• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's promised ICE raids have begun

Andy_Ross said:
Of course he does

Rep. Pete Sessions: "This protesting that goes on -- honking of horns, obstructing federal law enforcement -- should not be tolerated ... I stand completely with the administration on this effort."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010725550881419720
Click to expand...
They' ve been saying since the start that protests won't be tolerated. Trump once wondered if they could be shot, and now we know the answer is yes.
 
Helen said:
Of course politics is off topic, it's only politics when argued by someone on the left, after all. If they're on the right, its just common sense.
Click to expand...
And it usually comes with the assumption that the person telling them they are wrong is a "radical leftist", cause yeah, they cannot process being told they are wrong let alone admit it to themselves.
 
JayUtah said:
I'm sure the decision to focus ICE overreach on Democrat-led cities and states has nothing to do with politics.
Click to expand...

In that case, you sound like an ideal mark investor in the latest Trump merchandise.

Seriously, how can they even say such things with a straight face about their opponents being a bit verbally mean to them or Trump, given what he's saying and said.
 
Lerxst said:
I love how this argument always comes up when it's clear one side of the aisle is WRONG.
Click to expand...
Much of the positions reflecting your view are based on your belief that the administration is not justified in enforcing immigration law as it exists, and on the idea that ICE is a rogue element of the federal government driving fear and intimidation tactics. If not you personally, it's certainly reflected by leaders you support.

That's great... but everybody in this forum's liberal echo chamber do not view or articulate this issue based on the legal standard. And that's where your position falls apart. Can't force anyone here to argue based on the legal standard, but I can certainly call it out as many times as needed.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Much of the positions reflecting your view are based on your belief that the administration is not justified in enforcing immigration law as it exists...
Click to expand...
Straw man.

Grizzly Bear said:
...and on the idea that ICE is a rogue element of the federal government driving fear and intimidation tactics.
Click to expand...
Plenty of evidence has been presented to support this idea.

Grizzly Bear said:
That's great... but everybody in this forum's liberal echo chamber do not view or articulate this issue based on the legal standard.
Click to expand...
Your legal arguments have been rebutted several times at length.

Grizzly Bear said:
And that's where your position falls apart. Can't force anyone here to argue based on the legal standard, but I can certainly call it out as many times as needed.
Click to expand...
You are not engaging with the debate over law. You have presented the view espoused by one YouTube video and are trying to pretend this ends the debate.
 
steenkh said:
Was it panic, or was it the hate that boiled over?
Click to expand...
It could be either, both, or none. My point in characterizing it as panic is that it's the single word that encompasses the tap-dance we're hearing from the right. They're avoiding the word, obviously, but not the concept. Their assessment of the officer's mental state is that he was traumatized by a prior dragging incident and under that residual fear was forced to make a split-second decision that he may have made differently in hindsight. In other words, he panicked according to them.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Much of the positions reflecting your view are based on your belief that the administration is not justified in enforcing immigration law as it exists, and on the idea that ICE is a rogue element of the federal government driving fear and intimidation tactics. If not you personally, it's certainly reflected by leaders you support.

That's great... but everybody in this forum's liberal echo chamber do not view or articulate this issue based on the legal standard. And that's where your position falls apart. Can't force anyone here to argue based on the legal standard, but I can certainly call it out as many times as needed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point once again. You've been proven wrong over and over again, so this must be a liberal echo chamber and anyone that disagrees with you is a leftist or liberal. Not going to respond to the rest of this nonsense as Jay already beat me to it.
 
Lerxst said:
and anyone that disagrees with you is a leftist or liberal.
Click to expand...
Predisposed to be, maybe. But not particularly relevant. If you're baseline opinion is calling ICE a rogue agency, agreeing with protesting immigration enforcement, and protestor agitation... you're more pre-disposed to argue that the ICE officer had zero justification to do what he did. Unfortunately that's not how the law works, in this particular case, the standard you have to argue against is whether the officer felt he was at risk, based on the real-time circumstances, not on your keyboard warrior hindsight. You can hate it and loath it, but it doesn't change the standard of the law.

People keep taking pot shots calling it an execution, murder, without actually elaborating on the legal questions that would be asked in a court room. You can have those feelings. But don't expect those feelings to translate to the standard of law if or when this case goes to court. Otherwise you'll be sorely disappointed. The moment the vehicle made contact with him, the "fear of bodily harm/death" became much less of a "gray area".
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Unfortunately that's not how the law works.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how the law works. Evidence that an officer has exceeded his statutory authority or has conducted his duties in an improper or unnecessary fashion is the key element in determining whether he has immunity for his actions under the Supremacy Clause.

Grizzly Bear said:
People keep taking pot shots calling it an execution, murder, without actually elaborating on the legal questions that would be asked in a court room.
Click to expand...
You must be reading some other thread, then. The particulars of how the various laws apply, what charges could be brought and argued in court, and what possible defenses might arise have been extensively debated, including among those who have formal legal training and criminal trial experience.

Grizzly Bear said:
But don't expect those feelings to translate to the standard of law if or when this case goes to court. Otherwise you'll be sorely disappointed.
Click to expand...
No.

You have spent quite a lot of time blaming the victim as if her actions somehow justify having deadly force applied to her. You are utterly impervious to the notion that those have almost no legal weight in the prospective determination. They are being forwarded by your right-wing sources to distract from the very obvious and very reckless actions of the officer. Your feelings regarding whether the victim got what she deserved have little if any weight in a determination of the propriety of the application of deadly force. Yet your singular focus on those factors—giving only lip service to the alternatives—is somehow evidence that your critics are missing the point.

Further, your understanding of the relevant law has been challenged several times with nary a cogent nod from you. As I said, you seem to have relied entirely on one YouTube video that offers a view of the relevant law so comically wrong that I'm sure any first-year law student could effectively challenge it. But then again, if the law is so squarely in the officer's favor, why is the Trump regime working so hard to make sure the merits of the case never see a jury trial?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom