4 ms·
Fedcops have ALWAYS been like this. They don't go away from an interaction empty handed like local cops sometimes will because the person they're after is foll
by potato3732842 1y ago
Fedcops have ALWAYS been like this. They don't go away from an interaction empty handed like local cops sometimes will because the person they're after is following the law.
But of course fed-cops were never seriously prowling neighborhoods where the nearest grocery store is a Whole Foods so nobody on HN cared until now.
- dragonwriter 1y agoMost of Federal law enforcement except for those that patrol certain, usually sharply defined (but see border patrol for a big exception) areas historically has been in one of two modes interacting: either gathering information (this includes serving a search warrant), or arresting based on an existing arrest warrant, usually from a felony indictment. In the former case, something really out of ordinary has to happen to turn it into an arrest in that interaction (though that doesn't mean you wont be indicted and arrested based on it) and in the latter nothing is likely to deter arrest. Border patrol specifically is wildly different, looking for people who are suspected of being subject to their jurisdiction without a specific indictment, detaining with in practice, if not in law, a much lower standard of suspicion than applies usually, and then generally having those detained subject to process that is almost entirely within executive branch “courts” with consequences as severe as criminal process but much lower protections than criminal process (where literal toddlers defend themselves in “court" against government lawyers.) The current “immigration” crackdown, while ICE (which historically has worked more like a regular federal law enforcement agency despite its detainees often flowing into the executive immigration system and not the criminal justice system) has been the public face of it is effectively applying the Border Patrol culture/approach far more broadly (which is also why, in frustration with the “inadequate” results so far ICE middle leadership is being purged and replaced with Border Patrol personnel.)
- potato3732842 1y agoI agree with all that generally. There's real serious questions about what rights people have when being accused of non-criminal infractions and to what degree the punishments can overlap that people ought to be asking here. But nobody on HN wants to ask these questions because all the things HN wants strictly regulated are done so using the same legal theories and doctrines and precedents.
- lukan 1y agoAre you aware that HN is not of a single mind?
- potato3732842 1y agoYou can say that about any group. Sure there's a long tail of rare people who can do better but averages and means will be what they are. The tech industry is full of fine software developers. Not sure they'd make great public policy.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- joquarky 1y agoI'm almost 50 and I've seen this pattern many times now. Once the fallacy of composition starts becoming common in a forum, it is the beginning of the end for good discourse.
- potato3732842 1y agoOh really? I dare you to say with a straight face that opinions questioning the legal doctrine or legitimacy of civil regulation are anything other than an occasional rounding errors when the subject is any sort of regulation that people here generally likes. It is not at all a stretch to say this HN believes strongly that administrative/civil law as it mostly currently stands is highly legitimate. Of course, backpedaling and hair splitting ensues and the "doesn't represent us all" excuse flies when someone points out that those legal doctrines and, precedents are also empowering ICE. At some point you're responsible for who you associate with.
- joquarky 1y agoHere's some wisdom for you: "The world is what you make of it" can be interpreted multiple ways.
- Moru 1y agoIt's a bit worse now [1] with Trump in lead. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUO0Plcpbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUO0Plcpbo
- convolvatron 1y agothat's a great talk - from the cited executive order: There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” [ . . . ] Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
- _yb2s 1y agoAbsolutely insane Orwellian doublespeak... being against fascism, what our country fought for in WWII, is now "terrorism" and equal rights regardless of skin color, as guaranteed by the US constitution is now "race extremism."
- anigbrowl 1y agoSome fedcops were always like this, but we can look back at previous administrations for invalid apprehensions of US citizens to see that the numbers used to be much lower over the last several decades.
- estearum 1y ago"Fewer people cared when this was an objectively much smaller problem" is not the clever observation you seem to think it is, even with the weird Whole Foods snipe.
- mindslight 1y agoPlaying edgelord isn't going to save you. A difference in scale is a difference in degree. When law enforcement overran their mandate, we had a shot at identifying their victims, saying their names, demanding justice, and possibly righting some wrongs in the the smallest step. When deputized white supremacist militias mass disappear people without any sort of legal process or documentation besides incrementing a counter for their bonus from King Krasnov, we likely won't even know all of their names.