5 ms·

> I'm upset because a US citizen was arrested for asking a reasonable question to some government officials before complying with the government officials. Som

by timr 1y ago

> I'm upset because a US citizen was arrested for asking a reasonable question to some government officials before complying with the government officials. Some basic facts are true here: a) Brad Lander had no official capacity in that situation. b) As a random person, he had no right to demand to see any documents, whatsoever, from the people doing the arrest. c) Even if he thought the detention was illegal, and the police were completely fake -- and let's be real, he didn't think that -- the right way to handle it would be to call the police. You don't just get to throw yourself in the middle of a law-enforcement action without consequence because you're a politician (or upset, or "moral", or...) --- Edit: folks, read the article and watch the video [1]. A lot of you are just repeating things that plainly aren't true. Lander was in a federal courthouse. Uniformed police officers were present, and participated in his arrest. He had just attended the trial of the person being detained. There's simply no reasonable way that Lander believed that this was a "kidnapping", as many of you are saying. He knew exactly what was going on, and he knew exactly what he was doing. And the fact that cameras were there certainly wasn't a coincidence. [1] https://www.amny.com/news/brad-lander-arrested-ice-court-hearing-06172025/ https://www.amny.com/news/brad-lander-arrested-ice-court-hea...

PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
This "let them do it, and try to rectify wrongs later" model is why we end up with innocent gay hairdressers in CECOT. There are clearly established procedures for US law enforcement (which includes ICE). If they are not following those procedures, then any citizen has the right to raise this as an issue, politician or not. They don't get to just haul people away because you have no "official capacity". Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Many people would say yes. The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally.
- timr 1y ago
  > Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Many people would say yes. Well, you can theorize a "moral duty" to do whatever you want, but that won't stop you from getting actually arrested, under real laws. But you do you. The thing about being a martyr for your beliefs is that it comes with a downside. This article is trying to stir up controversy that someone doing something illegal (i.e. obstruction) was arrested for a valid reason.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
    Getting arrested for complaining about illegal law enforcement action that is taking place is the sort of downside that history will write as heroic.
- anon291 1y ago
  > any citizen has the right to raise this as an issue, politician or not. They don't get to just haul people away because you have no "official capacity". Yes, you do have a right to raise this as an issue... but not anywhere anyway. In all this discussion about the rule of law, we forget that the rule of the law also dictates how citizen redresses are to be handled... in a court of law, using established procedures. > The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally. False equivocation... The 2nd amendment crowd has an amendment to our constitution allowing them to do what they do: own weapons. There is no amendment that lets you willy-nilly march into a court and demand papers. If you want that, I would suggest writing your legislator to propose such an amendment.
  - bokoharambe 1y ago
    It's hilarious to see people talking about rule of law when the President of the United States himself is not bound by it. The President! You can see it very clearly why interwar liberalism failed. As Schmitt points out, they were too caught up in constitutional handwringing to comprehend that they had entered a state of exception, and that normal laws and procedures were not to be followed.
kevingadd 1y ago
If a bunch of armed thugs who aren't wearing uniforms or badges show up and abduct someone, citizens don't have the right or obligation to do something about it? Just stand back and watch? That's the world you want to live in, one where kidnappings are normal?
- ensignavenger 1y ago
  They were wearing uniforms, I watched the video. Badges were not clearly visible in the video, but they certainly had uniforms.
  - disattention 1y ago
    Anyone can literally just buy/make a uniform. Especially concerning if badges aren't visible. This argument doesn't hold much water imo.
    - ensignavenger 1y ago
      Perhaps, but the comment I was replying to was claiming "not wearing uniforms" which isn't what was going on. I have no idea if badges were displayed at any point, but this was a federal courthouse, one would hope that they would be asking for identification. It should also be noted that according to the article, NYPD was present at the time. I don't think, given the facts I currently have, that claiming he didn't know they were real ICE agents is going to hold much water.
      - FireBeyond 1y ago
        > It should also be noted that according to the article, NYPD was present at the time. Two NYPD officers were present, Landers' security detail. They weren't there to effect or assist with the arrest.
  - snypher 1y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/nyregion/brad-lander-immigration-ice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/nyregion/brad-lander-immi... No-one in the banner image of this article has a uniform? Is it too much to ask to be uniformed while acting in this capacity? There doesn't seem to be a need for subterfuge, they just don't want the bad optics.
pyuser583 1y ago
> Even if he thought the detention was illegal, and the police were completely fake -- and let's be real, he didn't think that -- the right way to handle it would be to call the police. Very, very good point. Not enough people know they can call the police on police.
TheCoelacanth 1y ago
All he did was link arms with another person. Everyone has the right to link arms with another person. If law enforcement wants him to stop doing that, it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to prove that they actually have the authority to do so.

