2 ms·
> I am only aware of an order given to move along, which was questionably unlawful if issued in retaliation for Constitutionally-protected observation and prote
by frumplestlatz 9mo ago
> I am only aware of an order given to move along, which was questionably unlawful if issued in retaliation for Constitutionally-protected observation and protest.
She was ordered to exit her vehicle. She then accelerated into a law enforcement officer after her wife told her to “drive baby, drive”.
I suggest you find the unedited videos, that have not been cut or misleadingly had their audio replaced with reporter voice overs.
It’s cut and dry. Then I suggest you look into why you only received a curated and biased representation of the facts.
- mindslight 9mo agoAn order to exit her vehicle wouldn't be in furtherance of the operation ICE was engaged in. This means it was in retaliation for her Constitutionally-protected activity, making that making that order unlawful. Pragmatically, it was of course utterly stupid to not comply (as with most masked armed gangs of attackers barking orders at you), but we're talking about the legality here. > She then accelerated into a law enforcement officer I'm sure it does seem "cut and dry" when you start your analysis at the point the government agents had already set themselves up to kill her if she did not stop protesting and respect their authorituh. I made several points about how the situation was needlessly escalated to that point you're focusing on, but you've just ignored them. You're complaining about the media editing videos and omitting facts, but you're effectively creating an edit in your own head that starts after the situation had been needlessly escalated multiple ways, which absolves the government agents of responsibility for those escalations.