6 ms·

And importantly the DoJ attorneys who would be responsible for investigating g the murders resigned because they were prevented from performing the standard pro

And importantly the DoJ attorneys who would be responsible for investigating g the murders resigned because they were prevented from performing the standard procedure investigation that happens after every single shooting. They were instead directed to investigate the family of the person who was shot: https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/nyt-6-federal-prosecutors-resign-over-pressure-to-investigate-renee-goods-widow/ https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/nyt-6-federal-prosecutor... We are through the looking glass, folks. This will be dropped and ignored like so many other outrages unless we demand answers from Congress, and hold SCOTUS responsible for partisan abdication of their constitutional duties.

mikkupikku 9mo ago
If those shooters don't get presidential pardons, they're going to get prosecuted sooner or later. No statute of limitations for murder, right?
- mothballed 9mo ago
  That depends, the civil service has a lot of leverage because most of them cannot easily be fired. And POTUS needs the civil service to execute his policy goals so his fellow party members and possibly himself can get re-elected. Therefore there is considerable leverage for allied servants to form an alliance that more or less offers their allegiance in exchange for non-prosecution. I would expect especially DHS to basically become a non-functional (or even seditious) department if they prosecute those guys and they could purposefully make the president look bad by making his security apparatus look incompetent.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - DFHippie 9mo ago
    > the civil service has a lot of leverage because most of them cannot easily be fired Unless, as Doge showed us, you ignore the law, fire them anyway, and the SCOTUS says, "Yeah, whatever."
  - dragonwriter 9mo ago
    > Therefore there is considerable leverage for allied servants to form an alliance that more or less offers their allegiance in exchange for non-prosecution. Won't help if the prosecuting sovereignty isn't the one they work for (state vs federal charges.) Also won't work if the agency is disbanded and they are dismissed en masse before the prosecution happens.
- wizardforhire 9mo ago
  But pardons only apply to federal crimes… murder is a state offense.
  - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
    Correct, state charges are mostly pardon proof and there is no statute of limitations on murder.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 9mo ago
      Well, they are entirely Presidential pardon proof, but each state usually has its own pardon provisions. Unlikely to benefit ICE agents as a broad class in any of the places where conflicts over their role are currently prominent, though.
    - ldng 9mo ago
      So ... you're saying that this militia as every incentive to overthrow democratie so that they never get prosecuted, right ? See where this is going ?
      - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
        The US couldn't win a war in the middle east with trillions of dollars, thousands of soldiers dead, and tens of thousands substantially wounded. Hasn't won a war since WW2. Is everything going swimmingly? Certainly not. There are 340M Americans, ~20k-30k ICE folks, and ~1M soldiers on US soil. These odds don't keep me up at night. 77% of US 18-24 cohort don't qualify for military service without some form of waiver (due to obesity, drug use, or mental health issues). I admit, US propaganda is very good at projecting an image of strength. I strongly doubt it is prepared for a civil ground war, based on all available evidence. It cannot even keep other nation states out of critical systems. See fragile systems for what they are.
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  Presidential pardons have no impact and their liability for state-law murder charges (though federal seizure of crime scenes and destruction of evidence might, in practice.)
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - skissane 9mo ago
    Yes, but In re Neagle (1890) is SCOTUS precedent granting federal agents immunity from state criminal prosecution for acts committed while carrying out their official duties (and the act at question in that case was homicide). Now, its precise boundaries are contested - in Idaho v. Horiuchi (2001), the 9th Circuit held that In re Neagle didn’t apply if the federal agent used unreasonable force - but that case was rendered moot when the state charges were dropped, and hence the issue never made it to SCOTUS. Considering the current SCOTUS majority’s prior form on related topics (see Trump v. United States), I think odds are high they’ll read In re Neagle narrowly, and invalidate any state criminal prosecution attempts.
    - dragonwriter 9mo ago
      In re Neagle (while, unfortunately, it does not state as clear of a rule as Horiuchi on the standard that should be applied) conducts an expansive facts-based analysis on the question of whether, in fact, the acts performed were done in in the performance of his lawful federal duties (if anything, the implicit standard seems less generous to the federal officer than Horiuchi’s explicit rule, which would allow Supremacy Clause immunity if the agent had an actual and objectively reasonable belief that he acted within his lawful duties, even if, in fact, he did not.) But, yeah, any state prosecutions (likely especially the first) is going to (1) get removed to federal court, and (2) go through a wringer of federal litigation, likely reaching the Supreme Court, over Supremacy Clause immunity before much substantive happens on anything else. OTOH, the federal duty at issue in in re Neagle was literally protecting the life of a Supreme Court justice riding circuit, as much as the present Court may have a pro-Trump bias, I wouldn't count on it being as strong of a bias as it had in Neagle.
- b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
  I'll eat your hat if any of these goons ever see in the inside of a holding cell
- Bender 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - bonsai_spool 9mo ago
    > cleared the Sig said "Muffled word Gun" The person in front said "I've got the gun, I've got the gun", and I can tell that quite clearly in the videos. > here antifa community organizers are escalating non stop in hopes that someone dies [...] in hopes they can radicalize people I think this rhetorical frame highlights how many people don't believe in protest. Expressing disdain for trampling of civil liberties is not 'escalation' any more than the curtailment of fourth amendment rights that inspire the protests. I am not attacking you (I believe we should all be able to express how we feel with respect to the government). I just want to highlight a reason why you may feel that this level of unrest is meant to "radicalize people".
    - Bender 9mo ago
      The person in front said "I've got the gun, I've got the gun", and I can tell that quite clearly in the videos. That means there is an even better version that what I saw and heard which means normies will figure out fairly quick this was not malicious intent. Perhaps malicious incompetency but certainly not an intentional execution. I just want to highlight a reason why you may feel that this level of unrest is meant to "radicalize people". I would accept that if these were just protesters, stood at the side of the road holding up signs but a number of them are far from it. They have formed military squads, dox agents and attack them at home and in their personal vehicles, coordinate their attacks between multiple groups of "vetted" agitators. They are tracking their personal vehicles and their family members. They are blocking traffic and forcing people out of their cars. At best this is an insurgency being coordinated from out-of-state agitators and at the behest of the state governor. They are egging people on to break numerous laws, obstruct federal agents, throw bricks at agents or anyone they think is an agent, use bull-horns at full volume in the ears of anyone supporting the agents. I could go on for hours regarding all the illegal shenanigans. So yeah these are people trying to radicalize others and trying to get people hurt or killed. This is primarily occurring in sanctuary cities where the government is actively encouraging their citizens to attack federal agents. That is not even close to anything that resembles protesting and is not anywhere near a protected right. I also blame President Trump for not invoking the insurrection act and curtailing this very early on.
- DangitBobby 9mo ago
  They're wearing masks. Have they been identified?
donkeybeer 9mo ago
That's straight up corrupt third world country stuff.
- lateforwork 9mo ago
  It is going to get a lot worse. Trump's eventual goal is to send the military to all Democrat-controlled cities. Back in September Trump gathered military leaders in a room and told them America is under "invasion from within". He said: "This is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war too. It's a war from within."
  - jimt1234 9mo ago
    We went from the "War On Drugs" to the "War On Ourselves".
  - kreetx 9mo ago
    You spend too much time on the internet.
    - DangitBobby 9mo ago
      I see you all over these comments. People were denying it would get as bad as it has already gotten.
      - kreetx 9mo ago
        I'm here indeed. How bad is it, objectively?
        lateforwork 9mo ago
        Ask the people who are dying on the streets.
        kreetx 9mo ago
lateforwork 9mo ago
> unless we demand answers from Congress, and hold SCOTUS responsible for partisan abdication of their constitutional duties. You can demand answers from Congress, but until a significant portion of the GOP base demands answers, they are just going to ignore your demands. As of now 39% of Americans support the administration. Also, you can't hold SCOTUS responsible, only Congress can.
- xeonmc 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - epistasis 9mo ago
    Currently they are attempting to strip our second amendment rights. They murdered a man in the street, from hands up to shit in the back in under 20 seconds, merely for lawful possession and in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The President is bumbling around today mumbling "you can't bring a gun to a protest" when yes the 2nd amendment directly allows that. A lot of people that care a lot about the 2nd amendment saw the photo of Pretti's gun on the ICE rental car seat, and they saw a well-used, well-cared-for weapon that was clean and seen a lot time at the range. They saw that it can happen to somebody just like them.
    - pfannkuchen 9mo ago
      As often happens these days, I’m confused at the hysteria here. Police messed up and someone got killed. I feel like outrage is warranted if nothing is done about it, but after seeing the videos I’m fairly confident this won’t get swept under the rug. Will we retract our outrage when a conviction is delivered? Is there a reason we expect nothing to come of this?
      - defrost 9mo ago
        I'm an outsider, I can well understand the ever growing outrage. In a nutshell, to date, US ICE & DHS interactions have resulted in 10 people shot **, 3 people killed, and established a pattern of high level officials immediately blatently lying and contradicting video evidence. That pattern includes obvious attempts to avoid investigation, to excuse people involved, to not investigate the bigger picture of how interactions are staged such that civilian deaths are inevitable. It's good to see the citizens of the US dig in and demand that federal forces and federal heads of agencies be held accountable for clearly screwed up deployments and behaviours. ** My apologies, I just saw a Wash Post headliine that indicates it is now 16 shootings that are being actively swept under a rug.
touwer 9mo ago
[flagged]
- aa_is_op 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - jfengel 9mo ago
    80 million Americans thought it.
    - aa_is_op 9mo ago
      imagine reporting comments on HN because you're butthurt your political idol raped children
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
trinsic2 9mo ago
congress isn't going to do anything. All it would take is about 20 republican sentors to bring this shit to a halt. They are not doing anything, they all have blood on their hands. At this point I think the only thing that will work is organizing a month where the nation stops spending money and going to work.

mikkupikku 9mo ago

If those shooters don't get presidential pardons, they're going to get prosecuted sooner or later. No statute of limitations for murder, right?

mothballed 9mo ago
That depends, the civil service has a lot of leverage because most of them cannot easily be fired. And POTUS needs the civil service to execute his policy goals so his fellow party members and possibly himself can get re-elected. Therefore there is considerable leverage for allied servants to form an alliance that more or less offers their allegiance in exchange for non-prosecution. I would expect especially DHS to basically become a non-functional (or even seditious) department if they prosecute those guys and they could purposefully make the president look bad by making his security apparatus look incompetent.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- DFHippie 9mo ago
  > the civil service has a lot of leverage because most of them cannot easily be fired Unless, as Doge showed us, you ignore the law, fire them anyway, and the SCOTUS says, "Yeah, whatever."
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  > Therefore there is considerable leverage for allied servants to form an alliance that more or less offers their allegiance in exchange for non-prosecution. Won't help if the prosecuting sovereignty isn't the one they work for (state vs federal charges.) Also won't work if the agency is disbanded and they are dismissed en masse before the prosecution happens.
wizardforhire 9mo ago
But pardons only apply to federal crimes… murder is a state offense.
- toomuchtodo 9mo ago
  Correct, state charges are mostly pardon proof and there is no statute of limitations on murder.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 9mo ago
    Well, they are entirely Presidential pardon proof, but each state usually has its own pardon provisions. Unlikely to benefit ICE agents as a broad class in any of the places where conflicts over their role are currently prominent, though.
  - ldng 9mo ago
    So ... you're saying that this militia as every incentive to overthrow democratie so that they never get prosecuted, right ? See where this is going ?
    - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
      The US couldn't win a war in the middle east with trillions of dollars, thousands of soldiers dead, and tens of thousands substantially wounded. Hasn't won a war since WW2. Is everything going swimmingly? Certainly not. There are 340M Americans, ~20k-30k ICE folks, and ~1M soldiers on US soil. These odds don't keep me up at night. 77% of US 18-24 cohort don't qualify for military service without some form of waiver (due to obesity, drug use, or mental health issues). I admit, US propaganda is very good at projecting an image of strength. I strongly doubt it is prepared for a civil ground war, based on all available evidence. It cannot even keep other nation states out of critical systems. See fragile systems for what they are.
dragonwriter 9mo ago
Presidential pardons have no impact and their liability for state-law murder charges (though federal seizure of crime scenes and destruction of evidence might, in practice.)
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- skissane 9mo ago
  Yes, but In re Neagle (1890) is SCOTUS precedent granting federal agents immunity from state criminal prosecution for acts committed while carrying out their official duties (and the act at question in that case was homicide). Now, its precise boundaries are contested - in Idaho v. Horiuchi (2001), the 9th Circuit held that In re Neagle didn’t apply if the federal agent used unreasonable force - but that case was rendered moot when the state charges were dropped, and hence the issue never made it to SCOTUS. Considering the current SCOTUS majority’s prior form on related topics (see Trump v. United States), I think odds are high they’ll read In re Neagle narrowly, and invalidate any state criminal prosecution attempts.
  - dragonwriter 9mo ago
    In re Neagle (while, unfortunately, it does not state as clear of a rule as Horiuchi on the standard that should be applied) conducts an expansive facts-based analysis on the question of whether, in fact, the acts performed were done in in the performance of his lawful federal duties (if anything, the implicit standard seems less generous to the federal officer than Horiuchi’s explicit rule, which would allow Supremacy Clause immunity if the agent had an actual and objectively reasonable belief that he acted within his lawful duties, even if, in fact, he did not.) But, yeah, any state prosecutions (likely especially the first) is going to (1) get removed to federal court, and (2) go through a wringer of federal litigation, likely reaching the Supreme Court, over Supremacy Clause immunity before much substantive happens on anything else. OTOH, the federal duty at issue in in re Neagle was literally protecting the life of a Supreme Court justice riding circuit, as much as the present Court may have a pro-Trump bias, I wouldn't count on it being as strong of a bias as it had in Neagle.
b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
I'll eat your hat if any of these goons ever see in the inside of a holding cell
Bender 9mo ago
[flagged]
- bonsai_spool 9mo ago
  > cleared the Sig said "Muffled word Gun" The person in front said "I've got the gun, I've got the gun", and I can tell that quite clearly in the videos. > here antifa community organizers are escalating non stop in hopes that someone dies [...] in hopes they can radicalize people I think this rhetorical frame highlights how many people don't believe in protest. Expressing disdain for trampling of civil liberties is not 'escalation' any more than the curtailment of fourth amendment rights that inspire the protests. I am not attacking you (I believe we should all be able to express how we feel with respect to the government). I just want to highlight a reason why you may feel that this level of unrest is meant to "radicalize people".
  - Bender 9mo ago
    The person in front said "I've got the gun, I've got the gun", and I can tell that quite clearly in the videos. That means there is an even better version that what I saw and heard which means normies will figure out fairly quick this was not malicious intent. Perhaps malicious incompetency but certainly not an intentional execution. I just want to highlight a reason why you may feel that this level of unrest is meant to "radicalize people". I would accept that if these were just protesters, stood at the side of the road holding up signs but a number of them are far from it. They have formed military squads, dox agents and attack them at home and in their personal vehicles, coordinate their attacks between multiple groups of "vetted" agitators. They are tracking their personal vehicles and their family members. They are blocking traffic and forcing people out of their cars. At best this is an insurgency being coordinated from out-of-state agitators and at the behest of the state governor. They are egging people on to break numerous laws, obstruct federal agents, throw bricks at agents or anyone they think is an agent, use bull-horns at full volume in the ears of anyone supporting the agents. I could go on for hours regarding all the illegal shenanigans. So yeah these are people trying to radicalize others and trying to get people hurt or killed. This is primarily occurring in sanctuary cities where the government is actively encouraging their citizens to attack federal agents. That is not even close to anything that resembles protesting and is not anywhere near a protected right. I also blame President Trump for not invoking the insurrection act and curtailing this very early on.
DangitBobby 9mo ago
They're wearing masks. Have they been identified?

donkeybeer 9mo ago

That's straight up corrupt third world country stuff.

lateforwork 9mo ago
It is going to get a lot worse. Trump's eventual goal is to send the military to all Democrat-controlled cities. Back in September Trump gathered military leaders in a room and told them America is under "invasion from within". He said: "This is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war too. It's a war from within."
- jimt1234 9mo ago
  We went from the "War On Drugs" to the "War On Ourselves".
- kreetx 9mo ago
  You spend too much time on the internet.
  - DangitBobby 9mo ago
    I see you all over these comments. People were denying it would get as bad as it has already gotten.
    - kreetx 9mo ago
      I'm here indeed. How bad is it, objectively?
      - lateforwork 9mo ago
        Ask the people who are dying on the streets.
        kreetx 9mo ago

lateforwork 9mo ago

> unless we demand answers from Congress, and hold SCOTUS responsible for partisan abdication of their constitutional duties. You can demand answers from Congress, but until a significant portion of the GOP base demands answers, they are just going to ignore your demands. As of now 39% of Americans support the administration. Also, you can't hold SCOTUS responsible, only Congress can.

xeonmc 9mo ago
[flagged]
- epistasis 9mo ago
  Currently they are attempting to strip our second amendment rights. They murdered a man in the street, from hands up to shit in the back in under 20 seconds, merely for lawful possession and in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The President is bumbling around today mumbling "you can't bring a gun to a protest" when yes the 2nd amendment directly allows that. A lot of people that care a lot about the 2nd amendment saw the photo of Pretti's gun on the ICE rental car seat, and they saw a well-used, well-cared-for weapon that was clean and seen a lot time at the range. They saw that it can happen to somebody just like them.
  - pfannkuchen 9mo ago
    As often happens these days, I’m confused at the hysteria here. Police messed up and someone got killed. I feel like outrage is warranted if nothing is done about it, but after seeing the videos I’m fairly confident this won’t get swept under the rug. Will we retract our outrage when a conviction is delivered? Is there a reason we expect nothing to come of this?
    - defrost 9mo ago
      I'm an outsider, I can well understand the ever growing outrage. In a nutshell, to date, US ICE & DHS interactions have resulted in 10 people shot **, 3 people killed, and established a pattern of high level officials immediately blatently lying and contradicting video evidence. That pattern includes obvious attempts to avoid investigation, to excuse people involved, to not investigate the bigger picture of how interactions are staged such that civilian deaths are inevitable. It's good to see the citizens of the US dig in and demand that federal forces and federal heads of agencies be held accountable for clearly screwed up deployments and behaviours. ** My apologies, I just saw a Wash Post headliine that indicates it is now 16 shootings that are being actively swept under a rug.

touwer 9mo ago

[flagged]

aa_is_op 9mo ago
[flagged]
- jfengel 9mo ago
  80 million Americans thought it.
  - aa_is_op 9mo ago
    imagine reporting comments on HN because you're butthurt your political idol raped children

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

trinsic2 9mo ago

congress isn't going to do anything. All it would take is about 20 republican sentors to bring this shit to a halt. They are not doing anything, they all have blood on their hands. At this point I think the only thing that will work is organizing a month where the nation stops spending money and going to work.