Trump's promised ICE raids have begun

1769359883399.jpeg

Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec
Those of us who have legal carry permits know that it comes with certain requirements state by state. Having your permit and ID on you are basic stuff. No ID? That’s an illegal carry.
 
JayUtah said:
Because it isn't true. First, Border Patrol is not ICE. CBP patrols the border up to 100 miles inland and is an operational force. Second—pre-Trump, ICE was the administrative enforcement arm. Think: sherriffs serving warrants, bailiffs, etc. They aren't trained for any policing. It wasn't their job. It isn't their job according to their federal mandate, and it's patently obvious they're extremely poorly trained for, well, anything.
Click to expand...
So equally well trained for every environment from peaceful urban protests to the surface* of Jupiter



*Yes 😉
 
Andy_Ross said:
What happens when there’s a legit standoff between ICE and police?
Click to expand...
For now the Minneapolis pollce have been told to stand down and not to engage ICE directly. This is probably for the best, although it's disappointing to people who have been told to rely on local police for protection. It gets worse when you think about the possible standoff between ICE and the Minnesota National Guard, or between MNG and the regular Army.

Andy_Ross said:
Fraud seems to be the second line of attack
Click to expand...
I think they're figuring out that they can't control the narrative of their ICE brutalism. The visuals don't bear out their desired story. It's hard for them to write off cheerful moms and obviously compassionate observers as "domestic terrorists." So all they can do is do keep repeating the lies an hope that enough people believe them. And that's why it remains absolutely essential to observe and record federal officers and thereby preserve an objective record. The federal agencies aren't holding their officers accountable. The courts aren't. (The appeals court stayed the order preventing ICE from harassing protesters.) Congress is entirely feckless. Thus it falls to the people to protect their own rights directly.

And the Trump regime's response is to try to shift the narrative back to a claim for which there are no contravening visuals. Poring over court dockets to discover that it was really a non-Somali U.S. citizen who perpetrated the entitlements fraud and was prosecuted by the Biden administration for it isn't nearly as exciting or compelling as picking apart videos of ICE violence. So the narrative that "Minnesota is opposing the Feds over immigration" isn't landing as it once would have, so they have to fall back to "Minnesota is defrauding the federal government," which is this point becoming a more tenable propagandum.

Visual records of enforcement activity are a game-changer. One thing everyone needs to realize about American law enforcement is that police always lie. Hence the focus of a criminal defense has been to assemble evidence that challenges the arresting or investigating officers' narrative for what happened. Prior to widespread surveillance and mandatory body cameras, this has been quite difficult. Hence judges and juries have been accustomed to just believing whatever a police officer said. Nowadays it's much easier to challenge police accounts with objective evidence. And this is a good thing for a civil society.

But if your goal is to exercise police brutality, then it's absolutely essential to paint observers as obstructionists and "terrorists," and to use whatever pseudo-legal means are at your disposal to operate without being observed.

Andy_Ross said:
Bessent: I'm sorry he is dead, but he did bring a semiautomatic weapon to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.
Click to expand...
Something something Rittenhouse. Something something Jan. 6.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Bessent: I'm sorry he is dead, but he did bring a semiautomatic weapon to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.

Karl: There's no evidence that he brandished the gun whatsoever

Bessent: But he brought a gun!

Karl: We do have a second amendment in this country.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2015469192657748022
Click to expand...
Pretti brought a carry-piece and two spare mags, the same outfit that many CCW holders carry every day. Ask me how I know.
 
Pixel42 said:
How many Americans carry guns? It must be millions.
Click to expand...
This is a slightly messy question. The number of Americans who own guns far outweighs the number who routinely or situationally carry them. Even when I owned a handgun, I never carried it in public.

Laws vary from state to state about how a gun can be carried. In some states (including mine until recently) it required a license to carry a concealed weapon. But anyone who lawfully possessed a gun could carry it openly without any sort of permit. In my experience living in a very red state for decades: I've seen only three people open-carry their handguns. One of them is the person presently charged with manslaughter in the No Kings shooting over the summer. The other two were distinct MAGA types by appearance.

But since you can now carry a concealed weapon in Utah without a permit, it's not really possible to know who's carrying one and therefore hard to estimate by observation how prevalent it is to be routinely armed in our cities. The whole "good guy with a gun" ideal that gun advocates preach is predicated on the notion that people so inclined should be armed at all times in order to respond to whatever ostensible crime is being committed nearby.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
The whole "good guy with a gun" ideal that gun advocates preach is predicated on the notion that people so inclined should be armed at all times in order to respond to whatever ostensible crime is being committed nearby.
Click to expand...
Such as driving a car near the "good guy with a gun", filming or photographing him, or assisting someone he has assaulted?
 
Andy_Ross said:
She's still going strong

DOOCY: If he was disarmed, is it protocol to use deadly force?

KRISTI NOEM: That's all part of this investigation. They clearly feared for their lives.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2015459695738187777
Click to expand...
How come this killing suddenly needs such careful investigation before you can say anything, despite everyone being able to see what happened on multiple videos, and despite yesterday the administration needing no investigation before calling the victim a domestic terrorist, intent on killing as many agents as possible?

How come Good's killing didn't deserve an investigation but Pretti's does? Why don't you just use the same clairvoyance you used in her case to announce there's nothing whatever amiss with his case?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
How come this killing suddenly needs such careful investigation before you can say anything, despite everyone being able to see what happened on multiple videos, and despite yesterday the administration needing no investigation before calling the victim a domestic terrorist, intent on killing as many agents as possible?

How come Good's killing didn't deserve an investigation but Pretti's does? Why don't you just use the same clairvoyance you used in her case to announce there's nothing whatever amiss with his case?
Click to expand...
That's the thing with climbing up dictator's ass .. you must never stop.
 
LDE1976 said:
So now they're trying to gaslight the public into believing that it's not possible to organise a few boxes of gear without the backing of George Soros or the Democrat Party.
Click to expand...


That may be because it would be beyond their competence to organise a few boxes of gear without the backing of George Soros or the Democrat Party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom