Minneapolis driver shot and killed by ICE

You want to live in a world where your enemies are afraid of gestapo-like goon squads who will shoot them in the face if they do the wrong thing. You think they deserve it, that the work of the goons is important and worth some violence to enable, and surely that such violence would never be used inappropriately.

Just be clear in your own mind what you're cheering for. It's not new. Historically this never ends at plausibly-justified-minutiae about law enforcement practice.

You are still handwaving while not pointing to specific evidence. Please tell me exactly what they did that physically interfered with or physically antagonized ICE? Does one of the videos show one of them straight up physically attacking an ICE agent, and it's just obvious or something?

Alternatively if the claim is that they had planned to physically interfere with ICE but never got the chance, then presumably there is the evidence of whatever physical items they had that look like part of a plan to interfere with ICE.

Because it feels like the continued lack of specifics in favor of handwaving and innuendo is an attempt to use protected first amendment activity - criticizing of government agents including heckling - into what seems like a cause of action for people who do not like the protected first amendment message. I keep asking because I know I could easily be wrong here, but I still have yet to see anything claiming any sort of physical attack or physical obstruction that would give credence to claims of obstruction that allegedly precipitated the assault on the car.

> ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner

As a high level goal, I'm mostly ambivalent about these! Maybe even slightly pro as I've come around to seeing the virtues in legibility, especially if there would be common law equitable judgement applied to situations created by the situation festering so long (cf adverse possession).

But a need to enforce immigration (or any other) law has absolutely zero bearing on whether citizens are allowed to criticize the agents for doing so. It also has absolutely zero bearing on justifying an escalation of what seems to be at most a minor physical skirmish into a summary execution by ignoring common sense rules of engagement (don't step in front of a car that is about to move) codified in the agents' own written procedures.

My problem is entirely with the methods by which it is being achieved - pointlessly cruel, inhumane, procedurally unconstitutional (as we're discussing), secretive and hidden instead of openly documented, directly contrary to the law for people that are here legally, denial of due process exacerbating the previous issues, etc. The cruelty deviates so far from the norms of free society, and is so completely unnecessary, that it informs my seeing this whole current call of enforcing immigration laws as a mere pretext for something much more dark and sinister.

Take a detour here - why hadn't immigration laws been fully enforced for the past two decades? My understanding is that the primary driver was businesses interests that rely on manual labor - they saw it was lucrative to kill the bargaining power of American labor by using undocumented workers with very little bargaining power or recourse. What really is the chance that those business interests have been finally made to take a back seat, versus those business interests now being content that labor's economic power has been fully smashed and this change is merely the next step in subjugating the common American? Most especially with the figurehead leading the charge being a business owner highly reliant on cheap undocumented labor in the industries of real estate development, hotels, golf courses?

> At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy.

If we're talking about lofty goals like the rule of law, then why are you not as concerned about the laws regarding freedom of speech or deprivation of life [, liberty, or property] contained in our country's very charter? Because what I see here is the creation of anarcho-tyranny - an unconstrained gang of masked thugs doing effectively whatever they feel like, enabled by a federal government that has stopped even attempting to enforce its own laws that would otherwise restrain them for the sake of our natural rights and liberties.

(I will also say, your criticism of Trump's statements there is quite tame given how aggressively dismissive those statements are from someone who is supposed to be leading the country rather than dividing it)

I honestly don't know how things are going to play out but it seems to be back and forth escalating.

So much has transpired in one year: the initial shock of the mass raids, the blatant disregard of the law, blocking of apps like IceBlock, etc. Neither side seems to want to back down.

If you want to be done, sure, be done. I think we could have converged much quicker if you hadn't been leading with these kind of abstract-oblique points that demand adding nuance, but then avoiding the nuance. And also I've got to say, this last comment is a whole bunch of retrenching at "nobody can know" FUD.

But at any rate, let us make no mistake: this incident is most certainly about our freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to criticize government agents in ways they may not personally appreciate.

I did finally just watch a video of the run-up of where they surround the car. She was stopped across the street like an asshole, blaring her horn, and seemingly mocking/heckling the agents. Vehicles were going by her just fine (including some ICE vehicles), just as you'd expect in regular city traffic. But being an asshole is not illegal, and what she was doing looks to be exactly first-amendment protected activity - heckling ICE agents because she disagreed with what they were doing.

Even if there is something there that ICE can legally stretch into a federal crime, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of necessitating a high stakes boxed-in gun-drawn escalation that induces a fight or flight response. And given that the killer had previously fucked around and found out about moving vehicles six months prior, his positioning and subsequent reaction would seem to be highly deliberate and likely even premeditated.

Renee most certainly could have done many things differently, and I wish she had. But government agents also have a duty to execute their roles in good faith to minimize harm regardless of whom they're dealing with and what they've done. What these agents did here was the complete and utter opposite, making them responsible for her death.

Frankly at this point I am just tired of rehashing the same things over and over again. I will leave you with this as my final summary of my thought (which I have more than once articulated on this thread): The government has the ability to take your life from you. The legal bar to prove that they did this illegally is very very high. Your best protection against it is to minimize being in any situation where the conditions will easily exist for it to happen.