of the argument was for anything that actually matters. Hell, not even the most relevant point for just Good. Even if I were to agree she had hit him with the car, the medical examiner determined the fatal shot was either the 2nd or 3rd which came through the driver window of the car.
But how were either of these riots? How do they reinforce your argument that there is rioting?
Why are you being disingenuous in how you present the argument being made to you?
Why are you arguing to hold people who are at least nominally law enforcement to a lower standard than everyday civilians when it comes to following it?
You might have, I don't.
You going to tell us J6 was a peaceful tour group next?
But let's pretend you're right, MPD is completely absent, it doesn't forgive anything ICE has done, actually. It is disingenuous to act like it does.
The "bad faith" part is that it's really not relevant. I made a comment about ICE murdering civilians and you diverted to some tangent about MPD that doesn't actually detract from my original point. Because it's not relevant, I don't think it was brought up in good faith.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pHpFAAzWhTY
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/2000-federal-agents-se...
I would like to hold my country to higher standards than "Eh, it's better than oppressive regimes where people get murdered for political dissent."
Unfortunately, the events we're seeing in MN may show that we're in danger of even that standard being too high for us.
Many people are trying to evade oppressive regimes where their prospects might literally mean death. The US can still be "terrible" while still not being quite as dangerous as that.
I mean, this kind of reads victim-blamey; hyperbolic example, when a person stays with an abusive partner for much longer than they should, does that imply that that relationship isn't terrible?
Are you saying it's OK for Federal officers swarm your house without a warrant, and then just shoot you for that?
I 100% agree with this sentiment and that is why I strongly support speeding the asylum application process through redirecting immigration enforcement funding to bolstering the courts. Our backlog should be 0 before we start knocking door to door and stopping people for the suspicious behavior of being brown at Home Depot.
From a systems perspective, we're heavily funding the most expensive and disruptive part of the pipeline (identification and removal) while starving the part that actually resolves legal status (adjudication, asylum review, work authorization). Though maybe that's a feature of this administration, not a bug.
If the goal is public safety, prioritizing people who commit violent crimes makes sense. If the goal is restoring legal order, then yeah, the obvious first step is to drive the backlog toward zero. I don't think that's the administration's goal though.
If they have access to all this information that was volunteered, then why are they so utterly incompetent at actually deporting illegal aliens?
That said, the disturbing part of Palantir and ICE isn't just that they are reading my driver's license or my legal status, it's the fact that they know everything.
You are absolutely, unequivocally incorrect that anyone in any significant numbers wants "open borders". I know this is a meme, but it's a meme that isn't true.