The core belief of the Trump administration is that there are two groups: an in-group which the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group which the law binds but does not protect. --Someone far more insightful than me

Because the people doing the investigating are on the side of the people who committed the crimes. And the people who voted for them seem predisposed to vote for them again, even if this gets swept under the rug.

News cycles go fast. Outrage is quickly forgotten. Now more than ever, as there are new outrages coming on the heels of the last.

As often happens these days, I’m confused at the hysteria here.

No you're not. You're choosing words like 'hysteria' to delegitimize others' opinions while striking a posture of disinterested neutrality.

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.

A lot of people would disagree with your use of the word “police.”

They wear masks, don’t get warrants before entering houses, regularly arrest American citizens, and are operating far from anything a reasonable person would call an immigration or customs checkpoint.

Also, they’ve been ordered in public (by Trump) and private (by superiors) to violate the law, and have been promised “absolute immunity” for their crimes (by Trump).

One other thing: Trump and his administration have made it clear (in writing) that ICE’s mission in Minnesota is to terrorize the public until Governor Walz makes a bunch of policy changes that the courts have declined to force. So, there’s no reasonable argument to be made that they’re acting as law enforcement.

> Will we retract our outrage when a conviction is delivered? Is there a reason we expect nothing to come of this?

I doubt the Trump DOJ will want to prosecute this. Now, if Democrats win in 2028, maybe the Newsom (or whoever) DOJ will-but Trump might just give everyone involved a pardon on the way out the door. And I doubt a state prosecution would survive the current SCOTUS majority.

So yes, there are decent reasons to suspect “nothing to come of this” in the purely legal domain. Obviously it is making an impact in the political domain.

> Police messed up and someone got killed.

ICE, a federal agency and not a state or municipal police force, had a man face down and unarmed. There were what, half a dozen of them? He was completely subdued. They then shot him in the back.

This was not a “mistake.” This was murder.

There is no investigation. They haven't even released the officers' names.

Is your ignorance intentional? The FBI raided the ICE agents home to remove incriminating paraphernalia and blocked normal investigative processes. Heads of various agencies staffed by Trump loyalists called the victim a domestic terrorist while a video showed him being shit kicked and not meaningfully resisting before being executed by an agent who I would be doing a service to by calling undisciplined.

The entire fact that ICE is in Minnesota instead of a border state with heavier illegal immigration on patrols performing illegal 4th-amendment violating door to door raids is already a complete abomination in the face of American’s rights and their constitution.

And you disapprove of outrage over an innocent man being extrajudicially executed in the face of all of this?

Let me know how the boot tasted so at least I can learn something from this

I think that is what he is doing, I think it's an accurate expression of his thinking.

I was informing the community what the word means after putting in the effort to look it up.

If you are not curious, if you can't handle differences of opinion, you don't belong here.

I just realised another angle: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 enables state prosecutions of federal agents to be removed to federal court. Now, if Trump pardons the agent, does the federal pardon preclude that trial in federal court? To my knowledge, there is no direct case law on this question; there is an arguable case that the answer is “no”, but ultimately the answer is whatever SCOTUS wants it to be.

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.

They don't need to overthrow democracy, they just need to use jurisdiction removal to have the state charges placed in federal court, and then appeal it up to SCOTUS who will overturn the decision.

Thanks for your response, I think we disagree on a few things but I appreciate your arguments.

My main question is how you might frame the protests (comprising legal and potentially illegal behaviors) in the context of how the US was founded, or in the French revolutions. Were we in the 1750s, would your assessment about how to go about protesting be the same?

Here, I'm not making arguments about what is or is not similar, just trying to understand how you view historical political upheaval from the perspective of the people who lived in those times.

edit: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/27/congress/pr...

Apparently the agents yelled 'he's got a gun'