4 ms·

> incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted for this. But they can be successfully arrested. You can beat the rap but not the ride, etc.

by pjc50 2y ago

> incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted for this. But they can be successfully arrested. You can beat the rap but not the ride, etc. The US is not yet at the level of dysfunction where jurisdiction is settled with gunfire, but ICE seem to be determined to move that closer.

whats_a_quasar 2y ago
"You can beat the rap but not the ride" is phrased like the judge actually did anything wrong. That seems very doubtful. This administration has shown they are not entitled to the presumption that they are acting in good faith.
- hackinthebochs 2y ago
  "You can't beat the ride" is saying that cops can punish you regardless of whether what you did was illegal.
  - pc86 2y ago
    That's certainly one interpretation of it, and a pretty reasonable one. However, I typically interpret it as "if the police think you've committed a crime, you are going to jail and almost nothing is going to stop that." In that incredibly famous "Don't Talk to the Police" talk[0], the attorney asks the former-cop-turned-law-student if he's every been convinced not to arrest someone based on what the suspect said. Not a single time in his entire law enforcement career. This is also sort of the crux of the talk - if nothing you can say will convince the police not to arrest you, and things you do say can make things worse, your best bet is to just shut up and talk to an attorney if it gets to that point. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
    - QuercusMax 2y ago
      I think we're all agreeing here. "You can't beat the ride" means that if the cops want to arrest you, lock you up, etc., you can't do anything about it. Doesn't matter if you're guilty, innocent, or just a random bystander, you're not going to stop them from taking you and doing whatever they want in the process.
- QuercusMax 2y ago
  I don't think it implies the judge did anything wrong. If you're arrested, you're going to experience whatever the cops want to do to you, regardless of whether they can convict you of it. "You can beat the rap but not the ride" is an indictment of the cops, not the arrestee.
  - prepend 2y ago
    I don’t know. It seems pretty unusual. Imagine that someone is being charged with shoplifting and literally at trial. Some other law enforcement agency shows up to the trial and wants to arrest them for jaywalking. It seems dysfunctional that the court would release them when they know a different law enforcement agency is literally in the building and wanting to arrest them. Is this how it works when the FBI comes to a county court looking for someone the county cops have in custody?
    - epistasis 2y ago
      Talk to the cops, not the judge who is in a proceeding? Go talk to the chief justice? The idea that the judge did anything wrong here, based on the description given by the FBI themselves, is absolutely beyond the pale. There's zero reason for ICE agents to barge into court and demand to take somebody. They didn't even leave one of the multiple agents in the courtroom to wait for the proceedings to end. To blame the judge at all in this requires making multiple logical and factual jumps that even the FBI did not put forward. Edit: the Trump administration has also been attacking the Catholic Charities of Milwaukee, which this judge used to run: > Before she was a judge, Dugan worked as a poverty attorney and executive director of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. It seems pretty clear that this is a highly politically motivated arrest that has zero justification.
      - b112 2y ago
        This reminds me of those cops arresting that nurse, over their attempts to illegally have blood drawn from an unconscious person.
- nostrademons 2y ago
  Looking at the rest of the GP's comment: > The US is not yet at the level of dysfunction where jurisdiction is settled with gunfire, but ICE seem to be determined to move that closer. I don't think they intended to imply that the judge did anything wrong. Rather, they're saying that if you live in a world where the FBI or ICE or other official agencies can rough you up regardless of whether you're guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law, disputes are going to get settled with violence. After all, if the police are just going to make life difficult for you when you're arrested (the "ride") regardless of whether you're guilty in the eyes of the law (the "rap"), what's the logical response when you see a policeman coming to you? You shoot them. Don't let them arrest you because you're gonna have a bad time anyway. Various marginalized communities (in both other countries and parts of the U.S.) already function that way - violence is an endemic part of how problems are solved. And going back to the threadstarter, that's why police departments have instituted sanctuary city policies. They don't want to get shot, and so they try to create an incentive structure where generally law-abiding (except for their immigration status) residents are unafraid to go to the police and help them catch actual criminals, rather than treating all police as the enemy.
roughly 2y ago
ICE should’ve been reformed after Trump 1, but at this point we’re going to need to unwind the whole organization when we get that man out of power. They’ve shown themselves to be pretty disinterested in laws, democracy, etc.
