3 ms·

What, a minor sarcastic remark and you throw out the evidence that you asked for? The video and documentation that you claim didn't exist? If you can't engage

What, a minor sarcastic remark and you throw out the evidence that you asked for? The video and documentation that you claim didn't exist? If you can't engage with an opposing viewpoint because of a single sentiment, well, I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously. Your partisan bias is on display here.

zahlman 9mo ago
I made no such claim. But just for the record: the first link is completely irrelevant to the claim it's supposed to evidence; and the second and third links are not much better, in that arrest often does not require a warrant. (And citing 4A like that is incredibly dismissive; it suggests that refuting the argument is trivial, but is completely mistaken in that supposed refutation.)
- estearum 9mo ago
  The claim was that ICE is going after people for protected speech. The link is a determination by a federal judge to that effect, with the allegation going all the way to the top of the food chain. If you specifically want a video, then here you go: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oRiQz7mOY6A https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oRiQz7mOY6A This is a person being hunted and swept into a van by masked federal agents on the basis of her protected speech. There's no ambiguity here. The administration has said that's why they did it, and a judge has affirmed that as well (see prior link) I didn't claim arrest requires a warrant. I claimed it requires probable cause which is a far higher standard than DHS's claim to make arrests based on reasonable suspicion. The claim that arrests can be made upon reasonable suspicion is indeed flatly refuted by the text of the 4th Amendment.
  - zahlman 9mo ago
    > The claim was that ICE is going after people for protected speech. No, it wasn't. The claim was: > There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech. > The link is a determination by a federal judge to that effect, with the allegation going all the way to the top of the food chain. No, it isn't. First off, your "food chain" logic is invalid. Trump is the one who wanted the activists in question deported; it's not "ICE" "going after" them. In fact, the judge explicitly: > ...praised the homeland security officials who testified in his courtroom about their efforts to carry out their responsibilities to keep the country safe — and said their skills were misused by their leaders. Second, this isn't the activists being "harassed, intimidated, beaten or detained"; it's them being deported. Third, these are still non legally binding comments by the judge, not a "determination". Fourth, there is nothing here to substantiate the judge's opinion — no reference to what was supposedly said or done by the activists, or how the judge came to the conclusion that any 1A violation occurred. > This is a person being hunted and swept into a van by masked federal agents on the basis of her protected speech. There's no ambiguity here. The administration has said that's why they did it, and a judge has affirmed that as well (see prior link) The video demonstrates nothing of the sort. She's approached on the sidewalk and, in the AP's words, "detained". There's nothing here that could reasonably be characterized as "hunted". There isn't even a van in frame. There is nothing in either the video or the article to corroborate the claim that "the administration has said that's why they did it". And I don't care if the agents are masked. > The claim that arrests can be made upon reasonable suspicion is indeed flatly refuted by the text of the 4th Amendment. No, it is not, because 4A speaks of warrants and not of arrests, and as you cede, arrests do not require a warrant.
    - estearum 9mo ago
      Haha, well I hope these gymnastics aren't actually fooling you, of all people. That'd be a major concern. You can rest easy knowing they're not fooling anyone else though. Just a few points of note: * You mention Trump wanted the activist deported, and they were arrested in the street, but they apparently WERE NOT also detained or hunted? How did they find an activist based on an order from on high, if not by hunting them? How could they possibly deport someone without detaining them first? * You describe this person as an activist, and federal officials have described the enforcement action as based on her activism. You can go ahead and read the 1st Amendment if you need a refresher, but "activism", and certainly signing an op ed, is protected speech, thus proving my original point. * With regard to what substantiates the judge's opinion, you can go read the court filings, duh. Do you need page numbers for this one too? * "She's approached on the sidewalk and, in the AP's words, "detained"." LMAO. I love the scare quotes ;) * Re 4A/warrants/arrests, etc. Arrests can be made in lieu of warrants only in exigent circumstances (which approximately no immigration stop qualifies as), and they can never be made in lieu of probable cause. A person can be stopped under only reasonable suspicion, but again this is not what DHS said. DHS said they are arresting people based on reasonable suspicion. This is unambiguously unconstitutional. I think your motivated reasoning might be affecting your reading comprehension on this point.

zahlman 9mo ago

I made no such claim. But just for the record: the first link is completely irrelevant to the claim it's supposed to evidence; and the second and third links are not much better, in that arrest often does not require a warrant. (And citing 4A like that is incredibly dismissive; it suggests that refuting the argument is trivial, but is completely mistaken in that supposed refutation.)

estearum 9mo ago
The claim was that ICE is going after people for protected speech. The link is a determination by a federal judge to that effect, with the allegation going all the way to the top of the food chain. If you specifically want a video, then here you go: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oRiQz7mOY6A https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oRiQz7mOY6A This is a person being hunted and swept into a van by masked federal agents on the basis of her protected speech. There's no ambiguity here. The administration has said that's why they did it, and a judge has affirmed that as well (see prior link) I didn't claim arrest requires a warrant. I claimed it requires probable cause which is a far higher standard than DHS's claim to make arrests based on reasonable suspicion. The claim that arrests can be made upon reasonable suspicion is indeed flatly refuted by the text of the 4th Amendment.
- zahlman 9mo ago
  > The claim was that ICE is going after people for protected speech. No, it wasn't. The claim was: > There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech. > The link is a determination by a federal judge to that effect, with the allegation going all the way to the top of the food chain. No, it isn't. First off, your "food chain" logic is invalid. Trump is the one who wanted the activists in question deported; it's not "ICE" "going after" them. In fact, the judge explicitly: > ...praised the homeland security officials who testified in his courtroom about their efforts to carry out their responsibilities to keep the country safe — and said their skills were misused by their leaders. Second, this isn't the activists being "harassed, intimidated, beaten or detained"; it's them being deported. Third, these are still non legally binding comments by the judge, not a "determination". Fourth, there is nothing here to substantiate the judge's opinion — no reference to what was supposedly said or done by the activists, or how the judge came to the conclusion that any 1A violation occurred. > This is a person being hunted and swept into a van by masked federal agents on the basis of her protected speech. There's no ambiguity here. The administration has said that's why they did it, and a judge has affirmed that as well (see prior link) The video demonstrates nothing of the sort. She's approached on the sidewalk and, in the AP's words, "detained". There's nothing here that could reasonably be characterized as "hunted". There isn't even a van in frame. There is nothing in either the video or the article to corroborate the claim that "the administration has said that's why they did it". And I don't care if the agents are masked. > The claim that arrests can be made upon reasonable suspicion is indeed flatly refuted by the text of the 4th Amendment. No, it is not, because 4A speaks of warrants and not of arrests, and as you cede, arrests do not require a warrant.
  - estearum 9mo ago
    Haha, well I hope these gymnastics aren't actually fooling you, of all people. That'd be a major concern. You can rest easy knowing they're not fooling anyone else though. Just a few points of note: * You mention Trump wanted the activist deported, and they were arrested in the street, but they apparently WERE NOT also detained or hunted? How did they find an activist based on an order from on high, if not by hunting them? How could they possibly deport someone without detaining them first? * You describe this person as an activist, and federal officials have described the enforcement action as based on her activism. You can go ahead and read the 1st Amendment if you need a refresher, but "activism", and certainly signing an op ed, is protected speech, thus proving my original point. * With regard to what substantiates the judge's opinion, you can go read the court filings, duh. Do you need page numbers for this one too? * "She's approached on the sidewalk and, in the AP's words, "detained"." LMAO. I love the scare quotes ;) * Re 4A/warrants/arrests, etc. Arrests can be made in lieu of warrants only in exigent circumstances (which approximately no immigration stop qualifies as), and they can never be made in lieu of probable cause. A person can be stopped under only reasonable suspicion, but again this is not what DHS said. DHS said they are arresting people based on reasonable suspicion. This is unambiguously unconstitutional. I think your motivated reasoning might be affecting your reading comprehension on this point.