4 ms·

citizens shooting other citizens is radically different than the federal government lighting legal protections on fire and then pissing on the ashes. wholly di

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.

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.