|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 27 2026 08:25 dyhb wrote:Bovino and Noem's public statements have been nothing short of disastrous.
Yes public statements are the issue here, not the fact these are not just random spokespeople but the very people instigating these actions.
Also lmao at people who think there will be a proper investigation. Tell me when they get around to releasing the Epstein Files
|
On January 27 2026 09:09 Hat Trick of Today wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2026 08:25 dyhb wrote:Bovino and Noem's public statements have been nothing short of disastrous. Yes public statements are the issue here, not the fact these are not just random spokespeople but the very people instigating these actions. Also lmao at people who think there will be a proper investigation. Tell me when they get around to releasing the Epstein Files
I believe a federal judge ordered the DOJ not to destroy any evidence related to the killing. It's insane that needs to be done and I don't have faith a proper investigation will still be done but better than nothing.
|
They made Gruppenführer Bovino the fall guy even after going on the news and saying the victims were domestic terrorists lmfaooo
|
I think Trump is hoping that giving Walz an easy off-ramp will be warmly accepted and quickly utilized. And he’s probably right.
Protests are only an actual problem for fascists when Joe Shmoe is pissed off enough to join in. All he needs to do is throw a bone to get the centrists to go back to being cowards and ICE can continue with a new leader.
|
On January 27 2026 04:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2026 03:18 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
Oblade, you keep saying impeding.
Surely impeding has to be a scale in which the severity of the attack on the citizen population and the severity of the emergency the agents are responding to matters.
Let’s set an extreme hypothetical at either end. Let’s say the agent is on their way to get donuts for an authorized enforcement briefing meeting when they discover an unauthorized civil rights march in the street. It would not be reasonable to plough a vehicle through the crowd killing dozens, despite being impeding. Now let’s say that they’re closing in on the illegal immigrant who ate every dog in 2024 but there’s information that the person will return to hiding in a few minutes before eating every cat, it might be reasonable to escort one person out of the street. Yes, impeding per se is not enough for lethal force, you need a threat for that. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
I think it is clear we can’t simply say “impeding” and then whatever action comes next is justified. There has to be a degree of nuance. And yet you keep resorting to that word without any reference to exactly what official business was being impeded. ICE's job is to arrest people in violation of immigration law. Since December *in MN, they've arrested 3000+ people, examples of which I listed above. You believe most immigration violations are visa overstays, not border crossings, so I know you appreciate the need for interior enforcement. That's what they're doing every day. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
You’d think that logically it must have had to be both important and very time sensitive because they decided to shove a female citizen to the ground for getting in the way. And yet it can’t have been that important because they all stopped doing official business to pepper spray and then execute the nurse who came to her aid. I see you're only talking about the Pretti case. This is "time began when the video started" syndrome. The Minneapolis crackdown has been going on for months, as has the "protestor" response. Pepper spray's great. It's instant and nonlethal. If it were a random occurrence I might expect more yelling "get back" and "we're police" and "what do you think you're doing" and "you're going to get arrested." But these are specific groups engaged in repeated behaviors. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
In the scenario you’re picturing where the protesters were impeding and that impeding triggered this response from ICE, what do you picture them impeding? What kind of operation do you imagine being so disrupted by the conduct of that woman that this was the consequence? When I imagine someone impeding law enforcement I imagine a lot of scenarios where the best choice is simply to be impeded. Maybe have local police issue them a ticket after the event like they could have done with Goode once she was instructed to move her vehicle. KwarK is aware the underlying issue is local police in this area do not cooperate with the federal government. They would not be around to "issue them a ticket." At the express instructions of the state and city leadership, who are under investigation that they've been served grand jury subpoenas for. There is certainly wiggle room in how the police respond. However, they don't have to wiggle the way a certain person expects they should have to, and trying to litigate that on the street versus them physically is an asinine endeavor. Don't go up to cops thinking you can convince them to make enough room in their schedule to be protested at. So you're not willing to say what specific situation was being impeded that required them to start assaulting that woman? If you're going to go with "in extreme cases it's justifiable and in this case the situation was so dire they had to" then when I go "wow, that's crazy, tell me more" you really should have something. Anything. Also "the local police probably wouldn't do anything so what were they meant to do, not assault citizens?" certainly is a take.
A specific person they were arresting that day was the criminal Jose Huerta-Chuma. Whether you believe it or not they are engaged in police business constantly and not just hanging around looking for innocent bystanders to brutalize. You do not need a particularly "dire" situation to use pepper spray and being a woman (or a neighbor, or a parent, none of these things are exculpatory shields, Ted Bundy was a neighbor, Andrei Chikatilo and Dennis Rader were fathers) is not a shield. The fact that the same interference happens constantly doesn't mean they should just be used to it and deal with it, it's the opposite: the repeated and organized nature of the harassment of officers by the jobless makes it worse.
https://nypost.com/2026/01/24/us-news/feds-were-arresting-ecuadorian-illegal-alien-jose-huerta-chuma-in-operation-that-resulted-in-alex-jeffrey-prettis-death/
|
On January 27 2026 12:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2026 04:19 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 03:18 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
Oblade, you keep saying impeding.
Surely impeding has to be a scale in which the severity of the attack on the citizen population and the severity of the emergency the agents are responding to matters.
Let’s set an extreme hypothetical at either end. Let’s say the agent is on their way to get donuts for an authorized enforcement briefing meeting when they discover an unauthorized civil rights march in the street. It would not be reasonable to plough a vehicle through the crowd killing dozens, despite being impeding. Now let’s say that they’re closing in on the illegal immigrant who ate every dog in 2024 but there’s information that the person will return to hiding in a few minutes before eating every cat, it might be reasonable to escort one person out of the street. Yes, impeding per se is not enough for lethal force, you need a threat for that. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
I think it is clear we can’t simply say “impeding” and then whatever action comes next is justified. There has to be a degree of nuance. And yet you keep resorting to that word without any reference to exactly what official business was being impeded. ICE's job is to arrest people in violation of immigration law. Since December *in MN, they've arrested 3000+ people, examples of which I listed above. You believe most immigration violations are visa overstays, not border crossings, so I know you appreciate the need for interior enforcement. That's what they're doing every day. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
You’d think that logically it must have had to be both important and very time sensitive because they decided to shove a female citizen to the ground for getting in the way. And yet it can’t have been that important because they all stopped doing official business to pepper spray and then execute the nurse who came to her aid. I see you're only talking about the Pretti case. This is "time began when the video started" syndrome. The Minneapolis crackdown has been going on for months, as has the "protestor" response. Pepper spray's great. It's instant and nonlethal. If it were a random occurrence I might expect more yelling "get back" and "we're police" and "what do you think you're doing" and "you're going to get arrested." But these are specific groups engaged in repeated behaviors. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
In the scenario you’re picturing where the protesters were impeding and that impeding triggered this response from ICE, what do you picture them impeding? What kind of operation do you imagine being so disrupted by the conduct of that woman that this was the consequence? When I imagine someone impeding law enforcement I imagine a lot of scenarios where the best choice is simply to be impeded. Maybe have local police issue them a ticket after the event like they could have done with Goode once she was instructed to move her vehicle. KwarK is aware the underlying issue is local police in this area do not cooperate with the federal government. They would not be around to "issue them a ticket." At the express instructions of the state and city leadership, who are under investigation that they've been served grand jury subpoenas for. There is certainly wiggle room in how the police respond. However, they don't have to wiggle the way a certain person expects they should have to, and trying to litigate that on the street versus them physically is an asinine endeavor. Don't go up to cops thinking you can convince them to make enough room in their schedule to be protested at. So you're not willing to say what specific situation was being impeded that required them to start assaulting that woman? If you're going to go with "in extreme cases it's justifiable and in this case the situation was so dire they had to" then when I go "wow, that's crazy, tell me more" you really should have something. Anything. Also "the local police probably wouldn't do anything so what were they meant to do, not assault citizens?" certainly is a take. A specific person they were arresting that day was the criminal Jose Huerta-Chuma. Whether you believe it or not they are engaged in police business constantly and not just hanging around looking for innocent bystanders to brutalize. You do not need a particularly "dire" situation to use pepper spray and being a woman (or a neighbor, or a parent, none of these things are exculpatory shields, Ted Bundy was a neighbor, Andrei Chikatilo and Dennis Rader were fathers) is not a shield. The fact that the same interference happens constantly doesn't mean they should just be used to it and deal with it, it's the opposite: the repeated and organized nature of the harassment of officers by the jobless makes it worse. https://nypost.com/2026/01/24/us-news/feds-were-arresting-ecuadorian-illegal-alien-jose-huerta-chuma-in-operation-that-resulted-in-alex-jeffrey-prettis-death/ Is he a criminal?
Bovino claimed Jose Huerta-Chuma, who Border Patrol agents were targeting Saturday morning, had a criminal history that included domestic assault to intentionally inflict bodily harm, disorderly conduct, and driving without a valid license.
The state’s DOC says Huerta-Chuma had never been in custody, based on the department’s data records and court data. The records also showed Huerta-Chuma had committed no felonies in the state, nor was he currently under supervision from the state.
“DOC records further indicate that an individual by this name was previously held in federal immigration custody in a local Minnesota jail in 2018, during President Trump’s first administration,” the department said in a statement. “Any decisions regarding release from federal custody at that time would have been made by federal authorities. DOC has no information explaining why this individual was released.”
source
Maybe the feds know something MN doesn’t about why he was in custody 8 years ago and released, but given this administration’s, erm, complicated relationship with the truth we should probably not take their word for it.
|
Jobless? He was an ICU nurse for veterans.
|
United States14123 Posts
On January 27 2026 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump is hoping that giving Walz an easy off-ramp will be warmly accepted and quickly utilized. And he’s probably right.
Protests are only an actual problem for fascists when Joe Shmoe is pissed off enough to join in. All he needs to do is throw a bone to get the centrists to go back to being cowards and ICE can continue with a new leader.
We are allowed to have victories. Take wins where we can get them. ICE has become toxic and poison for everyone. The lines have moved forward and we have done more than we should be expected to do.
On January 27 2026 12:40 decafchicken wrote:
Jobless? He was an ICU nurse for veterans.
They can't stop trying to smear a good man. He was born in illinois, he grew up in madison and he was executed in miniappolis. He was an ICU nurse for the VA
I have a full time job and I'm out there as well when I can.
|
On January 27 2026 12:40 decafchicken wrote:
Jobless? He was an ICU nurse for veterans.
You're on "he." I didn't say "he." It's tiring.
Like well before any tragedy happened, months ago, people have been talking about this interference in multiple places, in Chicago and Portland and California. I'd bet money the groups involved are less employed than the average population.
|
United States14123 Posts
On January 27 2026 12:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2026 12:40 decafchicken wrote:
Jobless? He was an ICU nurse for veterans. You're on "he." I didn't say "he." It's tiring.
He was one of the people in the supposed "leftists disruption circles" that was killed because like so many other people there they were recording ICE.
If they weren't there in force like they were would we know the truth about what happened or would we have to trust a government that is lieing to our face and yours about what happened?
|
United States43987 Posts
On January 27 2026 12:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2026 04:19 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 03:18 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
Oblade, you keep saying impeding.
Surely impeding has to be a scale in which the severity of the attack on the citizen population and the severity of the emergency the agents are responding to matters.