- JuniperMesos 2y ago
  This is the reform of ICE. Trump was elected explicitly promising to do much more arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants, which is instantiated by having agents of the federal government do things like arrest and deport illegal immigrants on trial for unrelated crimes and actually charge citizens like this judge who interfere with this process with crimes, in order to induce them to not interfere with the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants.
fnordpiglet 2y ago
The fact the FBI participated in this arrest is chilling. ICE being a proto secret police seems to be perceived already. The FBI now? There’s question whether the ICE agents even had legal grounds to demand arrest regardless, whether they had a warrant, etc - and the facts established are pretty clearly not prosecutable. So this is pure intimidation, going after the judicial in what will likely be a flagrantly abusive way, yet doing it proudly and across the media - this is a shot across the bow telling judges at all levels they are next. And if there’s anyone that knows being arrested changes your life forever, it’s judges. I am not alarmist or hyperbolic by nature, and I don’t say this lightly, but this is the next level and the escalation event that leads to the end game. The separation of powers is unraveling, and this is America’s Sulla moment where the republic cracks. The question remains did the anti federalists bake enough stability into the constitution to ensure our first Sulla doesn’t lead to Julius Caesar.
- EgregiousCube 2y ago
  The accused is accused of violating federal law, so it's normal that a federal agency would make the arrest. FBI seems to make more sense than DEA or ATF, no?
  - fnordpiglet 2y ago
    It’s not that the agency is wrong; it’s that the agency would do it. This is the agency that since J Edgar Hoover has very carefully rebuilt its reputation and is very guarded in it. This act is entirely reminiscent of the political corruption of the FBI of old. That regression, that fast, is frightening. ICE being shady is by many people accepted, the DEA, ATF even. But the FBI has built itself a pretty strong reputation of integrity and professionalism, and resistance to political pressure and corruption. In some ways I at least viewed it as a firewall in law enforcement against this sort of stuff. Now who watches the watchers?
    - ty6853 2y ago
      ICE, ATF, and CBP has always been the house for the dregs of federal LEO. It is for the people that fail to get into anything else. FBI is prestigious because they get the most qualified tyrants, who are smart enough to lie and deceive in ways that are airtight enough that those at ICE take the heat. The surprising thing here isn't the fact that they did it, but that they didn't do the normal way of digging or manufacturing something else to pin on the judge.
pc86 2y ago
Can you explain how this action reasonably leads to gunfire?
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  GP wasn't saying that one leads to another in a causal sense - simply that there are levels of dysfunction and this step is closer to the dysfunction of gunfire than the previous level.
  - MattGrommes 2y ago
    Exactly. One of these days somebody is going to use a gun to defend someone from these masked/unmarked/unwarranted kidnappings.
    - Teever 2y ago
      The first time someone uses an impossible to trace drone to take out a law enforcement officer in the US is going to change everything. The status quo has been that law enforcement can operate in an openly corrupt way with impunity because they can absolutely positively find someone who fights back. But all the pieces are there for people to fight back with equal impunity. The technology is mature and deployed and has been tested in Ukraine and Syria for several years now. It's just a matter of time before someone takes out a corrupt cop or ICE official and they get away away with it. It will have a chilling effect on this kind of behaviour.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Oi, bruv. Those are inside thoughts.
        Teever 2y ago
        After Hinckley and especially after 9/11 I didn't think it would be possible for someone to successfully assassinate a US president with a firearm. I was shocked at how trivial it was for two people to almost pull that off last year with Trump. It was pure luck that it didn't happen, and I'm skeptical that the Secret Service has fundamentally changed how they protect people in a way that will permanently prevent even something as mundane as assassination by firearm let alone drones. If they can't stop someone from killing the president with a gun how could they possible stop someone from using a swarm of these to do the same?[0] And how can law enforcement protect themselves from something like this? Like honestly, what is a counter to this kind of attack that scales up to provide protection for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers in America? The only thing I can see scale to that level is reform of behaviour. If people respond to abuse of authority with these kinds of tools then the only viable method of prevention is to stop abusing authority. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEwD7wppkJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEwD7wppkJw
rob74 2y ago
Plus they obviously want to set an example: if you get in our way, bad things will happen to you.

