Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In 6 violent encounters, evidence contradicts immigration officials' narratives

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 157 posts

Re: In 6 violent encounters, evidence contradicts immigration officials' narratives

#131

Post by NoGravitas »

> "They are trying to control a narrative from the very start, and they don't seem to care when they're proven wrong," said David Lapan, who was the DHS press secretary in 2017, during Trump's first administration.

That's the key bit. They don't need to be proven right. They don't even need their story to be consistent.

> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” > ― Jean-Paul Sartre

Re: In 6 violent encounters, evidence contradicts immigration officials' narratives

#132

Post by NoGravitas »

guerrilla wrote: post #60
deinonychus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in that case, it seems like as good of a time to stop as ever

It's seemed like a good time for quite a while...

The best time to stop is 250 years ago. The next best time to stop is now.

Re: In 6 violent encounters, evidence contradicts immigration officials' narratives

#133

Post by [deleted] »

dylan604 wrote: post #63
defrost wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MN police are delivering criminals with no citizenship status to ICE / DHS though. They have not been supporting ICE on warrentless invasions, fishing expeditions, assaulting local citizens.

Surely, you're not saying that the feds are saying things that are counter to what's actually happening on the ground, are you? /s At this point, you just have to assume the truth is exactly the opposite of what the feds are saying. How do you know a fed is lying...their mouth is moving.

[deleted]

Re: In 6 violent encounters, evidence contradicts immigration officials' narratives

#134

Post by ModernMech »

023984398 wrote: post #13
TacticalCoder wrote: post #9

[flagged]

The person who murdered Laken Riley was not acting on behalf of the government. That is the difference. Do you see the difference?

Also that Laken Riley is the only example ever provided for why immigrant violence is such an issue reveals it’s actually not an issue.

Re: In 6 violent encounters, evidence contradicts immigration officials' narratives

#135

Post by ModernMech »

lazyeye wrote: post #98
023984398 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it - you love Republicans and hate Democrats. I hate them all. Can you just connect a few more neurons in your brain and rise above it for a little bit and consider the costs? We're losing our rights and seeing a test of them live on video. Assuming we have elections again this can be used by both. Wake up dude.

[flagged]

Honestly I haven’t seen that video before now but are you kidding me? First of all cars don’t break like that from a kick. Second of all where’d the ford logo on the car go? Clearly AI. Classic AI video tells, it’s not even subtle.

Sad for you that you fell for it but not expected. If you don’t see murder in the original cell phone videos, you’ll rationalize this any way you can.

Re: In 6 violent encounters, evidence contradicts immigration officials' narratives

#136

Post by ModernMech »

guerrilla wrote: post #28
Sabinus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling American citizens domestic terrorists 30 mins after they were shot dead by agents of the President's shiny new initiative is a bit of an escalation on the generic government face-saving responses. The rhetoric is escalating and dangerous.

Is it? I really don't think so. You don't remember the whole "superpredator" thing? Every time a black dude is shot, they'll start talking about how he must have been some kinda criminal. People of color have been suffering this shit forever. Sure, the Internet makes things faster, but the policies are the same.

You’re right about that. But the actual escalation is that the line of “whiteness” is shifting. Anyone not MAGA now is in the “not white” category as far as this administration is concerned. That means white liberals are now getting the “superpredator” treatment, building a permission structure to do state violence to them.

Re: In 6 violent encounters, evidence contradicts immigration officials' narratives

#137

Post by rationalist »

pstuart wrote: post #105
rationalist wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: Why the disagreement? I don't like it that people were killed, same as you all I hope. > violently extracting her from the car Isn't that what always happens when someone doesn't comply when told to exit their vehicle? Since when has not complying with an officer on the street resulted them in saying, 'Oh, okay, carry on what you were doing'? I imagine if I parked perpendicular on a road and danced while honkin…

As far as her vehicle was concerned, I've seen elsewhere that she had been parked earlier and had pulled out but was letting other vehicles go through first, waving them on. Not complying with a masked men with guns who gave conflicting info (leave now/get out of the car) who were going to mess her up as much as they could? Really? She was trying to leave. You should watch the video where Alex Pretti tries to protect…

> blaming the victims for their fate

I don't blame them for getting shot. From what I can tell, they should not have been shot.

Since when is victim-blaming binary?

I can't say that victims should be aware that their actions or choices have consequences?

> masked men with guns

Did they not know they were going to protest ICE? That they were masked? (And that they're masked because people are harassing them and others?)

If I don't want to risk being shot, I don't go around to other people who I know have guns and are being harassed and assaulted. Neither group should be assaulted - the protestors or the officers.

If I assault someone with a gun, I should be prepared that they might use that gun, especially when they can't think straight because I'm yelling in their faces, blowing whistles at them, kicking the lights off their cars, etc.

If I choose to be a part of a group that's doing those things, I should be prepared to be treated as a member of that group.

> be prepared to change your mind

What should I change my mind about? 'They should not have been shot' - do I change that?

> Edit: I didn't downvote you because I wanted to answer with dialog instead.

I upvoted you as a thank you for taking the time to write and be apart of this dialogue.

Re: In 6 violent encounters, evidence contradicts immigration officials' narratives

#138

Post by JKCalhoun »

throw0101c wrote: post #67
chasil wrote: post #3

Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces. They should augment deployed enforcement with those who have such expertise.

> Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces. Why is crowd control even needed? ICE existed for many, many years before now, and them doing their job never caused crowds previously (under both R and D administrations), so what (rhetorically) changed?

I think it changed when I saw they were sending people to (apparently rape/torture) prisons in El Salvador with no due process.

Re: In 6 violent encounters, evidence contradicts immigration officials' narratives

#139

Post by mindslight »

throw0101c wrote: post #67
chasil wrote: post #3

Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces. They should augment deployed enforcement with those who have such expertise.

> Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces. Why is crowd control even needed? ICE existed for many, many years before now, and them doing their job never caused crowds previously (under both R and D administrations), so what (rhetorically) changed?

Exactly. There should be no crowd control, because they shouldn't be interacting with the American public except as fellow citizens. If someone commits a crime against them, they can turn the details over to the local police for enforcement of assault, etc.

At this point after how they've been operating, they shouldn't even be allowed to carry weapons. No guns, no grenades, no pepper spray, no masks to escape accountability. These are supposed to be public servants, they should be accountable to the public. If someone they're trying to apprehend reacts violently then they can escalate the situation to the local police or maybe the FBI after the federal agencies have done the work of regaining the public trust.

Post reply on HN