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.
Wouldn’t normally consider JJR worth engaging with either but it is relevant to what I said is the main battle of the present moment. If I’m understanding his logic correctly, it goes as follows:
1) By being in the streets protesting ICE, protestors are committing the felony of impeding law enforcement. 2) An officer may use lethal force if someone is committing a felony upon their person. 3) Therefore, ICE officers may legally shoot anyone who is in the streets protesting ICE.
Almost impossible for the word “bootlicker” not to come to mind hearing that, but I’m trying to move past that for a moment to understand what’s happening better. Legally, of course, it’s absurd – peaceful protest is not a felony, and “an officer may use lethal force if a felony is being committed on their person” is only legally true in a pretty narrow sense. Wire fraud is a felony, for instance, but would not constitute justification for a cop to shoot a nonviolent offender. The legal standard here is Graham v. Connor which, while it’s generally been interpreted to grant tremendous leeway to officers, still requires them to have a reasonable belief that they were in danger. “Just by being in the streets they were committing a felony” doesn’t cut it.
But earlier on the page I said Americans could either admit ICE could just as easily target them, or they could file peaceful opposition to the government among the (extralegally) punishable offenses they would never commit. Doesn’t that seem to be what is happening here? JJR’s takeaway here is “don’t oppose ICE. Doesn’t matter if what they’re doing is right or wrong, doesn’t matter if it’s legal or illegal, doesn’t matter if all you’re doing is standing in a public space filming on your phone. Return to your homes and always do what they tell you.”
Is it too obvious to point out the quite literal “authoritarianism” to that sentiment? There’s a sort of Führerprinzip at play here, where the authority figures, simply by being authority figures, are not to be questioned. There’s no “right way” to oppose them – not peacefully, not within the protections of civil rights, not anything – because opposing them at all is a felony, and that means they can shoot you where you stand.
It also feels worth pointing out the obvious question – if they’re criminals, why not arrest and indict them? We’ve got a whole criminal justice system designed for exactly that. Due process, jury of your peers, all that good stuff. But in this case, while we’re assured all these protesters are committing felonies, basically none of them are being arrested and charged. Is there even a single case of one being convicted?
Because of course, everyone knows a conviction would be almost impossible to obtain. Here the officer’s sidearm is being used, not as a tool to ensure his safety while carrying out his duties, but as a sort of lit de justice to override any legal or even Constitutional protections the victim is entitled to. Enjoy your day in court, as soon as the mortician is done with you.
This is why I’m optimistic Americans won’t embrace that point of view. To do so, they’d either have to accept a legal justification like the above, or be so scared of the authorities they don’t dare call it bullshit. But I think the legal justification is far too absurd to honestly accept, and scary as the masked men are, the average American cannot yet believe the violence is so widespread they dare not speak their mind.
A majority of Americans won't see the video and conclude that the shooting was justified. Resisting, impeding, and intimidation aren't enough to justify the shoot. Even if the victim committed a felony. oBlade already ran through the scenarios that would change this presumption (but I gather from the replies that the people who most needed to hear those scenarios only made it halfway through his post before writing their reply about bootlicking or fascists.)
The circumstances surrounding the shooting will limit how Americans respond. Not because Americans over-trust law enforcement, but because of the circumstances that the loudest voices talk the least about. Americans aren't out there impeding federal operations, standing in traffic, dragging people away that are being apprehended, shoving or pushing federal officers, or resisting arrest. A lot of Americans know to film from a distance and obey instructions. Even if they get yelled at, to back away and keep filming. They have heard the repeated attempts to conflate peaceful law-aware protesting from actual lawbreaking activity, but it just doesn't play.
Retreat back to "but he shouldn't have been shot" to regain firm ground, but remember that it's a retreat from everything else you're trying to say about it.
If you think interfering with ICE is justified, and you don't have to comply with arrests, then you've already abandoned persuading Americans that they could be next. Americans will agree with investigating and prosecuting misconduct in a bad shoot (looks that way, in contrast to the Good hitting the ICE officer with her car), but they'll get off the boat once you start justifying breaking the law (because ICE is the Gestapo or whatever).
The second point that isn't getting enough visibility is that Minnesota and Minneapolis, among other states and cities, refuse to help ICE secure the scene of detentions and hand off violent illegal alien criminals to ICE. It would be excellent if protesters know they will be arrested by their local police if they inhibit or interfere with federal activity! ICE is around to investigate and detain for potential deportation, not to spend their resources throwing everybody that feels noble breaking the law into jail.
If you hit ICE for not arresting and the DOJ for not charging more lawbreakers that go beyond protected protest into federal crimes, it's just going to boomerang back to why the police aren't around in the first place to help effectuate such arrests. It's the same reason that yelling at DHS deploying so many forces to Minneapolis falls flat. They've been told they're on their own, so they must have enough locally to show up for whatever size mob might show up. ICE should get hit for the bad shoot, incompetence, and poor leadership, but the rest that I've said will continue to be true about its affect on ordinary Americans.
Here's a nice analysis of what's happening with ICE. Why they're wearing masks, why Trump reversed Biden's executive order mandating federal law enforcement to wear body cams etc.
EPT
