Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
A car that is owned privately is considered private property in America and thus off-limits for law enforcement without a legal warrant.
[quote]
No worries, mate. You clearly don't know what constitutes "private property".
Ok my clothes are private property too. I'm off-limits for law enforcement unless I'm naked.
Like seriously, you think you can run onto a public street and interfere with police that have a car pulled over and you think it's not obstruction because the car is private property? Like why do we have to go nine rounds on the most ridiculous things?
Ok we're done here. If you want to be a baby, be a baby to someone else.
Pretty on brand for you. Smugly telling me "you must no know what constitutes private property" because you foolishly believe that police can't arrest someone in a car without a warrant and when I point on how ridiculous that is you pretend to throw a tantrum so you can bow out without having to defend your foolish belief.
Look it up. Privately owned cars are private property. They're called "effects".
Maybe stop digging? You're wrong. Own it. ICE are doing plenty wrong even if they didn't do this thing wrong.
Prove that I'm wrong.
This argument has gone off the rails, though.
If "You're wrong" is proving that a car isn't private property, it won't happen.
That's not what at's stake though - We're on the tail end of a thread that started from Kwark claiming it isn't obstruction if there isn't a warrant, and we're currently at "can police enter cars" which is a ridiculous place to be.
Yes police can enter cars if they can prove probable cause etc. That could be irrelevant for this argument because we're talking about ICE not 'the police', which may well have different guidelines that do not include 'probable cause'. It seems reasonable to consider it obstruction of justice if someone physically blocks the doorway to a home to prevent police from entering and arresting someone who just obviously committed a crime. That seems incredibly straightforward.
If you want to make the case that it wasn't what happened and ICE is at fault in this scenario, don't let BJ pull you off track into this odd tangent of police and cars. Stick with ICE and pregnant people in this specific scenario.
I disagree, I think It's time to make it as difficult as possible for all right-wingers at every step. Every single thing they say must be scrutinized to death, and it's no longer time for leniency. They've crossed too many lines so it's time that they face the consequences of their actions. One consequence must be that they can't say a single sentence unless they've proven it 100 times over.
People will lose patience with you and ignore you a million times sooner than they'll ignore your opponents. You can watch that happen in real time here, if you'd like. Just continue as you are.
I disagree. See how many people are still responding to oBlade despite him shitting up the thread with essays. People may be annoyed, but they don't look away.
I'm posting the following explanation as a separate comment to avoid overlapping discussions:
For ICE to enter and search a private vehicle requires a "valid reason". Suspecting that there are undocumented migrants in a car is not a "valid reason", because what's missing is the "evidence of a crime" inside the vehicle, which is required for a "valid reason". It's not a crime to transport undocumented migrants from A to B. An arrest on private property (such as a search of a private vehicle) would therefore require a warrant signed by a judge. Otherwise ICE would be required to wait until the migrants have left the car before they can make an arrest. Sucks for ICE, but that's the law.
This is why ICE has resorted to arresting people after court house meetings. That is fucked up, but unfortunately it's also legal.
I posted this video just a few pages ago proving my point. ICE was powerless, they couldn't search the vehicle.
On June 12 2025 15:56 Turbovolver wrote: Just take off your shirt and stand on top of it, now you are "on private property" and you cannot be touched XD
You say that jokingly but I have little doubt that's an argument he would make if it suited him.
I don't know what pronouns MP uses but I'm opting to go with he/him here over the more ambiguous they/them so nobody thinks I'm speaking in generalizations about other people in the thread. MP has some pretty unique ways of seeing things that doesn't apply to anyone else here so I wouldn't want anyone else to think "them" refers to them.
Not really a joke, I think it was literally the argument being made. Magic Powers literally went straight-faced to private property as in effects as in things owned by a person, and substituted that for "on private property" as in land.
I'm not at all pro-ICE, if you're going around in masks and without evidence of any authority to haul people out of the country something's been fucked up somewhere. But the argument being made was so laughable I got trolled into posting about it anyway welp.
On June 12 2025 15:56 Turbovolver wrote: Just take off your shirt and stand on top of it, now you are "on private property" and you cannot be touched XD
You say that jokingly but I have little doubt that's an argument he would make if it suited him.
I don't know what pronouns MP uses but I'm opting to go with he/him here over the more ambiguous they/them so nobody thinks I'm speaking in generalizations about other people in the thread. MP has some pretty unique ways of seeing things that doesn't apply to anyone else here so I wouldn't want anyone else to think "them" refers to them.
Not really a joke, I think it was literally the argument being made. Magic Powers literally went straight-faced to private property as in effects as in things owned by a person, and substituted that for "on private property" as in land.
I'm not at all pro-ICE, if you're going around in masks and without evidence of any authority to haul people out of the country something's been fucked up somewhere. But the argument being made was so laughable I got trolled into posting about it anyway welp.
Yeah there's definitely a lot of valid criticisms, plain clothes officers not identifying themselves, the fiscal irresponsibility of sending platoons of ICE officers to arrest a couple law-abiding immigrants, Trump sending the national guard/marines into California against state wishes, etc. But somehow I'm to blame for the tangent on police/cars like I held MP down and put feet to his flames until he offered this argument that "cars are private property and therefore off-limits to law enforcement without a legal warrant." As if thousands of people don't get pulled from cars every day and arrested without a warrant. Thousands of cars get searched every day without a warrant too.
On June 12 2025 15:56 Turbovolver wrote: Just take off your shirt and stand on top of it, now you are "on private property" and you cannot be touched XD
You say that jokingly but I have little doubt that's an argument he would make if it suited him.
I don't know what pronouns MP uses but I'm opting to go with he/him here over the more ambiguous they/them so nobody thinks I'm speaking in generalizations about other people in the thread. MP has some pretty unique ways of seeing things that doesn't apply to anyone else here so I wouldn't want anyone else to think "them" refers to them.
Not really a joke, I think it was literally the argument being made. Magic Powers literally went straight-faced to private property as in effects as in things owned by a person, and substituted that for "on private property" as in land.
I'm not at all pro-ICE, if you're going around in masks and without evidence of any authority to haul people out of the country something's been fucked up somewhere. But the argument being made was so laughable I got trolled into posting about it anyway welp.
Yeah there's definitely a lot of valid criticisms, plain clothes officers not identifying themselves, the fiscal irresponsibility of sending platoons of ICE officers to arrest a couple law-abiding immigrants, Trump sending the national guard/marines into California against state wishes, etc. But somehow I'm to blame for the tangent on police/cars like I held MP down and put feet to his flames until he offered this argument that "cars are private property and therefore off-limits to law enforcement without a legal warrant." As if thousands of people don't get pulled from cars every day and arrested without a warrant. Thousands of cars get searched every day without a warrant too.
You clearly never read anything about the "valid reasons" section. Police can't enter a private vehicle without evidence of a crime.
Police can only search a vehicle without a warrant if there's probable cause to suspect that evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle.
This is why they can't search the locked boot of your car if they pull you over for speeding, but they can search the locked boot of your car if they pull you over for speeding and then hear someone screaming from inside the boot.
If they know that an undocumented migrant is present in a vehicle, I imagine that'd stand up in court as probable cause to suspect that evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle. This would allow them to search it without a warrant.
I'm strongly against the way ICE are conducting themselves, it's only fuelling unrest that wouldn't be happening otherwise, but I don't think "they can't search vehicles" is the hill to die on.
On June 12 2025 17:32 MJG wrote: Police can only search a vehicle without a warrant if there's probable cause to suspect that evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle.
This is why they can't search the locked boot of your car if they pull you over for speeding, but they can search the locked boot of your car if they pull your over for speeding and then hear someone screaming from inside the boot.
If they know that an undocumented migrant is present in a vehicle, I imagine that'd stand up in court as probable cause to suspect that evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle. This would allow them to search it without a warrant.
I'm strongly against the way ICE are conducting themselves, it's only fuelling unrest that wouldn't be happening otherwise, but I don't think "they can't search vehicles" is the hill to die on.
Thank you so much! I'm glad there's one person here who is capable of arguing honestly and with regard for the truth. The others should learn from you.
Is it a hill to die on? Depends. If people are being unreasonable, then yes it's a hill to die on. You're the first person arguing reasonably. If people start arguing more like you do, then we can move on.
This is a thing that you can just check. It's either true or not true, your assessment of the reasonableness of TL posters doesn't really come into it.
On June 12 2025 17:32 MJG wrote: Police can only search a vehicle without a warrant if there's probable cause to suspect that evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle.
This is why they can't search the locked boot of your car if they pull you over for speeding, but they can search the locked boot of your car if they pull you over for speeding and then hear someone screaming from inside the boot.
If they know that an undocumented migrant is present in a vehicle, I imagine that'd stand up in court as probable cause to suspect that evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle. This would allow them to search it without a warrant.
I'm strongly against the way ICE are conducting themselves, it's only fuelling unrest that wouldn't be happening otherwise, but I don't think "they can't search vehicles" is the hill to die on.
I don't think this is 100% strictly true.
Police can search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause.
They can also search a vehicle if the driver/owner consents to it.
Remember LEO including ICE do not have to tell you the truth. I say LEO because this is not limited to federal agents. If you don't know the law, and incriminate yourself, it's your fault both for not knowing the law and being a criminal. You can say it's wrong they don't have to tell you the truth, but it's not specific to ICE, it's all LEO. The police are not your lawyers.
For example if the police say "can I just look through the trunk real quick" and you crumble instantly under the social pressure of that and go "uh I guess so," despite being seconds away from the discovery of Hoffa's corpse, instead of saying "Do I have to say yes? No. You don't have my permission. Where's your probable cause or warrant?" then it's not fruit of the poisonous tree, it's fruit of the tree that you picked and gave to the officer. The video I see is on this page is not one of overreach because it's one where federal officers respected a line when pushed back.
If someone searches a car without probable cause or permission, and they find Jimmy Hoffa, that gets thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree. This gets thrown out in court and the person walks. That's the process. Standing between an officer and a car is a different level of retarded, which even if the original person's car doesn't get searched, and they drive off with Hoffa still in tow, and the case gets thrown out, the obstructing person will be separately prosecuted.
In the case of immigration, you can definitely have cause to think a driver is smuggling, for example. A car is different than a house (Don't watch too much Breaking Bad) in certain ways. With no cause, you can ask the people to get out of a car, and if they do you can question, get suspicion, detain, then arrest if you see immigration violations. Even in a case where you don't have the authority to force them out of the car.
tl;dr: they are allowed to try to search something even if they don't have a specific authority like a warrant guaranteeing them the ability to search something.
I've watched a fair amount of bodycam vids, like some of you have i think, this last year. Seems to me the cops can't legally search your car without your permission unless they have a warrant or cause to do so. Cops are very good at stretching the definition of the word 'cause' though, so don't be surprised when they search your car anyway.
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the federal government cannot deport or detain Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil for the foreign policy reasons cited by the Trump administration.
The preliminary injunction — issued by U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz of New Jersey — does not go into effect until Friday morning, giving the government a chance to appeal. But it marks a blow to the Trump administration's push to remove Khalil, a green card holder who was detained by immigration agents in March and is currently being held in Louisiana.
The ruling focuses on Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination that Khalil's "presence or activities would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest." Farbiarz had previously said that seeking to deport Khalil for that reason is probably unconstitutional, but had stopped short of issuing an injunction until Wednesday.
Farbiarz said, "the Court finds as a matter of fact that [Khalil's] career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled — and this adds up to irreparable harm.
Crucially, Farbiarz said his findings "have no impact on efforts to remove [Khalil] for reasons other than the Secretary of State's determination." That means the administration could still try to deport Khalil for allegedly leaving out details on his green card application — another reason that government lawyers have given for his detention.
But Farbiarz found that the government is almost certainly detaining Khalil right now because of the Rubio determination, and not due to issues with his green card application. He noted it's very rare for green card holders to be held in detention for omitting information on their paperwork. "
good. "using the the book" against people not being able to properly read and make up fantasy determinations and allegations just because "hold my beer I am the executive" seems to be the way. for now. hopefully it stays that way.
also the irony of sending in the troops to LA to further raise tensions - after doing ICE raids no one asked for, so haphazadly and idiotically. while failing to hit Joe Biden's deportation numbers.
On June 12 2025 18:53 Jockmcplop wrote: I've watched a fair amount of bodycam vids, like some of you have i think, this last year. Seems to me the cops can't legally search your car without your permission unless they have a warrant or cause to do so. Cops are very good at stretching the definition of the word 'cause' though, so don't be surprised when they search your car anyway.
