The man was a Veterans Administration ICU nurse who cared for sick veterans that was helping a woman that ICE pushed to the ground and then used chemical weapons on. There are quite a few doctors giving testimonials to this man's character at the VA.
The right will tell you that an awful/chaotic world is one where a male ICU nurses helps a woman pushed to the ground and sprayed in the face with less lethal weapons by government jackboots wearing masks.
The right will tell you that a sane/reasonable world is one where that man is extra-judicially murdered and the woman taken into government custody.
Alex Pretti was a good man, who cared about our nation's veterans, who was murdered for defending a woman while exercising his lawful rights as an American (the Second Amendment and First Amendment). I didn't want to leave your statement slandering the murdered man un-contested as to the situation.
Alex was doing what we are taught being an American means, and he was killed by masked government thugs because of it. And bootlickers now justify murdering people because they dared exercise their first and second amendment rights and challenged masked government agents. Bootlickers that want us to live in fear of our own government. We have the right to exercise our Constitutional rights free of risk from our own government's masked thugs.
There is video. There was no riot by any standard.
How do you know how he got there? How do you know he wasn't already there when ICE arrived? You are making assumptions in order to cast a non-evidence supported judgement.
I didn't realize the second amendment limited magazine amount.
Yes, a man tried to help up a woman who was pushed to the ground by ICE and stopped further (illegal) excessive assault/battery by ICE. That was the extent he 'imposed' himself.
The man videoed on his camera, first amendmendment protected activity that is not considered impeding ICE.
ICE are not in fact allowed to use lethal force against impediment.
His character matters when you try to paint a picture that is completely untrue and portray him as doing something he didn't and make him out to be some agitator like the government did the last person ICE murdered or the bombastic and unsupported emotionally charged language you choose to use. You calling out/policing language use while using the emotionally charged (and unsupported) language you do is classic internet cry-bully bullshit.
I understand your position is that people can hide at home from the government thugs wearing masks. I understand your position this man should die because he tried to help a woman up. I understand your position this man should die because he videoed government agents (or in your words impeded) wearing masks. I understand your position that law enforcement can murder people when they are impeded (even though legally they can't do that). I understand that you support an absolute garbage position that is based on and backed by nothing and is the opposite of American.
But he didn’t need to die. His was a needless death. He never needed to do any of that. He sacrificed his life needlessly. He could’ve stayed at home. Not “hiding” but just peacefully staying out of the fucking civil.unrest.
You somehow imply that this dude armed to the teeth, walking around with 2.extra.magazines concealed, was unaware of riots going on in the streets around him? It is to.laugh!
That ship has sailed so long ago it's beyond the horizon at this point. Of course the right is going to defend this. We know exactly how this will play out. They will respond just like they have to every other assault and murder committed by ICE in the past year.
The top people in govt all the way down will completely lie about the victim and situation, despite plenty of video evidence that shows them as liars. Absolutely nothing will happen to these scumbag murderers, and another murder just like this will happen again soon.
Many people will be horrified but conservatives will continue cheering this on. This is the country we live in now.
I just want to thank you for taking the time to reply so thoughtfully to someone who is so intent on letting it all go to shit just so they can think themselves enlightened by predicting it.
I have the same response to people who ask me why I don’t leave the country since things are going so bad: fuck that, this is my home. I will always love this country. It is never beyond saving. We have been through worse (the civil war at the very most obvious, but there are plenty of other low points.) We can get through this. We can make it better, we can learn to love our neighbor again, we can learn to trust each other again. We can learn to avoid these tendencies towards hatred. We can’t give up.
Please note, a question does not imply an opinion.
Could you provide a reference for them not being federal law enforcement officers (specifically immigration law)?
I've seen this mentioned several times, but can only find evidence that they are. For example Cornel Law [1]:
> The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
> CE’s primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration.
Even PBS is reporting them as such [2]:
> Federal law gives immigration agents the authority to arrest and detain people believed to have violated immigration law.
> "All law enforcement officers, including ICE, are bound by the Constitution," said Alexandra Lopez, managing partner of a Chicago-based law firm specializing in immigration cases.
And USC 1357 seems to make this indisputable [3], but IANAL.
All the sources I could find that say they aren't law enforcement are questionable, and aren't related to interpreting law.
(1) “Federal law enforcement officer” means any officer, agent, or employee of the United States authorized by law or by a Government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of Federal criminal law;
HSI special agents have authority to investigate violations across multiple federal statutes including immigration law (Title 8), customs law (Title 19), general federal crimes (Title 18), and the Controlled Substances Act (Title 21). But who we think of as ICE aren't HSI special agents.
Enforcement and Removal Operations (normal ICE agents) do not have this authority and are not Law Enforcement under 18 because they are enforcing administrative removal or civil immigration status violations which are civil proceedings, not Federal Criminal Law violations. Someone whose role is limited to civil or administrative enforcement of immigration status (without authority to enforce federal criminal law) would not, on the face of the statutory language alone, qualify under § 115(c)(1).
Separately, when you fly at an airport, TSA are enforcing a subsection of travel laws (just like ICE enforces a subsection of immigration and customs law), but they are not 'law enforcement' as shown here:
Actual law enforcement is a seperate arm, the Federal Air Marshal Service. You can carry out targeted subsections of the law without being actual law enforcement.
ICE training has been reduced from 5 months to eight weeks. Law enforcement training was 16 weeks on it's own previously. There is zero possibility they are receiving law enforcement training in 8 weeks. There are now rumors training has been reduced to six weeks (ICE fails to update what their current training program is). I would note that training does not mean they are law enforcement (many Prosecutors and others attend Law Enforcement training) that type of training just means that they understand the system. You would not be able to cut ACTUAL law enforcement training in half (or more in this case) if someone is an ACTUAL law enforcement officer. Complete Law Enforcement training would be a REQUIREMENT of an ACTUAL Law Enforcement job, not something optional that can just be cut out.
In addition, 8 CFR § 287.8 - Standards for enforcement activities requires " The following immigration officers who have successfully completed basic immigration law enforcement training are hereby authorized and designated to exercise the power conferred". It can be argued current ICE training does not meet this requirement of Federal law to qualify and they are only authorized for not law enforcement civil immigration enforcement.
Seems like the "I" and "C" might be more relevant? For hundreds of years of civil jurisprudence, enforcing immigration and customs has not involved shooting non-smuggling citizens in the back. Or face.
We all know what's happening here. And sincere application of relevant visa and trade laws is not it.
ICE are brown shirts. Their job is to terrorize the Designated Enemies of the State.
They would need some kind of training to be an officer. Like almost all police in America they're state sanctioned armed thugs, though ice have even less training and are more racist.
When that talks about "lawless behaviour", it shows citizens standing on public sidewalks speaking freely (not illegal), when it asserts that citizens of MN are "funded by shadowy networks" it offers no proof to that assertion, etc.
It is separate from law enforcement with different rules, training, and authority. They enforcement a subset of rules/law. They are not law enforcement in the general sense law enforcement is thought of, no more than Parking Enforcement. For example they can't pull someone over for breaking the law. They don't have authority to enforce all laws, only immigration and customs, and they have much more limited authority to carrying out their duties than REAL law enforcement.
They are immigrations and customs enforcement, not law enforcement. Their minimal training period and requirements indicates as such. The delegated authority of what they are allowed to do indicates as much. But keep building them up to be something more to justify murder of Americans on the streets.
Welcome to the free marketplace of ideas, dude. Talk about the issue I'm talking about instead of ranting on some vague generalization about how "believing your own eyes" is bad sometimes, thus is always bad???
If someone were talking disprovable nonsense about fairies, it would be totally fair to bring up counter-evidence. This comment of yours is substanceless.
Don't bother interacting with the other guy. He's a known troll that comes to every discussion about ICE and tries to put the blame on the victim, and then rants about Obama for some reason.
This guy is in full support of the recent ICE murders. Moderation still hasn't banned the guy, of course.
There's no incentive for moderation to take action as long as it aligns with their "curious discussion" initiative, regardless of how disruptive they are to the forum as a whole. It's basically sealioning.
Lots of Department of Corrections officers have been recruited as well. There's going to be so many lawsuits after these guys go back to running the Federal prisons with this new attitude.
Yeah, the fact that Democratic state and local governments have tolerated the decades-long slide of sheriffs and prison guards and in some cases even the local police into white nationalist gangs will be looked upon as a strategic mistake.
They haven't just tolerated it. They've decided that cops are deserving of nearly unlimited reverence and they've actively supported the increased funding and militarization of cops. Police unions have become right wing political agitators from within the state apparatus.
Cops are doing what they were doing in the jim crow era: enforcing a strict caste system with violence.
Sure, and from what I hear that's at the level of "war crimes", but those civilians the US armed forces are killing aren't US civilians.
People sign up for a variety of reasons; to keep their own safe is one of them, and that reason is incompatible with being the aggressor in a civil war.
Bro the way you brush off the US military already moving into the 'murderous war crimes' phase and thinking there is an upper bounds of the direction already in motion.
Did you think you would ever so casually brush off the US Navy straight murdering people with 'sure, we're doing that but...'?
Edit: A large group of Federal agents just murdered a 37 something American on the street, on video. He had a permit to carry, and his largest crime appears to have been traffic tickets. Prior to shooting him to death they were video'd pistol whipping his face.
These people are just fine with murdering Americans.
> Did you think you would ever so casually brush off the US Navy straight murdering people with 'sure, we're doing that but...'?
As I'm not American, I was already in the set of people they'd be willing to kill when ordered.
Are *the military* more likely to kill other Americans today? I do not think so.
But as I'm not American, I'm more worried that the chance of a B83 heading my way has gone from "No way!" to "3%".
> A large group of Federal agents just murdered a 37 something American on the street, on video. He had a permit to carry
There was a kid a few years back, killed for a toy in an open-carry state.
My country of birth is not, contrary to what some claim, envious of the 2nd amendment; rather, it is glad to ban firearms. Even so, we see the hypocricy of killing those who exercise their rights.
Americans harassed my mom for wearing a mask during COVID when she was going through cancer treatment. They would rather she just died than 1. They wear masks 2. Be made to feel bad they didn't care about her dying.
The grocery store she shopped at literally had to setup special hours people like my mom could shop without being harassed and pushed to tears. She died knowing most of her community didn't care if she died if it inconvenienced them. 1 million Americans died and today they say 'COVID wasn't a thing'. 1 million Americans died and they say it's nothing.
Americans don't care who dies. They/we are fucking trash now. My grandfathers' generation were good people but whoever we are now, we are so lost. I grew up on Star Trek TNG American ideals and grew up Catholic and believing in the 'be kind' parts and thought my neighbors shared that but they don't.
The government will soon be able to geofence areas to keep vehicles out of. Wonder if you will get a warning as you get close or if they will just cut out.
"Warning, you are approaching a closed zone. Stop your advance. Compliance is mandatory. Mobility privileges for this vehicle will be revoked"
One time, I was in a shopping mall and I had filled my cart at Target. I checked out, and proceeded to the parking lot where I was supposed to meet a Waymo. I had arranged for it to pick me up in the designated "Ride Share/Taxi Pickup Area" which was quite near the Target, but across the "street" and next to the cluster of bus stops.
I passed an obvious and ominous sign that indicated the border of the "shopping cart zone" and immediately my cart's wheels locked up! I was mortified, because I knew it'd do that! But my Waymo's over there, man! What was I supposed to do about it?
Obviously, Target has every right to corral their carts in places where they can go retrieve them. Theft is a huge, huge problem. But I was also constrained in pickup areas and I had figured, innocently, that the "Designated Ride Share" zone was the correct place to meet a Waymo with groceries.
So I had to bail everything out of the cart, and carry by hand. I learned my lesson. Only drop the Waymo pin someplace where my cart won't be kill-switched!
That exits essentially for aircraft today, albeit not automated. Try flying your little Cessna too close to the capitol mall or any number of sites in the world. You’ll very quickly and very unceremoniously be intercepted by other aircraft with big guns telling you to get the hell out.
I have lost 15 pounds in the last month because I have had to change my food habits due to price increases. It's healthy for me so far, but soon it won't be.
People have been promised an immigration fix since Ronald Reagan gave millions of undocumented amnesty in the 1980s. This frustration isn't new, and people in the 1980s under the cold war were pretty avid supporters of the US system.
"... every year we don't make Constitutional amendments" is kinda proof of the opposite, that the system is broken and no longer able to make constitutional amendments.
The Constitution is legitimate in terms of itself, but if you want ask the question of why people don't take threats to our institution seriously the answer is that people don't actually believe in it.
The people who run our institutions reject the idea that output legitimacy matters and they will lose our republic on account of that. ("how could we be held accountable for the results we get, we can't control that" is a Hillary Clinton line that she'll borrow trouble with, Trump will only use that line after it has all fallen apart)
Gen Z in swing counties within swing states, for they are aware that the republic is not theirs, so paradoxically, it might be emotionally satisfying to lose it for the other gens ;)
Because we haven't flexed out power authority in forever doesn't mean we did have it, just that we were too apathetic to be willing to use it. We picked this route, and yet your response it 'but politicians did politician things'. Weak sauce. Politicians don't hold themselves responsible, we do. Or in the case of the USA for the last forever, we no longer do. If it's because the politicians convinced us we are powerless, or some other reason, it doesn't matter. WE CHOSE to give up our power.
The right will tell you that an awful/chaotic world is one where a male ICU nurses helps a woman pushed to the ground and sprayed in the face with less lethal weapons by government jackboots wearing masks.
The right will tell you that a sane/reasonable world is one where that man is extra-judicially murdered and the woman taken into government custody.
reply