3 ms·

> There is no good reason why they should have "simply left" To avoid escalating to the point of killing a woman who clearly had no respect for them and would

> There is no good reason why they should have "simply left" To avoid escalating to the point of killing a woman who clearly had no respect for them and would have been more receptive to local police. Not killing a woman counts as a good reason in my book at least, it seems that others disagree. > That would have resulted in the SUV remaining in place, which would have been a general risk to safety In the other comment I asked you to point out what vehicles were obstructed and you did not. By the time of the shooting, traffic was moving freely in the left lane and any vehicle that wanted to be gone was gone. Once again this is highly motivated reasoning, so I don't see the point of continuing.

zahlman 10mo ago
> To avoid escalating Again, this is not how law enforcement works. You do not back down from the scene of a crime in the hopes of apprehending someone privately later. That's patently absurd. > who clearly had no respect for them and would have been more receptive to local police The entire reason that ICE agents are on the scene is that local police cannot be trusted to enforce the applicable law. > In the other comment I asked you to point out what vehicles were obstructed and you did not. Yes, I did: all of the ones headed towards the SUV with the intent of driving past it. You then disputed this by refusing to accept the plain definition of "obstruction", which I cited to you from a dictionary. > By the time of the shooting, traffic was moving freely in the left lane and any vehicle that wanted to be gone was gone. Given the orientation of the parked cars I suppose this must be a one-way street. At 2:44 in the long video a car is clearly stopped in front of the SUV in the right lane, and the left lane is empty and people are not using it. 3:08 or so appears to correspond to the start of most of the shorter videos. The SUV is mostly backed into a parking lane; at 3:11 you can see a car (or another SUV?) pass by that still must swerve considerably to avoid the SUV, taking it into the left lane. At 3:15 another car makes a much larger swerve, as the SUV moves slightly forward. At 3:23 the ICE van pulls up; it was going to stop there (as they are the first officer's backup), but it's apparent that they would not have had a clear path through that lane. This is a residential road with parking on both sides and narrow lanes, and almost everyone is in a relatively large vehicle. The left lane being available does not negate that traffic is being obstructed, as demonstrated by the effort required to avoid the obstruction. LEO are entitled to require, for public safety reasons, that the path is kept clear. Free speech and right to protest do not cover orienting a vehicle like this. A basic web search such as https://duckduckgo.com/?q=are+protesters+allowed+to+block+traffic+usa https://duckduckgo.com/?q=are+protesters+allowed+to+block+tr... makes this abundantly clear. > Once again this is highly motivated reasoning No, it is not, and I find it frankly offensive that you would suggest as much.
- mindslight 10mo ago
  > You do not back down from the scene of a crime in the hopes of apprehending someone privately later This is in fact the whole idea behind no chase policies, to avoid needless harm. Ever watch a car chase through city streets on TV? Spoiler: they generally end one particular way. Meanwhile, pervasive cameras and databases practically guarantee that people can be calmly apprehended later. > The left lane being available does not negate that traffic is being obstructed lol, so your definition of obstruction is then any kind of traffic daring to be near ICE? Grandma driving 15 mph, obstruction. Those parked cars on the side of the road, obstruction. Cars stopped at red lights (local law to frustrate ICE), obstruction. Fellow motorists honking because they can't be bothered to follow their lane, obstruction. In the real world, one lane being taken up by double parking is just regular city traffic. As I said, highly motivated reasoning. Also, I had sent you the links to those other comment threads where I had made some more nuanced comments regarding the difference between enforcing immigration law versus this needless mayhem, so maybe you could see that we do have a little common ground - not so you could just dump more reactionary spam over there as well.

zahlman 10mo ago

> To avoid escalating Again, this is not how law enforcement works. You do not back down from the scene of a crime in the hopes of apprehending someone privately later. That's patently absurd. > who clearly had no respect for them and would have been more receptive to local police The entire reason that ICE agents are on the scene is that local police cannot be trusted to enforce the applicable law. > In the other comment I asked you to point out what vehicles were obstructed and you did not. Yes, I did: all of the ones headed towards the SUV with the intent of driving past it. You then disputed this by refusing to accept the plain definition of "obstruction", which I cited to you from a dictionary. > By the time of the shooting, traffic was moving freely in the left lane and any vehicle that wanted to be gone was gone. Given the orientation of the parked cars I suppose this must be a one-way street. At 2:44 in the long video a car is clearly stopped in front of the SUV in the right lane, and the left lane is empty and people are not using it. 3:08 or so appears to correspond to the start of most of the shorter videos. The SUV is mostly backed into a parking lane; at 3:11 you can see a car (or another SUV?) pass by that still must swerve considerably to avoid the SUV, taking it into the left lane. At 3:15 another car makes a much larger swerve, as the SUV moves slightly forward. At 3:23 the ICE van pulls up; it was going to stop there (as they are the first officer's backup), but it's apparent that they would not have had a clear path through that lane. This is a residential road with parking on both sides and narrow lanes, and almost everyone is in a relatively large vehicle. The left lane being available does not negate that traffic is being obstructed, as demonstrated by the effort required to avoid the obstruction. LEO are entitled to require, for public safety reasons, that the path is kept clear. Free speech and right to protest do not cover orienting a vehicle like this. A basic web search such as https://duckduckgo.com/?q=are+protesters+allowed+to+block+traffic+usa https://duckduckgo.com/?q=are+protesters+allowed+to+block+tr... makes this abundantly clear. > Once again this is highly motivated reasoning No, it is not, and I find it frankly offensive that you would suggest as much.

mindslight 10mo ago
> You do not back down from the scene of a crime in the hopes of apprehending someone privately later This is in fact the whole idea behind no chase policies, to avoid needless harm. Ever watch a car chase through city streets on TV? Spoiler: they generally end one particular way. Meanwhile, pervasive cameras and databases practically guarantee that people can be calmly apprehended later. > The left lane being available does not negate that traffic is being obstructed lol, so your definition of obstruction is then any kind of traffic daring to be near ICE? Grandma driving 15 mph, obstruction. Those parked cars on the side of the road, obstruction. Cars stopped at red lights (local law to frustrate ICE), obstruction. Fellow motorists honking because they can't be bothered to follow their lane, obstruction. In the real world, one lane being taken up by double parking is just regular city traffic. As I said, highly motivated reasoning. Also, I had sent you the links to those other comment threads where I had made some more nuanced comments regarding the difference between enforcing immigration law versus this needless mayhem, so maybe you could see that we do have a little common ground - not so you could just dump more reactionary spam over there as well.