5 ms·

> I guess I'm going to have to break down and just watch this woman be executed over and over to see for myself. Just like a jury will have to do should this c

by kcplate 9mo ago

> I guess I'm going to have to break down and just watch this woman be executed over and over to see for myself. Just like a jury will have to do should this come to trial. The act of judging someone for a crime often means you have to see all the evidence in detail even when it’s disturbing and difficult.

mindslight 9mo ago
Sorry for continuing to make the judgement that I'd rather spend several more hours of quality time with my son than using that time to come down from the stress of seeing a woman be assaulted and executed again and again from many different angles. I guess I'm just not cut out to be "MAGA" material. But I do have jury duty a few months from now, and if it requires me to do a similar thing then I will rise to the challenge for my civic duty. I have become quite conservative - supporting our remaining institutions of law and order is especially important in these days of rampant criminality by all three branches of the federal government. If you want to make your case here, I have asked you two straightforward questions that you have so far thus avoided: 1. Would you care to describe anything specific shown by these videos where either Renee or her wife physically impede or otherwise violently aggress on ICE? (before their escalation into a high-stakes assault on her vehicle. also keep in mind this would be the beginning of forming a logical argument and that the principle of equity between those actions and the response still applies) 2. As you've been appealing to a general concept of restraining judgement, I presume you have much harsher criticism for the administration - as supposed leadership for the country, they immediately dropped into pushing bald faced lies and rejecting all responsibility rather than taking even a moment to examine, reflect, and work to prevent further tragedies regardless of fault. Would you care to share your own criticism here?
- kcplate 9mo ago
  I think there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE. The driver ignored direct orders to exit the vehicle and chose to flee instead. Her act of fleeing created a dangerous situation where a law enforcement officer had to make a split second decision and still was physically struck by the vehicle. I think it’s up to investigators, prosecutors, judge, and jury to decide if action against the agent is appropriate understanding all of the evidence surrounding the incident. We have had the benefit of days of analysis with slowed down video from multiple vantage points. That officer had 2 seconds mere moments after being directly antagonized by one of the people from the vehicle. The inconvenient truth here is that the constitution EXPECTS the executive branch to enforce the laws that congress passes. ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner many years ago. If we the people don’t like a law, we the people should undo it the way we originally “did” it…via congress. I have never voted for Trump. I don’t like many of the things he does and says. I can be critical of the Trump messaging and rhetoric (including around this situation, which like the outraged—-is filled with excessive emotion and a rush to judgement). At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy.
  - mindslight 9mo ago
    > there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE You are still handwaving while not pointing to specific evidence. Please tell me exactly what they did that physically interfered with or physically antagonized ICE? Does one of the videos show one of them straight up physically attacking an ICE agent, and it's just obvious or something? Alternatively if the claim is that they had planned to physically interfere with ICE but never got the chance, then presumably there is the evidence of whatever physical items they had that look like part of a plan to interfere with ICE. Because it feels like the continued lack of specifics in favor of handwaving and innuendo is an attempt to use protected first amendment activity - criticizing of government agents including heckling - into what seems like a cause of action for people who do not like the protected first amendment message. I keep asking because I know I could easily be wrong here, but I still have yet to see anything claiming any sort of physical attack or physical obstruction that would give credence to claims of obstruction that allegedly precipitated the assault on the car. > ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner As a high level goal, I'm mostly ambivalent about these! Maybe even slightly pro as I've come around to seeing the virtues in legibility, especially if there would be common law equitable judgement applied to situations created by the situation festering so long (cf adverse possession). But a need to enforce immigration (or any other) law has absolutely zero bearing on whether citizens are allowed to criticize the agents for doing so. It also has absolutely zero bearing on justifying an escalation of what seems to be at most a minor physical skirmish into a summary execution by ignoring common sense rules of engagement (don't step in front of a car that is about to move) codified in the agents' own written procedures. My problem is entirely with the methods by which it is being achieved - pointlessly cruel, inhumane, procedurally unconstitutional (as we're discussing), secretive and hidden instead of openly documented, directly contrary to the law for people that are here legally, denial of due process exacerbating the previous issues, etc. The cruelty deviates so far from the norms of free society, and is so completely unnecessary, that it informs my seeing this whole current call of enforcing immigration laws as a mere pretext for something much more dark and sinister. Take a detour here - why hadn't immigration laws been fully enforced for the past two decades? My understanding is that the primary driver was businesses interests that rely on manual labor - they saw it was lucrative to kill the bargaining power of American labor by using undocumented workers with very little bargaining power or recourse. What really is the chance that those business interests have been finally made to take a back seat, versus those business interests now being content that labor's economic power has been fully smashed and this change is merely the next step in subjugating the common American? Most especially with the figurehead leading the charge being a business owner highly reliant on cheap undocumented labor in the industries of real estate development, hotels, golf courses? > At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy. If we're talking about lofty goals like the rule of law, then why are you not as concerned about the laws regarding freedom of speech or deprivation of life [, liberty, or property] contained in our country's very charter? Because what I see here is the creation of anarcho-tyranny - an unconstrained gang of masked thugs doing effectively whatever they feel like, enabled by a federal government that has stopped even attempting to enforce its own laws that would otherwise restrain them for the sake of our natural rights and liberties. (I will also say, your criticism of Trump's statements there is quite tame given how aggressively dismissive those statements are from someone who is supposed to be leading the country rather than dividing it)

by kcplate 9mo ago

mindslight 9mo ago

Sorry for continuing to make the judgement that I'd rather spend several more hours of quality time with my son than using that time to come down from the stress of seeing a woman be assaulted and executed again and again from many different angles. I guess I'm just not cut out to be "MAGA" material. But I do have jury duty a few months from now, and if it requires me to do a similar thing then I will rise to the challenge for my civic duty. I have become quite conservative - supporting our remaining institutions of law and order is especially important in these days of rampant criminality by all three branches of the federal government. If you want to make your case here, I have asked you two straightforward questions that you have so far thus avoided: 1. Would you care to describe anything specific shown by these videos where either Renee or her wife physically impede or otherwise violently aggress on ICE? (before their escalation into a high-stakes assault on her vehicle. also keep in mind this would be the beginning of forming a logical argument and that the principle of equity between those actions and the response still applies) 2. As you've been appealing to a general concept of restraining judgement, I presume you have much harsher criticism for the administration - as supposed leadership for the country, they immediately dropped into pushing bald faced lies and rejecting all responsibility rather than taking even a moment to examine, reflect, and work to prevent further tragedies regardless of fault. Would you care to share your own criticism here?

kcplate 9mo ago
I think there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE. The driver ignored direct orders to exit the vehicle and chose to flee instead. Her act of fleeing created a dangerous situation where a law enforcement officer had to make a split second decision and still was physically struck by the vehicle. I think it’s up to investigators, prosecutors, judge, and jury to decide if action against the agent is appropriate understanding all of the evidence surrounding the incident. We have had the benefit of days of analysis with slowed down video from multiple vantage points. That officer had 2 seconds mere moments after being directly antagonized by one of the people from the vehicle. The inconvenient truth here is that the constitution EXPECTS the executive branch to enforce the laws that congress passes. ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner many years ago. If we the people don’t like a law, we the people should undo it the way we originally “did” it…via congress. I have never voted for Trump. I don’t like many of the things he does and says. I can be critical of the Trump messaging and rhetoric (including around this situation, which like the outraged—-is filled with excessive emotion and a rush to judgement). At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy.
- mindslight 9mo ago
  > there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE You are still handwaving while not pointing to specific evidence. Please tell me exactly what they did that physically interfered with or physically antagonized ICE? Does one of the videos show one of them straight up physically attacking an ICE agent, and it's just obvious or something? Alternatively if the claim is that they had planned to physically interfere with ICE but never got the chance, then presumably there is the evidence of whatever physical items they had that look like part of a plan to interfere with ICE. Because it feels like the continued lack of specifics in favor of handwaving and innuendo is an attempt to use protected first amendment activity - criticizing of government agents including heckling - into what seems like a cause of action for people who do not like the protected first amendment message. I keep asking because I know I could easily be wrong here, but I still have yet to see anything claiming any sort of physical attack or physical obstruction that would give credence to claims of obstruction that allegedly precipitated the assault on the car. > ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner As a high level goal, I'm mostly ambivalent about these! Maybe even slightly pro as I've come around to seeing the virtues in legibility, especially if there would be common law equitable judgement applied to situations created by the situation festering so long (cf adverse possession). But a need to enforce immigration (or any other) law has absolutely zero bearing on whether citizens are allowed to criticize the agents for doing so. It also has absolutely zero bearing on justifying an escalation of what seems to be at most a minor physical skirmish into a summary execution by ignoring common sense rules of engagement (don't step in front of a car that is about to move) codified in the agents' own written procedures. My problem is entirely with the methods by which it is being achieved - pointlessly cruel, inhumane, procedurally unconstitutional (as we're discussing), secretive and hidden instead of openly documented, directly contrary to the law for people that are here legally, denial of due process exacerbating the previous issues, etc. The cruelty deviates so far from the norms of free society, and is so completely unnecessary, that it informs my seeing this whole current call of enforcing immigration laws as a mere pretext for something much more dark and sinister. Take a detour here - why hadn't immigration laws been fully enforced for the past two decades? My understanding is that the primary driver was businesses interests that rely on manual labor - they saw it was lucrative to kill the bargaining power of American labor by using undocumented workers with very little bargaining power or recourse. What really is the chance that those business interests have been finally made to take a back seat, versus those business interests now being content that labor's economic power has been fully smashed and this change is merely the next step in subjugating the common American? Most especially with the figurehead leading the charge being a business owner highly reliant on cheap undocumented labor in the industries of real estate development, hotels, golf courses? > At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy. If we're talking about lofty goals like the rule of law, then why are you not as concerned about the laws regarding freedom of speech or deprivation of life [, liberty, or property] contained in our country's very charter? Because what I see here is the creation of anarcho-tyranny - an unconstrained gang of masked thugs doing effectively whatever they feel like, enabled by a federal government that has stopped even attempting to enforce its own laws that would otherwise restrain them for the sake of our natural rights and liberties. (I will also say, your criticism of Trump's statements there is quite tame given how aggressively dismissive those statements are from someone who is supposed to be leading the country rather than dividing it)