Let’s set an extreme hypothetical at either end. Let’s say the agent is on their way to get donuts for an authorized enforcement briefing meeting when they discover an unauthorized civil rights march in the street. It would not be reasonable to plough a vehicle through the crowd killing dozens, despite being impeding. Now let’s say that they’re closing in on the illegal immigrant who ate every dog in 2024 but there’s information that the person will return to hiding in a few minutes before eating every cat, it might be reasonable to escort one person out of the street. Yes, impeding per se is not enough for lethal force, you need a threat for that. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
I think it is clear we can’t simply say “impeding” and then whatever action comes next is justified. There has to be a degree of nuance. And yet you keep resorting to that word without any reference to exactly what official business was being impeded. ICE's job is to arrest people in violation of immigration law. Since December *in MN, they've arrested 3000+ people, examples of which I listed above. You believe most immigration violations are visa overstays, not border crossings, so I know you appreciate the need for interior enforcement. That's what they're doing every day. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
You’d think that logically it must have had to be both important and very time sensitive because they decided to shove a female citizen to the ground for getting in the way. And yet it can’t have been that important because they all stopped doing official business to pepper spray and then execute the nurse who came to her aid. I see you're only talking about the Pretti case. This is "time began when the video started" syndrome. The Minneapolis crackdown has been going on for months, as has the "protestor" response. Pepper spray's great. It's instant and nonlethal. If it were a random occurrence I might expect more yelling "get back" and "we're police" and "what do you think you're doing" and "you're going to get arrested." But these are specific groups engaged in repeated behaviors. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
In the scenario you’re picturing where the protesters were impeding and that impeding triggered this response from ICE, what do you picture them impeding? What kind of operation do you imagine being so disrupted by the conduct of that woman that this was the consequence? When I imagine someone impeding law enforcement I imagine a lot of scenarios where the best choice is simply to be impeded. Maybe have local police issue them a ticket after the event like they could have done with Goode once she was instructed to move her vehicle. KwarK is aware the underlying issue is local police in this area do not cooperate with the federal government. They would not be around to "issue them a ticket." At the express instructions of the state and city leadership, who are under investigation that they've been served grand jury subpoenas for. There is certainly wiggle room in how the police respond. However, they don't have to wiggle the way a certain person expects they should have to, and trying to litigate that on the street versus them physically is an asinine endeavor. Don't go up to cops thinking you can convince them to make enough room in their schedule to be protested at. So you're not willing to say what specific situation was being impeded that required them to start assaulting that woman? If you're going to go with "in extreme cases it's justifiable and in this case the situation was so dire they had to" then when I go "wow, that's crazy, tell me more" you really should have something. Anything. Also "the local police probably wouldn't do anything so what were they meant to do, not assault citizens?" certainly is a take. A specific person they were arresting that day was the criminal Jose Huerta-Chuma. Whether you believe it or not they are engaged in police business constantly and not just hanging around looking for innocent bystanders to brutalize. You do not need a particularly "dire" situation to use pepper spray and being a woman (or a neighbor, or a parent, none of these things are exculpatory shields, Ted Bundy was a neighbor, Andrei Chikatilo and Dennis Rader were fathers) is not a shield. The fact that the same interference happens constantly doesn't mean they should just be used to it and deal with it, it's the opposite: the repeated and organized nature of the harassment of officers by the jobless makes it worse. https://nypost.com/2026/01/24/us-news/feds-were-arresting-ecuadorian-illegal-alien-jose-huerta-chuma-in-operation-that-resulted-in-alex-jeffrey-prettis-death/
Okay. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is your argument their errand to collect Jose Huerta-Chuma was so time sensitive they had to shove the woman to the ground and then when a nurse went to her aid attack the nurse too resulting in hours of additional delays?
Let's consider the alternative where they decide the woman was annoying but that there weren't grounds to assault her. Does he get away?
My point here is that interference absolutely means that they should be used to it and deal with it when the alternative is making things worse. I don't get how you can't see that. "What were they meant to do? Not delay the carrying out of their official business to engage in some unofficial attacks on the citizen population?"
Every person in every job has had to deal with members of the public making their jobs more difficult. Somehow restaurant staff manage to deal with diners coming in right before closing without resorting to shoving people to the ground. Why can't ICE?
This talk of exculpatory shields and how being a woman doesn't mean you shouldn't be assaulted by the secret police is really weird. You're framing it as if the starting point is that the government gets to assault everyone and that when I suggest maybe she shouldn't have been assaulted at all it's some kind of weird gender thing. Her shield from being assaulted by the government is the same as yours. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be shoving her to the ground because she's a woman, I'm saying they unless it was somehow directly vital to the completion of an extremely important mission they shouldn't be shoving her to the ground at all.
|
On January 27 2026 12:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2026 12:24 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 04:19 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 03:18 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
Oblade, you keep saying impeding.
Surely impeding has to be a scale in which the severity of the attack on the citizen population and the severity of the emergency the agents are responding to matters.
Let’s set an extreme hypothetical at either end. Let’s say the agent is on their way to get donuts for an authorized enforcement briefing meeting when they discover an unauthorized civil rights march in the street. It would not be reasonable to plough a vehicle through the crowd killing dozens, despite being impeding. Now let’s say that they’re closing in on the illegal immigrant who ate every dog in 2024 but there’s information that the person will return to hiding in a few minutes before eating every cat, it might be reasonable to escort one person out of the street. Yes, impeding per se is not enough for lethal force, you need a threat for that. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
I think it is clear we can’t simply say “impeding” and then whatever action comes next is justified. There has to be a degree of nuance. And yet you keep resorting to that word without any reference to exactly what official business was being impeded. ICE's job is to arrest people in violation of immigration law. Since December *in MN, they've arrested 3000+ people, examples of which I listed above. You believe most immigration violations are visa overstays, not border crossings, so I know you appreciate the need for interior enforcement. That's what they're doing every day. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
You’d think that logically it must have had to be both important and very time sensitive because they decided to shove a female citizen to the ground for getting in the way. And yet it can’t have been that important because they all stopped doing official business to pepper spray and then execute the nurse who came to her aid. I see you're only talking about the Pretti case. This is "time began when the video started" syndrome. The Minneapolis crackdown has been going on for months, as has the "protestor" response. Pepper spray's great. It's instant and nonlethal. If it were a random occurrence I might expect more yelling "get back" and "we're police" and "what do you think you're doing" and "you're going to get arrested." But these are specific groups engaged in repeated behaviors. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
In the scenario you’re picturing where the protesters were impeding and that impeding triggered this response from ICE, what do you picture them impeding? What kind of operation do you imagine being so disrupted by the conduct of that woman that this was the consequence? When I imagine someone impeding law enforcement I imagine a lot of scenarios where the best choice is simply to be impeded. Maybe have local police issue them a ticket after the event like they could have done with Goode once she was instructed to move her vehicle. KwarK is aware the underlying issue is local police in this area do not cooperate with the federal government. They would not be around to "issue them a ticket." At the express instructions of the state and city leadership, who are under investigation that they've been served grand jury subpoenas for. There is certainly wiggle room in how the police respond. However, they don't have to wiggle the way a certain person expects they should have to, and trying to litigate that on the street versus them physically is an asinine endeavor. Don't go up to cops thinking you can convince them to make enough room in their schedule to be protested at. So you're not willing to say what specific situation was being impeded that required them to start assaulting that woman? If you're going to go with "in extreme cases it's justifiable and in this case the situation was so dire they had to" then when I go "wow, that's crazy, tell me more" you really should have something. Anything. Also "the local police probably wouldn't do anything so what were they meant to do, not assault citizens?" certainly is a take. A specific person they were arresting that day was the criminal Jose Huerta-Chuma. Whether you believe it or not they are engaged in police business constantly and not just hanging around looking for innocent bystanders to brutalize. You do not need a particularly "dire" situation to use pepper spray and being a woman (or a neighbor, or a parent, none of these things are exculpatory shields, Ted Bundy was a neighbor, Andrei Chikatilo and Dennis Rader were fathers) is not a shield. The fact that the same interference happens constantly doesn't mean they should just be used to it and deal with it, it's the opposite: the repeated and organized nature of the harassment of officers by the jobless makes it worse. https://nypost.com/2026/01/24/us-news/feds-were-arresting-ecuadorian-illegal-alien-jose-huerta-chuma-in-operation-that-resulted-in-alex-jeffrey-prettis-death/ Okay. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is your argument their errand to collect Jose Huerta-Chuma was so time sensitive they had to shove the woman to the ground and then when a nurse went to her aid attack the nurse too resulting in hours of additional delays? Let's consider the alternative where they decide the woman was annoying but that there weren't grounds to assault her. Does he get away? My point here is that interference absolutely means that they should be used to it and deal with it when the alternative is making things worse. I don't get how you can't see that. "What were they meant to do? Not delay the carrying out of their official business to engage in some unofficial attacks on the citizen population?"
Time sensitivity is your idea. It's not in my calculus.
If a cop is doing something and you jump in front of them, block them, start Karening at them, you have instantly invited reasonable force. For me pushing, restraining, pepper spray all sound reasonable. I don't know the details of case law. Basically, the police's job is to stop the interference against themselves. Not just sit there, passively absorb it and only documenting while not responding or defending themselves, and send it to an overloaded DA and court system and tainted jury pool that will or won't prosecute anyway. Of course ideally they should arrest and prosecute too. But they want to stop you with minimal further damage to their business, if possible, that's the priority, and if necessary arrest and refer to prosecution if it's that bad.
Your argument is the business the police were originally engaged in is not detaining/arresting/removing people for obstructing them, therefore if someone obstructs them they can't do anything about it. Actually, it becomes their jurisdiction exactly at the time when they get obstructed.
I mean yes if they want they can choose not to use any force and give a nice civics lesson. People can also choose not to block them in with cars and stuff. Choices do lead to consequences.
On January 27 2026 13:20 Sermokala wrote:
We're talking about a case where the agents executed the guy with a shot to the back of the head, not "Pushing, restraining, pepper spray".
For doing an action which is now very much justified with what happened afterwords.
Who is "we?" I am not talking about Pretti, I've already said 5 times now he shouldn't have been shot. You need to open your mind to the fact other things occur in the world. ICE didn't sleep for 12 months and then shoot someone and then they all went back to bed. Many things are happening in the US constantly. If you don't want to talk about pepper spray, then you don't have to talk about it. It's also not necessary to tell everyone you're not talking about it. You can just not talk about it.
|
United States14123 Posts
We're talking about a case where the agents executed the guy with a shot to the back of the head, not "Pushing, restraining, pepper spray".
For doing an action which is now very much justified with what happened afterwords.
|
United States43987 Posts
On January 27 2026 13:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2026 12:57 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 12:24 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 04:19 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 03:18 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
Oblade, you keep saying impeding.
Surely impeding has to be a scale in which the severity of the attack on the citizen population and the severity of the emergency the agents are responding to matters.
Let’s set an extreme hypothetical at either end. Let’s say the agent is on their way to get donuts for an authorized enforcement briefing meeting when they discover an unauthorized civil rights march in the street. It would not be reasonable to plough a vehicle through the crowd killing dozens, despite being impeding. Now let’s say that they’re closing in on the illegal immigrant who ate every dog in 2024 but there’s information that the person will return to hiding in a few minutes before eating every cat, it might be reasonable to escort one person out of the street. Yes, impeding per se is not enough for lethal force, you need a threat for that. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
I think it is clear we can’t simply say “impeding” and then whatever action comes next is justified. There has to be a degree of nuance. And yet you keep resorting to that word without any reference to exactly what official business was being impeded. ICE's job is to arrest people in violation of immigration law. Since December *in MN, they've arrested 3000+ people, examples of which I listed above. You believe most immigration violations are visa overstays, not border crossings, so I know you appreciate the need for interior enforcement. That's what they're doing every day. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
You’d think that logically it must have had to be both important and very time sensitive because they decided to shove a female citizen to the ground for getting in the way. And yet it can’t have been that important because they all stopped doing official business to pepper spray and then execute the nurse who came to her aid. I see you're only talking about the Pretti case. This is "time began when the video started" syndrome. The Minneapolis crackdown has been going on for months, as has the "protestor" response. Pepper spray's great. It's instant and nonlethal. If it were a random occurrence I might expect more yelling "get back" and "we're police" and "what do you think you're doing" and "you're going to get arrested." But these are specific groups engaged in repeated behaviors. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
In the scenario you’re picturing where the protesters were impeding and that impeding triggered this response from ICE, what do you picture them impeding? What kind of operation do you imagine being so disrupted by the conduct of that woman that this was the consequence? When I imagine someone impeding law enforcement I imagine a lot of scenarios where the best choice is simply to be impeded. Maybe have local police issue them a ticket after the event like they could have done with Goode once she was instructed to move her vehicle. KwarK is aware the underlying issue is local police in this area do not cooperate with the federal government. They would not be around to "issue them a ticket." At the express instructions of the state and city leadership, who are under investigation that they've been served grand jury subpoenas for. There is certainly wiggle room in how the police respond. However, they don't have to wiggle the way a certain person expects they should have to, and trying to litigate that on the street versus them physically is an asinine endeavor. Don't go up to cops thinking you can convince them to make enough room in their schedule to be protested at. So you're not willing to say what specific situation was being impeded that required them to start assaulting that woman? If you're going to go with "in extreme cases it's justifiable and in this case the situation was so dire they had to" then when I go "wow, that's crazy, tell me more" you really should have something. Anything. Also "the local police probably wouldn't do anything so what were they meant to do, not assault citizens?" certainly is a take. A specific person they were arresting that day was the criminal Jose Huerta-Chuma. Whether you believe it or not they are engaged in police business constantly and not just hanging around looking for innocent bystanders to brutalize. You do not need a particularly "dire" situation to use pepper spray and being a woman (or a neighbor, or a parent, none of these things are exculpatory shields, Ted Bundy was a neighbor, Andrei Chikatilo and Dennis Rader were fathers) is not a shield. The fact that the same interference happens constantly doesn't mean they should just be used to it and deal with it, it's the opposite: the repeated and organized nature of the harassment of officers by the jobless makes it worse. https://nypost.com/2026/01/24/us-news/feds-were-arresting-ecuadorian-illegal-alien-jose-huerta-chuma-in-operation-that-resulted-in-alex-jeffrey-prettis-death/ Okay. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is your argument their errand to collect Jose Huerta-Chuma was so time sensitive they had to shove the woman to the ground and then when a nurse went to her aid attack the nurse too resulting in hours of additional delays? Let's consider the alternative where they decide the woman was annoying but that there weren't grounds to assault her. Does he get away? My point here is that interference absolutely means that they should be used to it and deal with it when the alternative is making things worse. I don't get how you can't see that. "What were they meant to do? Not delay the carrying out of their official business to engage in some unofficial attacks on the citizen population?" Time sensitivity is your idea. It's not in my calculus. If a cop is doing something and you jump in front of them, block them, start Karening at them, you have instantly invited reasonable force. For me pushing, restraining, pepper spray all sound reasonable. I don't know the details of case law. Basically, the police's job is to stop the interference against themselves. Not just sit there, passively absorb it and only documenting while not responding or defending themselves, and send it to an overloaded DA and court system and tainted jury pool that will or won't prosecute anyway. Of course ideally they should arrest and prosecute too. But they want to stop you with minimal further damage to their business, if possible, that's the priority, and if necessary arrest and refer to prosecution if it's that bad. Your argument is the business the police were originally engaged in is not detaining/arresting/removing people for obstructing them, therefore if someone obstructs them they can't do anything about it. Actually, it becomes their jurisdiction exactly at the time when they get obstructed.
If the mission isn't time sensitive then walking around the protester is a perfectly valid solution.
They've got a job to do and the protester really isn't getting in the way of them doing it. They can just not assault her and then continue to perform their job. What would get in the way of doing their job is voluntarily deciding that instead of dealing with illegal immigrants today they're going to start assaulting citizens.
If it's not an emergency they don't need to be attacking the public and they certainly shouldn't be taking time away from their actual jobs to do it.
The only person obstructing that ICE officer is himself.
You are such a pathetic fucking bootlicker.
"actually they're allowed to attack us if they feel like it"
Noem's untrained puppy is more of a man than you.
|
I love the perennial accusations of paid protesters. People whose only real belief is "minorities and the left deserve to suffer" simply can't imagine that other people have actual convictions about freedom and democracy, so they must be fake. No evidence required.
|
On January 27 2026 13:40 LightSpectra wrote:
I love the perennial accusations of paid protesters. People whose only real belief is "minorities and the left deserve to suffer" simply can't imagine that other people have actual convictions about freedom and democracy, so they must be fake. No evidence required.
People actually believe it too. I was playing video games last night and two guys were talking about how people in their city were protesting this weekend and they couldn't fathom why people outside of Minnesota would be protesting and the obvious conclusion is that George Soros was paying them all.
I for one would love to know where I can sign up for my protest checks instead of doing it for free while I work a real job like an idiot
|
On January 27 2026 13:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2026 13:17 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 12:57 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 12:24 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 04:19 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 03:18 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
Oblade, you keep saying impeding.
Surely impeding has to be a scale in which the severity of the attack on the citizen population and the severity of the emergency the agents are responding to matters.
Let’s set an extreme hypothetical at either end. Let’s say the agent is on their way to get donuts for an authorized enforcement briefing meeting when they discover an unauthorized civil rights march in the street. It would not be reasonable to plough a vehicle through the crowd killing dozens, despite being impeding. Now let’s say that they’re closing in on the illegal immigrant who ate every dog in 2024 but there’s information that the person will return to hiding in a few minutes before eating every cat, it might be reasonable to escort one person out of the street. Yes, impeding per se is not enough for lethal force, you need a threat for that. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
I think it is clear we can’t simply say “impeding” and then whatever action comes next is justified. There has to be a degree of nuance. And yet you keep resorting to that word without any reference to exactly what official business was being impeded. ICE's job is to arrest people in violation of immigration law. Since December *in MN, they've arrested 3000+ people, examples of which I listed above. You believe most immigration violations are visa overstays, not border crossings, so I know you appreciate the need for interior enforcement. That's what they're doing every day. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
You’d think that logically it must have had to be both important and very time sensitive because they decided to shove a female citizen to the ground for getting in the way. And yet it can’t have been that important because they all stopped doing official business to pepper spray and then execute the nurse who came to her aid. I see you're only talking about the Pretti case. This is "time began when the video started" syndrome. The Minneapolis crackdown has been going on for months, as has the "protestor" response. Pepper spray's great. It's instant and nonlethal. If it were a random occurrence I might expect more yelling "get back" and "we're police" and "what do you think you're doing" and "you're going to get arrested." But these are specific groups engaged in repeated behaviors. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
In the scenario you’re picturing where the protesters were impeding and that impeding triggered this response from ICE, what do you picture them impeding? What kind of operation do you imagine being so disrupted by the conduct of that woman that this was the consequence? When I imagine someone impeding law enforcement I imagine a lot of scenarios where the best choice is simply to be impeded. Maybe have local police issue them a ticket after the event like they could have done with Goode once she was instructed to move her vehicle. KwarK is aware the underlying issue is local police in this area do not cooperate with the federal government. They would not be around to "issue them a ticket." At the express instructions of the state and city leadership, who are under investigation that they've been served grand jury subpoenas for. There is certainly wiggle room in how the police respond. However, they don't have to wiggle the way a certain person expects they should have to, and trying to litigate that on the street versus them physically is an asinine endeavor. Don't go up to cops thinking you can convince them to make enough room in their schedule to be protested at. So you're not willing to say what specific situation was being impeded that required them to start assaulting that woman? If you're going to go with "in extreme cases it's justifiable and in this case the situation was so dire they had to" then when I go "wow, that's crazy, tell me more" you really should have something. Anything. Also "the local police probably wouldn't do anything so what were they meant to do, not assault citizens?" certainly is a take. A specific person they were arresting that day was the criminal Jose Huerta-Chuma. Whether you believe it or not they are engaged in police business constantly and not just hanging around looking for innocent bystanders to brutalize. You do not need a particularly "dire" situation to use pepper spray and being a woman (or a neighbor, or a parent, none of these things are exculpatory shields, Ted Bundy was a neighbor, Andrei Chikatilo and Dennis Rader were fathers) is not a shield. The fact that the same interference happens constantly doesn't mean they should just be used to it and deal with it, it's the opposite: the repeated and organized nature of the harassment of officers by the jobless makes it worse. https://nypost.com/2026/01/24/us-news/feds-were-arresting-ecuadorian-illegal-alien-jose-huerta-chuma-in-operation-that-resulted-in-alex-jeffrey-prettis-death/ Okay. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is your argument their errand to collect Jose Huerta-Chuma was so time sensitive they had to shove the woman to the ground and then when a nurse went to her aid attack the nurse too resulting in hours of additional delays? Let's consider the alternative where they decide the woman was annoying but that there weren't grounds to assault her. Does he get away? My point here is that interference absolutely means that they should be used to it and deal with it when the alternative is making things worse. I don't get how you can't see that. "What were they meant to do? Not delay the carrying out of their official business to engage in some unofficial attacks on the citizen population?" Time sensitivity is your idea. It's not in my calculus. If a cop is doing something and you jump in front of them, block them, start Karening at them, you have instantly invited reasonable force. For me pushing, restraining, pepper spray all sound reasonable. I don't know the details of case law. Basically, the police's job is to stop the interference against themselves. Not just sit there, passively absorb it and only documenting while not responding or defending themselves, and send it to an overloaded DA and court system and tainted jury pool that will or won't prosecute anyway. Of course ideally they should arrest and prosecute too. But they want to stop you with minimal further damage to their business, if possible, that's the priority, and if necessary arrest and refer to prosecution if it's that bad. Your argument is the business the police were originally engaged in is not detaining/arresting/removing people for obstructing them, therefore if someone obstructs them they can't do anything about it. Actually, it becomes their jurisdiction exactly at the time when they get obstructed. If the mission isn't time sensitive then walking around the protester is a perfectly valid solution. They've got a job to do and the protester really isn't getting in the way of them doing it. They can just not assault her and then continue to perform their job. What would get in the way of doing their job is voluntarily deciding that instead of dealing with illegal immigrants today they're going to start assaulting citizens. If it's not an emergency they don't need to be attacking the public and they certainly shouldn't be taking time away from their actual jobs to do it. The only person obstructing that ICE officer is himself. You are such a pathetic fucking bootlicker. "actually they're allowed to attack us if they feel like it" Noem's untrained puppy is more of a man than you.
KwarK says if someone stands in front of you blocking them, walk around them. The person who walked in front of you once is now out of mana and so incapable of walking in front of and blocking you again. My gut feeling based on your sex-coded language towards me is you really do think her being a woman is part of how they're supposed to conclude she's harmless.
You absolutely fail to account for the fog of war. They do not know your intentions. They do not know who is coming. After Pretti was shot, within minutes hundreds of people arrived. They were essentially on call. Officers do not know who is going to drive into them, who wants to shoot them, who is going to throw things at them. Would it be nice if there were some unwritten rule that every single peaceful protestor JUST stood at the absolute edge of interfering, recording and spreading political messages, but never posing any physical threat to any officer or any physical interference to their duties, and the peaceful protestors also had a pack among themselves to police out violating troublemakers from their ranks? That'd be great. That's not where we are. My evidence is Joshua Jahn shooting into an ICE facility and videos of citizens crashing their cars into ICE cars. If you insert yourself into a situation with LEO, their answer will be "stop." If they're wrong, you decide that in court. The streets are the wrong place for that. Police have the authority to use force that citizens don't. You can't just say "I don't want to be arrested at this time," and get away, they will arrest you by force anyway.
We can feign vicarious ignorance like how did the ICE agent know she was standing in front of him, or how did they know they were ICE, they could have just stumbled upon a happenstance and thought to ask excuse me sirs who are you and whereabouts are you headed? Nah, they know exactly what they're doing. Here's another case of pepper spray deployment on more blocking. Which I also agree with.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
United States43987 Posts
On January 27 2026 14:13 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2026 13:20 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 13:17 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 12:57 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 12:24 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 04:19 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 03:18 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
Oblade, you keep saying impeding.
Surely impeding has to be a scale in which the severity of the attack on the citizen population and the severity of the emergency the agents are responding to matters.
Let’s set an extreme hypothetical at either end. Let’s say the agent is on their way to get donuts for an authorized enforcement briefing meeting when they discover an unauthorized civil rights march in the street. It would not be reasonable to plough a vehicle through the crowd killing dozens, despite being impeding. Now let’s say that they’re closing in on the illegal immigrant who ate every dog in 2024 but there’s information that the person will return to hiding in a few minutes before eating every cat, it might be reasonable to escort one person out of the street. Yes, impeding per se is not enough for lethal force, you need a threat for that. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
I think it is clear we can’t simply say “impeding” and then whatever action comes next is justified. There has to be a degree of nuance. And yet you keep resorting to that word without any reference to exactly what official business was being impeded. ICE's job is to arrest people in violation of immigration law. Since December *in MN, they've arrested 3000+ people, examples of which I listed above. You believe most immigration violations are visa overstays, not border crossings, so I know you appreciate the need for interior enforcement. That's what they're doing every day. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
You’d think that logically it must have had to be both important and very time sensitive because they decided to shove a female citizen to the ground for getting in the way. And yet it can’t have been that important because they all stopped doing official business to pepper spray and then execute the nurse who came to her aid. I see you're only talking about the Pretti case. This is "time began when the video started" syndrome. The Minneapolis crackdown has been going on for months, as has the "protestor" response. Pepper spray's great. It's instant and nonlethal. If it were a random occurrence I might expect more yelling "get back" and "we're police" and "what do you think you're doing" and "you're going to get arrested." But these are specific groups engaged in repeated behaviors. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
In the scenario you’re picturing where the protesters were impeding and that impeding triggered this response from ICE, what do you picture them impeding? What kind of operation do you imagine being so disrupted by the conduct of that woman that this was the consequence? When I imagine someone impeding law enforcement I imagine a lot of scenarios where the best choice is simply to be impeded. Maybe have local police issue them a ticket after the event like they could have done with Goode once she was instructed to move her vehicle. KwarK is aware the underlying issue is local police in this area do not cooperate with the federal government. They would not be around to "issue them a ticket." At the express instructions of the state and city leadership, who are under investigation that they've been served grand jury subpoenas for. There is certainly wiggle room in how the police respond. However, they don't have to wiggle the way a certain person expects they should have to, and trying to litigate that on the street versus them physically is an asinine endeavor. Don't go up to cops thinking you can convince them to make enough room in their schedule to be protested at. So you're not willing to say what specific situation was being impeded that required them to start assaulting that woman? If you're going to go with "in extreme cases it's justifiable and in this case the situation was so dire they had to" then when I go "wow, that's crazy, tell me more" you really should have something. Anything. Also "the local police probably wouldn't do anything so what were they meant to do, not assault citizens?" certainly is a take. A specific person they were arresting that day was the criminal Jose Huerta-Chuma. Whether you believe it or not they are engaged in police business constantly and not just hanging around looking for innocent bystanders to brutalize. You do not need a particularly "dire" situation to use pepper spray and being a woman (or a neighbor, or a parent, none of these things are exculpatory shields, Ted Bundy was a neighbor, Andrei Chikatilo and Dennis Rader were fathers) is not a shield. The fact that the same interference happens constantly doesn't mean they should just be used to it and deal with it, it's the opposite: the repeated and organized nature of the harassment of officers by the jobless makes it worse. https://nypost.com/2026/01/24/us-news/feds-were-arresting-ecuadorian-illegal-alien-jose-huerta-chuma-in-operation-that-resulted-in-alex-jeffrey-prettis-death/ Okay. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is your argument their errand to collect Jose Huerta-Chuma was so time sensitive they had to shove the woman to the ground and then when a nurse went to her aid attack the nurse too resulting in hours of additional delays? Let's consider the alternative where they decide the woman was annoying but that there weren't grounds to assault her. Does he get away? My point here is that interference absolutely means that they should be used to it and deal with it when the alternative is making things worse. I don't get how you can't see that. "What were they meant to do? Not delay the carrying out of their official business to engage in some unofficial attacks on the citizen population?" Time sensitivity is your idea. It's not in my calculus. If a cop is doing something and you jump in front of them, block them, start Karening at them, you have instantly invited reasonable force. For me pushing, restraining, pepper spray all sound reasonable. I don't know the details of case law. Basically, the police's job is to stop the interference against themselves. Not just sit there, passively absorb it and only documenting while not responding or defending themselves, and send it to an overloaded DA and court system and tainted jury pool that will or won't prosecute anyway. Of course ideally they should arrest and prosecute too. But they want to stop you with minimal further damage to their business, if possible, that's the priority, and if necessary arrest and refer to prosecution if it's that bad. Your argument is the business the police were originally engaged in is not detaining/arresting/removing people for obstructing them, therefore if someone obstructs them they can't do anything about it. Actually, it becomes their jurisdiction exactly at the time when they get obstructed. If the mission isn't time sensitive then walking around the protester is a perfectly valid solution. They've got a job to do and the protester really isn't getting in the way of them doing it. They can just not assault her and then continue to perform their job. What would get in the way of doing their job is voluntarily deciding that instead of dealing with illegal immigrants today they're going to start assaulting citizens. If it's not an emergency they don't need to be attacking the public and they certainly shouldn't be taking time away from their actual jobs to do it. The only person obstructing that ICE officer is himself. You are such a pathetic fucking bootlicker. "actually they're allowed to attack us if they feel like it" Noem's untrained puppy is more of a man than you. KwarK says if someone stands in front of you blocking them, walk around them. The person who walked in front of you once is now out of mana and so incapable of walking in front of and blocking you again. My gut feeling based on your sex-coded language towards me is you really do think her being a woman is part of how they're supposed to conclude she's harmless. You absolutely fail to account for the fog of war. They do not know your intentions. They do not know who is coming. After Pretti was shot, within minutes hundreds of people arrived. They were essentially on call. Officers do not know who is going to drive into them, who wants to shoot them, who is going to throw things at them. Would it be nice if there were some unwritten rule that every single peaceful protestor JUST stood at the absolute edge of interfering, recording and spreading political messages, but never posing any physical threat to any officer or any physical interference to their duties, and the peaceful protestors also had a pack among themselves to police out violating troublemakers from their ranks? That'd be great. That's not where we are. My evidence is Joshua Jahn shooting into an ICE facility and videos of citizens crashing their cars into ICE cars. If you insert yourself into a situation with LEO, their answer will be "stop." If they're wrong, you decide that in court. The streets are the wrong place for that. Police have the authority to use force that citizens don't. You can't just say "I don't want to be arrested at this time," and get away, they will arrest you by force anyway. We can feign vicarious ignorance like how did the ICE agent know she was standing in front of him, or how did they know they were ICE, they could have just stumbled upon a happenstance and thought to ask excuse me sirs who are you and whereabouts are you headed? Nah, they know exactly what they're doing. Here's another case of pepper spray deployment on more blocking. Which I also agree with. + Show Spoiler +
Yes, you really can just walk around people if you have somewhere to be.
Clearly they didn't have anywhere to be because they chose to attack members of the public instead of going there.
|
On January 27 2026 14:13 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2026 13:20 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 13:17 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 12:57 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 12:24 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 04:19 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2026 03:18 oBlade wrote:On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
Oblade, you keep saying impeding.
Surely impeding has to be a scale in which the severity of the attack on the citizen population and the severity of the emergency the agents are responding to matters.
