| |
| ▲ | protocolture 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. To observe them, and prevent them from committing crimes. Which if it isn't legal, is moral as all get out. "Jobs" Nurmberg lol. Not an argument. | |
| ▲ | istjohn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | These groups exist to observe and document the actions of federal agents and share that information with their communities. That is constitutionally protected activity. | | |
| ▲ | Empact 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Their stated purpose and their actual function can be different, and speech that would otherwise be free can be illegal if involved in incitement, bribery, collusion, etc. If I’m having a conversation with my friend, it’s free speech. If we’re plotting the overthrow of the government, it’s insurrection. |
| |
| ▲ | jakelazaroff 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job. If that's the case, then why has no one been prosecuted on those grounds? | | |
| ▲ | zahlman 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I would assume that, had Renee Good not been shot, and also not escaped the scene, she would have been. I would imagine that many of the other US citizens supposedly arrested "simply for exercising free speech rights" will be in due course, too. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | She was fully within her legal rights, as has been pointed out many times by US civil rights lawyers including those that have successfully defended MAGA people deplatformed during the past administration. Your "assumption" is simply incorrect. | | |
| ▲ | zahlman 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > She was fully within her legal rights To park her SUV perpendicular to the road and refuse to move when there was a federal law enforcement activity underway in the area and federal LEO required her to move? Do you consider that freedom of speech protects this inherently? Could a counter-protester park his car perpendicular to the street in front of protesters trying to get to a rally, and claim that this is similarly protected? Let's stipulate that there's still a free lane that they can merge into. > as has been pointed out many times by US civil rights lawyers Cite one. > including those that have successfully defended MAGA people deplatformed during the past administration. If they were deplatformed, they would be the plaintiffs in any ensuing civil action, not defendants. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | trhway 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Keep in mind that ICE is executing a law What i saw on video is ICE executing 2 American citizens. The existing law already prohibits that, so what changes you're talking about? | | |
| ▲ | db48x 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I am talking about 8 USC chapter 12 subsection II (<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12>). This is the law that defines how immigration works in the US, and how illegal aliens are removed. ICE is the Federal agency assigned to the task of locating and removing illegal aliens. Even if you don’t like that illegal aliens are being removed, it is illegal to try to prevent a federal agent from doing just that. Instead you should be trying to change the law so that the job doesn’t exist. | | |
| ▲ | trhway 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why change? I've just randomly clicked through, and it is a good law, for example : (1) Right of counsel
The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18. When you're saying that ICE is executing that law, are you saying that the guys sent to that Guatemala prison were afforded that right of counsel and were given a lawyer? Or anybody else in those mass deportations. I also couldn't find in that law where it makes it legal to randomly catch dark skinned people on the street, including citizens. | | |
| ▲ | epistasis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There are two conceptions of law currently in the US. The first is what we see on TV, with lawyers and judges and law enforcement attempting, most often successfully, to apply a set of rules to everyone equally. The second conception of law is what the federal government is doing now: oppression of opponents of the powerful, and protection of the powerful from any harm they cause to others. We are currently in a battle to see which side wins. In many ways the struggle of the US, as it has become more free, is a struggle for the first conception to win over the second. When we had the Civil War, the first conception of law won. I hope it wins again. | |
| ▲ | zahlman 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The extraditions are of people who have already had a hearing and are subject to a final order of removal. |
| |
| ▲ | 8note 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | which part of the immigration code lets ice agents kill citizens? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | idle_zealot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job. Filming officiers performing their jobs is not obstruction, even if it does make them uncomfortable. If it makes their jobs harder that's only because they know what they're doing is unpopular and don't want to be known to have done it. > If you don’t like the job that an officer is doing then the right thing to do is to talk to your Congress–critter about changing the law. Keep in mind that ICE is executing a law that was passed in 1995 with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. No attempt has been made to modify that law in the last 30 years. If Democrats didn’t like it, they had several majorities during that time when they could have forced through changes. They didn’t even bother. Yeah, there's a massive disconnect between politicians and their voters. This is pretty strong evidence of that disconnect. Even now Democrats refuse to support abolishing ICE, despite majority support among their constituency. Who are voters who want immigration reform supposed to cast their ballots for? There hasn't been such a candidate since ICE was created in the wake of 9/11. Conservatives got to let out their pent up frustration with an unresponsive government by electing Trump. Liberals have no such champion, only community organizing. | | |
| ▲ | zahlman 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Filming officiers performing their jobs is not obstruction This is irrelevant, because many people have been observed physically obstructing officers, whether or not they were filming at the time. > If it makes their jobs harder Have you heard the constant blowing of whistles in these videos? Did you know that protesters have organized the mass 3d-printing and distribution of these whistles (https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2025/12/not-just-a-toy-how-wh... ; https://www.startribune.com/whistle-symbol-ice-protest-minne... ; https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2026/01/21/chicagoa...)? Can you imagine how this level of noise interferes with a job that involves verbal communication with both coworkers and civilians? > Even now Democrats refuse to support abolishing ICE I'm not mistaken in my understanding that Tim Walz is a Democrat, am I? The one making public speeches falsely claiming that ICE aren't LEO and encouraging "peaceful protest" without mentioning anything about obstruction of justice or resisting arrest? And you're aware that the Signal groups in question are alleged to include Democratic state officials and a campaign advisor? For that matter, exactly what do you mean by "abolishing ICE"? Should it not be replaced? Should immigration law not be enforced? Should the USA allow everyone to reside within its borders who wishes to do so, with no barriers to entry? | |
| ▲ | Empact 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is an inaccurate description of what they are doing. For example Renee Good was actively blockading a street, by placing her car perpendicularly across it. Some may be engaged in observation, but that is not broadly the case, and organizationally, their apparent goal is to obstruct. |
| |
| ▲ | getlawgdon 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