by pjc50 2y ago

whats_a_quasar 2y ago

"You can beat the rap but not the ride" is phrased like the judge actually did anything wrong. That seems very doubtful. This administration has shown they are not entitled to the presumption that they are acting in good faith.

hackinthebochs 2y ago
"You can't beat the ride" is saying that cops can punish you regardless of whether what you did was illegal.
- pc86 2y ago
  That's certainly one interpretation of it, and a pretty reasonable one. However, I typically interpret it as "if the police think you've committed a crime, you are going to jail and almost nothing is going to stop that." In that incredibly famous "Don't Talk to the Police" talk[0], the attorney asks the former-cop-turned-law-student if he's every been convinced not to arrest someone based on what the suspect said. Not a single time in his entire law enforcement career. This is also sort of the crux of the talk - if nothing you can say will convince the police not to arrest you, and things you do say can make things worse, your best bet is to just shut up and talk to an attorney if it gets to that point. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
  - QuercusMax 2y ago
    I think we're all agreeing here. "You can't beat the ride" means that if the cops want to arrest you, lock you up, etc., you can't do anything about it. Doesn't matter if you're guilty, innocent, or just a random bystander, you're not going to stop them from taking you and doing whatever they want in the process.
QuercusMax 2y ago
I don't think it implies the judge did anything wrong. If you're arrested, you're going to experience whatever the cops want to do to you, regardless of whether they can convict you of it. "You can beat the rap but not the ride" is an indictment of the cops, not the arrestee.
- prepend 2y ago
  I don’t know. It seems pretty unusual. Imagine that someone is being charged with shoplifting and literally at trial. Some other law enforcement agency shows up to the trial and wants to arrest them for jaywalking. It seems dysfunctional that the court would release them when they know a different law enforcement agency is literally in the building and wanting to arrest them. Is this how it works when the FBI comes to a county court looking for someone the county cops have in custody?
  - epistasis 2y ago
    Talk to the cops, not the judge who is in a proceeding? Go talk to the chief justice? The idea that the judge did anything wrong here, based on the description given by the FBI themselves, is absolutely beyond the pale. There's zero reason for ICE agents to barge into court and demand to take somebody. They didn't even leave one of the multiple agents in the courtroom to wait for the proceedings to end. To blame the judge at all in this requires making multiple logical and factual jumps that even the FBI did not put forward. Edit: the Trump administration has also been attacking the Catholic Charities of Milwaukee, which this judge used to run: > Before she was a judge, Dugan worked as a poverty attorney and executive director of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. It seems pretty clear that this is a highly politically motivated arrest that has zero justification.
    - b112 2y ago
      This reminds me of those cops arresting that nurse, over their attempts to illegally have blood drawn from an unconscious person.
nostrademons 2y ago
Looking at the rest of the GP's comment: > The US is not yet at the level of dysfunction where jurisdiction is settled with gunfire, but ICE seem to be determined to move that closer. I don't think they intended to imply that the judge did anything wrong. Rather, they're saying that if you live in a world where the FBI or ICE or other official agencies can rough you up regardless of whether you're guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law, disputes are going to get settled with violence. After all, if the police are just going to make life difficult for you when you're arrested (the "ride") regardless of whether you're guilty in the eyes of the law (the "rap"), what's the logical response when you see a policeman coming to you? You shoot them. Don't let them arrest you because you're gonna have a bad time anyway. Various marginalized communities (in both other countries and parts of the U.S.) already function that way - violence is an endemic part of how problems are solved. And going back to the threadstarter, that's why police departments have instituted sanctuary city policies. They don't want to get shot, and so they try to create an incentive structure where generally law-abiding (except for their immigration status) residents are unafraid to go to the police and help them catch actual criminals, rather than treating all police as the enemy.

roughly 2y ago

ICE should’ve been reformed after Trump 1, but at this point we’re going to need to unwind the whole organization when we get that man out of power. They’ve shown themselves to be pretty disinterested in laws, democracy, etc.

JuniperMesos 2y ago
This is the reform of ICE. Trump was elected explicitly promising to do much more arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants, which is instantiated by having agents of the federal government do things like arrest and deport illegal immigrants on trial for unrelated crimes and actually charge citizens like this judge who interfere with this process with crimes, in order to induce them to not interfere with the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants.

fnordpiglet 2y ago

The fact the FBI participated in this arrest is chilling. ICE being a proto secret police seems to be perceived already. The FBI now? There’s question whether the ICE agents even had legal grounds to demand arrest regardless, whether they had a warrant, etc - and the facts established are pretty clearly not prosecutable. So this is pure intimidation, going after the judicial in what will likely be a flagrantly abusive way, yet doing it proudly and across the media - this is a shot across the bow telling judges at all levels they are next. And if there’s anyone that knows being arrested changes your life forever, it’s judges. I am not alarmist or hyperbolic by nature, and I don’t say this lightly, but this is the next level and the escalation event that leads to the end game. The separation of powers is unraveling, and this is America’s Sulla moment where the republic cracks. The question remains did the anti federalists bake enough stability into the constitution to ensure our first Sulla doesn’t lead to Julius Caesar.

EgregiousCube 2y ago
The accused is accused of violating federal law, so it's normal that a federal agency would make the arrest. FBI seems to make more sense than DEA or ATF, no?
- fnordpiglet 2y ago
  It’s not that the agency is wrong; it’s that the agency would do it. This is the agency that since J Edgar Hoover has very carefully rebuilt its reputation and is very guarded in it. This act is entirely reminiscent of the political corruption of the FBI of old. That regression, that fast, is frightening. ICE being shady is by many people accepted, the DEA, ATF even. But the FBI has built itself a pretty strong reputation of integrity and professionalism, and resistance to political pressure and corruption. In some ways I at least viewed it as a firewall in law enforcement against this sort of stuff. Now who watches the watchers?
  - ty6853 2y ago
    ICE, ATF, and CBP has always been the house for the dregs of federal LEO. It is for the people that fail to get into anything else. FBI is prestigious because they get the most qualified tyrants, who are smart enough to lie and deceive in ways that are airtight enough that those at ICE take the heat. The surprising thing here isn't the fact that they did it, but that they didn't do the normal way of digging or manufacturing something else to pin on the judge.

pc86 2y ago

Can you explain how this action reasonably leads to gunfire?

kelseyfrog 2y ago
GP wasn't saying that one leads to another in a causal sense - simply that there are levels of dysfunction and this step is closer to the dysfunction of gunfire than the previous level.
- MattGrommes 2y ago
  Exactly. One of these days somebody is going to use a gun to defend someone from these masked/unmarked/unwarranted kidnappings.
  - Teever 2y ago
    The first time someone uses an impossible to trace drone to take out a law enforcement officer in the US is going to change everything. The status quo has been that law enforcement can operate in an openly corrupt way with impunity because they can absolutely positively find someone who fights back. But all the pieces are there for people to fight back with equal impunity. The technology is mature and deployed and has been tested in Ukraine and Syria for several years now. It's just a matter of time before someone takes out a corrupt cop or ICE official and they get away away with it. It will have a chilling effect on this kind of behaviour.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      Oi, bruv. Those are inside thoughts.
      - Teever 2y ago
        After Hinckley and especially after 9/11 I didn't think it would be possible for someone to successfully assassinate a US president with a firearm. I was shocked at how trivial it was for two people to almost pull that off last year with Trump. It was pure luck that it didn't happen, and I'm skeptical that the Secret Service has fundamentally changed how they protect people in a way that will permanently prevent even something as mundane as assassination by firearm let alone drones. If they can't stop someone from killing the president with a gun how could they possible stop someone from using a swarm of these to do the same?[0] And how can law enforcement protect themselves from something like this? Like honestly, what is a counter to this kind of attack that scales up to provide protection for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers in America? The only thing I can see scale to that level is reform of behaviour. If people respond to abuse of authority with these kinds of tools then the only viable method of prevention is to stop abusing authority. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEwD7wppkJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEwD7wppkJw

rob74 2y ago

Plus they obviously want to set an example: if you get in our way, bad things will happen to you.