We're all just content for ICE

You keep conflating the strict legal question with the moral situation.

I don't think there are too many people thinking that Ross has any worry about being held criminally or civilly liable, even if state isn't dissuaded from their prosecution, and even if the federal court where this inevitably gets bumped to actually deliberates impartially. There is a long history of police officers needlessly executing people and walking away. That's basically the problem, right?

But if we're talking about the moral situation, what ought to be in a country based on individual liberty and limited government? Then no, law enforcement officers should not be able to use "obstruction" as a pretext to demand an arrest in response to Constitutionally-protected protest, at which point they then needlessly escalate the arrest into an armed standoff, and then when the person still doesn't comply, they kill the person due to the "danger" of the situation they themselves created.

At a certain point you have to look at the realities of law enforcement agency not having a mandate or respect from the people it is working amongst. We saw how exactly corrosive this is to the rule of law with the "drug war".

Can we at least agree that it would have been easy to write down Good's vehicle's license plate, other identifying information, timestamps from bodycams, etc, deescalate the situation by ICE simply leaving, and then follow up later either with a federal arrest (FBI) or local PD?

> You keep conflating the strict legal question with the moral situation.

No, I don't. I'm not arguing the morality of it at all. You're the one who wants to argue oughts.

But as a matter of objective fact, whether something is "murder" is a question of law, not a question of morality.

> I don't think there are too many people thinking that Ross has any worry about being held criminally or civilly liable

Applying the label "murder" to the act is inherently claiming criminal liability (whether a prediction, expectation or "in a just world" pontification). Many people I have seen in this discussion do seem to think there's a case for it (although I maintain that this results from a flawed understanding of law).

> But if we're talking about the moral situation

We are not. As far as I can tell, I have only mentioned morality in order to address your personal attacks. I am sticking to the facts because that is what I am interested in discussing.

Please go through the thread and count the number of times I use the phrase "as a matter of objective fact" or similar. I am being very clear and consistent about this.

> Then no, law enforcement officers should not be able to use "obstruction" as a pretext to demand an arrest in response to Constitutionally-protected protest

The evidence does not show any such thing happening. It is not a pretext, and constitutional protections on protest do not extend to blocking the road. It's very easy to find legal support for this; so there is no reason to make these suppositions about a hidden motive.

> at which point they then needlessly escalate the arrest into an armed standoff

As an objective matter of fact, no escalation occurred. You have repeatedly made a false assertion and repeatedly refuse to even attempt to justify it.

As an objective matter of fact, an "armed standoff" did not occur. That would describe a situation where two people threatened each other with firearms. Only one party to this shows evidence of having a firearm (which is a baseline expectation for LEO), and there is no moment where a threat was made; the shooting was an immediate response.

> they kill the person due to the "danger" of the situation they themselves created.

The danger was clear and present, and your use of scare quotes is an emotional appeal.

Walking in front of a stopped vehicle, while the driver is legally required to abandon operation and exit the vehicle, cannot reasonably be described as "creating danger". That is even more absurd than arguing that pedestrians using a crossing create danger for themselves by being in the road.

> At a certain point you have to look at the realities of law enforcement agency not having a mandate or respect from the people it is working amongst.

As an objective matter of fact, the federal government is legally entitled to pass and enforce immigration law, the enforcement of which necessarily entails expelling people from the country who do not have a legal right to be in the country.

And as an objective matter of fact, Trump won the popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...) after explicitly running on a platform that included these actions. That is as much of a "mandate" as a POTUS ever gets.

> Can we at least agree that it would have been easy to write down Good's vehicle's license plate, other identifying information, timestamps from bodycams, etc, deescalate the situation by ICE simply leaving, and then follow up later either with a federal arrest (FBI) or local PD?

No, not at all. There is no good reason why they should have "simply left". That would have resulted in the SUV remaining in place, which would have been a general risk to safety and would have continued to interfere with ICE doing their job in the area. The ICE agents were not just randomly milling about the area so that they could be protested against.

> This is obviously false.

No, it isn't. I showed the reason, repeatedly. And I cited the relevant law.

> I am not attempting to sway you with the evidence you've already decided is in favor of your assertions. I instead "baldly assert" that said evidence seems to corroborate my perspective, the same as you.

I clearly explained, with timestamps and extensive logical reasoning, how the evidence clearly does corroborate my perspective. I have calmly and repeatedly walked through it all and pointed out fallacies committed by you and others.

You have merely asserted that the evidence corroborates your perspective.

Why would any third party who sees this agree with you?

> There is no good reason why they should have "simply left"

To avoid escalating to the point of killing a woman who clearly had no respect for them and would have been more receptive to local police. Not killing a woman counts as a good reason in my book at least, it seems that others disagree.

> That would have resulted in the SUV remaining in place, which would have been a general risk to safety

In the other comment I asked you to point out what vehicles were obstructed and you did not. By the time of the shooting, traffic was moving freely in the left lane and any vehicle that wanted to be gone was gone. Once again this is highly motivated reasoning, so I don't see the point of continuing.

> Losing points in a debate competition does not invalidate the belief for which one is arguing.

I did not make this argument. I simply pointed out the difference between my conduct and that of others, and between the logical validity of my argument and that of others.

> You're not going to suddenly change your mind strictly because you realized you made a bad argument

Of course I am not going to change my mind, because I did not make the argument you ascribe to me.

>This is all you've managed to do as well, despite using more words

This is blatantly untrue. I provided evidence and reasoning. You provided neither.

> Of course, that is what we are both doing. Oftentimes it's called a "discussion".

This is not a discussion. It has not at any point been a discussion. It has just been me pointing out where you (and others) are factually incorrect, where you (collectively) have hypocritically made emotional appeals while falsely accusing me of doing so (which again does not make you incorrect, but hypocrisy is a moral failing), and so on. It could not possibly be a discussion, because you repeatedly ignored that I was focused on a legal analysis while incorrectly accusing me of conflating that with a moral analysis, while engaging in a moral analysis that I repeatedly told you I was no concerned with. Again, my only interest in morality here is because my moral character has been unfairly impugned.