681–690 of 895 posts
I’ve cut my NYT consumption down to maybe 5 minutes a week, and somehow today it still managed to wreck my headspace. I’m not a historian, but my memory reached into that rarely-used middle school history drawer and pulled up this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo
I looked at the video and have no words. Why, just why?
This is from 8 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc.
Extreme violence has been normalized among American LEOs for a long time now.
Look up "killology" for some more on this. If you're in US, check if your local PD or sheriff's office signed up its agents for a Dave Grossman seminar or training course; you might be unpleasantly surprised.
And now that ICE job ads are essentially an open invitation to come be violent for a "righteous cause", it's exactly those types of people that end up there in even larger concentrations. But make no mistake, none of this is new in any way other than the sheer scale of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is video. There was no riot by any standard. How do you know how he got there? How do you know he wasn't already there when ICE arrived? You are making assumptions in order to cast a non-evidence supported judgement. I didn't realize the second amendment limited magazine amount. Yes, a man tried to help up a woman who was pushed to the ground by ICE and stopped further (illegal) excessive assault/battery by ICE…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what legal powers does the city/state have to expel ICE agents? What makes you believe ICE is going to follow a judge's orders? They are already routinely violating it when it comes to deporting people. Or, if you want to be even more pessimistic: what makes you believe the current Supreme Court is going to rule based on law, instead of based on political affiliation? The USA's balance of power is horribly broken.…
Does an ICE officer have any more rights than any other random non-ICE murderer? Can the police put them in prison for murdering?
Of course they can, but the governor and mayor know that ordering the police to do this means they completely lose what little control they have over the police, since the police support ICE and will believe it to be their patriotic duty to refuse the order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"sponsored"? Can you run through the rest of your script and get past the Soros bucks part, it's boring at this point.
https://youtu.be/3V65_L3sCMI?si=HushHA5YdZNJsUAk
Ah, you don’t have any. GTFO green account bot spreading discord.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please note, a question does not imply an opinion . Could you provide a reference for them not being federal law enforcement officers (specifically immigration law)? I've seen this mentioned several times, but can only find evidence that they are. For example Cornel Law [1]: > The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). > CE’s…
18 USC § 115(c)(1) (1) “Federal law enforcement officer” means any officer, agent, or employee of the United States authorized by law or by a Government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of Federal criminal law; HSI special agents have authority to investigate violations across multiple federal statutes including immigration law (Title 8), custo…
18 is for "general federal law". Are you trying to say they're not federal law enforcement because it's specific federal law and not general? Do you have a reference that supports this?
From the Cornell link:
> Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which enforces U.S. immigration law at, within, and beyond U.S. borders;
Are you saying the immigration/deportation enforcement (enforcement) is not federal? It seems it can only be enforced at the federal level [1].
Is this semantics? They're federal agents (this isn't up for interpretation, as case law exists). They enforce federal law [1]. What am I missing? You write as if there's an accepted legal definition. Please provide the reference! Help!
I don't know if it's intentional, but your formatting makes it very unclear where law ends and opinion begins.
[1] https://www.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-laws-and-res...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He wasn't screaming at them, he was filming them and then later helping up someone else who had been assaulted by them. Not that it should matter, screaming at the feds is protected first amendment activity.
[flagged]
What obstruction?
They walked up to him. You are lying by implication that he was obstructing shit unless you mean in the 30 seconds from being dogpiled to shot.
Why is this being hidden off of the main HN pages? There are clearly enough points for it to be significantly up weighted. I don’t understand the censorship.
Best indicator I've seen is if comments/points ~> 0.9 or so.
It's my understanding mods can undo this "controversial" flag, so that select threads get back onto the main page.