Please note that my objective in this discussion is to try and reach some sort of consensus, and that text communication can easily be misconstrued even when bo

Please note that my objective in this discussion is to try and reach some sort of consensus, and that text communication can easily be misconstrued even when both parties know each other and are "on the same side". The situation with ICE is in a sense uncharted territory (even with traditional abuses by police there's ostensibly some accountability, but ICE has been declared by the administration to have carte blanch in their operations -- explicitly told that they can act with impunity). From the goog ai: The First Amendment protects the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly, allowing public protest in traditional forums like streets, sidewalks, and parks. While peaceful protest is protected, the government can impose content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions, such as permits for large, disruptive, or traffic-obstructing events. > If I assault someone with a gun, I should be prepared that they might use that gun, especially when they can't think straight because I'm yelling in their faces, blowing whistles at them, kicking the lights off their cars, etc. It should also be noted that Pretti was absolutely within his rights and had permits to carry and never brandished it. I'm not a gun nut and think that bringing a gun to a protest is not a good idea, but it's a non issue on the justification of his murder. ICE's presence and actions are not in good faith -- they are not there to catch "murderers, rapists, and other bad guys". They are hunting for any possible bounty regardless of legality and have detained US citizens. > If I choose to be a part of a group that's doing those things, I should be prepared to be treated as a member of that group. It's been shown that "being a part of that group" has been loosely applied where people in the vicinity who are not protesters are also being attacked by ICE. Note that ICE was enforcing the law and removing "bad guys" in the previous administrations without going to the extremes they are now. And most importantly, it's clear that the Trump administration wants some sort of violence to occur so that it can "justify" notching up enforcemnt even further -- likely martial law. If you evaluate whats happening as if the government is acting legally and in good faith you are either misinformed or a supporter of the administration and have no loyalty to the Constitution.