Exactly that. Law enforcement is incentivized to stretch and even break definitions, also to coerce using false information and even straight up lie to people, if it helps them circumvent the barrier of not being allowed entry. Body cams were supposed to reduce these instances, but I don't know if it has had any impact. We're still seeing cops skirt and break laws even with running cameras. Also, they have (possibly even legal?) means of turning on their cameras only after it's already too late to capture important footage.
As a result of this people now have a skewed understanding of what cops are legally allowed to do - as the altercation in this thread proves. Cops have been getting away with far more than the law allows them, so now it is expected that they continue to get away with crime.
And this is why people are protesting, not because things are only now escalating. People are protesting because law enforcement in general has been overstepping its boundaries for such a long time. Police crime has to end.
On June 12 2025 18:53 Jockmcplop wrote: I've watched a fair amount of bodycam vids, like some of you have i think, this last year. Seems to me the cops can't legally search your car without your permission unless they have a warrant or cause to do so. Cops are very good at stretching the definition of the word 'cause' though, so don't be surprised when they search your car anyway.
I think I have seen the same thing, Or at least vidoes of "FBI agent illegally pulled over by the cops" or whatever, so even that has rules commonly broken.
I'm also not familiar with the details of the incident. But I do not understand how Blackjacks description works. Like how does a pregnant woman block 4 doors of the car? Did she just hit the lock button? Was she out of the car? How did that happen.
I have no horse in the race here and seems like a strange thing to quibble over but I also do not think this a dunk on MP thing unless someone has the whole story and if so just post the source instead of treating assumptions like fact (like the rules of the thread are intended).
On June 12 2025 19:09 Doublemint wrote: also the irony of sending in the troops to LA to further raise tensions - after doing ICE raids no one asked for, so haphazadly and idiotically. while failing to hit Joe Biden's deportation numbers.
America asked for them on November 4th, 2024.
Under normal conditions, in recent years "deportations" are about 70% expedited removals (meaning people who are caught at/near the border, just entered, and can be deported again with no hearing), 20% civil removals (e.g. overstayed your visa by 20 years), and 10% criminal removals (e.g. a rapist who also has no visa or green card).
The largest category of "expedited removals" is likely to fall under Trump, because there is almost nobody crossing the border illegally now to begin with who can be deported in that way. For this reason, the apples to oranges webbed critical mess of hypocrisy and whataboutism that causes open borders advocates to criticize Trump to Trump voters for not even being as fascist as Biden, makes no sense.
On June 12 2025 19:09 Doublemint wrote: also the irony of sending in the troops to LA to further raise tensions - after doing ICE raids no one asked for, so haphazadly and idiotically. while failing to hit Joe Biden's deportation numbers.
America asked for them on November 4th, 2024.
Under normal conditions, in recent years "deportations" are about 70% expedited removals (meaning people who are caught at/near the border, just entered, and can be deported again with no hearing), 20% civil removals (e.g. overstayed your visa by 20 years), and 10% criminal removals (e.g. a rapist who also has no visa or green card).
The largest category of "expedited removals" is likely to fall under Trump, because there is almost nobody crossing the border illegally now to begin with who can be deported in that way. For this reason, the apples to oranges webbed critical mess of hypocrisy and whataboutism that causes open borders advocates to criticize Trump to Trump voters for not even being as fascist as Biden, makes no sense.
is there a training camp where you get to train stretching and turning yourself into a literal pretzel while making points like this?
mental gymnastics are out of this world.
//edit: the whole post. the bolded part is oBlade himself trying to be funny.
On June 12 2025 19:09 Doublemint wrote: also the irony of sending in the troops to LA to further raise tensions - after doing ICE raids no one asked for, so haphazadly and idiotically. while failing to hit Joe Biden's deportation numbers.
America asked for them on November 4th, 2024.
November 5th, but I think you're technically right with this. A plurality of American voters secured Trump the electoral college win, inadvertently "asking for" attacks on people living in this country (both legally and illegally). What followed was an enormous series of "leopards eating our faces" and "pikachu face" situations/memes, where the American people are mostly getting what Trump promised, for better or for worse for worse or for much worse: authoritarianism, chaos, hate, and overwhelming incompetence.
On June 11 2025 21:39 oBlade wrote: I am not conservative
The doors she is referring to are the car doors of the vehicle they were in so no concerns there
A car that is owned privately is considered private property in America and thus off-limits for law enforcement without a legal warrant.
No worries, mate. The arrest happened in public.
No worries, mate. You clearly don't know what constitutes "private property".
Ok my clothes are private property too. I'm off-limits for law enforcement unless I'm naked.
Like seriously, you think you can run onto a public street and interfere with police that have a car pulled over and you think it's not obstruction because the car is private property? Like why do we have to go nine rounds on the most ridiculous things?
Ok we're done here. If you want to be a baby, be a baby to someone else.
Pretty on brand for you. Smugly telling me "you must no know what constitutes private property" because you foolishly believe that police can't arrest someone in a car without a warrant and when I point on how ridiculous that is you pretend to throw a tantrum so you can bow out without having to defend your foolish belief.
Look it up. Privately owned cars are private property. They're called "effects".
Maybe stop digging? You're wrong. Own it. ICE are doing plenty wrong even if they didn't do this thing wrong.
Prove that I'm wrong.
This argument has gone off the rails, though.
If "You're wrong" is proving that a car isn't private property, it won't happen.
That's not what at's stake though - We're on the tail end of a thread that started from Kwark claiming it isn't obstruction if there isn't a warrant, and we're currently at "can police enter cars" which is a ridiculous place to be.
Yes police can enter cars if they can prove probable cause etc. That could be irrelevant for this argument because we're talking about ICE not 'the police', which may well have different guidelines that do not include 'probable cause'. It seems reasonable to consider it obstruction of justice if someone physically blocks the doorway to a home to prevent police from entering and arresting someone who just obviously committed a crime. That seems incredibly straightforward.
If you want to make the case that it wasn't what happened and ICE is at fault in this scenario, don't let BJ pull you off track into this odd tangent of police and cars. Stick with ICE and pregnant people in this specific scenario.
I disagree, I think It's time to make it as difficult as possible for all right-wingers at every step. Every single thing they say must be scrutinized to death, and it's no longer time for leniency. They've crossed too many lines so it's time that they face the consequences of their actions. One consequence must be that they can't say a single sentence unless they've proven it 100 times over.
This would be incredibly annoying, and I dare say possibly counter-productive.
While I agree with how you phrased it in a subsequent post 100%, here you somehow ended up down a cul de sac where you basically ended up arguing that the police is so restricted that it wouldn’t realistically be able to fulfil its function.
Outsiders observing that won’t be leaving with the takeaway that your angle was the convincing one. Or a desirable one.
As a rhetorical technique it really only serves two functions: 1. You’re 100% right, the other is 0% right and you cut to the chase and through the bullshit by bringing it back to some pertinent core point. 2. It’s a deflecting technique to continually derail where a discussion is going and bring it back to some pedantic point again and again, until one loses patience.
On June 12 2025 19:09 Doublemint wrote: also the irony of sending in the troops to LA to further raise tensions - after doing ICE raids no one asked for, so haphazadly and idiotically. while failing to hit Joe Biden's deportation numbers.
America asked for them on November 4th, 2024.
Under normal conditions, in recent years "deportations" are about 70% expedited removals (meaning people who are caught at/near the border, just entered, and can be deported again with no hearing), 20% civil removals (e.g. overstayed your visa by 20 years), and 10% criminal removals (e.g. a rapist who also has no visa or green card).
The largest category of "expedited removals" is likely to fall under Trump, because there is almost nobody crossing the border illegally now to begin with who can be deported in that way. For this reason, the apples to oranges webbed critical mess of hypocrisy and whataboutism that causes open borders advocates to criticize Trump to Trump voters for not even being as fascist as Biden, makes no sense.
is there a training camp where you get to train stretching and turning yourself into a literal pretzel while making points like this?
mental gymnastics are out of this world.
It's in the data, no? I can't post the graph but so many times.
Let's think with an analogy that isn't charged like immigration. Mayor A is elected and arrests 300 murderers.
Mayor B is elected and arrests 10 murderers.
This is not proof Mayor B is soft on murderers just because the arrests went down. (This is why leftists aren't praising Trump for being less fascist than Biden just because X or Y number.) The number of murders may not be constant. For example: 1) Murders went down even more than arrests, so Mayor B is actually harder on murderers. 2) Murders went down the same as arrests, so Mayor B and Mayor A are equally tough. 3) Murders went down, but not as much as arrests went down, so Mayor B is softer on murderers.
My analysis lacking again? Okay. Expose flaw in argument.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/mC33yM60/nobill.png)
