• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump's promised ICE raids have begun

MAGA man ready to call ICE on Hispanic driver delivering Amazon package—points his shotgun directly at him.

Driver was able to run away as homeowner chased—shotgun loaded at him the whole time.

Police finally arrived and confirmed delivery driver was legally delivering package on the property.

"These early morning shifts are the best blocks and the best paid. But the danger is real, too."

video in link
 
Andy_Ross said:
MAGA man ready to call ICE on Hispanic driver delivering Amazon package—points his shotgun directly at him.
...
Police finally arrived and confirmed delivery driver was legally delivering package on the property.
Click to expand...
My question... how did the police handle the home owner/shotgun holder?

Although a home owner might be allowed to "protect" their property, aiming a weapon at a delivery driver seems like the type of thing that would go above simply "protecting their property".

Did they arrest the home owner over the threats? Or just chalk it up to "he meant well"?
 
Delivery drivers are expressly "licensees" under the legal doctrines of property trespass. By ordering something to be delivered and entering into a contract for delivery, and absent any special instructions to the contrary in the contract, the receiver has explicitly given permission for the shipper's representative to come onto their private property for the limited purpose of completing the delivery. Even "No Trespassing" signs do not overcome this, since a licensee is not trespassing. Generally the deliverer must follow the most direct and accessible path to a building's entrance and withdraw as soon as the delivery formalities are finalized. A licensee does not have free access to all parts of the property such as an invitee would have.

Even in my gun-friendly state, pointing a loaded weapon at someone from inside your house without provocation is a crime. You need to have reasonable fear of imminent harm in order to raise your weapon, and the approach of a (presumably uniformed) delivery driver—even one with brown skin—does not constitute an imminent threat. However, that's the law in our downtown capital city. Do not randomly tromp around private property in rural Utah; you stand an excellent chance of having warning shots fired at you.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Delivery drivers are expressly "licensees" under the legal doctrines of property trespass. By ordering something to be delivered and entering into a contract for delivery, and absent any special instructions to the contrary in the contract, the receiver has explicitly given permission for the shipper's representative to come onto their private property for the limited purpose of completing the delivery. Even "No Trespassing" signs do not overcome this, since a licensee is not trespassing. Generally the deliverer must follow the most direct and accessible path to a building's entrance and withdraw as soon as the delivery formalities are finalized. A licensee does not have free access to all parts of the property such as an invitee would have.

Even in my gun-friendly state, pointing a loaded weapon at someone from inside your house without provocation is a crime. You need to have reasonable fear of imminent harm in order to raise your weapon, and the approach of a (presumably uniformed) delivery driver—even one with brown skin—does not constitute an imminent threat. However, that's the law in our downtown capital city. Do not randomly tromp around private property in rural Utah; you stand an excellent chance of having warning shots fired at you.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Utahns, I and a friend were tramping round looking for a petroglyph (I am a keen amateur archaeologist), and a very nice and very blond Utahn invited us for iced lemonade and never fired a warning shot. He did seem awful keen on discussing religion and not very interested in helping us to find petroglyphs. Compared with Georgia, I never felt intimidated in Utah. But perhaps I was too naive or too girly to notice danger.
 
Planigale said:
To be fair to Utahns, I and a friend were tramping round looking for a petroglyph (I am a keen amateur archaeologist)
Click to expand...
We have some awesome petroglyphs.

Planigale said:
He did seem awful keen on discussing religion and not very interested in helping us to find petroglyphs.
Click to expand...
Some people would rather be shot at than have to listen to religion. Sounds like you may have been in or near Iron County, which is full of very good people in addition to petroglyphs. They're all staunchly Mormon, but the good, salt-of-the earth sort of people who were brought up to be kind to strangers, help their neighbors, and maintain a sort of small-town ideal.

Planigale said:
Compared with Georgia, I never felt intimidated in Utah. But perhaps I was too naive or too girly to notice danger.
Click to expand...
The isolationists tend to stay in pockets. The farther you are from the beaten path, the more careful you need to be. Petroglyphs are a special case. Most landowners who have petroglyphs or other Fremont-era archaeological curiosities on their property are good about allowing access to respectful visitors.
 
That's literally the plot of an Adventure Time episode, where no one recognizes the Evil Ice King and calls him the Nice King.
Doesn't mean he becomes nice
 
I haven't watched professional wrestling in decades, but some clips of a wrestler with an appropriate catchphrase have been popping up on YouTube lately.

"Very Nice, Very Evil."
 
It's a great honor for Trump to sit with Charles among all his gold and display his decorations and ballroom plans. Otherwise he would have had Charles deported after the pro NATO speech. Trump went and discussed the thing with Putin.
 
Four days ago, on 27 April, US District Judge Gary R Brown filed a remarkable Memorandum & Order in the case of Alfaro v Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, US Dept of Homeland Security, et al. It opened with these words:
GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all​
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the​
same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose​
of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on​
which I am about to enter.​
-Excerpt of Oath of Allegiance required​
of all federal officers, 5 U.S.C. §3331.​
Click to expand...
The paragraphs that followed explained why the court felt it was necessary to remind DHS attorneys of their oath.

On 16 March, the Court had determined that ICE agents "had effected an illegal arrest and detention of petitioner and had subjected him to retaliatory action." At that time, "The Court provided respondents – which include the Attorney General of the United States, the head of DHS and the regional director of ICE, all represented by the United States Attorney in this District – a period of 21 days to review the situation and provide the Court with a letter detailing the remedial steps that would be undertaken."

You can probably guess what the US Attorney General, DHS Secretary, and ICE did. In the judge's own words:
Faced with a detailed litany of legal violations committed by federal agents, respondents, charged as guardians of our Nation’s law and Constitution, provided the following description of the efforts that would be undertaken to ensure compliance with the law:

Nothing.

Instead, the United States Attorney has filed a brief laden with frivolous reconsideration arguments.
Click to expand...

The Court has now given them another two weeks
...to advise the Court as to what steps it intends to implement to address widespread and ongoing unlawfulness documented in the record of this case.

Should respondents’ answer remain unchanged, the Court will take appropriate action.
Click to expand...

Apparently thinking the government needed to be reminded of what the case is about, the Memorandum & Order listed the four distinct ways in which the Court had previously determined that government officers had violated constitutional and legal rights:
  1. Unauthorized Warrantless Arrest.
  2. Post-Arrest Issuance of Process. (After admitting they arrested the wrong man, officers tried to dummy up a reason for arresting the guy they had wrongfully arrested. "Such post-hoc documentation does not cure the illegal arrest and detention.")
  3. Arrest of SIJS, Deferred Action and Work Authorization Applicants.
  4. Retaliatory Actions.
On this motion, respondents raise matters that are both factually incorrect and legally spurious....Several examples follow:

[...snipped judge's summary of government blather...]

The problem with these assertions is simple: none of them are true.

[...snipped the judge's detailed refutation of government blather...]

Respondents cannot plead ignorance, as this Court has cited and quoted these principles in recent decisions involving the same respondents concerning similar issues....Counsel’s assertion and selective quotation from Thuraissigiam proves misleading.

[...snipped judge's summary of more government blather...]

This can only be construed as a blatant misstatement.

[...snipped the judge's detailed refutation of government blather...]
[...snipped judge's summary of still more government blather...]
[...snipped the judge's detailed refutation of government blather...]

Thus, respondents’ jurisdictional arguments predicated upon petitioner’s release
are, like the other examples cited above, entirely meritless.
Click to expand...
Et cetera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom