4 ms·

My point is everyone has been silent about Chicago's violence for decades, and only now they seem to care because it's not Black people being targeted. It's str

My point is everyone has been silent about Chicago's violence for decades, and only now they seem to care because it's not Black people being targeted. It's straight up racism to not care about Black people's welfare but care only when it's other people being endangered.

daseiner1 11mo ago
citizens shooting other citizens is radically different than the federal government lighting legal protections on fire and then pissing on the ashes. wholly disingenuous to compare the two. but yours is the standard misdirect on anything "Chicago" so I'm confident being disingenuous was intentional.
- lurk2 11mo ago
  What legal protections are being infringed upon?
  - galangalalgol 11mo ago
    The 4th amendment it would seem? Wrongful arrest, unlawful search and seizure, aggravated assault with a lethal weapon...
    - lurk2 11mo ago
      When? Where? The instances listed in the article are not compelling. Here’s an excerpt from the second article: > According to Homeland Security deputy secretary Tricia McLaughlin, officers were trying to conduct a “targeted traffic stop” of a car registered to a “female illegal alien,” but the male driver “refused to pull the vehicle over.” > “Law enforcement pursued the vehicle before the assailant sped into a shopping plaza where he and the female passenger fled the vehicle,” according to McLaughlin. > “They ran into a daycare and attempted to barricade themselves inside the daycare — recklessly endangering the children inside,” she said. From the third article: > The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said. […] > The woman who was arrested is from Colombia and does not have legal immigration status, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. If you have information about this issue that isn’t present in the articles linked, feel free to provide it.
      - daseiner1 11mo ago
        ok great, you made it all the way to the second article before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from. Said quote is, appropriately enough, from a woman in the administration whose job is to provide "cover" for her own agency. and you not-so-gracefully just elide key facts in the same article like: "the agents were not invited inside the building, did not have a warrant, and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present" & "the woman [...] is a prekindergarten teacher at the school" even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it. Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there?
        lurk2 11mo ago
        > before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from Do you have any information not presented in the article that suggests that this woman had legal status to reside in the country, and / or that she was not apprehended during a pursuit? I’m not putting it past an official to lie about these kinds of things, but if this woman had the facts on her side you would usually have heard about it faster. > the building, did not have a warrant, Law enforcement officials do not need a warrant to enter private property while they are engaged in the active pursuit of someone suspected of having committed a crime. > and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present" Per my last comment: > The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said. You’re trying to give a very particular account of these events that the facts are not supporting. > even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it. I agree, a school isn’t the place for it. So I ask again: Do you have information that would suggest this woman was not being actively pursued by law enforcement officials prior to entering the daycare? > Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there? I could (accurately) refer to this woman as an undocumented criminal who barricaded herself in a daycare after being pursued by law enforcement agents, but it’s completely hyperbolic versus just saying “a woman ran into a daycare and was arrested.” There’s nothing to suggest that these officers “stormed” the building like marines kicking the doors in at Fallujah. As was explicitly mentioned in the article (and my previous comment), their guns were never drawn. None of the three articles related to this incident suggest that the officers were masked.
convolvatron 11mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Chica... you're just throwing shit at the wall
- lurk2 11mo ago
  These demonstrations were nominally dedicated to protesting police brutality, not crime, and the policies they advocated for generally had an adverse impact on the crime rate in subsequent years.
amazingman 11mo ago
You're making a category error with this comparison. I'm wondering why the error isn't obvious to you.
numbsafari 11mo ago
Have they been silent, or have you been deaf?
pkkim 11mo ago
When I lived in Chicago, no one was silent about Chicago's violence. It was widely acknowledged as one of the city's biggest problems and there was a ton of effort put into stopping it by the government and nonprofits, including grassroots initiatives. To steelman what you're saying, it's true we lived with it so long that it came to seem normal in a way if you weren't personally affected. But "everyone has been silent" is just not true.

daseiner1 11mo ago

citizens shooting other citizens is radically different than the federal government lighting legal protections on fire and then pissing on the ashes. wholly disingenuous to compare the two. but yours is the standard misdirect on anything "Chicago" so I'm confident being disingenuous was intentional.

lurk2 11mo ago
What legal protections are being infringed upon?
- galangalalgol 11mo ago
  The 4th amendment it would seem? Wrongful arrest, unlawful search and seizure, aggravated assault with a lethal weapon...
  - lurk2 11mo ago
    When? Where? The instances listed in the article are not compelling. Here’s an excerpt from the second article: > According to Homeland Security deputy secretary Tricia McLaughlin, officers were trying to conduct a “targeted traffic stop” of a car registered to a “female illegal alien,” but the male driver “refused to pull the vehicle over.” > “Law enforcement pursued the vehicle before the assailant sped into a shopping plaza where he and the female passenger fled the vehicle,” according to McLaughlin. > “They ran into a daycare and attempted to barricade themselves inside the daycare — recklessly endangering the children inside,” she said. From the third article: > The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said. […] > The woman who was arrested is from Colombia and does not have legal immigration status, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. If you have information about this issue that isn’t present in the articles linked, feel free to provide it.
    - daseiner1 11mo ago
      ok great, you made it all the way to the second article before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from. Said quote is, appropriately enough, from a woman in the administration whose job is to provide "cover" for her own agency. and you not-so-gracefully just elide key facts in the same article like: "the agents were not invited inside the building, did not have a warrant, and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present" & "the woman [...] is a prekindergarten teacher at the school" even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it. Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there?
      - lurk2 11mo ago
        > before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from Do you have any information not presented in the article that suggests that this woman had legal status to reside in the country, and / or that she was not apprehended during a pursuit? I’m not putting it past an official to lie about these kinds of things, but if this woman had the facts on her side you would usually have heard about it faster. > the building, did not have a warrant, Law enforcement officials do not need a warrant to enter private property while they are engaged in the active pursuit of someone suspected of having committed a crime. > and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present" Per my last comment: > The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said. You’re trying to give a very particular account of these events that the facts are not supporting. > even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it. I agree, a school isn’t the place for it. So I ask again: Do you have information that would suggest this woman was not being actively pursued by law enforcement officials prior to entering the daycare? > Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there? I could (accurately) refer to this woman as an undocumented criminal who barricaded herself in a daycare after being pursued by law enforcement agents, but it’s completely hyperbolic versus just saying “a woman ran into a daycare and was arrested.” There’s nothing to suggest that these officers “stormed” the building like marines kicking the doors in at Fallujah. As was explicitly mentioned in the article (and my previous comment), their guns were never drawn. None of the three articles related to this incident suggest that the officers were masked.

convolvatron 11mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Chica... you're just throwing shit at the wall

lurk2 11mo ago
These demonstrations were nominally dedicated to protesting police brutality, not crime, and the policies they advocated for generally had an adverse impact on the crime rate in subsequent years.

amazingman 11mo ago

You're making a category error with this comparison. I'm wondering why the error isn't obvious to you.

numbsafari 11mo ago

Have they been silent, or have you been deaf?

pkkim 11mo ago

When I lived in Chicago, no one was silent about Chicago's violence. It was widely acknowledged as one of the city's biggest problems and there was a ton of effort put into stopping it by the government and nonprofits, including grassroots initiatives. To steelman what you're saying, it's true we lived with it so long that it came to seem normal in a way if you weren't personally affected. But "everyone has been silent" is just not true.