3 ms·
> any opposition is a crime of impeding and obstruction No; conspiracy to impede and obstruct is a crime. If you are about to do something I don't want you to
by zahlman 9mo ago
> any opposition is a crime of impeding and obstruction
No; conspiracy to impede and obstruct is a crime.
If you are about to do something I don't want you to do, but which is lawful for you to do, 1A covers me saying "hey, don't do that". It does not cover me physically positioning myself in a way that prevents you from doing it. And if you happen to be an LEO and the thing you're about to do is a law enforcement action, it would be unlawful for me to adopt such positioning. It is unlawful even if I only significantly impede you.
And ICE are federal LEO.
- TheOtherHobbes 9mo agoConspiracy to impede and obstruct criminal behaviour is not a crime, it's legitimate self-defence. The fact that federal agents are breaking the law doesn't change that. At all. In spite of what you've been told federal LEO are bound by the law. Executing random bystanders on a whim, operating without visible ID, failing to allow congressional oversight of facilities, failing to give those captured access to a lawyer - among many, many others - all put this operation far outside of any reasonable claim to proportionality or legality.
- zahlman 9mo ago[flagged]
- ddtaylor 9mo ago[flagged]
- oceanplexian 9mo agoIf you believe that, then the right process is for the legal system to deal with it. If you feel aggrieved by the legal system you should vote to change it. Nowhere in the social contract is it even remotely acceptable to act as a vigilante and respond with violence.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9mo ago> Nowhere in the social contract is it even remotely acceptable to act as a vigilante and respond with violence. That's not a truism, as evidenced by the word "revolution". If a law is unjust, one is perfectly justified to openly flaunt it and even be proud while doing so.
- ddtaylor 9mo agoWould you say the same thing about slavery?
- TheCoelacanth 9mo agoFollowing the social contract in the face of gross violation of the social contract is a foolish and immoral enablement of even larger violations. When the other party to a contract violates the contract, you don't keep following your side of the contract. That is literally not how contracts work.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9mo ago> The behaviour being impeded and obstructed is not criminal. It is, in fact, law enforcement. If the behavior appears criminal at a glance, it is reasonable to step in; law enforcement should be aware of this and exhibit accordingly professional behavior such that it does not appear to be so criminally violent. The simple fact they're law enforcement is moot to whether said behavior is criminal, seeing as law enforcement can still be charge with crimes.
- direwolf20 9mo agoOne of the victims was blocking half the low traffic road and intending for people to pass freely on the other half. The other was filming from a distance.
- nailer 9mo ago[flagged]
- zahlman 9mo ago> blocking half the low traffic road and intending for people to pass freely on the other half. Which is obstructive, especially given that there was parking on both sides and everyone is in an SUV. > The other was filming from a distance. No, he is very clearly seen on video in the middle of the road directing traffic, and then physically interposing himself between an officer and another person who the officer may have intended to place under arrest, and then physically resisting arrest. At no point in the altercation did officers close the "distance"; he was the one who moved in.
- direwolf20 9mo agoDoes parking on a road justify a death penalty without trial?
- zahlman 9mo agoThat is not the argument being made, and that framing is intellectually dishonest.
- quickthrowman 9mo agoPortland Ave at 32nd St E is a one-way two-lane road with a bike/bus lane. It was formerly a three-lane one-way road.