Let’s set an extreme hypothetical at either end. Let’s say the agent is on their way to get donuts for an authorized enforcement briefing meeting when they discover an unauthorized civil rights march in the street. It would not be reasonable to plough a vehicle through the crowd killing dozens, despite being impeding. Now let’s say that they’re closing in on the illegal immigrant who ate every dog in 2024 but there’s information that the person will return to hiding in a few minutes before eating every cat, it might be reasonable to escort one person out of the street. Yes, impeding per se is not enough for lethal force, you need a threat for that. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
I think it is clear we can’t simply say “impeding” and then whatever action comes next is justified. There has to be a degree of nuance. And yet you keep resorting to that word without any reference to exactly what official business was being impeded. ICE's job is to arrest people in violation of immigration law. Since December *in MN, they've arrested 3000+ people, examples of which I listed above. You believe most immigration violations are visa overstays, not border crossings, so I know you appreciate the need for interior enforcement. That's what they're doing every day. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
You’d think that logically it must have had to be both important and very time sensitive because they decided to shove a female citizen to the ground for getting in the way. And yet it can’t have been that important because they all stopped doing official business to pepper spray and then execute the nurse who came to her aid. I see you're only talking about the Pretti case. This is "time began when the video started" syndrome. The Minneapolis crackdown has been going on for months, as has the "protestor" response. Pepper spray's great. It's instant and nonlethal. If it were a random occurrence I might expect more yelling "get back" and "we're police" and "what do you think you're doing" and "you're going to get arrested." But these are specific groups engaged in repeated behaviors. On January 27 2026 02:25 KwarK wrote:
In the scenario you’re picturing where the protesters were impeding and that impeding triggered this response from ICE, what do you picture them impeding? What kind of operation do you imagine being so disrupted by the conduct of that woman that this was the consequence? When I imagine someone impeding law enforcement I imagine a lot of scenarios where the best choice is simply to be impeded. Maybe have local police issue them a ticket after the event like they could have done with Goode once she was instructed to move her vehicle. KwarK is aware the underlying issue is local police in this area do not cooperate with the federal government. They would not be around to "issue them a ticket." At the express instructions of the state and city leadership, who are under investigation that they've been served grand jury subpoenas for. There is certainly wiggle room in how the police respond. However, they don't have to wiggle the way a certain person expects they should have to, and trying to litigate that on the street versus them physically is an asinine endeavor. Don't go up to cops thinking you can convince them to make enough room in their schedule to be protested at. So you're not willing to say what specific situation was being impeded that required them to start assaulting that woman? If you're going to go with "in extreme cases it's justifiable and in this case the situation was so dire they had to" then when I go "wow, that's crazy, tell me more" you really should have something. Anything. Also "the local police probably wouldn't do anything so what were they meant to do, not assault citizens?" certainly is a take. A specific person they were arresting that day was the criminal Jose Huerta-Chuma. Whether you believe it or not they are engaged in police business constantly and not just hanging around looking for innocent bystanders to brutalize. You do not need a particularly "dire" situation to use pepper spray and being a woman (or a neighbor, or a parent, none of these things are exculpatory shields, Ted Bundy was a neighbor, Andrei Chikatilo and Dennis Rader were fathers) is not a shield. The fact that the same interference happens constantly doesn't mean they should just be used to it and deal with it, it's the opposite: the repeated and organized nature of the harassment of officers by the jobless makes it worse. https://nypost.com/2026/01/24/us-news/feds-were-arresting-ecuadorian-illegal-alien-jose-huerta-chuma-in-operation-that-resulted-in-alex-jeffrey-prettis-death/ Okay. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is your argument their errand to collect Jose Huerta-Chuma was so time sensitive they had to shove the woman to the ground and then when a nurse went to her aid attack the nurse too resulting in hours of additional delays? Let's consider the alternative where they decide the woman was annoying but that there weren't grounds to assault her. Does he get away? My point here is that interference absolutely means that they should be used to it and deal with it when the alternative is making things worse. I don't get how you can't see that. "What were they meant to do? Not delay the carrying out of their official business to engage in some unofficial attacks on the citizen population?" Time sensitivity is your idea. It's not in my calculus. If a cop is doing something and you jump in front of them, block them, start Karening at them, you have instantly invited reasonable force. For me pushing, restraining, pepper spray all sound reasonable. I don't know the details of case law. Basically, the police's job is to stop the interference against themselves. Not just sit there, passively absorb it and only documenting while not responding or defending themselves, and send it to an overloaded DA and court system and tainted jury pool that will or won't prosecute anyway. Of course ideally they should arrest and prosecute too. But they want to stop you with minimal further damage to their business, if possible, that's the priority, and if necessary arrest and refer to prosecution if it's that bad. Your argument is the business the police were originally engaged in is not detaining/arresting/removing people for obstructing them, therefore if someone obstructs them they can't do anything about it. Actually, it becomes their jurisdiction exactly at the time when they get obstructed. If the mission isn't time sensitive then walking around the protester is a perfectly valid solution. They've got a job to do and the protester really isn't getting in the way of them doing it. They can just not assault her and then continue to perform their job. What would get in the way of doing their job is voluntarily deciding that instead of dealing with illegal immigrants today they're going to start assaulting citizens. If it's not an emergency they don't need to be attacking the public and they certainly shouldn't be taking time away from their actual jobs to do it. The only person obstructing that ICE officer is himself. You are such a pathetic fucking bootlicker. "actually they're allowed to attack us if they feel like it" Noem's untrained puppy is more of a man than you. KwarK says if someone stands in front of you blocking them, walk around them. The person who walked in front of you once is now out of mana and so incapable of walking in front of and blocking you again. My gut feeling based on your sex-coded language towards me is you really do think her being a woman is part of how they're supposed to conclude she's harmless. You absolutely fail to account for the fog of war. They do not know your intentions. They do not know who is coming. After Pretti was shot, within minutes hundreds of people arrived. They were essentially on call. Officers do not know who is going to drive into them, who wants to shoot them, who is going to throw things at them. Would it be nice if there were some unwritten rule that every single peaceful protestor JUST stood at the absolute edge of interfering, recording and spreading political messages, but never posing any physical threat to any officer or any physical interference to their duties, and the peaceful protestors also had a pack among themselves to police out violating troublemakers from their ranks? That'd be great. That's not where we are. My evidence is Joshua Jahn shooting into an ICE facility and videos of citizens crashing their cars into ICE cars. If you insert yourself into a situation with LEO, their answer will be "stop." If they're wrong, you decide that in court. The streets are the wrong place for that. Police have the authority to use force that citizens don't. You can't just say "I don't want to be arrested at this time," and get away, they will arrest you by force anyway. We can feign vicarious ignorance like how did the ICE agent know she was standing in front of him, or how did they know they were ICE, they could have just stumbled upon a happenstance and thought to ask excuse me sirs who are you and whereabouts are you headed? Nah, they know exactly what they're doing. Here's another case of pepper spray deployment on more blocking. Which I also agree with. + Show Spoiler +
Wow that sounds like a very intense job. I'm sure ICE agents are adequately trained on the slew of protocols regarding threat assessment, deescalation, and use of force that police and military use to deal with similar situations before being sent heavily armed into the public, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
56418
9246
2966
169
28
EPT
