OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1hr ago
I think the fear is that, if these witnesses do not show up, then the criminal they would have been testifying against will walk free, and potentially an American Citizen will be denied justice.
The problem is, we have let the problem go unaddressed for so long, no matter what we do there will be sympathetic people who have less than optimal outcomes. In aggregate I believe enforcing immigration law is the best action to take. There will be cases on the margin where someone gets screwed, but largely because of how big the problem got and how little we did to address it for decades, until it ballooned up past the point we could not ignore during Biden.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2hr ago
The assumption that Trump would have arrested everyone harassing ICE off-duty is based on your assumptions of Trump's character and the Federal Government's capabilities. Perhaps your assumptions are incorrect here.
There are many people harassing off-duty ICE (does it count when they're at a hotel or is that on-duty? Many hotels have had to close in Minneapolis due to the violence.) There are many people harassing people presumed to be off-duty ICE. The evidence is everywhere. Very few have been arrested, because arrests would depend a lot on local cooperation, which has not been forthcoming.
Videos/evidence of these things:
https://x.com/TRHLofficial/status/2016846295923642848?s=20
https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2013178366988345447?s=20
https://x.com/chiIIum/status/2012706153491235169?s=20
https://x.com/Osint613/status/2012780234861326413?s=20
https://x.com/AlphaNews/status/2012610307663802819?s=20
https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2011285612402512085?s=20
https://x.com/WellsJorda89710/status/2012413904199061930?s=20
https://x.com/CBPCommissioner/status/2015847860537893029?s=20
https://x.com/camhigby/status/2017764065154895968?s=20
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
15hr ago
Police do not only arrest people who have already been found guilty in a court of law. There would be no criminal justice system if that were the case.
Here is a video of local police responding to a car crash. They detain a witness for the sole reason that he refused to leave his name and contact information with police, then keep him detained under suspicion until they get a clear picture of the accident.
ICE isn't arresting people for "being 'likely' to commit a crime." They are arresting people for being likely *to have already committed a crime." We know millions of people have committed the misdimeanor of coming into the country unlawfully. The crime has been committed, they are investigating and making a suspect list.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1d ago
There is also "OR with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainee of any person" in the law.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1d ago
"This person is too stupid to realize their actions could cause grievous bodily harm" seems like a weird reason to excuse someone from wrong doing and let them wander around free. It only seems just if they are otherwise institutionalized.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2d ago
I was going off of: https://tryingtruly.substack.com/p/how-generous-tit-for-tat-wins-at-life
Rule 1 - Be nice (technically meaning always co-operate on the first round).
Rule 2 - From then on just copy what the other player did in the previous round (meaning an eye for an eye and a hug for a hug).
Rule 3 - After you retaliate, always try to co-operate again in the next round.
This is for turn-based rounds. Simultaneous rounds “win-stay, lose-shift" wins. Does our electoral system more closely match turn-based or simultaneous?
Democratic leadership is not doing too well in the truth department either. Walsh said ICE is not law enforcement. for instance.
But detaining someone on the suspicion of them being an illegal immigrant seems to be a-ok only if the arestee is not a citizen.
No, looks like you fell for misinformation as well. Unless by a-ok you mean some value judgement outside the law. Congress explicitly gave ICE the power (without warrant) "to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;" (8 USC 1357) (emphasis mine)
We have a very recent Supreme Court case (Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo) that helps us understand both what ICE's operating parameters are and that they are within the bounds of law. Someone can be detained by ICE on reasonable suspicion that they are violating immigration law or is involved with a violation of U.S. immigration law by another person. If there is reasonable suspicion, ICE is allowed to stop someone, ask them for ID, if they do not have ID on their person then ask for identifying details like name and address, and run them through a database to try to narrow down their immigration status.
For an example of reasonable suspicion, there was an incident where someone (let's call him Bob) saw another person with an ignored final removal order being arrested by ICE. Bob fled in another direction. Fleeing from officers creates reasonable suspicion! Perhaps that is what Bob intended. The ICE officers left the person they were there for and chased after him. He was arrested, refused to answer questions, and was taken into custody so that his identity could be determined. Bob is a US citizen, but taking him into custody seems reasonable and A-ok to me!
ICE’s policy is that no one can be lawfully taken into custody, or even questioned, on the basis of skin color. Ethnicity is never on it's own a sufficient basis for probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. However, several factors when taken together can create reasonable suspicion:
-
the types of job they worked (people unlawfully present disproportionately work in certain kinds of jobs)
-
presence at particular locations (people unlawfully present are disproportionately found at certain places, like car washes and construction sites)
-
language and accent (people unlawfully present disproportionately speak languages other than English, or speak English with a heavy accent)
-
apparent race or ethnicity.
The Supreme Court agreed with ICE on this assessment that in combination (though not in isolation) these factors can create reasonable basis for a Terry Stop.
Refusing to cooperate with a Terry Stop, refusing to roll down your window, show ID, get out of the vehicle when asked, etc, are all things that will get you arrested, whether it is ICE or your local beat cop who's trying to talk with you.
It's normal to see the underclass act badly when stopped by the police. What's been weird is seeing middle-aged PMC respond to reasonable police requests like someone caught driving on a weed binge. The only reason they are acting like that is because they've been told it's right and just to act like that.
Edit: For example, here is a video of local police responding to a car crash. They detain a witness for the sole reason that he refused to leave his name and contact information with police. This is actually really normal! Refusing to identify yourself to law enforcement, even in absence of suspicion of committing a crime, will get you detained.
The best solution to an iterative prisoners dilemma was to alternate Tit-for-tat with cooperation, regardless of what the opponents strategy is. MN ICE is perhaps a suitable tat for Biden's tit of purposefully bringing in millions of immigrants. But it has to have a limit and then Conservatives need to try cooperation.
Edit: Blue hairs grew up and are now acting like insurrection Karens with law enforcement. Sorry if it's not the right descriptor, but I think you understood what I meant anyways.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3d ago
all these things have a savor of savage and hasty simplification, which may, in many individuals, correspond to an honest indignation or even idealism, but which, when taken altogether, give an uncomfortable impression of wild men who have merely grown weary of the complexity that we call civilization."
Honestly, this resonated with me in the sense that a lot of left-leaning people I've talked with are OK with:
- Rioting and disturbing the peace
- Lying about the law to make people believe that ICE is breaking it (specifically that ICE needs to show random people warrants, ICE cannot arrest a US Citizen, ICE cannot detain an immigrant while their immigration case is being processed.)
- Saying that if the law might be popular but only because people do not understand it and also Democracy can be morally wrong sometimes and so those who know better need to act outside the law.
- If the law is bad then the option is not to change it because changing it will take too long and people are being Abducted Now!
- Saying anarchism is looking appealing.
Meanwhile, someone on the left could make their own list of what right-leaning people are doing:
- Enforcing the law in a reckless manner
- Lying about the law to make themselves look better (in the case of Pretti and bringing a gun to a protest.)
- Trying to remove Birthright citizenship out of fear that the electorate will not prefer their policies if Birthright citizenship continues.
- Saying we're in a cold Civil War.
I think our nation is broken and I'm sad about it. I do not know how to restore a sense of common brotherhood between the blue haired Karen and the MAGA HVAC repair guy. If we're lucky we'll get attacked from the outside and band together against a common threat. If we're unlucky I think we'll just struggle against each other until one group loses all hope of pretense to power.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3d ago
But in this scenario there are homeowners who are losers here - people with houses that are in the bottom 10% of price due to location and size. Their home "values" increased over the last decade, but they are unable to leverage that money towards liquid cash as easily.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
6d ago
I guess everyone in Minnesota who is in a category the State will refuse to protect should just leave Minnesota.
I don't know what other remedies our system has.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
Disrupting a church service is not exactly terrorism, since there was no actual violence used.
I think the FBI affidavit is important to review before going into the discussion.
First, the "protestors" were blocking people in, keeping them from leaving or from getting to their children who had been taking to another area for childcare.
Victim 4 noted after the protest began, approximately fifty members of the congregation were stuck towards the front of the church. Victim 4 informed agents the aisles are already narrow to begin with, and the agitators who occupied the center of the sanctuary made it nearly impossible for parishioners to get out and leave.
Victim 4 informed agents that members of their parish attempted to retrieve their children from the childcare area located downstairs, but the agitators were blocking the stairs, and the parents were unable to get to their children. Victim 4 recalled one agitator was threatening, aggressive, and intimidating towards parishioners. Additionally, this agitator was screaming and getting in people's faces, to include women and young children. This agitator continued to scream in the faces of young children while they were crying.
Just, you know, some light "preventing parents from caring for their small children." Really, could happen to any honest protestor.
One of the church goers fled out a side door, tripped, and broke her arm. Is that the fault of the protestors? Kinda, if they hadn't scared her she wouldn't have ran so quickly.
Victim 6 was scared the agitators were not going to let people leave and that they were going to harm victim 1's family for harboring victim 1. Victim 6 later stated protesters followed and surrounded them in their car and would not let them leave.
Again with the not letting people leave thing. What elements need to be present for this to be kidnapping? Or endangering children?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
Before all the new information.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
Personally speaking, I'd love to see the eight paragraph long essay on my brother's type. :D
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
And it might not have been the Sig. I remember in the Rittenhouse case, it turns out that he didn't even fire the first shot. Someone else walking by on a nearby sidewalk fired a gun right when Rittenhouse was running away from the first guy who was trying to kill him. It's not impossible something else like that happened here. With Rittenhouse, we were lucky so much was caught on video. In this case, with the scene so contaminated, we might never know.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
More than that, there were screenshots going around with a citation to a law, but it actually was for Illinois, not Minnesota.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
At the time of the solo beginning shot (which itself is weird, they seem to shoot in threes), I cannot for the life of me see who's shooting. The guy who got his gun out isn't really angled in a good way to shoot at Pretti. The Uncommanded discharge theory just seems to fill in a lot of gaps.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
I thought he looked back, towards Pretti, but also towards where the proposed shot would have gone. Would you be more likely to look at the gun or the direction it shot? I think a case could be made for either.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
Well, damn. I fell prey to misinformation. 11 states forbid it, but not Minnesota.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
In the next line I said the opposite of "failure to control this reflex should be an instant kill shot." But there are plenty of people who are arrested for resisting arrest in basically this way, even if they weren't being charged with any other crime besides resisting arrest. I don't really agree with this, but it happens and people should be aware of what is expected of them if they're in that situation.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
I saw a video where it visibly jumped in the guy's hand, but who knows if it was doctored. I think the rest of the description still works, just hearing someone say, "GUN!" in the loud chaotic environment could be enough to make some jumpy exhausted people shoot, even if the true statement was, "I grabbed his gun!"
After the shooting they were all looking around asking, "Where is the gun! Where is the gun!" so they clearly thought the gun was in play at the time.
My brother posted some weird screed on Facebook about how handsome Pretti was compared to the ICE agent who shot him, how healthy Pretti looked, how educated Pretti was compared to the typical ICE agent. Basically implying it was dysgenic to shoot Pretti, except I think eugenics is still considered a no-no. I seriously tried to puzzle out if my brother was in the closet despite having a string of serious girlfriends.
I think it was bad to shoot Pretti. I also think Pretti did some stupid things and earned a stupid prize, and that was apparent even before this video came out.
For the, "Pretti is not a hero" argument:
He went to a protest while armed, which is apparently illegal in Minnesota. He wasn't wearing a comfortable weapon that would be typically worn in for a conceal carry. It was a several thousand dollar handgun that had several accessories making it bulky and likely uncomfortable to wear for extended periods of time. It's highly unlikely he just forgot that the gun was on him at the time.
If someone is conceal carrying and gets any kind of attention from a law enforcement officer, that person needs to keep their hands visible, clearly state, "I have a conceal carry permit, gun is on my (left/right)," and do exactly what the police officers say. Pretti had a right to self defense. So do LEOs. And they will exercise their right to self defense very quickly and broadly if they feel threatened.
