FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations • Hacker News Board

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#241

Post by lostmsu » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 8:45 PM UTC

frumplestlatz wrote: post #240

lostmsu wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you see de-arrest? The article only says he wedged himself between an officer and another protester, which I'd say is normal in any protest.

> he wedged himself between an officer and another protester, which I'd say is normal in any protest. No, it’s not normal, that was a federal crime, and you absolutely cannot physically interfere with the police just because it’s a protest.

Legally speaking it probably depends on law enforcement actually being in their right to grab the other protestor in the first place?

In practice I had experience of protests in 2010s Russia, and legitimacy is another huge factor there. E.g. even if the law enforcement was in the legal right to grab the other protestor, is it ok that they had the right in the first place.

I'm not saying either of these apply, but that because legality and legitimacy of grabbing a protestor is often unclear this de facto is a normal behavior at a protest and should not have any severe punishment attached to it.

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#242

Post by frumplestlatz » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 9:50 PM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #241

frumplestlatz wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he wedged himself between an officer and another protester, which I'd say is normal in any protest. No, it’s not normal, that was a federal crime, and you absolutely cannot physically interfere with the police just because it’s a protest.

Legally speaking it probably depends on law enforcement actually being in their right to grab the other protestor in the first place? In practice I had experience of protests in 2010s Russia, and legitimacy is another huge factor there. E.g. even if the law enforcement was in the legal right to grab the other protestor, is it ok that they had the right in the first place. I'm not saying either of these apply, but tha…

In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense.

What may be common at protests is irrelevant, other than perhaps raising the question of why riotous behavior has become an accepted norm among certain demographics. Such behavior as Pretti demonstrated is not — and has never been — constitutionally protected.

Physically inserting oneself between officers and another person constitutes illegal interference, not protected protest, and predictably escalates the risk of serious injury or death — especially in a volatile crowd, when the interference is violent, and especially when the individual is carrying a loaded firearm.

There’s simply no legal right to obstruct law enforcement. Doing so is a serious crime, and, as clearly demonstrated by the ultimate outcome of his consistent pattern of behavior, extremely dangerous.

Which is precisely why the conduct is illegal in the first place, why engaging in it was unjustifiable, and why characterizing it as “protest” is politically motivated sleight of hand.

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#243

Post by foxglacier » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 10:43 PM UTC

terminalshort wrote: post #140

roughly wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loudly broadcasting electronic signals out of something you’re trying to keep hidden seems like a tactical error, but these cats aren’t the best trained, are they?

They aren't trying to keep hidden. They are trying to avoid their murders from being filmed by drones with cameras. Jamming is perfectly compatible with this goal.

It's convoys of vehicles, not individual people or even individual vehicles. They're not a secret and not committing drive-by shootings.

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#244

Post by lostmsu » Sat, Jan 31, 2026, 2:05 AM UTC

frumplestlatz wrote: post #242

lostmsu wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally speaking it probably depends on law enforcement actually being in their right to grab the other protestor in the first place? In practice I had experience of protests in 2010s Russia, and legitimacy is another huge factor there. E.g. even if the law enforcement was in the legal right to grab the other protestor, is it ok that they had the right in the first place. I'm not saying either of these apply, but tha…

In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense. What may be common at protests is irrelevant, other than perhaps raising the question of why riotous behavior has become an accepted norm among certain demograph…

This whole comment ignored the legitimacy part which is non-trivial in this case.

My understanding is ICE ignored state court orders (I did not look up details, might be very wrong on this one), from which point on any activity of theirs could have been illegitimate if not outright illegal. Preventing any of their activity might be considered a duty in a sense that it is pushing them to abide by lawful court orders.

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#245

Post by frumplestlatz » Sat, Jan 31, 2026, 10:57 AM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #244

frumplestlatz wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense. What may be common at protests is irrelevant, other than perhaps raising the question of why riotous behavior has become an accepted norm among certain demograph…

This whole comment ignored the legitimacy part which is non-trivial in this case. My understanding is ICE ignored state court orders (I did not look up details, might be very wrong on this one), from which point on any activity of theirs could have been illegitimate if not outright illegal. Preventing any of their activity might be considered a duty in a sense that it is pushing them to abide by lawful court orders.

I was quite clear on that. You cannot interfere with law enforcement.

> In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense.