6 ms·

Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces. They should augment deployed enforcement with those who have such exper

by chasil 9mo ago

Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces. They should augment deployed enforcement with those who have such expertise.

dylan604 9mo ago
Who? They are complaining that sanctuary cities' local police are not cooperating. Who else are you suggesting has the necessary expertise?
- SR2Z 9mo ago
  Perhaps if they cannot carry out their goals without hurting people, the answer is "take a step back" and not "hurt people."
  - tstrimple 9mo ago
    This is beyond naive at this point. The objective is to hurt people. Republican voters have repeatedly explicitly asked for it. There's a reason they flocked to Trump. Cruelty is the point. It's astounding the number of people still so credulous wrt what is happening in this country. You have "Christian" preachers talking about empathy being a sin for fucks sake. Like how can people maintain this sort of ignorance into 2026? And I don't mean this towards you necessarily. I get some people are still entertaining folks who will never participate in a conversation in good faith because it might influence ignorant observers who stumble across the conversation. But does that ever actually play out? How much time is wasted on people of obvious bad faith? How much time has been wasted on the Shapiros, the Kirks, the Tuckers of the world? The random HN commenter who drops obvious bullshit before disappearing to never be heard from again? You cannot out earnest people flooding the zone with bullshit.
- deepsun 9mo ago
  Well, if local police is not cooperating then it's as designed by the constitution (states have the authority to police), to not give federal government powers to make the country a police state. Feature, not a bug. Federals should discuss and persuade the state and their police.
  - dylan604 9mo ago
    Nobody said the police are not policing. They have their own jobs and not there to do the bidding of the federal government. You're saying this like the local authorities are meant to drop what they are doing at the drop of dime because the feds have a request. These are not dangerous criminals that require a timely response before causing more harm. These are people trying to live their lives and it will not harm the rest of the citizens by doing immigration enforcement at a slower pace.
    - pseudalopex 9mo ago
      Did you not notice chasil and deepsun were different accounts?
      - dylan604 9mo ago
        What does that have to do with my response to the comment I replied?
        pseudalopex 9mo ago
        Your reply to deepsun made no sense as reply to deepsun. You said You're saying this like the local authorities are meant to drop what they are doing at the drop of dime because the feds have a request. But deepsun said the opposite almost.
- defrost 9mo ago
  MN police are delivering criminals with no citizenship status to ICE / DHS though. They have not been supporting ICE on warrentless invasions, fishing expeditions, assaulting local citizens.
  - dylan604 9mo ago
    Surely, you're not saying that the feds are saying things that are counter to what's actually happening on the ground, are you? /s At this point, you just have to assume the truth is exactly the opposite of what the feds are saying. How do you know a fed is lying...their mouth is moving.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- _DeadFred_ 9mo ago
  Minnesota had to waste taxpayer dollars and setup a website to disprove this BS. https://mn.gov/doc/about/news/combatting-dhs-misinformation/ https://mn.gov/doc/about/news/combatting-dhs-misinformation/
arxari 9mo ago
That's the what the state police is for... the one that Minnesota refused to deploy to help ICE when the Good and Pretti situations happened.
- etchalon 9mo ago
  The state police are not "for" non-violent enforcement.
  - arxari 9mo ago
    I mean yeah, they're not "for" it but you can see how deploying the PD would be helpful as they're more inclined to be non-violent and also I'd reckon they have far more experience than ICE considering the mass requirements which results in many many ICE officers being pretty much just militarized citizens with lacking experience put into stressful situations.
    - redman25 9mo ago
      Why are they more inclined to be non-violent?
    - computerthings 9mo ago
      [dead]
    - etchalon 9mo ago
      Maybe the federal government shouldn't be sending "pretty much just militarized citizens with lacking experience" into "stressful situations." Kooky idea, I know.
      - direwolf20 9mo ago
        Maybe the state government should send the state police to arrest the murderers. Kooky idea, I know.
        deleted 9mo ago
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
pstuart 9mo ago
It's a feature, not a bug
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
throw0101c 9mo ago
> Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces. Why is crowd control even needed? ICE existed for many, many years before now, and them doing their job never caused crowds previously (under both R and D administrations), so what (rhetorically) changed?
- estearum 9mo ago
  Oh this is easy: a gigantic funding increase is being used to massively expand workforce with minimal training, then that workforce is being deployed with an ambiguous mission and apparent arrest quotas, while also being told they’re immune from any criminal liability for their actions (they’re not), including internal memos telling them they’re allowed to enter private homes without judicial warrants (they’re not), and a SCOTUS decision that is being represented to mean that racial profiling is legal now (it's not) Deploying literal hordes of poorly trained, well-armed men onto American streets with explicit guidance that runs directly contrary to the US Constitution's plain text can, will, and SHOULD attract crowds in opposition. Hope that helps!
  - steveBK123 9mo ago
    It's completely intentional choice by the Miller/Noem wing of the admin to create media drama and "own the libs", overriding the Homan wing which was pushing for easy wins rounding up known criminal offenders in custody / in red states / etc.
- toast0 9mo ago
  Didn't ICE and predecessor organizations do workplace raids? Maybe that's not as big of a crowd, but it's still a crowd. I think they would tend to do workplace raids in concert with the FBI.
- solid_fuel 9mo ago
  There's a big difference between seeing an immigration raid where you know whoever gets picked up is going to have access to a lawyer, be subject to proper due process, and at worst be sent back to their home country. We knew - or at least believed - that if they detained someone who was a citizen, that person would be released. Now, when we see ICE grabbing someone, we know that person probably won't have access to legal representation even if they are here legally, even if they're a citizen. We know they might be sent to a concentration camp in a foreign country they aren't from, and we know they might even get murdered in the street. It's a very different dynamic.

by chasil 9mo ago

Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces. They should augment deployed enforcement with those who have such expertise.

dylan604 9mo ago

Who? They are complaining that sanctuary cities' local police are not cooperating. Who else are you suggesting has the necessary expertise?

SR2Z 9mo ago
Perhaps if they cannot carry out their goals without hurting people, the answer is "take a step back" and not "hurt people."
- tstrimple 9mo ago
  This is beyond naive at this point. The objective is to hurt people. Republican voters have repeatedly explicitly asked for it. There's a reason they flocked to Trump. Cruelty is the point. It's astounding the number of people still so credulous wrt what is happening in this country. You have "Christian" preachers talking about empathy being a sin for fucks sake. Like how can people maintain this sort of ignorance into 2026? And I don't mean this towards you necessarily. I get some people are still entertaining folks who will never participate in a conversation in good faith because it might influence ignorant observers who stumble across the conversation. But does that ever actually play out? How much time is wasted on people of obvious bad faith? How much time has been wasted on the Shapiros, the Kirks, the Tuckers of the world? The random HN commenter who drops obvious bullshit before disappearing to never be heard from again? You cannot out earnest people flooding the zone with bullshit.
deepsun 9mo ago
Well, if local police is not cooperating then it's as designed by the constitution (states have the authority to police), to not give federal government powers to make the country a police state. Feature, not a bug. Federals should discuss and persuade the state and their police.
- dylan604 9mo ago
  Nobody said the police are not policing. They have their own jobs and not there to do the bidding of the federal government. You're saying this like the local authorities are meant to drop what they are doing at the drop of dime because the feds have a request. These are not dangerous criminals that require a timely response before causing more harm. These are people trying to live their lives and it will not harm the rest of the citizens by doing immigration enforcement at a slower pace.
  - pseudalopex 9mo ago
    Did you not notice chasil and deepsun were different accounts?
    - dylan604 9mo ago
      What does that have to do with my response to the comment I replied?
      - pseudalopex 9mo ago
        Your reply to deepsun made no sense as reply to deepsun. You said You're saying this like the local authorities are meant to drop what they are doing at the drop of dime because the feds have a request. But deepsun said the opposite almost.
defrost 9mo ago
MN police are delivering criminals with no citizenship status to ICE / DHS though. They have not been supporting ICE on warrentless invasions, fishing expeditions, assaulting local citizens.
- dylan604 9mo ago
  Surely, you're not saying that the feds are saying things that are counter to what's actually happening on the ground, are you? /s At this point, you just have to assume the truth is exactly the opposite of what the feds are saying. How do you know a fed is lying...their mouth is moving.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
_DeadFred_ 9mo ago
Minnesota had to waste taxpayer dollars and setup a website to disprove this BS. https://mn.gov/doc/about/news/combatting-dhs-misinformation/ https://mn.gov/doc/about/news/combatting-dhs-misinformation/

arxari 9mo ago

That's the what the state police is for... the one that Minnesota refused to deploy to help ICE when the Good and Pretti situations happened.

etchalon 9mo ago
The state police are not "for" non-violent enforcement.
- arxari 9mo ago
  I mean yeah, they're not "for" it but you can see how deploying the PD would be helpful as they're more inclined to be non-violent and also I'd reckon they have far more experience than ICE considering the mass requirements which results in many many ICE officers being pretty much just militarized citizens with lacking experience put into stressful situations.
  - redman25 9mo ago
    Why are they more inclined to be non-violent?
  - computerthings 9mo ago
    [dead]
  - etchalon 9mo ago
    Maybe the federal government shouldn't be sending "pretty much just militarized citizens with lacking experience" into "stressful situations." Kooky idea, I know.
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      Maybe the state government should send the state police to arrest the murderers. Kooky idea, I know.
      - deleted 9mo ago

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

pstuart 9mo ago

It's a feature, not a bug

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

throw0101c 9mo ago

> Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces. Why is crowd control even needed? ICE existed for many, many years before now, and them doing their job never caused crowds previously (under both R and D administrations), so what (rhetorically) changed?

estearum 9mo ago
Oh this is easy: a gigantic funding increase is being used to massively expand workforce with minimal training, then that workforce is being deployed with an ambiguous mission and apparent arrest quotas, while also being told they’re immune from any criminal liability for their actions (they’re not), including internal memos telling them they’re allowed to enter private homes without judicial warrants (they’re not), and a SCOTUS decision that is being represented to mean that racial profiling is legal now (it's not) Deploying literal hordes of poorly trained, well-armed men onto American streets with explicit guidance that runs directly contrary to the US Constitution's plain text can, will, and SHOULD attract crowds in opposition. Hope that helps!
- steveBK123 9mo ago
  It's completely intentional choice by the Miller/Noem wing of the admin to create media drama and "own the libs", overriding the Homan wing which was pushing for easy wins rounding up known criminal offenders in custody / in red states / etc.
toast0 9mo ago
Didn't ICE and predecessor organizations do workplace raids? Maybe that's not as big of a crowd, but it's still a crowd. I think they would tend to do workplace raids in concert with the FBI.
solid_fuel 9mo ago
There's a big difference between seeing an immigration raid where you know whoever gets picked up is going to have access to a lawyer, be subject to proper due process, and at worst be sent back to their home country. We knew - or at least believed - that if they detained someone who was a citizen, that person would be released. Now, when we see ICE grabbing someone, we know that person probably won't have access to legal representation even if they are here legally, even if they're a citizen. We know they might be sent to a concentration camp in a foreign country they aren't from, and we know they might even get murdered in the street. It's a very different dynamic.