Pretti did not act like someone should when conceal carrying in the presence of LEOs. He joined in a fracas. He shoved someone, then wiggled around while being held down by CBP. Now, the wiggling around is basically a human reflex, but it is one that must be suppressed if you find yourself in the position of being arrested.
On the flip side, no one should be shot for exhibiting a normal human reflex. Typically that does not happen in most arrests. My understanding of the situation, from the perspective of the CBP, is:
They were there to arrest a bad guy. A bunch of screaming people started getting in their way, blowing whistles in their faces. Again. They are trying to arrest their third bad guy of the day, after working 10 days in a row. Somehow, having to arrest child rapists isn't the worst part of their jobs. They haven't slept well for over a week, because these screaming whistle people are also banging pots and pans together all night outside every hotel they've tried to retreat to.
One of the screaming whistle women gets too close, pings some sort of danger radar, one of the CBP agents pepper spray her. Guess it's arrest time. Try to arrest her, a screaming whistle man comes and tries to push you off her. He just signed up to get arrested for assaulting an officer. He tries to fight you off, it takes four of you to try to hold him down.
One of your buddies sees a holstered gun. He reaches in, grabs it and says, "I've got his gun."
Unfortunately, you are still surrounded by the damned whistle people. You don't hear all that sentence. You heard the word "gun" because your ears are highly invested in hearing the word "gun." But the rest of it is drowned out by the drone of invectives being thrown your way.
The detainee's gun goes off in the agents hands. One of the infamous Uncommanded Discharges from a Sig. The bullet hits the ground next to an agent's foot. This created an imminent sense they were in deadly danger. There was a gun, they were being shot at. They shot the detainee.
Now, the dumb part is they shot the detainee while he was being detained by four of their own people. They were holding his hands. He wasn't facing them. He could not have possibly been the source of the shot. And shooting him risked the lives of the people trying to restrain him. This was a really bad shoot.
Legally, I don't know if they should be charged with murder, manslaughter, or just placed on leave and given a desk job. I think Pretti's family has standing to sue for a good amount of money. It was a bad shoot. And Pretty played stupid games and won a fatal prize.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8d ago
I am a Centrist. Which is kind of surprising to me because everywhere but here makes me feel like the I'm some weird far right fascist.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8d ago
No, it is not readily answered by the linked article. What did the guy do before the guards attacked him?
In the US, I could imagine a similar one-sided story getting told. Left out would be the detail of what happened immediately before: the prisoner attacking another prisoner with a shank, an attempted rape, or just giving the guard a funny look. Not going to say it's always a justified reason. But things happen from causes. What happened before is always an important dimension.
I am also very struck that the Biden administration held him for six months while investigating his asylum claims. The Biden administration CBP, "just looked at [him] and told [him he] was a danger to society." The reporter takes at face value that he's never had a traffic ticket and this means he never did wrong in his life. But again, things tend to have causes. It seems unlikely to me that these awful things just keep being inflicted by several different authorities to a totally innocent person.
Tell us honestly, if you were out shopping for groceries, for instance, and a police officer stopped you and said something like, "We are looking for a group of car jackers, some of whom match your description. Give me your license so I can make sure you're not one of them."
Would you freak out, try to ignore the police, tell them they have no right to do this? Complain about racial profiling because someone who appears like you will also likely share your race, so race is likely one of the criteria they used to single you out?
Or would you maybe get a little tense, a little nervous that there will be a paperwork mistake, but give them your license, get cleared, and then move on with your day?
If this happened once a year, do you think people would be sympathetic if you complained or would it just seem like a funny story?
If it happened every day, I would see where there is room for complaint.
I have yet to see a story like, "I get stopped every day for my ID." I don't think I've seen someone complain about it happening to them more than twice.
I think the real complaint is, "Some of these people have removal orders they've been ignoring and are going to show up on the database as such when asked for ID."
With a side helping of, "Leftists have terrified minorities into thinking that ICE is going to lock everyone up on the basis of skin color, they're not even checking if you are a citizen or have an unexpired visa. This makes what should be a routine, quick, painless check into something horrifically scary. We will ignore that it's our fearmongering that made it so."
More options
Context Copy link