by timr 1y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago

This "let them do it, and try to rectify wrongs later" model is why we end up with innocent gay hairdressers in CECOT. There are clearly established procedures for US law enforcement (which includes ICE). If they are not following those procedures, then any citizen has the right to raise this as an issue, politician or not. They don't get to just haul people away because you have no "official capacity". Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Many people would say yes. The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally.

timr 1y ago
> Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Many people would say yes. Well, you can theorize a "moral duty" to do whatever you want, but that won't stop you from getting actually arrested, under real laws. But you do you. The thing about being a martyr for your beliefs is that it comes with a downside. This article is trying to stir up controversy that someone doing something illegal (i.e. obstruction) was arrested for a valid reason.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  Getting arrested for complaining about illegal law enforcement action that is taking place is the sort of downside that history will write as heroic.
anon291 1y ago
> any citizen has the right to raise this as an issue, politician or not. They don't get to just haul people away because you have no "official capacity". Yes, you do have a right to raise this as an issue... but not anywhere anyway. In all this discussion about the rule of law, we forget that the rule of the law also dictates how citizen redresses are to be handled... in a court of law, using established procedures. > The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally. False equivocation... The 2nd amendment crowd has an amendment to our constitution allowing them to do what they do: own weapons. There is no amendment that lets you willy-nilly march into a court and demand papers. If you want that, I would suggest writing your legislator to propose such an amendment.
- bokoharambe 1y ago
  It's hilarious to see people talking about rule of law when the President of the United States himself is not bound by it. The President! You can see it very clearly why interwar liberalism failed. As Schmitt points out, they were too caught up in constitutional handwringing to comprehend that they had entered a state of exception, and that normal laws and procedures were not to be followed.

kevingadd 1y ago

If a bunch of armed thugs who aren't wearing uniforms or badges show up and abduct someone, citizens don't have the right or obligation to do something about it? Just stand back and watch? That's the world you want to live in, one where kidnappings are normal?

ensignavenger 1y ago
They were wearing uniforms, I watched the video. Badges were not clearly visible in the video, but they certainly had uniforms.
- disattention 1y ago
  Anyone can literally just buy/make a uniform. Especially concerning if badges aren't visible. This argument doesn't hold much water imo.
  - ensignavenger 1y ago
    Perhaps, but the comment I was replying to was claiming "not wearing uniforms" which isn't what was going on. I have no idea if badges were displayed at any point, but this was a federal courthouse, one would hope that they would be asking for identification. It should also be noted that according to the article, NYPD was present at the time. I don't think, given the facts I currently have, that claiming he didn't know they were real ICE agents is going to hold much water.
    - FireBeyond 1y ago
      > It should also be noted that according to the article, NYPD was present at the time. Two NYPD officers were present, Landers' security detail. They weren't there to effect or assist with the arrest.
- snypher 1y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/nyregion/brad-lander-immigration-ice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/nyregion/brad-lander-immi... No-one in the banner image of this article has a uniform? Is it too much to ask to be uniformed while acting in this capacity? There doesn't seem to be a need for subterfuge, they just don't want the bad optics.

pyuser583 1y ago

> Even if he thought the detention was illegal, and the police were completely fake -- and let's be real, he didn't think that -- the right way to handle it would be to call the police. Very, very good point. Not enough people know they can call the police on police.

TheCoelacanth 1y ago

All he did was link arms with another person. Everyone has the right to link arms with another person. If law enforcement wants him to stop doing that, it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to prove that they actually have the authority to do so.