4 ms·

> ICE has regularly attacked protesters and bystanders who are simply recording, walking away and so on. > Even people just driving through their neighborhood

• duxup 10mo ago
  Today: https://np.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qlvpgy/better_angle_showing_his_handsarms_pinned_under/ https://np.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qlvpgy/better_...
• filoeleven 10mo ago
  You're being downvoted because you're being wilfully obtuse, not because you're a bootlicker.
• Snoots 10mo ago
  You're being flagged for good reason, you're not a victim here. You refuse to watch the videos, but you're still defending the regime. Why? I question the moral integrity of anyone who would defend this administration without all the available info. I'm glad you're being flagged, because I've been disappointed with how folks here have been surprisingly flaccid when it comes to condemning this regime. The day that I come here and find posts like yours in the majority will be the last day I visit.
  • zahlman 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  • devchix 10mo ago
    I've been here since 2016. I have never, not even once, downvoted any comment on HN. Today I downvoted every single of that person's comment in this thread. That discourse does not deserve to be heard, much less to occupy attention and debate.
    • zahlman 10mo ago
      Including https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750452 , which also was flagged? Can you please explain to me how it violates HN guidelines in any way? Or how any of it is untrue? For example, do you disagree that 8 U.S. Code § 1357, as cited, empowers ICE to arrest US citizens without a warrant in specific circumstances, specifically relating to obstructing them from doing their original job? Do you disagree that ICE are, contra the public claims of Walz and Frey, LEO? Did you see my submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46596055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46596055, and can you articulate a problem with it? Including https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46749406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46749406 , in which I explicitly acknowledged that I do not think this particular shooting was justified? I already explained repeatedly: I responded hastily based on priors, and then responded poorly to someone who insulted me. When I initially said: > All this stuff about permit cards, the victim's lack of criminal history, etc. is irrelevant. It is not connected to the motivation for the shooting. There is nothing to establish that the shooting was "solely for" that possession, and LEO denies that claim. There is no plausible universe in which the officer says "please show me the permit for that weapon", Pretti says "I don't have it", and the officer shoots. But that's the narrative you appear to be trying to push. Do you think any of that is incorrect? Which part specifically, and why? And, to be clear, you were okay with me being called a "nazi sympathizer" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46754655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46754655)? I just vouched for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46748563 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46748563 , which was flagged and killed. Do you think it violates HN guidelines? How exactly? Because I legitimately don't understand.
• deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
• dashundchen 10mo ago
  Tell me what legal rationale ICE had to detain and kidnap a 5 year old US citizen. Tell me the legal rationale for ICE abducting an employee from a Target beating him up and dropping him off bruised and covered in blood at Walmart at miles away. ICE has been turned into a paramilitary political mafia to harass and harm the administrations political opponents and racial outgroups. They've repeatedly been found in federal court to have violated the constitutional rights of citizens and non-citizens alike but Congress has shown no spine to reign in the executive which has willfully spurned these rulings. Turn the blind eye to this at your own peril. History has shown that fascism does not stop acting only against people that you disagree with
  • zahlman 10mo ago
    * * *
    • latexr 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      • zahlman 10mo ago
        > The appropriate reaction to being admittedly ignorant about a topic is looking it up or requesting a source. What you quoted implies a request for a source. It is not unreasonable to state my priors. That is not "a priori deciding". Your insult is uncalled for and contrary to HN guidelines.
• odshoifsdhfs 10mo ago
  [flagged]
• queenkjuul 10mo ago
  ICE shot a woman 5 times while she was alone in her car. Body cam confirmed she did not resist, federal investigation failed to produce charges. But yeah, it's just not happening, you couldn't possibly just be unaware Edit: you literally said "i will not watch the videos" - you are admittedly willfully ignorant on the subject, your posts are therefore irrelevant
  • zahlman 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    • defrost 10mo ago
      I assume the Renée Good shooting, which was three times. Interesting the conflicting orders she received were not "lawful". Her vehicle was across a single lane, prior to the shooting incident vehicles were freely passing, so traffic was not blocked by a common occurrence of a vehicle across a single lane of an icy road. She was not stopping ICE or DHS from apprehending an immigrant, and the Federal Immigration agents had no authority to deal with traffic matters in MN.
      • zahlman 10mo ago
        All three of the things said don't accurately describe the Good incident (she was not shot five times; "not resisting" is not applicable if you imagine e.g. physically trying to prevent the application of handcuffs and clearly untrue if you take it to include fleeing; and the "federal investigation failing to bring charges" doesn't exist) so I assumed it wasn't that case. But I'll respond to your analysis of that case anyway: > the conflicting orders she received were not "lawful". They do not become "not lawful" at your say-so. And she was not "given conflicting orders". That is a propaganda narrative ignorant of basic law. Good was repeatedly told to move (in the initial encounter with Ross, before he begins circling the car, repeatedly refused, then significant time passed. Then she was told to get out of the car, presumably because she was under arrest for refusing to move. It is the same as how an ordinary local police officer who tells you to leave a property because you're trespassing, is entitled to arrest you (which entails you not leaving) if you repeatedly refuse to leave. > Her vehicle was across a single lane It was perpendicular to the road, and parked. That's obstruction. The fact that cars could get around does not mean they "were freely passing". And as you point out, the road was icy; that makes this situation more dangerous, and the blocked lane a more serious obstruction. > She was not stopping ICE or DHS from apprehending an immigrant She was significantly impeding them, in a manner that can very easily be argued to meet the necessary standards in the relevant legal code. > and the Federal Immigration agents had no authority to deal with traffic matters in MN. 8 USC 1357 makes it clear that they can make arrests for federal crimes committed in their presence. This includes obstructing them, which is by definition done in their presence and is a federal crime by virtue of the fact that they are federal officers. And as LEO they can generally issue lawful orders. The fact that she's in a car doesn't somehow deny them jurisdiction. They aren't "dealing with traffic matters"; they're dealing with obstruction of justice.
• nozzlegear 10mo ago
  > The people "being dragged out of vehicles" have been refusing lawful orders and then being arrested for it. "Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'" — Martin Luther King Jr. > But no, being a citizen does not, in fact, matter if you are breaking federal law in the presence of a federal agent, and that law includes obstruction of federal justice. “The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.” — Henry David Thoreau > All of this is extremely clear in law. “Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.” — Henry David Thoreau
• wqaatwt 10mo ago
  Amongst other stuff you just said.. not everything a law enforcement officer says is a lawful order by definition. If they are running around harassing, assaulting and arresting people with a due cause that’s still illegal.
  • B1FIDO 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    • lobsterthief 10mo ago
      Damn this is a pretty crazy comment. Get help dude.
      • B1FIDO 10mo ago
        [flagged]
• lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo ago
  > I have seen many claims of this sort, but every single time there's been video available of the incident, it's become clear to me that nothing of the sort is going on. Have you considered the potential bias that people are dragged out of their cars before they can start recording video? Perhaps the dragging out of the car happens while nobody is recording them, then people see and start recording for posterity. That seems an obvious assumption. Do you have reason to think otherwise such that you can dismiss others' reports with intellectual honesty rather than motivated reasoning? > This comment, like many others I've made on the topic, has been completely illegitimately flagged. I'm getting rather tired of that. > It perhaps just doesn't agree with your point of view. I don't really agree with the flags but this casual dismissal of "you just don't like it" is not helping you to understand the actual reasons others may have to flag (and downvote, which I do agree with). For example, maybe others watched the videos and think there is no way to justify what they saw. To such an individual, seeing someone try to justify it might look like trolling regardless of said someone's self-perception of their commentary. You will get nowhere merely complaining about the flags and downvotes; they will keep coming (on this topic) until you start to comment more thoughtfully (on this topic), or not at all.
  • zahlman 10mo ago
    > Have you considered the potential bias that people are dragged out of their cars before they can start recording video? All such video has been third-person perspective, so no. > Perhaps the dragging out of the car happens while nobody is recording them, then people see and start recording for posterity. In the cases where video shows events prior to the arrest, it shows justification for the arrest. Activists have a clear incentive to hide that justification. So why would I take claims at face value about the existence of unjustified arrests where nobody started recording before the arrest? > Do you have reason to think otherwise such that you can dismiss others' reports with intellectual honesty rather than motivated reasoning? The repeated prior experience of seeing people make reports, look them up, and find that they've been misrepresented, yes. > For example, maybe others watched the videos and think there is no way to justify what they saw. To such an individual, seeing someone try to justify it might look like trolling I disagree that this is a legitimate reason to flag a comment, according to my reading of the guidelines. "The videos" doesn't refer to a specific set of videos. I'm talking here about cases where people claimed that something (not the incident that OP is about) had happened in a specific way, and I had already seen video that disproved the narrative. If they saw a different video, or a clip of the video, or a social media rumour, and their emotions are running high because they can't imagine a justification, that isn't my fault. (For example, a sibling comment is pushing the "kidnapping and arresting" narrative for the child taken directly back to his home. We already saw during Trump's first term that the activists will raise hue and cry about "families being separated" by ICE; now they can't put the family together either.) And I'm talking about cases where people bring up some other random thing that they totally know happened, that I haven't heard of at all, and they don't proactively bring evidence but how dare I not know about it. Always described with a flurry of emotionally charged language. My priors are that all of this will evaporate under scrutiny, because of what I have experienced before when trying to look into things. This extends generally to protests of this nature before the current administration's use of ICE, too. And I'm talking about cases where people seem to have entirely wrong ideas about what the law actually permits. I get flagged, for example, when I make posts that consist of nothing but the evidenced truth about ICE's legal powers and what is or isn't a legitimate protest action. See e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750452. It's hard for me not to perceive that I get flagged for no reason other than being on "the wrong side" of a contentious political issue, because people can't fathom that an honest person who tries to research claims could possibly disagree with them so starkly in good faith. But I do research these claims (although there's only so much time I'm willing to put into them). I did research this story. And I already previously reported back (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750401) that I now generally agree that this specific shooting looks unjustified (certainly it at least requires an investigation, which I would have said anyway, like for any high-profile LEO use of lethal force). I'm just not going to continue a direct chain of replies with people who openly insult me. I'm still human. Meanwhile, comments where people just openly go "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi", "fascist, fascist, fascist", spewing outrage without substance, stay visible incognito. > You will get nowhere merely complaining about the flags and downvotes; they will keep coming (on this topic) until you start to comment more thoughtfully (on this topic), or not at all. This is effectively intimidation.