Split Thread ICE arrests mayor

[Donal]

I'm not the one sounding like MLK's "white moderate". While it's fair to call it political posturing, Baraka still put his own skin in the game for someone else. Centrists always have to wait for "the right time" and "the right person" to do it. As small and performative as it might be, I'll take it over empty words on the internet.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not the one sounding like MLK's "white moderate". While it's fair to call it political posturing, Baraka still put his own skin in the game for someone else. Centrists always have to wait for "the right time" and "the right person" to do it. As small and performative as it might be, I'll take it over empty words on the internet.

It was a very poor plan for political posturing, he only made the news because of a wrongful arrest. If ICE had just respected the law no one would have heard about any of this.

Of course ICE wouldn't be ICE if they respected the law, so maybe not as bad a plan as you might think.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Centrists telling uppity black folks to get in line is pretty on brand. "Sure, the process is violating human rights and reflecting the beginning of the worst atrocities of the 20th Century, but we must respect the tour guide. Getting out of line to stop the atrocities is a far worse crime."

(FB for mobile wouldn't let me save the image directly)

 

[Hercules56]

View attachment 60928

(FB for mobile wouldn't let me save the image directly)

That is why I believe there should be a civil rights and democracy litmus test to any political party and political candidates in the USA.

You must swear to abide by and uphold the US Constitution, democracy, The Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights Act, etc.

Otherwise you cannot run for office.

 

[Hercules56]

It was a very poor plan for political posturing, he only made the news because of a wrongful arrest....

Wrongful arrest? What about the folks forcefully trying to obstruct the arrest?

 

[Donal]

That is why I believe there should be a civil rights and democracy litmus test to any political party and political candidates in the USA.

You must swear to abide by and uphold the US Constitution, democracy, The Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights Act, etc.

Otherwise you cannot run for office.

You swear an oath of office to do those things when you take any job in the federal government. How is that working out these days?

 

[Donal]

Wrongful arrest? What about the folks forcefully trying to obstruct the arrest?

Good for them

 

[Hercules56]

Good for them

Morally? Perhaps. But still illegal.

And they should be charged.

You have no right to forcefully prevent an arrest.

Jury may in fact find them Not Guilty through nullification, which I totally support.

I once almost nullified a murder guilty verdict because the charge was brought in Federal court, cuz suspect communicated about the murder over a telephone, which is seen as an instrument of interstate commerce, EVEN though the phone call was within the same state.

 

[Darat]

You swear an oath of office to do those things when you take any job in the federal government. How is that working out these days?

Any day soon it will kick in...

And remember Trump didn't know he was meant to uphold the constitution.

 

[Donal]

Morally? Perhaps. But still illegal.

When the people enforcing the law are no longer beholden to it, "illegal" and "legal" are meaningless.

And they should be charged.

Are you trying to get them elected?

You have no right to forcefully prevent an arrest.

Depends on the state. In the states that permit defending yourself against unlawful arrests, you are permitted to use a "proportionate response". And, quite frankly, I think that needs to be expanded to all 50 states.

Jury may in fact find them Not Guilty by nullification.

And I may see Bigfoot walking through my backyard. The legal system has been designed over the years specifically to brow beat defendants.

 

[Hercules56]

When the people enforcing the law are no longer beholden to it, "illegal" and "legal" are meaningless....

Not according to our Constitution. There is a legal way to stand up to corruption, and an illegal way.

The illegal way comes with legal consequences.

 

[Hercules56]

...Depends on the state. In the states that permit defending yourself against unlawful arrests, you are permitted to use a "proportionate response". And, quite frankly, I think that needs to be expanded to all 50 states....

Does this include when the person accused of the unlawful arrest is a police officer arresting you for violating the state criminal code and has probable cause?

 

[Donal]

Not according to our Constitution.

The Constitution is a written plan of government. It's the rules they have to abide by. When they choose not to, all bets are off.

There is a legal way to stand up to corruption, and an illegal way.

And when the corrupt decide what is legal and illegal? What then?

The illegal way comes with legal consequences.

For some people.

 

[Hercules56]

The Constitution is a written plan of government. It's the rules they have to abide by. When they choose not to, all bets are off.

And when the corrupt decide what is legal and illegal? What then?..

Not up to you to decide when public officials are corrupt and therefore their orders can be ignored. What you are calling for is anarchy and lawlessness.

 

[Donal]

Does this include when the person accused of the unlawful arrest is a police officer arresting you for violating the state criminal code and has probable cause?

That's pretty much what defines a alwful and unlawful arrest. But, they shouldn't be able to decide to arrest you because their weak daddy got his feefees hurt.

 

[Hercules56]

The Constitution is a written plan of government. It's the rules they have to abide by. When they choose not to, all bets are off....

Are you intentionally quoting the January 6 insurrectionists?

 

[Hercules56]

That's pretty much what defines a alwful and unlawful arrest. But, they shouldn't be able to decide to arrest you because their weak daddy got his feefees hurt.

Perhaps this should be your comments, with such beliefs regarding laws and resisting the law.

 

[Donal]

Not up to you to decide when public officials are corrupt and therefore their orders can be ignored.

We have laws for that. But the laws don't seem to apply to the people in charge. That's not what we're supposed to be about.

What you are calling for is anarchy and lawlessness.

Actually, I'm calling for the actual rule of law. Where everyone, no matter their race, social status, wealth, political preferences, gender, sexuality, or any other way you want to divide people, are held to the same standards. Where we are all equally bound and protected by the law. That can't be a one way street. When the people charged with upholding the law decide it doesn't apply to them, it doesn't apply to anyone.

Happy people don't rise against their government (unless the CIA gets involved). I can't seem to find a time a society broke down because the government didn't crack enough skulls.

 

[Hercules56]

We have laws for that. But the laws don't seem to apply to the people in charge. That's not what we're supposed to be about....

Law still applies to almost every single govt agent and personnel.

 

[Donal]

Are you intentionally quoting the January 6 insurrectionists?

The sentiment was right, but their ...ferver...was obviously misplaced. Granted, most of them didn't actually seem to believe that anyway. Granted, if you want to show proof their claims about the 2020 election, feel free.

And I'd rather that than sounding like George Wallace.